It is interesting how this words=violence is repeated like a broken record by "trans ideologists" when the largest groups of murdered and assaulted persons happen not to be in this cohort. We trans widows, on the other hand, are constantly told we must not tell our stories, as the simple truth about what our narcissistic, verbally abusive, "female-identifying" husbands is well, distasteful. For a window into how this plays out, I give you the younger sister of a 33 year old man who is bald, wears no wig but "dresses feminine" and whose last interaction with their father, after a stroke and a week before he died, was rage scolding the old man for "misgendering." So, by them, an old man recovering from a stroke, seeing his bald son in a dress expresses confusion, which is "violence." These stories must be put out to the public. They are words, only words, my truth, a trans widow's and surviving sister's truths.
Its generational dumbing down and indoctrination. With the successful execution of both to each successive generation it becomes possible to move the line of what is considered socially acceptable and normal. Want to convince an all Capitalist society that Capitalism is evil and only a collectivist form of governance is fair? Convince the kids that those with more all have so because they stole it all from those with less. Once those kids are parents you can teh tech their kids that Capitalism is evil because you've already convinced the parents that its not fair.
I don't believe we're dealing with narcists so much as a generation of people who have been so indoctrinated via the public education system (with upgrades in college) that their minds are broken. The human mind is not designed to maintain multiple conflicting ideas simultaneously along with dynamically shifting definitions as is required to be a part of what is commonly called the woke. When this is drilled into them for 12 years their minds break in order to deal with the stress. Tis in turn leads to 1or more of a variety of mental disorders from multiple personality to depression and worse. Many heterosexual young people identify as something other than that because they are so confused by what's been drilled into them that they can not determine fiction from reality. The goal of dumbing down a population is to make it so they eventually are incapable of independent thought. What's happened here is generations long version of Mao's great leap forward. Done slowly over generations it can be done with far less violence at least until the end and without raising much suspicion.
Peter this is profound. Now I think I understand where your commitment to street engagement and street epistemology is coming from. You are so right. Because if we shut down words with the false claim that words are 'violence', we will have real violence. There will be no other channel open.
Allowing the claim "Words are violence" to be socially accepted or agreed upon is one of the first few steps towards an authoritarian society were speech is controlled. It's bad enough we tolerated the inclusion of "hate speech" in law.
"Words are violence" or "Silence is violence" are woke language tactics meant to advance woke ideology. In the article under discussion, the woke are trying to change the definition of violence from physical assault to communication that woke activists disagree with (Words are violence). My latest Substack covers more examples of woke word games at https://2026.substack.com/p/woke-word-games
Peter - Violence is by definition a behavior. Words are but a tool for communication; they can not engage in any type of behavior. Claiming words are equal to violence is like saying math is racists; it simply makes no sense unless you redefine what the meaning of violence is.
This is about trying to convince the public to embrace controlled/compelled speech. If they can successfully sell the idea that words are violence then no one will ever be able to speak freely and honestly again. They sold teh public on the idea of hate crimes so while damming it won't be to surprising if they can convince enough to accept that words are violence.
It's so obvious they cause much violence, in many powerful and significant ways unless they are looked at out of full context.
When taken out of living context, much truth dies. A piece of history viewed without understanding it's context can be seriously misunderstood. Gotta view and judge things in proper context.
To say words can't be violence is a failure to understand the false LOGOS/REASON base of western society. Ignorance of foundational false facts makes correction impossible.
The article/video uses a simple logical syllogism that seems true in the Word/Logos sense. Strictly speaking violence is "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," words can and do CAUSE injury and damage. But technically the article/vid is correct because words language can't themselves use physical force, BUT once in the mind, through human causality, they can and do. Avoiding an issue, by looking at it out of true context, doesn't tackle it.
The human mind is a very powerful part of objective reality! When words get in there, into its core, they can and do have some of the more powerful effects in objective reality. Everyone knows this in various ways, for example:
I believed false stories about reality were true and it did physical and mental harm to myself in many deep and profound ways. This happened to me, fundamentally because of the planning in Plato that founded western civilisations religious/political beliefs and practices. This has happened to billions. There are 4 billion on the planet that are statistically Christian/Islamic. I heard of a girl that hanged herself to go to heaven and be with her dad, because she missed him so much. Words cause murderous violence. The holy wars of old and belief in America wars and all those folded flags. Believed in Ideas/words never did any harm, not ever it's impossible ... except um ... reality.
Those being described as influenced by 'Woke' ideology are under an upgraded form of philosophical ideology creating the same 'Religious Sense' of Judaism/Christianity/Islam because like them they stem from the same base planning in Plato, it's just been upgraded and genre transitioned.
Because of Words/Logos—(a false core of Reason), I lived much of my life with a mental picture of reality that was false and it caused me to think and live in ways that were harmful to myself, my family ... and even my employment was based on adherence and promotion of harmful beliefs about reality and society. The WOKE are an upgraded non-religious form of the same. They are victims of violence done by words and they do violence by supporting and indoctrinating others to the same.
Western society has been based on lies for thousands of years. People that believe these lies, live by faith in them. It doesn't matter much if the lies are in a Religious, Historical, Scientific, Political, Nationalistic Social Justice etc. genres. They all cause what Fichte terms the 'Religious Sense' which at heart is faith in philosophical narratives, laden with Ideas, that are not reality based.
In human causality, thought comes before action. When powerful philosophical indoctrination occupies much in the core of reason, thinking and living is powerfully energised and driven by it. In a devestatingly real sense there is a philosopher in such minds, ruling as LORD, through the Ideas/narrative. This is, "The Cave of Plato", which is reiterated in the "Vat of Descartes" but my favourite re-expression of Plato's Cave is "The Unknown God" in which we live and move and have our being in Acts. It equates to being "In A Simulation" in a philosophical mental movie people think it's real and so naturally, through their cognitive faculties, unknowingly live in faith based obedience with all the energy of righteous believers on a mission from God to make a better world. The kingdom of God/Plato has come and few know that philosophy, in particular Plato, is at the base of western society to this day. The cloak has been upgraded but it's still the same philosophical/Platonic Ideas living in it.
Belief—pre-conceptions, blind with extreme power! Those that are unaware their cognitions grow from Platonic—philosophical trunks, are unable to cut off the problem at its base because they can't see what their own mental world stems from, but they can spend a lot of time hacking at new branches. This is predictable and expected. The planning in Plato is quite specific concerning this, and it's expressed in the Bible also. The plan is to just wait till the old unbelieving generation dies and then the new generation can enter the promised land as a new collective/Age which is defined by belief in it's new Ideology.
Well I hope a couple of thoughts here help, though I expect existing preconceptions to shape what most see. Those in an age can't see it's influence upon them and they can't just change their minds, that is subject to causality.
When you can't see what your opponent is really doing, guess who ends up on the dirt. Look and learn to think out a strategy that can and will work in reality. If it takes 5 or 10 years to go through this process then to not go through it means losing forever. It is impossible to pass on knowledge and understandings one doesn't have.
Words are not violence. What you are arguing is akin to saying a firearm and not the person who fired it is responsible for the death of someone. Words are tools for audible communication. They convene feelings, ideas, desires and so on but they are not violence. By definition violence, which is a noun, is a behavior. Words can not engage in any type of behavior. People can incite others to violence via words but they could do the same via pictures with no words spoken.
We have hate speech laws because of false beliefs successfully marketed to enough of the public and with enough success of pitching teh idea that words are violence we'll end up taking this to the next level of tyranny making all fearful to say anything.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. Miscommunication is very easy online and it happens a lot.
Unfortunately you have not understood and thus not responded to the emphasis of what I wrote. The leading premise/question "Can words be violence?" is ridiculous – by themselves, out of real context, they are obviously mutually exclusive. BUT, in the chain of human causality, a whole lot of false words, put into stories and carrying Ideas and world views, causes much violence, these words/stories always come through people/institutions and I mention one key person in particular, i.e. Plato. That you've missed the nuance and context of what I wrote is obvious because you have responded back without any of it.
It seems to me you're looking pedantically at minutia while I'm looking at human nature, philosophy and the use of words/story/indoctrination and western society historically and today.
I don't disagree with anything you have written, except misrepresentation of my position. So as far as I can see, we are agreed. It's a shame you missed my major point as it's fundamentally important: i.e. Lies cause harm, western society is founded on lies. Lies use words, misleading words can do a lot of harm when believed because human consciousness is a very powerful part of objective reality. When human consciousness leverages a lie, which could be a single word or a huge story, the consequences can be very bad indeed.
Regarding your use of the gun analogy. Indoctrinated people are not in full control of their thinking and actions. In a very real sense the words they believe in, these stories and ideas animate them and can do harm. So your gun analogy comes in handy to examine and unfold some of the powerful causality in play.
If lies are believed then through the chain human causality they play a part in causing harm – THIS IS A FOUNDATION AND ESSENCE OF WESTERN SOCIETY. Those that don't know this don't know the fundamental facts of the society they are a part of. This is a major blind spot. For more context concerning the reality I'm referring to you could read my comment again, as it stands you are responding to a position you mistakenly imagine me to hold.
“To say words can't be violence is a failure to understand the false LOGOS/REASON base of western society”
Unless you are going to say that the above is NOT claiming that words are violence I don’t believe I have mis-understood you’re point. Words are not violence. Words as well as other forms of communication including communication without any words can incite or lead to violence but the words themselves are not violence and claiming they are is a VERY dangerous path to go down. I also find it interesting that you’re first comment with regards to the gun analogy is to refer to “indoctrinated” people. Are you saying that all or just most pro-gun people are “indoctrinated”?
"Words ... convene feelings, ideas, desires and so on ..." Sometimes these are inextricably linked in chains of causality, resulting in various forms of violence. There is no fruit without the root. Causality is immutable. There is no conscious action without conscious thought, often created by words.
Words that are contrary to reality, in a sense violate it and in human consciousness they lead to violations.
As I've said, I don't disagree with anything you except except misrepresentation of my position. It seems to me your focusing on the fruit and saying this is not the root and I agree with you and you fully acknowledge that there is no fruit without roots, trunks, branches, leaves ... i.e. the whole chain of causality leading to violence/harm.
"So your gun analogy comes in handy to examine and unfold some of the powerful causality in play. If lies are believed then through the chain human causality they play a part in causing harm – THIS IS A FOUNDATION AND ESSENCE OF WESTERN SOCIETY." Those that believe lies are indoctrinated . It seems to be you, in your own mind trying to make me say pro gun people are indoctrinated. But I never said that, you imagined it, and responded accordingly. Why did you do that? Perhaps I shouldn't have used a paragraph so as to keep the meaning connected. Sorry if that's the case.
I find these conversations to be better when my interlocutor listens and responds to me in context but we can all only think and discuss things from where we are. Sometimes the reflection of our own thinking shows us things we didn't know about ourselves.
It can be difficult for a mind that thinks strongly in some ways to perceive/receive thinking that differs, it just doesn't fit. Reality is a dynamic interactive causality. If we try and see things without as much real context as we can get, we don't see or understand truly. Taking words out of their causality chain in human affairs is impossible, except in an imaginary world.
In particular words in stories and beliefs, in narratives, are part of causality chains resulting in violence, therefore words are immutably involved in it. I'm sure you will agree that without the roots, soil, water, trunk, branches etc. there could be no fruit. Sure the fruit is not the root but IT IS ALL ONE TREE. Therefore words are an inextricable part of violent fruit and they are alos part of peaceful fruit.
Correct you never said words are violence but your verbose first post reads like as if you are trying to argue that because words can lead to violence they are violence.
You're very first statement (after intro) is "Can words be violence?". Instead of saying something along teh liens of "No but they can lead to violence" you start off with "It's so obvious they cause much violence..." . Do you believe that's not going to be interpreted as one trying to argue that words really are violence because they can lead to violence?
In a yes/no question the answer should YES or NO followed by why you answered the way you did. Have you ever watched a House or Senate hearing and observed how the bureaucrat(s) never can answer a yes/no question but instead going a lengthy response where they are dancing around the question?
It is interesting how this words=violence is repeated like a broken record by "trans ideologists" when the largest groups of murdered and assaulted persons happen not to be in this cohort. We trans widows, on the other hand, are constantly told we must not tell our stories, as the simple truth about what our narcissistic, verbally abusive, "female-identifying" husbands is well, distasteful. For a window into how this plays out, I give you the younger sister of a 33 year old man who is bald, wears no wig but "dresses feminine" and whose last interaction with their father, after a stroke and a week before he died, was rage scolding the old man for "misgendering." So, by them, an old man recovering from a stroke, seeing his bald son in a dress expresses confusion, which is "violence." These stories must be put out to the public. They are words, only words, my truth, a trans widow's and surviving sister's truths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtZy829IAaI&t=8s
Its generational dumbing down and indoctrination. With the successful execution of both to each successive generation it becomes possible to move the line of what is considered socially acceptable and normal. Want to convince an all Capitalist society that Capitalism is evil and only a collectivist form of governance is fair? Convince the kids that those with more all have so because they stole it all from those with less. Once those kids are parents you can teh tech their kids that Capitalism is evil because you've already convinced the parents that its not fair.
I don't believe we're dealing with narcists so much as a generation of people who have been so indoctrinated via the public education system (with upgrades in college) that their minds are broken. The human mind is not designed to maintain multiple conflicting ideas simultaneously along with dynamically shifting definitions as is required to be a part of what is commonly called the woke. When this is drilled into them for 12 years their minds break in order to deal with the stress. Tis in turn leads to 1or more of a variety of mental disorders from multiple personality to depression and worse. Many heterosexual young people identify as something other than that because they are so confused by what's been drilled into them that they can not determine fiction from reality. The goal of dumbing down a population is to make it so they eventually are incapable of independent thought. What's happened here is generations long version of Mao's great leap forward. Done slowly over generations it can be done with far less violence at least until the end and without raising much suspicion.
Peter this is profound. Now I think I understand where your commitment to street engagement and street epistemology is coming from. You are so right. Because if we shut down words with the false claim that words are 'violence', we will have real violence. There will be no other channel open.
Allowing the claim "Words are violence" to be socially accepted or agreed upon is one of the first few steps towards an authoritarian society were speech is controlled. It's bad enough we tolerated the inclusion of "hate speech" in law.
"Words are violence" or "Silence is violence" are woke language tactics meant to advance woke ideology. In the article under discussion, the woke are trying to change the definition of violence from physical assault to communication that woke activists disagree with (Words are violence). My latest Substack covers more examples of woke word games at https://2026.substack.com/p/woke-word-games
Correct.
Subbed
Peter - Violence is by definition a behavior. Words are but a tool for communication; they can not engage in any type of behavior. Claiming words are equal to violence is like saying math is racists; it simply makes no sense unless you redefine what the meaning of violence is.
This is about trying to convince the public to embrace controlled/compelled speech. If they can successfully sell the idea that words are violence then no one will ever be able to speak freely and honestly again. They sold teh public on the idea of hate crimes so while damming it won't be to surprising if they can convince enough to accept that words are violence.
Hi all.
Can words be violence?
It's so obvious they cause much violence, in many powerful and significant ways unless they are looked at out of full context.
When taken out of living context, much truth dies. A piece of history viewed without understanding it's context can be seriously misunderstood. Gotta view and judge things in proper context.
To say words can't be violence is a failure to understand the false LOGOS/REASON base of western society. Ignorance of foundational false facts makes correction impossible.
The article/video uses a simple logical syllogism that seems true in the Word/Logos sense. Strictly speaking violence is "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," words can and do CAUSE injury and damage. But technically the article/vid is correct because words language can't themselves use physical force, BUT once in the mind, through human causality, they can and do. Avoiding an issue, by looking at it out of true context, doesn't tackle it.
The human mind is a very powerful part of objective reality! When words get in there, into its core, they can and do have some of the more powerful effects in objective reality. Everyone knows this in various ways, for example:
I believed false stories about reality were true and it did physical and mental harm to myself in many deep and profound ways. This happened to me, fundamentally because of the planning in Plato that founded western civilisations religious/political beliefs and practices. This has happened to billions. There are 4 billion on the planet that are statistically Christian/Islamic. I heard of a girl that hanged herself to go to heaven and be with her dad, because she missed him so much. Words cause murderous violence. The holy wars of old and belief in America wars and all those folded flags. Believed in Ideas/words never did any harm, not ever it's impossible ... except um ... reality.
Those being described as influenced by 'Woke' ideology are under an upgraded form of philosophical ideology creating the same 'Religious Sense' of Judaism/Christianity/Islam because like them they stem from the same base planning in Plato, it's just been upgraded and genre transitioned.
Because of Words/Logos—(a false core of Reason), I lived much of my life with a mental picture of reality that was false and it caused me to think and live in ways that were harmful to myself, my family ... and even my employment was based on adherence and promotion of harmful beliefs about reality and society. The WOKE are an upgraded non-religious form of the same. They are victims of violence done by words and they do violence by supporting and indoctrinating others to the same.
Western society has been based on lies for thousands of years. People that believe these lies, live by faith in them. It doesn't matter much if the lies are in a Religious, Historical, Scientific, Political, Nationalistic Social Justice etc. genres. They all cause what Fichte terms the 'Religious Sense' which at heart is faith in philosophical narratives, laden with Ideas, that are not reality based.
In human causality, thought comes before action. When powerful philosophical indoctrination occupies much in the core of reason, thinking and living is powerfully energised and driven by it. In a devestatingly real sense there is a philosopher in such minds, ruling as LORD, through the Ideas/narrative. This is, "The Cave of Plato", which is reiterated in the "Vat of Descartes" but my favourite re-expression of Plato's Cave is "The Unknown God" in which we live and move and have our being in Acts. It equates to being "In A Simulation" in a philosophical mental movie people think it's real and so naturally, through their cognitive faculties, unknowingly live in faith based obedience with all the energy of righteous believers on a mission from God to make a better world. The kingdom of God/Plato has come and few know that philosophy, in particular Plato, is at the base of western society to this day. The cloak has been upgraded but it's still the same philosophical/Platonic Ideas living in it.
Belief—pre-conceptions, blind with extreme power! Those that are unaware their cognitions grow from Platonic—philosophical trunks, are unable to cut off the problem at its base because they can't see what their own mental world stems from, but they can spend a lot of time hacking at new branches. This is predictable and expected. The planning in Plato is quite specific concerning this, and it's expressed in the Bible also. The plan is to just wait till the old unbelieving generation dies and then the new generation can enter the promised land as a new collective/Age which is defined by belief in it's new Ideology.
Well I hope a couple of thoughts here help, though I expect existing preconceptions to shape what most see. Those in an age can't see it's influence upon them and they can't just change their minds, that is subject to causality.
When you can't see what your opponent is really doing, guess who ends up on the dirt. Look and learn to think out a strategy that can and will work in reality. If it takes 5 or 10 years to go through this process then to not go through it means losing forever. It is impossible to pass on knowledge and understandings one doesn't have.
Cheers all
sincerely
david
Words are not violence. What you are arguing is akin to saying a firearm and not the person who fired it is responsible for the death of someone. Words are tools for audible communication. They convene feelings, ideas, desires and so on but they are not violence. By definition violence, which is a noun, is a behavior. Words can not engage in any type of behavior. People can incite others to violence via words but they could do the same via pictures with no words spoken.
We have hate speech laws because of false beliefs successfully marketed to enough of the public and with enough success of pitching teh idea that words are violence we'll end up taking this to the next level of tyranny making all fearful to say anything.
Hello NeverForget1776
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. Miscommunication is very easy online and it happens a lot.
Unfortunately you have not understood and thus not responded to the emphasis of what I wrote. The leading premise/question "Can words be violence?" is ridiculous – by themselves, out of real context, they are obviously mutually exclusive. BUT, in the chain of human causality, a whole lot of false words, put into stories and carrying Ideas and world views, causes much violence, these words/stories always come through people/institutions and I mention one key person in particular, i.e. Plato. That you've missed the nuance and context of what I wrote is obvious because you have responded back without any of it.
It seems to me you're looking pedantically at minutia while I'm looking at human nature, philosophy and the use of words/story/indoctrination and western society historically and today.
I don't disagree with anything you have written, except misrepresentation of my position. So as far as I can see, we are agreed. It's a shame you missed my major point as it's fundamentally important: i.e. Lies cause harm, western society is founded on lies. Lies use words, misleading words can do a lot of harm when believed because human consciousness is a very powerful part of objective reality. When human consciousness leverages a lie, which could be a single word or a huge story, the consequences can be very bad indeed.
Regarding your use of the gun analogy. Indoctrinated people are not in full control of their thinking and actions. In a very real sense the words they believe in, these stories and ideas animate them and can do harm. So your gun analogy comes in handy to examine and unfold some of the powerful causality in play.
If lies are believed then through the chain human causality they play a part in causing harm – THIS IS A FOUNDATION AND ESSENCE OF WESTERN SOCIETY. Those that don't know this don't know the fundamental facts of the society they are a part of. This is a major blind spot. For more context concerning the reality I'm referring to you could read my comment again, as it stands you are responding to a position you mistakenly imagine me to hold.
Cheers
sincerely
david
“To say words can't be violence is a failure to understand the false LOGOS/REASON base of western society”
Unless you are going to say that the above is NOT claiming that words are violence I don’t believe I have mis-understood you’re point. Words are not violence. Words as well as other forms of communication including communication without any words can incite or lead to violence but the words themselves are not violence and claiming they are is a VERY dangerous path to go down. I also find it interesting that you’re first comment with regards to the gun analogy is to refer to “indoctrinated” people. Are you saying that all or just most pro-gun people are “indoctrinated”?
Hi NeverForget1776
"Words ... convene feelings, ideas, desires and so on ..." Sometimes these are inextricably linked in chains of causality, resulting in various forms of violence. There is no fruit without the root. Causality is immutable. There is no conscious action without conscious thought, often created by words.
Words that are contrary to reality, in a sense violate it and in human consciousness they lead to violations.
As I've said, I don't disagree with anything you except except misrepresentation of my position. It seems to me your focusing on the fruit and saying this is not the root and I agree with you and you fully acknowledge that there is no fruit without roots, trunks, branches, leaves ... i.e. the whole chain of causality leading to violence/harm.
"So your gun analogy comes in handy to examine and unfold some of the powerful causality in play. If lies are believed then through the chain human causality they play a part in causing harm – THIS IS A FOUNDATION AND ESSENCE OF WESTERN SOCIETY." Those that believe lies are indoctrinated . It seems to be you, in your own mind trying to make me say pro gun people are indoctrinated. But I never said that, you imagined it, and responded accordingly. Why did you do that? Perhaps I shouldn't have used a paragraph so as to keep the meaning connected. Sorry if that's the case.
I find these conversations to be better when my interlocutor listens and responds to me in context but we can all only think and discuss things from where we are. Sometimes the reflection of our own thinking shows us things we didn't know about ourselves.
It can be difficult for a mind that thinks strongly in some ways to perceive/receive thinking that differs, it just doesn't fit. Reality is a dynamic interactive causality. If we try and see things without as much real context as we can get, we don't see or understand truly. Taking words out of their causality chain in human affairs is impossible, except in an imaginary world.
In particular words in stories and beliefs, in narratives, are part of causality chains resulting in violence, therefore words are immutably involved in it. I'm sure you will agree that without the roots, soil, water, trunk, branches etc. there could be no fruit. Sure the fruit is not the root but IT IS ALL ONE TREE. Therefore words are an inextricable part of violent fruit and they are alos part of peaceful fruit.
Have an AWESOME day NeverForget!
Cheers Sincerely
david
Correct you never said words are violence but your verbose first post reads like as if you are trying to argue that because words can lead to violence they are violence.
You're very first statement (after intro) is "Can words be violence?". Instead of saying something along teh liens of "No but they can lead to violence" you start off with "It's so obvious they cause much violence..." . Do you believe that's not going to be interpreted as one trying to argue that words really are violence because they can lead to violence?
In a yes/no question the answer should YES or NO followed by why you answered the way you did. Have you ever watched a House or Senate hearing and observed how the bureaucrat(s) never can answer a yes/no question but instead going a lengthy response where they are dancing around the question?