Violence is not necessarily the appropriate response to violence. Specially if what you actually meant is scalating it from verbal to physical... responding with speech "violence" might be ok in certain situations, but responding with physical violence to verbal threats would not. That would be like saying that if you consider punches violence then it's easier to convience yourself to use guns, and if using guns then you can convience yourself to use bombs.. and then you'll go all the way to nuclear.
You are scared? Of something pathetic? Was it disagreement they consider harmful to feelings? Because I heard hate speech hurtful to feelings. Which was indicated as harmful due to stress on the body. Mentally caused, but physically consequential. Now you say that you are scared. Has this stressed you? Why would that be both a problem and not a problem simultaneously? People should be prepared to confront each other in disagreement and engage in it willingly. People should not have to be prepared for harassment via hate speech or offensive speech. What is offensive is more of a grey area at times but at times very distinct. It is not acceptable to be offensive without very good cause to be so.
@@Josephkerr101 thats bull. you need to risk being offensive to find out truth. the real problem are hyperoffended snowflakes, taht are not interested in finding truth, but rather playing childish power games.
..and I'm sure the debates of our Founders as they discussed the merits of what protections might be needed (as they formulated the Bill of Rights) included conversation about speech that everyone liked didn't need protection - but (in order to have open debate/ dialogue) speech that others might NOT like (or even find offensive) needed to be allowed/ protected
@@waaynneb1808 To play devil's advocate, violence is also sometimes protected. It's still violence. I would agree with my boy there, but not for the same reason. I'd use the analogy of firing a gun, something that is objective and unambiguous. Is firing a gun violence? The guy would say it can be... as long as it causes physical damage. The short girl would say yes, because the sound of the shot will have physical effects and may very well damage eardrums and such or, at the very least, startle and/or cause distress to those within earshot. I'm not sure what the tall girl would say... I don't quite get what her points are. I assume she'd say yes but I'm gonna leave her out of this moving forward. Is firing a gun at a range violence? Guy: Could be, does it cause physical damage? Short Girl: Probably not but maybe, a range is a place where gunfire is expected and prepared for but that doesn't mean the shot doesn't cause heightened stress levels. Heightened stress is an adverse physical effect and, therefore, violence. Is firing a gun at someone and missing violence? Guy: Could be, but not against the target. Does the bullet cause physical damage wherever it ends up? Short Girl: Absolutely. Presumably the target knows you fired at them (or at the very least heard the shot). Heightened stress is an adverse physical effect and, therefore, violence. Is pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger violence (the gun malfunctions and does not fire, perhaps the firing pin is missing or something)? Guy: No, no physical damage was done. Girl: Maybe, did anyone see you do it? Heightened stress is a physical effect. Is pointing a gun you know is not loaded at someone violence? Guy: Nope, no physical damage. Short Girl: Yes, this is a threatening act and will cause heightened stress which is an adverse physical effect. Is pointing a gun they know is not loaded BUT YOU THINK IS at someone violence? Guy: Nope, no physical damage. Short Girl: Maybe, does any third party see this? Is carrying a gun violence? Guy: No. Short Girl: It is if someone sees it and experiences a heightened level of stress. Is carrying a gun-like object violence? Guy: No. Short Girl: It is if someone sees it and experiences a heightened level of stress. Is taking the gun you legally carry out of your holster and storing it in a locked safe in your vehicle before going into a gun-free zone violence? Guy: No. Short Girl: Maybe, did anyone see you do that, and did it cause a heightened level of stress? Is matching the description of a widely publicized at-large serial killer violence? Guy: ... lolwut? Short Girl: Uh... I mean... ok (lol). Other people will see you and think a serial killer is nearby, that will cause a heightened level of stress... so... yeah, I guess so? The point I'm getting at here is that if you label something as "violence", you inherently attach liability to reprisal to that violence. If all that is needed is for someone to experience a heightened level of stress, then I have no way of knowing when or even if I've committed violence at any given moment, and neither does anyone else. Using her definition, I can be accused of "violence" by anyone, at any time, for any reason.
@@jameseversole6118 violence: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. Thus, PHYSICAL violence is to be distinguished from VERBAL abuse. However, at the time of writing, many leftists have been attempting to use the term “violence” in reference to verbal acts. Cf. “undue (harm)”. Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force. “Just force” is any means necessary to overcome an (objectively) evil adversary or oppressor. To use a simple and obvious example (obvious, that is, to a holy and righteous soul), if the servant of a corrupt (i.e. non-monarchical) government was to try to apprehend a man for administering proper punishment to one of his subordinates, such as his wife, child, or employee, it would be not only justified for that man to retaliate against the governmental minion, but a truly holy and righteous act, worthy of a veritable saint. A far more palpable example would be the instance of a person (or even an animal) killing another person or an animal in self-defence. If you, the reader was to be physically-attacked by an aggressive person, and you were forced to end the life of that person in order to save your own life, no decent soul would accuse you of being violent. Therefore, just force is not, by definition, violence. One of the most popular works of fiction ever composed, “Bhagavad-gītā”, revolves around the narrative of an Indian monarch trying to convince one of his warriors to kill his own extended family and his own teachers, not out of enmity, but due to his kin committing certain criminal acts, such as withholding a kingdom from that warrior, and supporting an objectively evil and corrupt regime. That monarch, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, after explaining to His friend, Prince Arjuna, that his hesitancy to fight against his kin was based on illusory considerations, convinced him to execute his duty of fighting for a righteous cause, thereby fulfilling his dharma (societal duty). Therefore, when Indians use the phrase “Dharma hiṃsā tathaiva ca”, not only are they INVENTING a phrase that does not appear in any recognized Vedic scripture (though they pretend that it is from an ancient source), they are confusing just force with violence.
As a kid I learned "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" as a guide to violence. This generation needs a service animal to survive a trip to the grocery store.
This is fact. My wife works with one of these. The woman brings a "Service Dog" into a grocery store and leaves it in a dog crate in an office all day. Let me be clear this is just a dog not even a valid service dog. Her reasoning is it's her emotional support dog.
After 27 months as a grunt on patrol in Asscrackistan, it has become unbelievably clear to me that this generation and I will NEVER understand one another, they simply do not possess the capacity to understand the reality of the world as it actually exists outside of the bubble of extreme overprotection that they exist in.
With a few magic words, angry words can turn into sticks and stones. With a few more magic words, those sticks and stones can become airborne and hit someone in the face.
@tomsmith6513 Wrong, YOU are feeling intimidated, that's YOUR problem. YOU are responsible for how YOU feel, nobody else, either get more brave, or go cry in the corner, quietly, so the rest of us can get on with the business of building and maintaining the entire infrastructure that YOU benefit from and requires people do dangerous, scary and difficult things.
So? Is freedom of speech that important that must not be attacked? Im asking because this seems to be a very common argument, but not well fundamented, specially when most people do not know what freedom of speech means.
@@fullyfb3847 My issue with the idea "Calling speech "violence" is attacking freedom of speech" is precisely that most of people are "short sighted" and not "capable of understanding complex systems and short/long term ramifications". So for me this is not a good argument/idea. Again, most people dont understand what freedom of speech means.
In high school I was on the debate team. Before every debate, each side went through the motions of defining every word in the prompt, and each side had to agree to the definitions of each word. I believe that is what we are missing in today's discourse; an agreement on the definition of words. And that, I believe, is the root problem in our fracturing society.
One of the problems with what you're saying in light of those who are now making authoring the prompts (if you will) is that many of them are enamored with Derrida whose academic contribution to this woke agenda can be summed up in a quote he's uttered: "There's no subtext, only text." I'm sure you understand what he means to convey at face value, but, to be sure, he's essentially saying that words are essentially meaningless.
Some of the big arguments these days are specifically about the meanings of words. I think many debates would benefit from having signifiers of which version of the word is being used. But then we would devolve into who got to use "woman(1)" and who was forced to use "woman(2)".
Makes sense. You'll instead of debating the topic at hand, you're debating a definition instead, wasting time, if you don't agree on definitions first. (Edited for clarity)
@@MavHunter20XX It's called concision. This is how intellectual work is done. Keywords/concepts need to be defined and agreed upon or else the conversation risks being sidetracked. Just like in a machine shop where you have your shop rules for operating each machine that performs certain roles and thereby produces a particular end-product. This is why street and internet debates usually go nowhere, lack of defined keywords/concepts.
"Inciting speech must be banned" is a euphemism for "People that are completely ruled by their emotions shouldn't be held accountable for their actions".
In other words, mental illness is the new normal. That effectively means, that if you are of a different political persuasion than what the dominant virtue signaling politically correct social justice warriors decree, you must be silent. Even better you should be banished or incarcerated, perhaps herded into a concentration camp and eliminated wholesale. Also, if your mental makeup is more rational and less emotional, you are to suffer the same fate.
Have to disagree. It’s gone way beyond holding people accountable. It’s become a witch hunt to divide the tribes. If it was just happening to hold people to account it wouldn’t be creating a hysteria about what one can’t say. Also ever noticed how the side holding people accountable keep expanding and changing the definitions of what you’re being held accountable to? That’s really interesting to me….I have my suspicions to what that means and why just like anybody else. Will you tell me why you think that is?
I love how open-minded and receptive this particular group is. No one was freaking out or resorting to name calling or shouting. Everyone was so respectful.
I'm from a family of teachers myself across primary, secondary & tertiary. I've done some substitute teaching going back 10yrs or so but mostly in privately-run schools with a decent conduct code. Moving into the early-mid 2000's after I graduated if I could have been shown a college with kids affording kindness, respect & space for a decent conversation then I might have studied further to be a professor of sorts. I know they exist, & I almost feel guilty for being so cynical and not believing it.
