Is “ Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” correct?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So, what's the alternative? Respond with violence?.

The alternative is to put in place systems and practises whereby those who bully and cause harm with their words are responded to effectively.

Contrary to your experience, my experience of 'sticks and stones' is that is something people tell the victim in order to not have to take the issue seriously and deal with it. It's not empowering for the victim in any way.

If we take your Big Ed example I'm pretty sure that.

1. Had Big Ed been going round punching people nobody would have told his victims 'knives and guns can kill me, but punches only give black eyes that heal' they would have acted on it

2. The harm done by Big Ed punching people would likely have lasted a few days. His bullying people with words probably effected them into later life in either subtle or obvious ways.

The problem with this whole discussion is that it places the onus on the victim to deal with the situation. They have to 'suck it up'. And if they don't then what other recourse do they have but to violence if the system isn't going to take it seriously?

So if you are a victim of bullying you either need to be emotionally strong enough to deal with it or physically strong enough to 'shut them up' with your fists.

 

[Mumbles]

The alternative is to put in place systems and practises whereby those who bully and cause harm with their words are responded to effectively.

Exactly. Failing that, someone should have simply punched Big Ed in his face a few times when he was in the middle of abusing someone. Why wait?

ETA: And again, every time he does it.

 

[Checkmite]

Several people have used the argument that is summed up in “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” and hold that the physical action of speech should be treated differently to other physical actions such as a punch, and they carry it on to a conclusion that you can only use a physical action such as punch in retaliation for being punched/hit and so on. That at no time can someone retaliate with a punch to someone’s speech.

Well this is just it. The rhymey, sing-song nature of the expression suggests to me that it was invented primarily as an ode mnemonic to impress upon young children the general idea that you shouldn't allow yourself to get upset because someone only verbally antagonizes you. Value-teaching mnemonics like these don't tend to be very nuanced precisely because they're for very young children; for instance, young children are taught that they should always "share with others" as a general rule. Obviously there can be (and certainly are) exceptions to this - there are some things that you just do not and should not share with others - but learning those nuances can come later. Same with the "names will never hurt me" generality.

Adults shouldn't be citing the "sticks and stones" doggerel to each other as an actual argument. It's a deliberately-oversimplified cliche that has always had less relevance in the adult world than in the child world, and which in fact I would argue in the current internet age has even less relevance to both.

 

[Myriad]

There's another difference between words and physical assault: physical assault is physical, which means that it's feasible to assess the severity of the harm (and of e.g. the recklessness; the risk that greater harm might have happened by random chance) in general and in specific cases.

When we try to make such an assessment for words, we have no basis to agree on the harm. Claiming emotional harm for the purpose of suppressing disagreement becomes a pervasive game. Insulting religious figures is held to be injurious not just because it incites rage, but because it leads innocents away from salvation or even invites deific retribution. We're told that saying trans woman are biologically male is "literal violence" against them. A few years ago I read a couple dozen screeds of the most tortured logic imaginable by some very smart people trying to convince me that "it's okay to be white" is vile hate speech; they seemed about equally divided between "it's obviously true therefore unnecessary to say it therefore provocative," and "it's obviously false and therefore immorally absolves white people of their non-okayness," but they were all in agreement that it was bad, anyhow.

"I'd rather you didn't say that because it's inconvenient to my agenda" is a rather ineffective argument, but if you can turn it into "those words are injurious so it is (or should be) a crime to say them" and enforce that, you're on your way to being on the right side of history. That power should be granted only at the most urgent and well-demonstrated need.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There's another difference between words and physical assault: physical assault is physical, which means that it's feasible to assess the severity of the harm (and of e.g. the recklessness; the risk that greater harm might have happened by random chance) in general and in specific cases.

When we try to make such an assessment for words, we have no basis to agree on the harm. Claiming emotional harm for the purpose of suppressing disagreement becomes a pervasive game. Insulting religious figures is held to be injurious not just because it incites rage, but because it leads innocents away from salvation or even invites deific retribution. We're told that saying trans woman are biologically male is "literal violence" against them. A few years ago I read a couple dozen screeds of the most tortured logic imaginable by some very smart people trying to convince me that "it's okay to be white" is vile hate speech; they seemed about equally divided between "it's obviously true therefore unnecessary to say it therefore provocative," and "it's obviously false and therefore immorally absolves white people of their non-okayness," but they were all in agreement that it was bad, anyhow.

"I'd rather you didn't say that because it's inconvenient to my agenda" is a rather ineffective argument, but if you can turn it into "those words are injurious so it is (or should be) a crime to say them" and enforce that, you're on your way to being on the right side of history. That power should be granted only at the most urgent and well-demonstrated need.

I'm struggling to follow your argument here... it seems that you are saying because we don't know how much damage is done by words that we need to allow it?

Seems like in fact the opposite might be true... we can't predict how much damage would be done by words and therefore we shouldn't allow them. If we know the harm that a punch in the face will likely do then then that's an argument for allowing a reasonable level of punching in the face that we know will only do an allowable amount of harm.

Otherwise it kind of seems like a bigots charter to say whatever you want to whoever you want knowing that the system is going to arrest anyone that responds to you with a punch in the mush.

 

[Mumbles]

As for sing-songy phrases, I'm sometimes okay with "Talk **** get hit".

 

[LondonJohn]

Words very clearly can have impact upon the recipient. They can be capable of causing considerable psychological harm.

However.... unless those words don't contain a proximate threat of physical violence from the speaker to the recipient, there can rarely (and only in a very narrow set of circumstances) be any justification for a physical act of self-defence.

For example, if someone stood 10' or so away from me and called me all the insulting names under the Sun (without threatening imminent physical violence to me or moving towards me in an escalating threat), I'd have zero defence in law* if I moved forward and punched the person in the face. Sure, I'd get mitigation in sentencing, but I'd be liable to be charged and convicted for a crime such as assault.

However....(again)..... mere speech can be - and is, in many instances - treated as a criminal offence in various different contexts**. For example: stalking, harassment and coercive control legislation can land a person with a criminal conviction if their words alone cause sufficient harm, distress or fear in the intended victim - even without those words conveying any threat of physical harm. And of course hate speech can be a criminal offence, again without the need for there to have been any overt threat made. In a very narrow subset of these (almost always involving coercive control over a (usually-female) partner), physical acts of self-defence may satisfy a court that the victim was justified in their self-defence actions, up to and including homicide. Outside of that, though, there's almost never any justifiable self-defence*** - all it will provide is mitigation after a conviction.


* In England & Wales, probably in most "western" jurisdictions

** Again, in E&W, but hopefully in increasing numbers of other jurisdictions too

*** There was a case in London, several months ago now, where a drunk (and possibly also manic) young-ish white man on a tube train was racially abusing three young black men (the whole incident was captured on another passenger's phone camera). The white guy was shouting some pretty disgusting racial abuse, but he was not using threatening language or adopting a threatening demeanour, and he was not moving towards the three black guys as they went to exit the carriage at the next station. However, one of the three black guys turned at the door threshold, stepped back into the carriage, and knocked the white guy unconscious with a hard right (IIRC) hook. The three black guys then exited the train and the station.

This incident was discussed in a thread on ISF. My firm opinion (and it's one which is entirely in line with E&W law) was twofold: 1) the white guy committed a criminal offence through his racial abuse of the black guys (and if nothing else had happened other than transport police being alerted and then provided with the phone footage, it would have been a slam-dunk conviction); and 2) the black guy who stepped back into the carriage and punched the white guy out cold would/should (had he been identified and caught) have been justly convicted of an offence along the lines of assault or ABH.

However, more than one other contributor to the thread thought along the lines of "the white racist got everything he deserved", and some even applauded the actions of the black guy who threw the punch (deeming it an appropriate and worthy act of self-defence or retaliation). That incident - and its discussion on this forum - appears relevant to the OP.

 

[Planigale]

We seem to agree that provocative statements about religious beliefs (however provocative they may be to the hearer) is not justification for violence. But some believe white people using the N word is.

i certainly think the slippery slope argument is significant here. Once you resort to violence then you start running into where do you draw the limit arguments. Do you kill cartoonists who publish something derogatory about a religious figure? Do you hit a white or Chinese man you think used the N word? Is it alright if you just use you fist or as one correspondent believes you can use a conveniently available blunt object? Would knuckledusters be OK?

I think the only safe place to stop is before physical violence occurs. In many countries such speech is criminal and there is the option of reporting the occurrence to the police. In English law there is the catch all 'Behaviour likely to cause a breech of the peace'.

As has been said, we have opted for a society where we do not seek personal justice or rely on the duel, but rely on an impartial legal system. I appreciate that people may argue that there is a bias in the legal system against certain sections of society, but that is a different issue. If the case is that people feel they should be respected and treated equally then they need to act in that way. If they feel personal justice is acceptable then that way leads to lynching.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm struggling to follow your argument here... it seems that you are saying because we don't know how much damage is done by words that we need to allow it?

Seems like in fact the opposite might be true... we can't predict how much damage would be done by words and therefore we shouldn't allow them. If we know the harm that a punch in the face will likely do then then that's an argument for allowing a reasonable level of punching in the face that we know will only do an allowable amount of harm.

Otherwise it kind of seems like a bigots charter to say whatever you want to whoever you want knowing that the system is going to arrest anyone that responds to you with a punch in the mush.

Well no, because "saying whatever you want to whoever you want" can result in your own conviction for a criminal offence, if what you've said is sufficiently hateful or antagonistic. If however those words contain threats of imminent violence, or they're said in such a way as to give the recipient fear that (s)he might imminently be physically attacked (eg shouting into their face from two feet away), then courts will often recognise a self-defence defence, provided that the self-defence is proportionate*

And yes, people who respond to nonthreatening verbal abuse with physical violence are themselves usually liable to prosecution for that act of violence. And quite rightly too. Though I'd hope they'd get a significantly lighter sentence on account of the mitigating factor.


* If someone is screaming abuse in your face from two feet away, the courts might consider a single punch in the face followed by a quick retreat to be proportionate self-defence. On the other hand, the courts would very probably not consider four or five punches to the face, followed by a good kicking once the person was lying dazed or unconscious, to be proportionate self-defence.

 

[Myriad]

I'm struggling to follow your argument here... it seems that you are saying because we don't know how much damage is done by words that we need to allow it?

Seems like in fact the opposite might be true... we can't predict how much damage would be done by words and therefore we shouldn't allow them.

Yes, let's prevent all possible harm from words by outlawing all communication! Your counter-argument is its own reductio ad absurdum. Thanks for that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Words very clearly can have impact upon the recipient. They can be capable of causing considerable psychological harm.

However.... unless those words don't contain a proximate threat of physical violence from the speaker to the recipient, there can rarely (and only in a very narrow set of circumstances) be any justification for a physical act of self-defence.

I'm interested to know what you consider the 'right' way to react.

Lets say you are a black man in a bar enjoying a quiet drink with friends. A white man approaches you and says 'you need to leave the bar ******'. They then retreat 10 feet and repeat 'get out the bar ******'. They don't stop. They keep repeating it. There is no threat of immediate violence so Nobody else in the bar intervenes.

You are the victim... do you:

a) stay in the bar and put up with the abuse
b) leave the bar and give the racist a win
c) take matters into your own hands and eject the racist/pop him in the chops
d) Other... please explain

 

[LondonJohn]

We seem to agree that provocative statements about religious beliefs (however provocative they may be to the hearer) is not justification for violence. But some believe white people using the N word is.

i certainly think the slippery slope argument is significant here. Once you resort to violence then you start running into where do you draw the limit arguments. Do you kill cartoonists who publish something derogatory about a religious figure? Do you hit a white or Chinese man you think used the N word? Is it alright if you just use you fist or as one correspondent believes you can use a conveniently available blunt object? Would knuckledusters be OK?

I think the only safe place to stop is before physical violence occurs. In many countries such speech is criminal and there is the option of reporting the occurrence to the police. In English law there is the catch all 'Behaviour likely to cause a breech of the peace'.

As has been said, we have opted for a society where we do not seek personal justice or rely on the duel, but rely on an impartial legal system. I appreciate that people may argue that there is a bias in the legal system against certain sections of society, but that is a different issue. If the case is that people feel they should be respected and treated equally then they need to act in that way. If they feel personal justice is acceptable then that way leads to lynching.

Indeed.

And the big caveat to all of this is that if a court believes the recipient of the verbal abuse genuinely thought himself/herself to be at risk of imminent physical harm, then proportionate physical acts of self-defence are generally permissible, and the recipient (of the verbal abuse) should never face a criminal conviction (in fact they are often not even charged with any offence)

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm interested to know what you consider the 'right' way to react.

Lets say you are a black man in a bar enjoying a quiet drink with friends. A white man approaches you and says 'you need to leave the bar ******'. They then retreat 10 feet and repeat 'get out the bar ******'. They don't stop. They keep repeating it. There is no threat of immediate violence so Nobody else in the bar intervenes.

You are the victim... do you:

a) stay in the bar and put up with the abuse
b) leave the bar and give the racist a win
c) take matters into your own hands and eject the racist/pop him in the chops
d) Other... please explain

Uhm you ask the bar staff to call the police.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, let's prevent all possible harm from words by outlawing all communication! Your counter-argument is its own reductio ad absurdum. Thanks for that.

Ah the old ... cut out the context so i don't have to address the argument move. Nice.

How about supporting your own argument?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Uhm you ask the bar staff to call the police.

They don't.

It's not a crime to call someone a ****** anyway. What are the police going to do?

The bar staff believe that free speech trumps your offence.

What's your next move?

 

[Mumbles]

They don't.

It's not a crime to call someone a ****** anyway. What are the police going to do?

The bar staff believe that free speech trumps your offence.

What's your next move?

In this day and age? Record and upload to social media. They can have fun being The Nazi Bar

 

[TomB]

This kind of brings this to mind:

Promise me, son,
Not to do the things I've done.
Walk away from trouble if you can.
It won't mean you're weak
If you turn the other cheek.
I hope you're old enough to understand:
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."

...

"I promised you, Dad,
Not to do the things you've done.
I walk away from trouble when I can.
Now please don't think I'm weak.
I didn't turn the other cheek.
And, Papa, I sure hope you understand:
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."

Generally, the sticks and stones rhyme is mantra not to give other people power over you. Meaning not to give someone the power to provoke you into doing something. It's pretty good advice in general, but it's incomplete.

You don't want to be the person who is quick to violence, but you also don't want to be a doormat. At some point you are going to have to stand up for yourself, either verbally or physically.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In this day and age? Record and upload to social media. They can have fun being The Nazi Bar

That's fair I guess. Provided you don't happen to live in a town where all the bars are nazi bars

 

[Myriad]

Ah the old ... cut out the context so i don't have to address the argument move. Nice.

No context has been removed. You might have been thinking of certain specific utterances when you spoke of banning them just in case, but you didn't specify them, and my point tis that creating an authoritative list of such hazardous utterances (or the complementary list of allowable ones, which might be considerably shorter in your preferred world) amounts to a power struggle that your own interests cannot be confident of winning.

 

[Craig4]

It's not the name calling; it's the messaging. One person calling you a name is no big deal. What if it's lots of people said it and the particular words are intended to go after your vulnerabilities or insecurities? Hear it enough, from the right people and now you're doing some damage.