• 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??

Upchurch said:
It might be. As with all things, it depends on the context.

Also, the misgendering is only an act of violence depending on the context. Accidents happen and the OP article recognizes that.
Click to expand...

There is no context, whatsoever, where simply calling somebody a jerk is an active of violence.
 
Yes Jerks, the true victims our age. Won't anybody think of the jerks.

If says a lot that your defense is "Well nobody tries to kill ME when I'm being an *******! So therefore bigotry can't exist!"
 
Upchurch said:
That's a very simple definitive statement for something as complex as human interpersonal interactions. How can you be sure that's true?
Click to expand...


Because the simple isolated act of calling a person a jerk is not an act of violence.
 
"Please explain all human interaction to me in a mathematical equation no longer than 40 characters or admit I'm allowed to treat anyone however I like with no repercussions."

OR, and bear with me here because it gets complicated. When politically asked "Hey could you do this simple thing that costs you nothing, takes none of your time, and none of your energy" DON'T put literally create an entire personality out of putting all of your effort into fighting an excuse not to.

When the whole sum of your entire being, all you are capable of bringing to the table, everything that makes you you is "I'm really good at finding reason I don't have to do anything to accommodate another human being" you are just... awful.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
There is no context, whatsoever, where simply calling somebody a jerk is an active of violence.
Click to expand...

This can only be true when words can never constitute ‘violence’. Calling someone a jerk and intentionally using the wrong pronoun may have zero effect on the target of the words. Equally, there are contexts where such words may have serious effects on the target. Is that your point? That using the wrong pronouns should not be specifically addressed, when there are also other forms of dangerous speach?
 
sarge said:
This can only be true when words can never constitute ‘violence’. Calling someone a jerk and intentionally using the wrong pronoun may have zero effect on the target of the words. Equally, there are contexts where such words may have serious effects on the target. Is that your point? That using the wrong pronouns should not be specifically addressed, when there are also other forms of dangerous speach?
Click to expand...

Violence is a physical act. Therefore calling somebody the wrong pronoun or a jerk is not an act of violence.

Words, alone, are not an act of violence.

"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/223638?rskey=QAlkzM&result=1#eid
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
It can be. Violence is not exclusively physical. You've been shown this many, many times.
Click to expand...

The premier dictionary on English words, Oxford English Dictionary, disagrees.

I understand that some words evolve, but sometimes we need to stick to original and true meanings. I believe one such word is violence. It is purely a physical act. Just because calling somebody a jerk or the wrong pronoun may cause emotional damage doesn't mean I have committed violence against you.
 
"It's not violence!"
"Okay. Did you stop doing it before they started calling it violence?"

A group is asking to not be intentionally insulted and the best you can do is argue a technicality about how they are wording it,

At some point take a breath and ask yourself where your priorities lie.

Why people stand with the worst side of everything and demand to be given credit for being technically right about something that nobody cares about and doesn't matter confuses me.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Why? Why is that word immutable? Based on what criteria?

Even though it's been expanded to non-physical types for at least 30-50 years, now.
Click to expand...

Try 500 years and you will be nearer

ETA: Went to look it up and make sure my memory was accurate. Sadly it wasn't! It is about 700 years.

Really nice short article that discusses this and gives its source: https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5522/in-a-word-violence

Hercules56's violent disregard for history aside, I don't think the meaning is going to change in the near future.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Why? Why is that word immutable? Based on what criteria?

Even though it's been expanded to non-physical types for at least 30-50 years, now.
Click to expand...

Because sometimes words need to have a meaning that is NOT susceptible to mutation, evolution, etc. Dog, cat, human, rock, tomato, violence, come to mind.
 
Hercules56 said:
Because sometimes words need to have a meaning that is NOT susceptible to mutation, evolution, etc.
Click to expand...
"Because the thing I already asserted" is not an reason. Unless you're talking to your toddler, I suppose.

Hercules56 said:
Dog, cat, human, rock, tomato, violence, come to mind.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how flexible each of those words actually are? How many different types and categories fit under each one of these terms?
 
Upchurch said:
"Because the thing I already asserted" is not an reason. Unless you're talking to your toddler, I suppose.


Do you have any idea how flexible each of those words actually are? How many different types and categories fit under each one of these terms?
Click to expand...

Sure. ;):thumbsup:
 
Hercules56 said:
The premier dictionary on English words, Oxford English Dictionary, disagrees.
Click to expand...


https://www.oed.com/oed2/00277885

Several examples there from the Oxford English Dictionary of the word violence being used with meaning other than physical... for example:


d. Undue constraint applied to some natural process, habit, etc., so as to prevent its free development or exercise. Now used in political contexts with varying degrees of appropriateness.

1715 tr. Gregory's Astron. (1726) I. 200 We must‥not make our Reason and Philosophy perpetually offer violence to our Sight and other Senses. 1749 Fielding Tom Jones vi. iv, He was obliged to attend near a quarter of an hour, though with great violence to his natural impetuosity, before he was suffered to speak.

OR

b. Intensity or excess of contrast.

1874 H. H. Cole Catal. Ind. Art S. Kens. Mus. 218 Violence of contrast either of light or dark colours, or gaudy, florid, and large ornament are among the common sources of error which ruin design.




I also thought the word more or less was only used for physical acts, but I was wrong. Can you admit to being wrong? Start digging yourself out of that hole.

ETA: in case you aren't aware, those numbers are years. One is an example from the rather well known work Tom Jones, from well before the US was even its own country. The word didn't just start mutating a couple of decades ago for some shadowy woke reason.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Violence is a physical act. Therefore calling somebody the wrong pronoun or a jerk is not an act of violence.

Words, alone, are not an act of violence.

"behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/223638?rskey=QAlkzM&result=1#eid
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
The premier dictionary on English words, Oxford English Dictionary, disagrees.

I understand that some words evolve, but sometimes we need to stick to original and true meanings. I believe one such word is violence. It is purely a physical act. Just because calling somebody a jerk or the wrong pronoun may cause emotional damage doesn't mean I have committed violence against you.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't read the whole entry....

4. Vehemence or intensity of emotion, behaviour, or language; extreme fervour; passion.
▸ a1393 J. Gower Confessio Amantis (Fairf.) iv. l. 607 (MED) Whi hast thou drede of so good on..in hire is no violence Bot goodlihiede and innocence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom