• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

"We found the body, he'd gotten trapped in an empty champagne vat and eventually suffocated."
"How awful! If only he'd had his phone on him he could have called for help!"
"Oh, he did have his phone. But he insisted that because it wasn't from one region in France it couldn't be called 'champagne' so he deliberately misdirected the rescue workers."
 
Ziggurat said:
No, verbal abuse is included.

Upchurch is right that lots of these sources categorize nonphysical acts as violence. He's wrong to assume that we should adopt such a definition ourselves on the basis of their authority.
Click to expand...

Their authority is unnecessary when the simple meaning of the words is inclusive of verbal attack. It may not rise to the legal definition of assault, but that is not the claim of the OP article.
 
"Your words cause me pain."
"LOL no they don't."

Why is this so important so some of you?
 
Thermal said:
Maybe a different English speaking definition would help you?



https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence

Your argument relies entirely on refusing to accept the meaning of words. Words mean things, brah. You can't Humpty Dumpty your way around this forever.
Click to expand...

I have already provided a appropriate and intelligent and well-established definition of the term "violence".

Your newfangled definitions are cute but irrelevant.

We don't change the meaning of long established terms and words in order to fit our new political agenda of the week.
 
I'm reminded of the discourse around the word "trigger."

"Oh stop saying things trigger you. Just say something bothers you."
"If I just say it is bothering me, will you stop doing it?"
"LOL no."
 
If words were indeed violence, you could go to prison and convicted of assault and battery for simply throwing mean insults at someone.

To this day there is no place in America where you can be convicted of assault & battery for simple words. But I take it some people here would like to change that.
 
Hercules56 said:
Strawman. Nobody is saying that.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying anything because one side is a bunch of cowards afraid to say what they mean, as always.

And Hitler always called it "evacuating" the Jews. Nobody ever said "exterminate" them.

The clutching pearls are on that table over there if you want make everyone watch you pretend to be offended by that comparison.
 
d4m10n said:
Why is that, though? I don't care if you folks think I'm a man or a woman unless I'm making an argument from personal experiences which are unique to growing up either one way or the other. There isn't anything bad about being a woman, after all, so if you all decide to use she/her pronouns for me I'm not going to put up a fuss about it. They/them are fine too.
Click to expand...

That's your mistake. They do.
 
Hercules56 said:
I have already provided a appropriate and intelligent and well-established definition of the term "violence".

Your newfangled definitions are cute but irrelevant.

We don't change the meaning of long established terms and words in order to fit our new political agenda of the week.
Click to expand...

Newfangled??? They are two of the oldest and most well respected basic ******* dictionaries in the English speaking world.

"Violence can be verbal"
"No it isn't! I just redefine it!"

...is not a ******* intelligent argument.
 
Hercules56 said:
If words were indeed violence, you could go to prison and convicted of assault and battery for simply throwing mean insults at someone.

To this day there is no place in America where you can be convicted of assault & battery for simple words. But I take it some people here would like to change that.
Click to expand...

Considering this is an international forum, probably worth pointing out that it is kind of belligerent conduct is sanctionable in some parts of the world.
 
Hercules56 said:
If words were indeed violence, you could go to prison and convicted of assault and battery for simply throwing mean insults at someone.

To this day there is no place in America where you can be convicted of assault & battery for simple words. But I take it some people here would like to change that.
Click to expand...

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT VIOLENT SPEECH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF ASSAULT

Jesus Christ dude
 
I've been sitting on it, waiting for the next opening, but here is one more. Posted by the NIH and refers to the newfangled World Report on Violence and Health updated in just this last 1996.

The WRVH divides violence into three categories according to who has committed the violence: self‐directed, interpersonal or collective; and into four further categories according to the nature of violence: physical, sexual, psychological or involving deprivation or neglect.
Click to expand...
 
Hercules56 said:
If words were indeed violence, you could go to prison and convicted of assault and battery for simply throwing mean insults at someone.

To this day there is no place in America where you can be convicted of assault & battery for simple words. But I take it some people here would like to change that.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone here wants anyone to go to prison for the misuse of pronouns, I certainly don't. Nice strawman though.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I doubt anyone here wants anyone to go to prison for the misuse of pronouns, I certainly don't. Nice strawman though.
Click to expand...

No strawman. Acts of violence against people unless they are done in self-defense can put you in prison. And often should.
 
If there are certain acts of violence that can never put you in prison, then it seems pretty inappropriate to call them "violence".
 
Hercules56 said:
If there are certain acts of violence that can never put you in prison, then it seems pretty inappropriate to call them "violence".
Click to expand...

:confused:

Bizarre take dude, lots of violence cannot put you into prison. Next time I watch a football game and the announcer goes MAN THAT WAS A VIOLENT HIT, I expect police to take that player into custody!

... violent storms .... violence against animals (unless cruel)... violence against inanimate objects etc

The word has been used in phrases for a very long time for occasions that in English common law could not put a person into prison.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
OK I'll pose the question to you that I posed to d4m10n: Are you able to imagine that an insecure adolescent might be humiliated by being mis-gendered?

This is such a painfully obvious circumstance that I don't get how it is that people don't get it.
Click to expand...

Imagination is a rather nebulous concept, but yes, I know that it happens and I know that it causes difficulties. In fact my daughter's best friend from preschool to the present had issues in high school with some other students as he struggled with the realization that he is gay. During that period I was as supportive for him as I could possibly be. Knowing that it happens, knowing what the consequences could be for that adolescent, and knowing that I would never knowingly mis-gender any person does not change the fact that I really cannot imagine the actual emotions that that adolescent (or my daughter's friend) would struggle with. Maybe there is something abnormal in the "wiring" of my brain where the processing of emotions is concerned. And maybe others with different, perhaps more "normal" emotional "wiring" find this difficult to comprehend, but this is me. And I think I have learned to compensate fairly well.
 
lobosrul5 said:
:confused:

Bizarre take dude, lots of violence cannot put you into prison. Next time I watch a football game and the announcer goes MAN THAT WAS A VIOLENT HIT, I expect police to take that player into custody!
Click to expand...

Sigh, that is legal physical violence. Silly comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom