Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Hercules56]

It absolutely exists, and provocation is a legal standard for interpreting motivations, and everything from what crime is committed (if any) and can mitigate sentencing down to nil. It's not a blanket defense or excuse, but you are mistaken if you think verbal provocation is not legally recognized.

Calling someone a name, is not a provocation justifying violence.

This is not the Wild West, and we no longer accept the concept of "fighting words".

 

[Thermal]

No, it's not in the right ballpark. The divide between insults and actual violence isn't some razor thin margin, it's a vast gaping chasm. Conflating the two is a way to excuse actual violence.

Actual violence is a crime. Insults are protected speech, at least in the US. There's not a single liberal poster here who doesn't want to be permitted to insult the targets of their derision. Any arguments about why their insults should be permitted but others forbidden are just special pleading.

Words can easily constitute assault, which is what I mean about it being in the right ballpark. Ballparks are rather large by definition.

 

[Hercules56]

lol it's a webpage written by students explaining pronouns. scary, but it is protected by free speech. i'm sure you have a lot of bud light cans and target discount isle merch to shoot before you start having to worry about shooting this school's merch

Sure its free speech. But its speech that can be understood as justifying illegal violence. Its setting a policy and a philosophy possibly excusing violence because someone called you a name.

Is that what we are?

 

[Hercules56]

Words can easily constitute assault, which is what I mean about it being in the right ballpark. Ballparks are rather large by definition.

Kindly show us a recent court case where mere words were viewed as and prosecuted as criminal assault, or where "fighting words" were considered legal grounds for physical self defense or detaining a suspect.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Calling someone a name, is not a provocation justifying violence.

This is not the Wild West, and we no longer accept the concept of "fighting words".

I wonder if there's any good polling on this. Do people find it unacceptable for a minor physical reaction to being directly and personally antagonized?

I know US law is pretty clear about this and "fighting words" is mostly a thing from the past, but that may just be another example where US law is out of step with popular opinion.

I mean, if I walked up to someone and called them a slur directly to their face, I would not be surprised if I got hit, and honestly, I would not be surprised if cops/prosecutors decided to use their discretion to not do anything about it (presuming no serious injury or fracas occurred).

Being an international forum, it's probably worth pointing out that the right to be intentionally insulting or antagonistic in public is not universally held, based in the somewhat reasonable belief that maintaining a bit of public order and avoiding provocation to violence is probably in the public good and worth the minor infringement of individual liberty. Germany, for example, is pretty famous for requiring a basic level of polite behavior in public.

 

[Hercules56]

I wonder if there's any good polling on this. Do people find it unacceptable for a minor physical reaction to being directly and personally antagonized?

I know US law is pretty clear about this and "fighting words" is mostly a thing from the past, but that may just be another example where US law is out of step with popular opinion.

I mean, if I walked up to someone and called them a slur directly to their face, I would not be surprised if I got hit, and honestly, I would not be surprised if cops/prosecutors decided to use their discretion to not do anything about it (presuming no serious injury or fracas occurred).

Sure your gut instinct may be to deck someone who called you "twinkle toes", but you should be arrested and prosecuted for such criminal violence.

 

[Lplus]

According to the website of the University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for Inclusion and Social Change's website, the intentional use of the "wrong" gender pronoun to identify someone can be seen not only as an act of oppression, but an act of violence.

https://www.colorado.edu/cisc/pride-office/lgbtq-resources/pronouns

I'm not sure how anyone came to the conclusion that words can be an act of violence, but this is very dangerous, as acts of violence are often grounds to be expelled from college and indeed arrested and charged with the crime. Worse, one is legally allowed to use physical force to defend themselves against acts of violence. Is that what we are getting at here? Call somebody a he instead of a she, and the target of the wrong pronoun can hit the person in self-defense??

This really is an attack on speech in a way that is totally out of control. Speech that makes people offended or uncomfortable may not be right, but it is certainly not an act of violence.

This needs to stop.

Oh for heavens sake, calling insults violence is just the standard snowflake way of saying they're a tad upset.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sure your gut instinct may be to deck someone who called you "twinkle toes", but you should be arrested and prosecuted for such criminal violence.

How can you be sure? Cops and prosecutors let petty stuff slide all the time.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh for heavens sake, calling insults violence is just the standard snowflake way of saying they're a tad upset.

Indeed, children punch someone when they get called a bad name. Adults are supposed to be more mature and walk away from such useless and ridiculous provocation.

This issue is no different than folks wanting to criminalize insulting the Prophet Muhammed. Folks need to grow up and learn how to deal with insults like an adult.

 

[Thermal]

Kindly show us a recent court case where mere words were viewed as and prosecuted as criminal assault, or where "fighting words" were considered legal grounds for physical self defense or detaining a suspect.

I didn't suggest that though, did I? Don't cheapen the discussion, man. The article you cite says misgendering can be an act of violence, and says this only once, which is more likely some hyperbolic word choice, and certainly not the thrust of the article. Do we really need to get our panties in a bunch over one qualifed word used once in an article?

 

[Hercules56]

How can you be sure? Cops and prosecutors let petty stuff slide all the time.

Violence, is not petty.

However I must ask: how much violence are you willing to tolerate in order to defend someone's honor against insults? 5 punches? A few kicks to the groin?

What about jumping on someone's head? Where do YOU draw the line between justifiable violence due to verbal provocation, and criminal assault?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Violence, is not petty.

How about when they come take your guns? Its violence petty then?

I'm really confused as to what your standards are.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed, children punch someone when they get called a bad name. Adults are supposed to be more mature and walk away from such useless and ridiculous provocation.

This issue is no different than folks wanting to criminalize insulting the Prophet Muhammed. Folks need to grow up and learn how to deal with insults like an adult.

Serious question: do you believe that someone could imply imminent violence by using misgendering words? If so, you have no issue with the actual wording of the article. Not the crazy extrapolations. Just what it really says.

 

[d4m10n]

According to the website of the University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for Inclusion and Social Change's website, the intentional use of the "wrong" gender pronoun to identify someone can be seen not only as an act of oppression, but an act of violence.

Academics have been distinguishing between actual violence and "linguistic violence" since at least the 1990s.

View attachment ExposingandOvercomingLinguisticAlienationandLinguisticViolenceandLinguisticAlienation.pdf

 

[Ziggurat]

Words can easily constitute assault

Threats of violence might. But not insults. No insult can constitute assault. So no, not the same ballpark. That's like saying a handshake and a punch are in the same ballpark because they're both touching with the hand. It's ridiculous.

 

[Hercules56]

Serious question: do you believe that someone could imply imminent violence by using misgendering words? If so, you have no issue with the actual wording of the article. Not the crazy extrapolations. Just what it really says.

In what world does calling someone "sir" instead of "ma'am" imply imminent violence, lacking any sort of physical movement or gesture???

 

[Ziggurat]

Academics have been distinguishing between actual violence and "linguistic violence" since at least the 1990s.

View attachment 48159

And it's been ******** since at least the 1990's. One easy tell is by all the Marxism in that paper. But I particularly liked this bit:

Most of us are all too familiar with how political leaders, military strategists, and professionals in fields such as law and medicine can hide behind their technical vocabularies. When they refuse to speak a comprehensible vernacular, their private sublanguage becomes an instrument of their paternalistic (usually patriarchal) authoritarianism and undercuts rational discourse and public debate.​

The irony is apparently lost on the author.

 

[Shalamar]

Conservatives: such snowflakes, that they become upset when someone suggests that people could become agitated when said conservatives purposely use the wrong pronouns.

 

[Hercules56]

Conservatives: such snowflakes, that they become upset when someone suggests that people could become agitated when said conservatives purposely use the wrong pronouns.

This is about calling non-threatening words "violence" and all that implies.

Some in this thread have even suggested that misgendering someone is a provocation worthy of assault.

 

[mumblethrax]

No, the concept of "fighting words" does not fly in the USA.

Yes it does. The "fighting words" doctrine still limits speech in the US.