I’m surprised and impressed. Usually a video from a campus involves shameful behavior. Often the speakers are interfered with, and their challenging ideas are angrily dismissed by entitled brats with intense political bias. The art of debate is lost on them. This conversation was refreshing.
And yet, we have a society based on rewarding exactly that and punishing exactly that. The best screenwriters make us feel things. The best persuasive speakers are trying to elicit very specific outcomes, based on words alone. It's a bit obtuse to suggest I can't hold you reasonably responsible for how your speech made me feel, or was designed in the HOPE of making me feel something, if it actually accomplishes exactly what you hope. It's the very reasoning behind slander, libel and defamation laws. But can you be held responsible for what someone DOES based on your speech? Under very specific circumstances, sure. I can think of ten sentences where your speech could put you in prison and righty so.
I think it's dangerous to have no fetters on speech making someone feel a certain way. If I walk toward you with a baseball bat, saying, "I'm going to kill you!", am I absolved of how that makes you FEEL? If you FEEL threatened, it's on you? How about if you're on a train platform a foot from the edge, and I scream, "BOOO!" just as a train is coming? Still all on you? What if I tell an egregious lie about you to anyone who will listen? If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded stadium? What if you yell to a cop, knowing it's a lie, "THAT GUY HAS A GUN!"? Or if you walk up to my minor child and tell her how sexually attractive she is--- still not taking responsibility? I can only say if you're a purist who thinks NO SPEECH comes with responsibility, responsibility for it will be FORCED upon you, by decent society. Me? I think what you typed was a blanket disregard for YOUR responsibility, which is dangerous.
I don’t think she was making an argument that we should. She was stating a fact that it can’t be controlled. She never said, “and we should” or anything like that.
Common sense really but the left will throw in scenarios like "but what if the person kills themself". It's always about painting someone as a victim instead of empowered individuals.
So if I verbally abuse a person to the point where this person ends his/her own life either directly or indirectly, then how will that person live to see another day?
There is a difference between persistent ongoing direct verbal abuse and what I'd term "appropriated abuse". ie I choose to let this affect me. Either way, killing yourself is your choice. Otherwise get counselling to toughen up or find a way to shield yourself - like disengage from media.
You're way more open-minded than I am then. A group of college kids that do not know the difference between cause and incite violence. This is non-debatable.
These exercises have been really good in helping me realise a) how hard it is to properly work through your own thinking and b) how important that is. Great work. Keep it going.
I think a prime requisite for a thinking person is this…no matter how much you get behind an idea or concept, alway keep the thought in the back of your mind….I might be a total idiot and be wrong….
@@drpeterboghossian The statement/question was also worded in a peculiar way. Speech *can* cause physical violence, but it is *NOT* violence in *any* definition of the words. It is like asking "is home danger?" ... you home *can* be dangerous to you (so many people have accidents and die there), but it is *NOT* danger, in any definition of the words.
I was really lucky to have a few courses like this in college and also to have been on high school debate team. It's refreshing to hear this level of dialog again after so many years in the social media gutter.
Not gonna lie, this was orders of magnitude more wholesome and mature than most of the interactions I've seen done with this game of Pete's. I loved that they rotated him from host to participant and he played his own game honestly. Points for Dartmouth, or at least, points to these students for showing some dignity.
Hear, hear! Agreed This was one of Peter's better original premise questions. I too was pleased and impressed with two of the three participants. Ironically, it was the two on the left. (However, the young woman on the right did clarify her connection between the speech and its conceivable outcome being a violent response. At least she was thoughtful and connected her dots - her interpretation.
These students are supposed to be some of the smartest people on the planet earth. I don’t really buy it but according to IQ of the students going there. Yes. Dartmouth is the smartest place on earth.
@@max420thc There are tons of "smart people" on earth. I don't know how much credence I give to "IQ" scores. It's just a "quotient" which suggests nothing related to ethics, integrity, and actual investment in performance.
That college needs a shout out. How amazing are those students?? Really incredible work, everybody! You're all true role models! People far richer and far more influential and powerful than you can learn a great deal form that civil exchange of ideas you displayed here.
“Speech can lead to violence” Yes, that’s called ‘instigating violence’ which is illegal and punishable by law. But that doesn’t make it violence. Important to keep definitions clear so consequences can also me measured.
Exactly. In my opinion these people are literally agreeing they're just not establishing a set definition of "violence" which is causing them to talk past each other.
@@maytheforcebewithyou2701 what about it? Verbal abuse is called verbal abuse specifically because it's different from violence. The distinguishing factor of violence is physical harm not mental or emotional. Those have different names.
Honestly, let them define "violence" however they want, but hold them to one definition. Just explain to them why their definition of violence includes things that shouldn't be stopped. Don't play semantics, play logic.
They want to equal speech to violence. That way, any speech they don't approve of can be labeled as violence. Then it becomes about WHO is deciding WHAT speech is violence.
@@WasifKhan29 me? No. Government shouldn’t tell you what to say, making some minimal allowances, as the US Supreme Court has ruled on…(“fire” in a crowd, etc.)
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Got taught this when i was a kid. Something is wrong with todays parents and teachers if they cant get this simple message across to their kids.
I don’t disagree with this saying however not everyone has the mental fortitude to simply ignore negative things being said about themselves or even their loved ones It’s true that words can’t physically harm you but they can deal mental harm
@@fullyfb3847 I agree, I never said it was your responsibility to do so. Trust me I’m all for it, I fundamentally believe bullying and shaming languages are a necessary for people to grow up All I’m saying is not everyone can do that, people need to be taught how not to take offense to those things in order for that statement to be true that’s all But trust me I’m with you lol speech doesn’t equate to violence 👊🏽
If speech truly was violence, then everyone would have to take it upon themselves to toughen up in some word dojo to survive in the real world, not demand everyone curate their speech to accommodate them. But they don't want that...
Man, this is breath of fresh air to the normal shouting matches the UA-cam algorithm sends my way. I'm hoping that more younger folks, given the right conditions, are more likely to be swayed into a balanced conversation when they're away from the negative power of rabble rousers and the mob. More students like this = a better tomorrow. Nice work to them all & Peter for facilitating these conversations ✌
Hate speech is the main reason we have free speech. For one reason and one reason alone. Because who ever is in power can make your speech illegal and put you in jail. With free speech you can have the best president or the worst I.e. any demorat. They are putting people in jail right now for any and everything they can but at least I can say. Fuck Joe b. And anyone else because I know their wrong. If we did not have free speech he would lock me up just like their doing for Jan 6th and just like their doing to Trump. But we really don’t have free speech because one of you little cry baby liberals will tell UA-cam. He’s being mean and they will block me.
Go on mate, I agree. 24 years in the military, fair play! Were you a vet for the whole 24 years? What did you do, just look after the dogs and that? An horses maybe? What other animals do the military employ? Be cool if they could persuade birds like pigeons and seagulls for surveillance or espionage. Infiltration maybe, covert shit. Except birdflu would probably keep you busy. Good for you mate
I would have given anything to have a professor in college that asked questions like this and gave students an opportunity to participate. There's so many things you learn from this exercise. This is good stuff Peter. Also, kudos to the students participating. Putting yourself in a position to take a hardline stance on something is like a muscle that most young people dont take advantage of working out.
Why? If you don't look at his and think massive waste of time you are a moron. China is literally decoding your genetic profile to specifically target you with bioweapons and minority America is talking about what is a woman...absolutely dangerous and stupid
@Frank Arrietta maybe so. It seems to me most younger people, regardless of political leaning, are not good at putting their opinions out there. Then the ones that do express feelings are not good at articulating why. Perfect example was the boy who attempted to ask a question twice. He was also in a previous video where he was up front taking a stance on agree/disagree. He was not effective in articulating his side just like he couldn’t articulate his question. In too big of a hurry to say effectively nothing.
I was on the debate team at my high school. You had to research both your side of the issue and the opposing sides points so you could prepare answers that were logic and fact based, not opinions. You also did not know whether you would be placed on the pro or con side of the issue. So you could literally argue both sides of an issue during a tournament or meet with another school. Great preparation for critical thinking skills in life.
i left school at 16 in 1970, we used to talk about this kind of thing not only in civics but the art room, while listening to hendrix and the beatles and talking about drugs.
@Frank Arrietta Perhaps that is because they know the vast majority of college professors are left-leaning (to say the least) and they may be down-graded if they opposed the "required" viewpoint too strongly...?
Inciting violence is by definition not violence itself. It might be just as bad or maybe even worse in some instances, but it's still not violence. The simple fact that it's bad and that we hold people responsible for it, does not somehow include it into the definition of 'violence'.
It's a 5¢ strategy in a $10 wrapper. The goal is to associate the most extremely negative words with your political opponents through the brute force of repetition. In 2022 we have created the illusion that repeating a mantra is an academic pursuit.
@Mary Beth, kind of like how they changed the definition of (in addition to "violence") "phobia", "racism", "fascism", "white supremacy", "nazi", "hate", "sexism". This way they can invoke any of these words against someone simply because they disagree.
21:29 this is an interesting point. If a particular food sends someone into an anaphylactic shock, is that food violent? Is food violence? To my mind it gets unreasonable very quick. We're already there with speech. So, speech, food, or whatever else you want to substitute is not violence. Violence is violence
@@3ertin I'm more interested in staying within the realm of people. Even then, the act of force feeding a person or animal could be viewed as a violent act. But again, that specific act gets us in the territory of violence, not food itself.
If the definition of violence hinges on the words "physical harm" then no, speech is not violence. Speech can be abusive though, and it can be cruel. It is illegal to verbally abuse your child where I live, and rightfully so. This abuse is legally classified as domestic violence.
It's been my experience that violence is hardly ever caused by speech. The opposite in fact, when people don't have a recourse to even speak grievances or frustrations that violence will definitely pop off unexpectedly
Especially if they can't speak in a public forum and are pushed off to echo chambers where there is no one to oppose their ideas. The best way to combat "hate speech" is to challenge it, not force it to fester in an echo chamber.
Exactly violence is the action not the thought. If not we'd all be arrested, like in the movie Minority Report. Guilty before the crime then. What's next convict people because their chakras are not aligned????????!? Or convict you based on your zodiac sign??? Lol
I would argue that is not the case. The Rwandan genocide was induced by hateful speech from feelings of oppression. Hitler and the Holocaust was induced by propaganda and hateful speech. Marlyn Manson never committed the murders yet was jailed for convincing his cult members to commit murders. People can be arrested for inciting riots. I do also agree with the man in the disagree in that the speech falls on the hearers and how to act but speech can incite violence but by its technical definition speech isn’t violence. But speech can incite violence for sure.
@@williammyers2190 If speech incites violence it's on people who were prone to violence beforehand. I don't know much about Rwanda, but regarding the Holocaust, it involved a sequence of demoralizing events that were a lot more than just talk.
Really nice seeing students that are able to clearly articulate their points and speak clearly. Regardless of the opinions, it is great given the climate on college campuses.
Speech is not violence, speech can incite violence but it can also bring peace. I think it’s important to have a civil discourse between people who have different ideals so that they can come to an understanding between each other.
This conversation, particularly the people equating emotional harm with physical violence, is hilarious to anyone who has actually suffered violence. Yes words can hurt but try getting attacked by someone who wants to harm you. It's another level of harm. Which is why we punish people who do it without remit. I wonder how many students have actually been in a scrap.
This is how you convince people to believe anything you want: train them to live in a state of extreme neuroticism so they can't think critically. Offending someone is "violence", getting upset by anything means you now have PTSD (what an insult to real sufferers of PTSD) and therefor, anyone who challenges you has "harmed you". Everything in social justice theory is engineered so there's literally no way to challenge their ideas without being guilty of a criminal offense.
@@3ertin Who hasn't been hurt emotionally? Literally no fully functional human being that is capable of human emotion doesn't know what it feels like to be hurt emotionally. Not everyone knows what it is like to experience real violence and trauma. Lol...punched in the face...that doesn't really rise to the occasion of what I'm talking about here, just saying.
This was a great discussion, thanks to everyone who participated. I think some of the people were equating violence with harm. If the question was “speech is harmful”, totally different answers.
I think the young woman who tried to make the argument for verbal abuse being violent was answering your question, not Peters. In domestic violence situations it is more clearly understood that abusive speech causes harm. I think in my understanding of defining domestic violence, it is held to familial relationships. Parents, children, siblings, significant others. I would also include harm caused by verbal abuse in the workplace as another area where a person would have legal recourse.
Everyone understands that words can be hurtful. I dread the idea of who dermines these words and what level of emotional damage is needed before it becomes a crime.
@@notimportant3914 It's also a much healthier way of learning. If you are able to come to a conclusion yourself, with a little guidance, it's much more meaningful than a professor/teacher telling you what is and isn't, and what you should and shouldn't be thinking. The old adage is that you can persuade someone much easier by helping them come to the same conclusion as you (making them think it was their own idea) rather than trying to force them. Peter is utilizing that concept, but in an unbiased way. He's allowing individuals to have a proper discussion and adding the persuasion talking points to all sides to more or less open everyone's mind to other points. I think this is great and really wish this would become a staple to all levels of learning.
A good conversation, rational, polite, impersonal. We need more of these in the public domain, but our infantile and emotively entertaining mainstream media and social media are suppressing any occurrence of it. Well done to everyone.
Words have definitions still I believe. Defintion of violence is: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So there is no way that speech is violence, unless somehow the words bounce off your chest and hurts you psyically.
yes, and when we talk about abusive prices, we do not fear that numbers are going to beat us up. abuse can be interpreted as damage in a broad sense. violence is a very specific form of abuse that requires physical harm. words and prices can't do that, but they can damage our finances, reputation, mental well-being...
For what it's worth, Jonathan Rauch's quite thorough analysis (1993, Harpers?) "Why Incendiary Speech should be Protected" is one of the most eloquent arguments I've read on the subject.
"Speech is violence" is a justification for attack on someone whose ideas you don't like. It is the language of the ego, which constantly whispers that attack will get you what you want. You are not hurt by anyone's words, but by YOUR PERCEPTION of their words.
Really loved the dude's response. The entire idea that spoken words could ever be equated with actual violence (yeah here it comes - strongly suggests that the proponents of such a definition twist, have um, possibly never actually experienced real physical violence in their life.) Which is a bit of a blithering blizzard of linguistic mayhem to add to the pile. Just as a micro aggression can be utilized as a kind of a stand-in understudy for the real thing. For example, the use of high pressure water hoses and menacing German Shepard dogs back in the Civil Rights days, we now mine the slop of human interactions for what might be, in comparison to a 600-pound Bluefin Tuna, a couple of cockles, mussels and alive, alive ho. So too, can we now mine human speech like any good bottom-scraping trawler for anything of a dubious quality that might invoke conceptual violence. Yet we have also lived during a time wherein actual silence (shhh! You hear that?) is actually equated with violence. Which should tell any average rational, reasonable, logical human being that the inventors of all this crap are indeed, batshit crazy. And leave it at that. I just have to get this in one more time. This modern definition of hate speech. Which sounds to some, cuter than a bug's ear. But in reality is the kind of word play that used to be found commonly in the playground and shared among lower-grade elementary students, on their way to figuring out a few things. Hate speech is in fact, speech that is found hateful. By listeners who hate what they're hearing. Yet the fact of the matter often is - that the speaker whose speech they find hateful, does in fact, not hate at all. The speech is not uttered (or written) for that purpose. And in most of these cases, it is not humanly possible to actually prove just what emotional secrets reside in the heart of the expressor. However, there is hatred afoot. Those who react to the speech and indeed, do find it hateful, respond by identifying it as hate speech, and yet the only real hate evident in this transaction belongs to them. This is where the only real identifiable or measurable hate can be found - and often comes to be known by virtue of the actions of the speech-haters. This is a cute trick. Hatred hiding in plain sight. In any free society, speech was never designed to be owned or commodified for any particularly partisan purpose. Free people have always required free speech. This is a very simple and basic concept. Free speech is the bedfellow of free thought. Whose delightful purpose is to challenge bullshit, bad ideas, justifiable cruelties, oppression (lovely one, that) and all manner of human failings.
Well....... a verbally abusive parent can very much cause harm. On the surface and as adults, speech is not violence but it can cause harm. Just to maken it clear, I do not equate speech wuth violence
When I read "Is Speech Violence?" my initial reaction was "What are we even talking about these days?" but they've confused us all so much that it's unfortunately not surprising that we're having these conversations. Thank you for another interesting video!
You can certainly abuse people with speech though. Imagine a child being verbally abused in the household for years, they will suffer lasting mental damage from this. So is verbal abuse violence? Google definition of violence = using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. We would have to remove the word "physical" from the definition. But yes you can make many example where speech is abusive.
Either way abuse leads to harm but violence is a specific definition. We needn't change the definition. Can speech cause harm, yes. Do we need to get rid of it...no. Abuse and free speech should not be tied up together.
@@Mageblood abusive, yes. No doubt actually. I think the idea of this exercise was to teach people that words' definitions are no coincidence and we should be careful with labeling people as violent for expressing themselves.
The more I see people have these controversial conversations in a level headed way, the more I see the biggest problem is that people don't exactly know what words mean.
What I can't help but see is that they don't understand that changing the definition just means you're describing something else, you're not actually changing the thing that the original definition was meant to define. By changing the definition of woman to mean... Well, you tell me. Something other than adult human female. We're still going to require a word for adult human female so women's sports will now become "walachical's" sports or whatever. You haven't actually changed adult human females.
And often it's because definitions are being intentionally muddied by political activists in academia who want to equivocate between popular definitions and their own obscure technical definitions in order to fool the public into going along with things they would never agree to when stated plainly. It's why any obviously true moral position presented by a political activist should be met with 'and what exactly do you mean by that?' Because the chances are, they're not saying what you think they are.
@@Adam-zo7nz They don't see it like that. They are steeped in postmodernism and see language as constructing social conditions, so redefining a word means that you redefine the category and thus redefine the space people get to occupy without the 'violence' of social coercion being enacted on them. That's what they actually mean by 'language is violence', not the arguments about incitement presented here. Some types of theorists see any kind of categorization as unacceptable and 'violent', this is basically what queer theory revolves around. You've spotted the completely obvious problem with the whole thing though. Apart from the fact that categorization is a basic tool of human awareness that you have to use to function at all, it's also not just an arbitrary imposition of language on the world. Categories like man and woman exist independently of whether you admit it and pretending they don't just means you start to live in a way that doesn't synchronise with reality, which means you have to use a lot of energy to try to plough through the bits where your map is wrong and ultimately you're going to get taken out, either by running out of energy or being outcompeted by someone who isn't wasting theirs.
The student on the left says she is a historian. If she were to hear certain historical accounts which describe tragic events, they might bring her to tears, may cause gut wrenching anxiety, and even cause nightmares. Should that be considered violence? Since it caused her emotional and physical harm? Speech is not violence.
Thanks. I’d like to do this more frequently, but I don’t want to make it about me. It’s about the process. In this instance, I think it was good that I modeled the process.
Wow I like this!! This is one of the few times I’ve seen young people (university age) being eloquent and logical! Instead of the emotional argument UA-cam is filled with
They are indeed confused over words. Violence hurts as it is physical, being offended hurts emotions. That is not the same thing. The pain is not the same thing...
Just saw you description of this technique of having a difficult conversation the other day in your conversation with that Canadian professor in London the other day. While your description was perfect seeing it in action gave me a whole new confidence that it works. I am buying your book immediately.
I thought the second speaker, the girl on disagree, did a fantastic job of representing the reality of the "speech is violence" idea. She acknowledged the ways in which it has merit but dismissed it as a claim. A+ for her.
She was good. The problem is that she is defining violence as a subjective experience. Stress is real but those words don’t cause every individual stress. If you define violence in a subjective way, you will often be wrong when you point at something and call it violence. If you define violence as a real, observable physical attack, you will not often be wrong and you can easily verify that something was violent. Making laws or policies based upon the subjective experiences of individuals results in weaponized laws and standards and a departure from the usefulness of words in pointing at real things in the world.
I initially tuned into this thinking on, it's gonna be a bunch of screeching and yelling. I was pleasantly surprised in the end. This was impressive and I think my gf and I could enjoy your videos.
Listening to this actually changed my mind somewhat. This is what free speech is about - it's about persuading people, not just shouting them down because they don't agree.
Violence is _not_ the same as harm. There is a reason we have the two words. Calling violence the same as harm diminishes the true horror that is violence. It's like saying stubbing your toe is violent. It's not.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear anyone make a distinction between harm and violence. I remember Jonathan Haidt discussing the difference and it really shaping my view on how 'hate speech' can be harmful, but are not violence. Certain forms of harm, which is far more subjective than violence, is protected under 1A, but violence certainly is not.
Yeah, this where the sleight-of-hand is being done; With the conflation of "harm" with "violence". Around 13:00 the girl in the mask, claiming that verbal abuse is inherently "violence" makes it most explicit; She says that "ABUSE is inherently violence", rather than "HARM is inherently violence", but the basic thinking is the same. But if you CONSISTENTLY used this logic, where cause and effect become "the same thing", ALL words would just become meaningless. If harm is inherently "violence" (because violence CAUSES harm), then heat is inherently fire (because fire CAUSES heat)... But this overlooks the fact that convection, friction, radiation, these are all ways to cause heat WITHOUT fire. The great depression, influenza, aging, sunlight, water, the allied victory in ww2; These are all things that "cause harm" (often MUCH more directly than speech can), so now water, sunlight, and defeating the Axis powers are all "inherently violence", too?!? This is obviously absurd. Speech can cause MANY things; EVERY modern bridge is the result of somebody SPEAKING a bunch of measurements, materials criteria, timetables for different work-crews, etc. So that means that "speech is inherently bridges"?!? The whole value of language, is that it convey a literally INFINITE range of ideas; Speech can cause ANYTHING that is humanly possible... ...But if we conflate the RESULT of speech, with the speech itself, then speech is simultaneously "joy", "confusion", "large-scale construction projects", "boredom", "international commodity trading" and "sex", JUST AS MUCH as it is "violence"...
Speech CANNOT cause emotional violence. As long as you are not physically constrained (violence) you can walk away. Your reaction is yours and yours alone.
Speech can be kind, hurtful, harmful, uplifting, but it cannot and is not by definition violent. It can certainly feel abusive but I believe we have control over if we allow words to influence us.
violence: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force.
You are saying the decibels are what cause damage and that’s what categorizes it as violence? Is loud music also considered a act of violence too? Perhaps an airplane taking off, a blender, or chainsaw? If you use this argument Who decides when loud is acceptable and when it is violent? No, respectfully I don’t think this is a defendable argument to the question.
here's the problem for me: to agree with "speech is violence" means that it is easier to rationalize responding to speech with violence, because you can respond to violence directed at you with violence, so you would then also be able to respond to speech directed with you with violence. for that reason alone, I think there needs to be a differentiation between speech and violence. (edited for typo)
Nah, that makes no sense at all. First of all, the cause of the violence, which you completely seem to ignore, is essential. Punching someone (physical) is different than verbally abusing and manipulating (psychological) or abusing (sexual) or depriving them. Abuse, for example, may not result in any physical damage done to the body and yet is a form of violence. Now on to your point about responding with violence: no, experiencing violence does not automatically give you the right to respond with violence. Even non-violent retaliation is typically illegal. When a child burns your finger with a lighter you cannot respond by burning the child's fingers. Even if it's just the tip, or a less severe burn .. no, you just cannot do that. Or if someone gives you a single slap you cannot then end that person. Even actual self-defense should be proportionate. Both examples stay within the category of violence and already refute your point, but what you actually argue for is switching categories altogether. That's a category error. Furthermore, it is a slippery slope fallacy.
@@xnoreq you are incorrect. People absolutely all the time say that speech is violence and they are therefore justified to respond with violence. they are making this argument today, so the idea that they will make the argument (that is already being made by Yvette Falarca (by any means necessary) and a lot of others ) is not a slippery slope, because it already happens. speech is not violence, so it is not proper to respond to it with violence (fighting words) or punish speech as if it was violence (hate speech). there are certainly people who want to blur the lines so they can find justification to engage in violent acts, so the fact that they are not justified, doesn't change the fact that they are making the argument. People who say speech is violence are either itching for a fight or wanting to turn the government on their enemies because they cannot refute their arguments or cannot stand that everyone doesn't agree with them. It's a power gran or intimidation argument. basically it is an argument that garbage humans make almost exclusively (no offense).
@@theoverunderthinker Well, if these people commit the same category error, then we should point out that error instead of denying the fact that speech can cause harm and if exerted as such is violence by definition. You just repeat your point on response which I already refuted. Again, if people make the same argument then we should point out to them that it is invalid, and that they are, in fact, not only not justified to respond with physical violence but that it is illegal. No offense taken.
@@xnoreq you disagreed, you did not refute. just because something causes subjective harm does not make it violence, it makes it harmful. I reject that premise. without it the rest of your statements do not hold. since we have different definitions of the word violence, we will never agree.
@@theoverunderthinker I could just as well say that just because something causes physical harm does not make it violent, it makes it harmful. ... so that was a moot point. Yeah, you're using a different definition. You seem to limit it to harm caused by physical force only. I don't and I don't see a good reason why anyone should.
They are conflating violence and harm… violence does not necessarily cause harm, and harm can be caused by violence but not always, you can tear up a room going nuts , causing all kinds of violence, likewise you can stub your toe and cause harm and it’s not a violent situation.
I can't speak to holocaust denial, but to Peter's point, I've found it perfectly fits my experience in listening to flat earthers. Don't get me wrong, they are 100% incorrect, but by listening to them and trying to understand their side, you 1.) get a better understanding of how they think which is always important, and 2.) they raise interesting observations that when rebuttal by scientist have more greatly informed me on the shape and structure of the world then anything I learn in all my science classes.
To your first point, and to Peters point about the outcome not being what you think it would be. If you have a work colleague with misplaced hatred. You are now aware of the type of person that they are. You can make a decision to question his/her thought process, choose to not work with this person anymore or any number of alternatives. If they can't speak their mind because it is illegal, you could be placing trust in somebody who secretly wants to harm you or others around you. Which is potentially far more dangerous.
@@matthewmullin6042 Why laugh? Sounds like you aren't engaging with FE in good faith then. Both groups have good talking points (why do you call them "sides"? You're being dogmatic).
@@inspiritandtruthchannel You are talking to me, not the globe-Eather, right? I don't know the shape of the Earth, I'm agnostic about it. The only people who would really know, like you said, are some astronauts who have supposedly been up very high. Branson and Bezos both used fish eye cameras when they went up last year.
What if each side is offended by the others' opinionated speech? At what point should there be a legal intermediary to decide who's personal boundaries are more important?
It reassures me to see that these sort of discussions are happening in colleges these days. I’m about to have a child and I’m terrified about their education. I want them to learn how to think not want to think and it was really great seeing these highly intelligent young people work through this very difficult topic.
I actually like how this is set up so that different points of view can peacefully debate one another and potentially change the mind of one or the other when they understand more where each one is coming from. I respectfully understand that not everybody has the same ability to think deeply and critically and so maybe some people need a little bit more help than others into understanding both sides of the argument
The definition of abuse is not violence. Violence is encompassed in the definition of abuse amongst other things like cruelty. That’s why all violence is technically abuse but not all abuse is violence.
Peter's practical argument against not having free speech is solid, I think. But the far more salient point to me is the argument concerning liberty, and the issue with allowing a centralized power determine what's good or bad speech.
@@poissonpuerile8897 that’s why we have a generation of weak men, they got in trouble in school for even defending themselves. Violence is part of human nature, best we teach people to understand that
These discussions are encouraging. I wonder if you're only attracting the groups that are open to this discussion vs those who would tend to agree with this statement. Is this representative of the campus?
It's interesting to see that the students on the agree side have been taught that changing the definitions of well established words is a valid form or reasoning/ argumentation.
Peter I love these. Thanks. The answer to this one is really simple though…if you can say “no thank you” it’s not violence lol. I’m surprised no one brought up the idea that you can physically escape unpleasant speech by simply moving locations. That is not the same for violence. The reason is, violence exist in the physical manifestation of reality, speech does not.
This college’s motto translated from the Latin, is “A voice crying out in the wilderness” therefore, it is to be expected that it’s values would incorporate respectful debate as well as freedom of speech. This example shows how debate, without heat, even if some of the ideas put forward lack logic or seriousness is the most conducive to arriving at mutual understanding if not mutual agreement. Excellent.
I'm so happy to see there is some common sense out there in these schools. Good Professor! Critical thinking skills need to be taught more in schools. Starting in elementary school.
This is the 2nd time I’ve watched this one, and when the Q is asked of Peter “what might cause him to move a line” I started thinking what might make ME move a line over as well (since I would be on the same line as Peter) and I think my response would be that if there was a word or phrase that affected everyone the same way…. If it caused pain to all humans…. Then it would be “violence”. With physical violence, if I hit another human… no matter who they are, it causes pain. And even if they were a masochist, and derived pleasure from the pain, pain would be caused, and therefore, it’s still violence, even if the violence is considered pleasurable. Words being “violence” is a totally subjective standard with infinite possibilities where ANYONE can label ANYTHING said as “violence” (whether in good faith or not). Physical violence… actual violence, causes pain REGARDLESS of the person it is being inflicted upon, or even if it is desired by that person.
Tom -- Any utterance could upset someone , thus no speech , no utterance can be allowed , that would make absolutely no sense . Thus there should be absolutely no hate speech laws ...
What is wrong with these young adults?! I am responsible for my own actions, period! I don't care what I hear, or how passionate or angry whatever I hear is, NO ONE CONTROLS, ONLY ME, PERIOD!! Language is not violent. No matter how violent a person's words are, we are ultimately responsible for our actions. If someone is unpleasant or awful in his or her verbal expressions, I will leave! Who wants to be around that depressive or violent verbal vitriol? Just walk away. No one forces you to engage them in their violence! You have the power to not partake. God almighty, Peter, I admire your patience with these youngsters who have obviously been disempowered by their indoctrination.
The question to ask might be " is hurting your feelings the same thing as an act of violence?" A violent act of hurt feelings? My feelings have been hurt before, and it always is uncomfortable. Not the same as being hit in the face with a metal pipe.
There's obviously a spectrum if violence. But there actually been cases where people have physically been affected by words. People died from broken hearts
Suggesting speech is violence is absolutely identical to suggesting people don't have agency of their own and are in some manner not responsible for their actions. If speech can "incite" anything it by the same definition takes away agency+responsibility from the people being "incited."
I love what you do. It's something I could do in a similar setting. It will really expose any shortcomings in your thinking and test your ideas, opinions. I find it in its essence to be geared towards synthesis. Proper dialectic process. Well done.
I love this video because I love to see difficult topics covered rationally and calmly. I have two comments I'd like to make 1. Because speach can lead to violence does not mean that speach is violence. Food can lead to weight gain but food is not weight gain. 2. Dr. Boghossian said that it doesn't matter if someone defines violence as a pastrami sandwhich. I think it matters very much if society doesn't agree on the meaning words because how are we supposed to communicate if we don't agree on the meaning of words?
In a discussion like that, the definition you are using truly doesn't matter so long as it is both Consistent and communicated to the other participants. If they chose to define emotional violence as a "Pastrami Sandwich" AND this definition was communicated as soon as possible to everyone involved, then it doesnt matter that they use the term Pastrami Sandwich to refer to the emotional violence. The key part is that you fully define your terms, keep them constant throughout the discussion, and communicate said definitions as soon as it is apparent that there is a difference in definition in the discussion.
It makes you wonder, in their eyes, what would be the ‘violent speech’ equivalent of a massacre? You know, one that might involve things like machetes and severed limbs
I think this was a terrific exercise and I love this exercise format. I think the truth came out about whether or not speech is violence. It is not except for under very extreme certain circumstances.
There can be no language, in this country, that should be "offensive". If a person cannot draw a base line to describe an offensive statement and make all people agree, then it is only "offensive" to a select few. Therefore, it isn't the speech itself that offends, but is the person that is being offended. Why should I be limited to certain kinds of speech when the real problem is the person taking offense? I can't MAKE anyone be comfortable with what I say, but the uncomfortable person can walk away, not be so thin skinned, or have a rational conversation to clarify things. Either way, the power to change anything is held by the offended person not the other way around. Honestly, most people that are offended by speech are looking to be offended and are used to getting their way.
Do you feel this holds true with defamatory statements? Are they direct physical violence, no. But there can be clear social/monitary impacts which can then cause physical impacts (stress, depression, etc).
Are you seriously arguing that no language should be offensive? So racist slurs directly targeted at someone shouldn’t be “offensive” at all, I would agree that most language taken as offense in todays time shouldn’t be considered offensive. However I think there is definitely a line to be drawn, everyone is different and when something is offensive to a large % of the population it’s not just offensive to a select few.
@@KingCalixoxo The emotions of people have been overvalued. And due to that overvaluation, we no longer can compete on the world stage in any serious sense. Good job
I was walking past a lucrative begging spot in London where a pirate DVD vendor was selling his wares. An aggressive beggar came up, claiming the patch as his. The DVD guy protested as he was there first and a public pavement, of course, isn't anybody's private property. So the beggar got literally within an inch or two of the vendor's face and started screaming his demands. His expression was one of disgust, hatred and rage, his blood vessels were pulsating as he turned red. Not letting the vendor respond, just projecting his voice in an extremely aggressive and coarse manner. I was very near them and I could see little droplets of spit hitting the vendor's face with every word. Eventually the vendor shoved the beggar i.e. he was the first to use physical force. As on cue, the beggars' wife emerged from a convenient hide-away. She used a baby as a shield and started screaming about her man being attacked. It kept escalating from there, the vendor grabbed a broom from a passing street cleaner's cart but that's when the police arrived and he dropped it and ran down an underground walkway with his bundle of dodgy DVD's. The beggars went to the cops with their story of a violent Chinese man attacking them and their baby. UNPROVOKED! I've omitted a lot of detail, but the vendor didn't use profanity or racial slurs, just an extremely aggressive manner of speech. If anything, it was hard to make out what he was actually saying. I've witnessed career criminals do this and suspect they've had years of purposeful practice in verbal and non-verbal intimidation. So where was the line crossed from speech into physical? The vendor laying hands on the beggar or the beggar emitting spittle that most bystanders wouldn't have noticed?
It isn't that simple because somebody who believes that this or that ideological tendency is inherently violent can then argue that ideas amount to threats of violence.
@@llywelyngruffydd8474 An idea that amounts to violence comes before the violence, and therefore is not the violence. It's ok to criminalize rhetoric that incites or threatens violence, but it's silly to call it violence in itself -- and rather pointless. What is to gain from this conflating of terms?
Scream in someone's ear something really loud and cause hearing damage to that person. That's the only way speech can be violence. And the content of that speech really doesn't matter, unless the frequency is considered content.
You'd sing a different tune if you'd ever been really hurt emotionally. You'll loose weight, you'll loose sleep, you're blood pressure rises etc. If there is an intent to hurt someone, it doesn't matter if it is physical or lyrical.
6:23 I think this is an interesting argument. On the one hand, it is necessary for a person in this world to gain emotional resilience and to realize that, as you say, they are not in control of what others say and think about them. On the other hand, does that mean that someone who is consistently cruel in their ideas, who manipulates and belittles others, or who takes advantage of someone during a vulnerable time should be let off the hook? I think it's a mischaracterization, a straw man to act as if these things are mutually exclusive. I can both believe that people shouldn't say hurtful things to me AND understand that when they do, it says nothing about *me*. Maybe this would be analog to attempted physical violence (ie someone tries to beat me up but fails)? I also think that the examples so far in this debate have been slightly unfair; calling someone a slur one time isn't the same as shooting them and it's pretty obvious which one is worse. I think it's far more difficult to determine the relative amounts of damage between someone who has gone through long emotional abuse, where they are controlled and their life is caged in and they are taken advantage of, and someone who has been attacked nonfatally but who still bears scars*. Those two things are very different and clearly both very hurtful--unless you're someone who believes that the victims of abuse are at fault. In that case, this debate becomes much more difficult, because in order to understand my point of view, you would have to agree with me on countless other small premises about human nature. I guess I just feel like acting as if physical pain is the only kind of pain which merits serious discussion, understanding and help is incredibly flat. I think it's a worldview that leads to a lot of harm. And though that isn't precisely what anyone is saying, I feel like the "strongly disagree" position leads to that conclusion. *This person likely bears emotional scars as well, but I feel like that strengthens my point about emotional pain.
Really well done. I think the biggest issue we have in colleges (after tuition), is people who aren't smart enough to be impartial professors challenging their students positions on things. Students get very partial passionate Thanksgiving dinner table views from their professors about social justice, they blow more of the same air into their social bubbles, and their students come out brainwashed thinking that diversity of thought means that others must be wrong. Yikes on bikes. This professor did a great job in this video. Glad I stumbled here, and was excited to hear the great Christopher Hitchens quoted.
The student on the left is confusing violence with physical harm. Some people seem to struggle to understand the consequences of verbal racism, sexual harassment etc., nor seem to comprehend the extent of the harmful effects that this sort of emotional abuse can have on especially marginalised people. From what I've observed, it seems mostly to be those with a certain level of privilege. Violence and threats of violence may be separate components in the sequence, however the causes/methods of inciting violence can themselves be inherently violent hence why as this understanding is widening in society, they are becoming more and more punishable by law.
Just finished the video and saw where Peter aligned himself. Even when questioning "theories" and "history", the crux is still rooted in getting to the truth and ironing out facts. And does not what he says at 26 minutes already exist at large...?
Why would you say he is 'confusing' violence with physical harm? I would say he is equating violence with physical harm as that is the definition of violence. Verbal abuse etc may very well cause harm on some emotional level, but that does not make it violent, unless you are redefining the word. Had the question been can speech cause harm? Then you would have a point, but it wasn't.
@@wholuvsubaby1 in that tight and strict definition, I guess so. Modern Law, even with things such as Domestic Violence encompass verbal abuse that amount to emotional or psychological abuse, at least in the UK. This may soon also be the case for sexual harassment - the strategy for it is being looked at now. Good thing I live here.
@@stephenh694 No one is saying that psychological and verbal abuse are anything other than harmful on some level. That’s why we use the word abuse. The word is enough, there’s no need to alter the meaning of violence to include non physical abuse, just to give the word abuse some extra weight. And that just wouldn’t work anyway. If we dilute the meaning of the word violence, then we would have to find a new word to distinguish physical abuse from verbal abuse. And more importantly the law needs to be able to distinguish between the two.
@@wholuvsubaby1 I would agree from a current legal standpoint. Both abuse and violence can be defined, be part of and covered under the same legislation as is. However, violence is clearly complex and understood differently by different people. I do hope that a standard definition evolves. I've had verbal abuse thrown at me before, mainly racial abuse and political gaslighting, but I've also known physical abuse as well seen the absolute worst that can ever possibly be imagined. Truth is, some people don't know the reality of violence. All violence has a psychological aspect and that is usually at the core of it.
An interesting thing is that unlike emotional harm I cannot decide how hurt I will be if I get hit by a stick, but with words and emotions you can develop healthy coping mechanisms and skills over come those difficult situations. If I'm being bullied and someone calls me a "waste of space" that term only hold the power I am willing to give it. Similarly if someone says something that in itself doesn't carry any negativity, like "you look good today" I can easily twist it into something that does bring me harm and give it that negative power. Eg: "are you implying that I look awful any other day? Why are you focusing on my appearance?" ect. Words are only harmful if you let them be 🤷♀️
Speech can have an effect that is equivalent to physical violence. I'm not talking about pathetic claims that 'misgendering' (i.e. refusal to go along with a lie) hurts someone's feelings but I have many years experience of working with victims of domestic violence and I vividly recall being told by a victim that what broke her wasn't the punches and kicks that caused physical bruises but the words calculated to degrade her and make her feel like she was trash. The effect lasted far longer than bruises. This isn't to belittle the experience of anyone who has suffered serious physical violence - the bottom line is that we would all rather endure verbal abuse than serious life threatening physical assault. I just want to point out that some of us would rather endure a minor physical assault than tolerate years of endless verbal abuse. It is the latter that has had a life-shattering effect in my case.
Once you consider speech to be violence, it becomes easier to convince yourself that violence is an appropriate response to speech.
Handy at protests.
That is a very clever point! Thank you!
Well said 👏
Excellent point
Wow! Great (and frightening) point
Violence is not necessarily the appropriate response to violence. Specially if what you actually meant is scalating it from verbal to physical... responding with speech "violence" might be ok in certain situations, but responding with physical violence to verbal threats would not.
That would be like saying that if you consider punches violence then it's easier to convience yourself to use guns, and if using guns then you can convience yourself to use bombs.. and then you'll go all the way to nuclear.
It's pathetic and scary that so many young people equate disagreement and hurt feelings with violence.
You are scared? Of something pathetic? Was it disagreement they consider harmful to feelings? Because I heard hate speech hurtful to feelings. Which was indicated as harmful due to stress on the body. Mentally caused, but physically consequential.
Now you say that you are scared. Has this stressed you? Why would that be both a problem and not a problem simultaneously?
People should be prepared to confront each other in disagreement and engage in it willingly. People should not have to be prepared for harassment via hate speech or offensive speech.
What is offensive is more of a grey area at times but at times very distinct. It is not acceptable to be offensive without very good cause to be so.
Agreed, Sullivan ✌️
weaklings
lets take this to the positive extreme. If i tell someone to make $1million dollars should i get a cut of that money if they do?
@@Josephkerr101 thats bull. you need to risk being offensive to find out truth. the real problem are hyperoffended snowflakes, taht are not interested in finding truth, but rather playing childish power games.
If speech INCITES violence, that sentence alone demonstrates that there must be a difference between the two ideas.
..and I'm sure the debates of our Founders as they discussed the merits of what protections might be needed (as they formulated the Bill of Rights) included conversation about speech that everyone liked didn't need protection - but (in order to have open debate/ dialogue) speech that others might NOT like (or even find offensive) needed to be allowed/ protected
@@waaynneb1808 To play devil's advocate, violence is also sometimes protected. It's still violence.
I would agree with my boy there, but not for the same reason. I'd use the analogy of firing a gun, something that is objective and unambiguous.
Is firing a gun violence? The guy would say it can be... as long as it causes physical damage. The short girl would say yes, because the sound of the shot will have physical effects and may very well damage eardrums and such or, at the very least, startle and/or cause distress to those within earshot. I'm not sure what the tall girl would say... I don't quite get what her points are. I assume she'd say yes but I'm gonna leave her out of this moving forward.
Is firing a gun at a range violence? Guy: Could be, does it cause physical damage? Short Girl: Probably not but maybe, a range is a place where gunfire is expected and prepared for but that doesn't mean the shot doesn't cause heightened stress levels. Heightened stress is an adverse physical effect and, therefore, violence.
Is firing a gun at someone and missing violence? Guy: Could be, but not against the target. Does the bullet cause physical damage wherever it ends up? Short Girl: Absolutely. Presumably the target knows you fired at them (or at the very least heard the shot). Heightened stress is an adverse physical effect and, therefore, violence.
Is pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger violence (the gun malfunctions and does not fire, perhaps the firing pin is missing or something)? Guy: No, no physical damage was done. Girl: Maybe, did anyone see you do it? Heightened stress is a physical effect.
Is pointing a gun you know is not loaded at someone violence? Guy: Nope, no physical damage. Short Girl: Yes, this is a threatening act and will cause heightened stress which is an adverse physical effect.
Is pointing a gun they know is not loaded BUT YOU THINK IS at someone violence? Guy: Nope, no physical damage. Short Girl: Maybe, does any third party see this?
Is carrying a gun violence? Guy: No. Short Girl: It is if someone sees it and experiences a heightened level of stress.
Is carrying a gun-like object violence? Guy: No. Short Girl: It is if someone sees it and experiences a heightened level of stress.
Is taking the gun you legally carry out of your holster and storing it in a locked safe in your vehicle before going into a gun-free zone violence? Guy: No. Short Girl: Maybe, did anyone see you do that, and did it cause a heightened level of stress?
Is matching the description of a widely publicized at-large serial killer violence? Guy: ... lolwut? Short Girl: Uh... I mean... ok (lol). Other people will see you and think a serial killer is nearby, that will cause a heightened level of stress... so... yeah, I guess so?
The point I'm getting at here is that if you label something as "violence", you inherently attach liability to reprisal to that violence. If all that is needed is for someone to experience a heightened level of stress, then I have no way of knowing when or even if I've committed violence at any given moment, and neither does anyone else. Using her definition, I can be accused of "violence" by anyone, at any time, for any reason.
Only the ego gets offended/hurt by words. When it does, maturation is the result.
Excellent. One doesn't need any more explanation than this. It's so obviously true that debates or long explanations shouldn't be necessary.
@@jameseversole6118
violence:
the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. Thus, PHYSICAL violence is to be distinguished from VERBAL abuse. However, at the time of writing, many leftists have been attempting to use the term “violence” in reference to verbal acts. Cf. “undue (harm)”.
Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force.
“Just force” is any means necessary to overcome an (objectively) evil adversary or oppressor. To use a simple and obvious example (obvious, that is, to a holy and righteous soul), if the servant of a corrupt (i.e. non-monarchical) government was to try to apprehend a man for administering proper punishment to one of his subordinates, such as his wife, child, or employee, it would be not only justified for that man to retaliate against the governmental minion, but a truly holy and righteous act, worthy of a veritable saint.
A far more palpable example would be the instance of a person (or even an animal) killing another person or an animal in self-defence. If you, the reader was to be physically-attacked by an aggressive person, and you were forced to end the life of that person in order to save your own life, no decent soul would accuse you of being violent. Therefore, just force is not, by definition, violence.
One of the most popular works of fiction ever composed, “Bhagavad-gītā”, revolves around the narrative of an Indian monarch trying to convince one of his warriors to kill his own extended family and his own teachers, not out of enmity, but due to his kin committing certain criminal acts, such as withholding a kingdom from that warrior, and supporting an objectively evil and corrupt regime. That monarch, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, after explaining to His friend, Prince Arjuna, that his hesitancy to fight against his kin was based on illusory considerations, convinced him to execute his duty of fighting for a righteous cause, thereby fulfilling his dharma (societal duty).
Therefore, when Indians use the phrase “Dharma hiṃsā tathaiva ca”, not only are they INVENTING a phrase that does not appear in any recognized Vedic scripture (though they pretend that it is from an ancient source), they are confusing just force with violence.
As a kid I learned "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" as a guide to violence. This generation needs a service animal to survive a trip to the grocery store.
This is fact. My wife works with one of these. The woman brings a "Service Dog" into a grocery store and leaves it in a dog crate in an office all day. Let me be clear this is just a dog not even a valid service dog. Her reasoning is it's her emotional support dog.
After 27 months as a grunt on patrol in Asscrackistan, it has become unbelievably clear to me that this generation and I will NEVER understand one another, they simply do not possess the capacity to understand the reality of the world as it actually exists outside of the bubble of extreme overprotection that they exist in.
With a few magic words, angry words can turn into sticks and stones. With a few more magic words, those sticks and stones can become airborne and hit someone in the face.
@@Sophist990 An angry and barking dog can be violent without biting you. The violence is in the intimidation that comes from the angry dog.
@tomsmith6513 Wrong, YOU are feeling intimidated, that's YOUR problem. YOU are responsible for how YOU feel, nobody else, either get more brave, or go cry in the corner, quietly, so the rest of us can get on with the business of building and maintaining the entire infrastructure that YOU benefit from and requires people do dangerous, scary and difficult things.
Calling speech "violence" is attacking freedom of speech.
Its not possible to argue against this reasonably.
So? Is freedom of speech that important that must not be attacked? Im asking because this seems to be a very common argument, but not well fundamented, specially when most people do not know what freedom of speech means.
That's why they do it.
We feel like we need to stop violence but we don’t.
@@fullyfb3847 My issue with the idea "Calling speech "violence" is attacking freedom of speech" is precisely that most of people are "short sighted" and not "capable of understanding complex systems and short/long term ramifications". So for me this is not a good argument/idea.
Again, most people dont understand what freedom of speech means.
In high school I was on the debate team. Before every debate, each side went through the motions of defining every word in the prompt, and each side had to agree to the definitions of each word. I believe that is what we are missing in today's discourse; an agreement on the definition of words. And that, I believe, is the root problem in our fracturing society.
Excellent point. Because now that "man" and "woman" suddenly have new definitions, we're experiencing massive fractures.
One of the problems with what you're saying in light of those who are now making authoring the prompts (if you will) is that many of them are enamored with Derrida whose academic contribution to this woke agenda can be summed up in a quote he's uttered: "There's no subtext, only text." I'm sure you understand what he means to convey at face value, but, to be sure, he's essentially saying that words are essentially meaningless.
Some of the big arguments these days are specifically about the meanings of words. I think many debates would benefit from having signifiers of which version of the word is being used. But then we would devolve into who got to use "woman(1)" and who was forced to use "woman(2)".
Makes sense. You'll instead of debating the topic at hand, you're debating a definition instead, wasting time, if you don't agree on definitions first. (Edited for clarity)
@@MavHunter20XX It's called concision. This is how intellectual work is done. Keywords/concepts need to be defined and agreed upon or else the conversation risks being sidetracked. Just like in a machine shop where you have your shop rules for operating each machine that performs certain roles and thereby produces a particular end-product. This is why street and internet debates usually go nowhere, lack of defined keywords/concepts.
"Inciting speech must be banned" is a euphemism for "People that are completely ruled by their emotions shouldn't be held accountable for their actions".
In other words, mental illness is the new normal. That effectively means, that if you are of a different political persuasion than what the dominant virtue signaling politically correct social justice warriors decree, you must be silent. Even better you should be banished or incarcerated, perhaps herded into a concentration camp and eliminated wholesale. Also, if your mental makeup is more rational and less emotional, you are to suffer the same fate.
We seriously lack self control and coping skills. As a society we are failing our fellow man.
No, it is just that we also hold people that say things liable for that speech. People that are doing shit, are still punished.
Have to disagree. It’s gone way beyond holding people accountable. It’s become a witch hunt to divide the tribes. If it was just happening to hold people to account it wouldn’t be creating a hysteria about what one can’t say.
Also ever noticed how the side holding people accountable keep expanding and changing the definitions of what you’re being held accountable to? That’s really interesting to me….I have my suspicions to what that means and why just like anybody else. Will you tell me why you think that is?
Well said
I love how open-minded and receptive this particular group is. No one was freaking out or resorting to name calling or shouting. Everyone was so respectful.
I'm from a family of teachers myself across primary, secondary & tertiary. I've done some substitute teaching going back 10yrs or so but mostly in privately-run schools with a decent conduct code. Moving into the early-mid 2000's after I graduated if I could have been shown a college with kids affording kindness, respect & space for a decent conversation then I might have studied further to be a professor of sorts. I know they exist, & I almost feel guilty for being so cynical and not believing it.
Demographics matter
I’m surprised and impressed. Usually a video from a campus involves shameful behavior. Often the speakers are interfered with, and their challenging ideas are angrily dismissed by entitled brats with intense political bias. The art of debate is lost on them. This conversation was refreshing.
Sad that we find college students’ respectful behaviour towards each other unexpected rather than expected.
I love the way this conversation happened.
I think it is dangerous to make me responsible for how my words make other people feel.
And yet, we have a society based on rewarding exactly that and punishing exactly that.
The best screenwriters make us feel things.
The best persuasive speakers are trying to elicit very specific outcomes, based on words alone.
It's a bit obtuse to suggest I can't hold you reasonably responsible for how your speech made me feel, or was designed in the HOPE of making me feel something, if it actually accomplishes exactly what you hope.
It's the very reasoning behind slander, libel and defamation laws.
But can you be held responsible for what someone DOES based on your speech? Under very specific circumstances, sure. I can think of ten sentences where your speech could put you in prison and righty so.
I think it's dangerous to have no fetters on speech making someone feel a certain way.
If I walk toward you with a baseball bat, saying, "I'm going to kill you!", am I absolved of how that makes you FEEL?
If you FEEL threatened, it's on you?
How about if you're on a train platform a foot from the edge, and I scream, "BOOO!" just as a train is coming?
Still all on you?
What if I tell an egregious lie about you to anyone who will listen?
If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded stadium?
What if you yell to a cop, knowing it's a lie, "THAT GUY HAS A GUN!"?
Or if you walk up to my minor child and tell her how sexually attractive she is--- still not taking responsibility?
I can only say if you're a purist who thinks NO SPEECH comes with responsibility, responsibility for it will be FORCED upon you, by decent society.
Me? I think what you typed was a blanket disregard for YOUR responsibility, which is dangerous.
"The problem with speech is you can't always control people."
Perhaps this isn't a problem meant to be overcome.
correct. it's scary that someone in the united states would even make this argument.
That’s a good thing. You should never be able to control what some says.
I don’t think she was making an argument that we should. She was stating a fact that it can’t be controlled. She never said, “and we should” or anything like that.
no we just censor them, so nobody is even allowed to educate themselves on the subject.
open dialogue is murder! lol
If someone is verbally abusive, it's horrible, but you'll live to see another day. If someone is physically violent to you, you may not.
Very well said, and really it is the individual, if you are strong and know yourself, words will carry no weight unless you give them weight.
Common sense really but the left will throw in scenarios like "but what if the person kills themself". It's always about painting someone as a victim instead of empowered individuals.
@@bartkorol611 dude that only applies to like 0.05% of Gen z.
So if I verbally abuse a person to the point where this person ends his/her own life either directly or indirectly, then how will that person live to see another day?
There is a difference between persistent ongoing direct verbal abuse and what I'd term "appropriated abuse". ie I choose to let this affect me. Either way, killing yourself is your choice. Otherwise get counselling to toughen up or find a way to shield yourself - like disengage from media.
It gives me hope that there are students still willing to debate and earnestly discuss topics like this civilly.
Until sticks and stones fly. Then, how will you feel?
You're way more open-minded than I am then. A group of college kids that do not know the difference between cause and incite violence. This is non-debatable.
These exercises have been really good in helping me realise a) how hard it is to properly work through your own thinking and b) how important that is. Great work. Keep it going.
Thanks. Getting on the same page about definitions is absolutely vital. That seems to be the hard part, or at least it is with this topic.
@@drpeterboghossian Speak to someone over 25 with time to prepare and some media training. We both know you won't. And we both know why.
I think a prime requisite for a thinking person is this…no matter how much you get behind an idea or concept, alway keep the thought in the back of your mind….I might be a total idiot and be wrong….
@@drpeterboghossian The statement/question was also worded in a peculiar way. Speech *can* cause physical violence, but it is *NOT* violence in *any* definition of the words. It is like asking "is home danger?" ... you home *can* be dangerous to you (so many people have accidents and die there), but it is *NOT* danger, in any definition of the words.
I was really lucky to have a few courses like this in college and also to have been on high school debate team. It's refreshing to hear this level of dialog again after so many years in the social media gutter.
Not gonna lie, this was orders of magnitude more wholesome and mature than most of the interactions I've seen done with this game of Pete's. I loved that they rotated him from host to participant and he played his own game honestly. Points for Dartmouth, or at least, points to these students for showing some dignity.
Hear, hear! Agreed This was one of Peter's better original premise questions. I too was pleased and impressed with two of the three participants. Ironically, it was the two on the left. (However, the young woman on the right did clarify her connection between the speech and its conceivable outcome being a violent response. At least she was thoughtful and connected her dots - her interpretation.
Agrees👍🏼👍🏼
These students are supposed to be some of the smartest people on the planet earth. I don’t really buy it but according to IQ of the students going there. Yes. Dartmouth is the smartest place on earth.
@@max420thc There are tons of "smart people" on earth. I don't know how much credence I give to "IQ" scores. It's just a "quotient" which suggests nothing related to ethics, integrity, and actual investment in performance.
Watch a few more and you’ll see wholesome
That college needs a shout out. How amazing are those students?? Really incredible work, everybody! You're all true role models! People far richer and far more influential and powerful than you can learn a great deal form that civil exchange of ideas you displayed here.
“Speech can lead to violence”
Yes, that’s called ‘instigating violence’ which is illegal and punishable by law. But that doesn’t make it violence.
Important to keep definitions clear so consequences can also me measured.
Exactly. In my opinion these people are literally agreeing they're just not establishing a set definition of "violence" which is causing them to talk past each other.
What about verbal abuse?
@@maytheforcebewithyou2701 what about it? Verbal abuse is called verbal abuse specifically because it's different from violence. The distinguishing factor of violence is physical harm not mental or emotional. Those have different names.
Honestly, let them define "violence" however they want, but hold them to one definition. Just explain to them why their definition of violence includes things that shouldn't be stopped. Don't play semantics, play logic.
@@maytheforcebewithyou2701 Abuse has a distinct definition from violence. Abuse CAN be violent, but in that case the violence is the abuse.
They want to equal speech to violence. That way, any speech they don't approve of can be labeled as violence. Then it becomes about WHO is deciding WHAT speech is violence.
The same people want to call violence “political protest.”
Exactly, and that is why it becomes the fabled "slippery slope".
one step at the door get you inside the house. Each step we get closer to a tyrannical government.
Do you think talk on holocaust in any way should not be illegal???
@@WasifKhan29 me? No. Government shouldn’t tell you what to say, making some minimal allowances, as the US Supreme Court has ruled on…(“fire” in a crowd, etc.)
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” -Eleanor Roosevelt And likewise no one can hurt you with words unless you let them.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
Got taught this when i was a kid. Something is wrong with todays parents and teachers if they cant get this simple message across to their kids.
I don’t disagree with this saying however not everyone has the mental fortitude to simply ignore negative things being said about themselves or even their loved ones
It’s true that words can’t physically harm you but they can deal mental harm
@@ORTIZ17113 everyone has the potential.
It's just that modern people fail to do what's best for themselves
@@fullyfb3847 I agree, I never said it was your responsibility to do so. Trust me I’m all for it, I fundamentally believe bullying and shaming languages are a necessary for people to grow up
All I’m saying is not everyone can do that, people need to be taught how not to take offense to those things in order for that statement to be true that’s all
But trust me I’m with you lol speech doesn’t equate to violence 👊🏽
If speech truly was violence, then everyone would have to take it upon themselves to toughen up in some word dojo to survive in the real world, not demand everyone curate their speech to accommodate them. But they don't want that...
@@ORTIZ17113 I'd say this, the sun isn't bad because pale people can't stay in it for long. Their skin is wrong, not the sun.
Man, this is breath of fresh air to the normal shouting matches the UA-cam algorithm sends my way. I'm hoping that more younger folks, given the right conditions, are more likely to be swayed into a balanced conversation when they're away from the negative power of rabble rousers and the mob. More students like this = a better tomorrow. Nice work to them all & Peter for facilitating these conversations ✌
I am 60. I am also a Christian and a 24 year retired military vet. Free Speech is not, nor NEVER has been, hate speech.
Amen! It’s all a matter of emotional stability! These individuals could be potential serial killers!
Hate speech is the main reason we have free speech. For one reason and one reason alone. Because who ever is in power can make your speech illegal and put you in jail. With free speech you can have the best president or the worst I.e. any demorat. They are putting people in jail right now for any and everything they can but at least I can say. Fuck Joe b. And anyone else because I know their wrong. If we did not have free speech he would lock me up just like their doing for Jan 6th and just like their doing to Trump. But we really don’t have free speech because one of you little cry baby liberals will tell UA-cam. He’s being mean and they will block me.
You mean violent? That's what the question was. Is it violent. Because speech can definitely be hateful.
@@69mjarand hate is a universal human emotion to criminalize thoughts is a truly dystopia
Go on mate, I agree. 24 years in the military, fair play! Were you a vet for the whole 24 years? What did you do, just look after the dogs and that? An horses maybe? What other animals do the military employ? Be cool if they could persuade birds like pigeons and seagulls for surveillance or espionage. Infiltration maybe, covert shit. Except birdflu would probably keep you busy. Good for you mate
I would have given anything to have a professor in college that asked questions like this and gave students an opportunity to participate. There's so many things you learn from this exercise. This is good stuff Peter. Also, kudos to the students participating. Putting yourself in a position to take a hardline stance on something is like a muscle that most young people dont take advantage of working out.
Why? If you don't look at his and think massive waste of time you are a moron. China is literally decoding your genetic profile to specifically target you with bioweapons and minority America is talking about what is a woman...absolutely dangerous and stupid
@Frank Arrietta maybe so. It seems to me most younger people, regardless of political leaning, are not good at putting their opinions out there. Then the ones that do express feelings are not good at articulating why. Perfect example was the boy who attempted to ask a question twice. He was also in a previous video where he was up front taking a stance on agree/disagree. He was not effective in articulating his side just like he couldn’t articulate his question. In too big of a hurry to say effectively nothing.
I was on the debate team at my high school. You had to research both your side of the issue and the opposing sides points so you could prepare answers that were logic and fact based, not opinions. You also did not know whether you would be placed on the pro or con side of the issue. So you could literally argue both sides of an issue during a tournament or meet with another school. Great preparation for critical thinking skills in life.
i left school at 16 in 1970, we used to talk about this kind of thing not only in civics but the art room, while listening to hendrix and the beatles and talking about drugs.
@Frank Arrietta Perhaps that is because they know the vast majority of college professors are left-leaning (to say the least) and they may be down-graded if they opposed the "required" viewpoint too strongly...?
Inciting violence is by definition not violence itself. It might be just as bad or maybe even worse in some instances, but it's still not violence.
The simple fact that it's bad and that we hold people responsible for it, does not somehow include it into the definition of 'violence'.
It's a 5¢ strategy in a $10 wrapper. The goal is to associate the most extremely negative words with your political opponents through the brute force of repetition. In 2022 we have created the illusion that repeating a mantra is an academic pursuit.
But bullying is a real thing and the stress it brings on a persons brain is very much a real thing. The brain is a physical thing after all.
@@Pyladin If one bullies someone with speech and the victim shoots the bully, they cannot claim self defense from their hurtful words.
@Mary Beth, kind of like how they changed the definition of (in addition to "violence") "phobia", "racism", "fascism", "white supremacy", "nazi", "hate", "sexism". This way they can invoke any of these words against someone simply because they disagree.
@Mary Beth abuse can both be physical and mental...when it is physical, we call it physical violence. Guess what it is called when it is mental abuse.
Anybody that thinks speech is violence has never experienced violence.
21:29 this is an interesting point. If a particular food sends someone into an anaphylactic shock, is that food violent? Is food violence? To my mind it gets unreasonable very quick. We're already there with speech. So, speech, food, or whatever else you want to substitute is not violence. Violence is violence
What about force feeding geese?
@@3ertin I'm more interested in staying within the realm of people. Even then, the act of force feeding a person or animal could be viewed as a violent act. But again, that specific act gets us in the territory of violence, not food itself.
@@3ertin The violence is in the 'force'...not the consumption of food.
If the definition of violence hinges on the words "physical harm" then no, speech is not violence.
Speech can be abusive though, and it can be cruel. It is illegal to verbally abuse your child where I live, and rightfully so. This abuse is legally classified as domestic violence.
@@3ertin 'force' would mean you had to physically hold someone down, or prevent them from walking away. that's gone beyond words
It's been my experience that violence is hardly ever caused by speech. The opposite in fact, when people don't have a recourse to even speak grievances or frustrations that violence will definitely pop off unexpectedly
Especially if they can't speak in a public forum and are pushed off to echo chambers where there is no one to oppose their ideas.
The best way to combat "hate speech" is to challenge it, not force it to fester in an echo chamber.
Exactly. I can't guarantee that free speech won't lead to violence; I can guarantee that censorship will.
Exactly violence is the action not the thought. If not we'd all be arrested, like in the movie Minority Report. Guilty before the crime then. What's next convict people because their chakras are not aligned????????!? Or convict you based on your zodiac sign??? Lol
I would argue that is not the case. The Rwandan genocide was induced by hateful speech from feelings of oppression. Hitler and the Holocaust was induced by propaganda and hateful speech. Marlyn Manson never committed the murders yet was jailed for convincing his cult members to commit murders. People can be arrested for inciting riots. I do also agree with the man in the disagree in that the speech falls on the hearers and how to act but speech can incite violence but by its technical definition speech isn’t violence. But speech can incite violence for sure.
@@williammyers2190 If speech incites violence it's on people who were prone to violence beforehand.
I don't know much about Rwanda, but regarding the Holocaust, it involved a sequence of demoralizing events that were a lot more than just talk.
Really nice seeing students that are able to clearly articulate their points and speak clearly. Regardless of the opinions, it is great given the climate on college campuses.
I’m addicted to these. Keep it up sir, we need more scholars pushing LIBERTY. 🗽
You know what he never does? Speak to someone over 25 with media training. We both know why that is, don't we?
@@gay_dave I think I know where your going with that, but if you could clarify, I would appreciate it. 👍
@@oneofthosepeople2101 he would not perform well. Hubris doesn't work well in such an interaction.
Speech is not violence, speech can incite violence but it can also bring peace. I think it’s important to have a civil discourse between people who have different ideals so that they can come to an understanding between each other.
This is really awesome! This the very reason speech should be free! So we can work through these issues rationally and find common understanding!
This conversation, particularly the people equating emotional harm with physical violence, is hilarious to anyone who has actually suffered violence. Yes words can hurt but try getting attacked by someone who wants to harm you. It's another level of harm. Which is why we punish people who do it without remit. I wonder how many students have actually been in a scrap.
Words don't have to hurt either. I can see for perhaps a child, but not an adult. I've always said that offense is _taken_ and not given.
This is how you convince people to believe anything you want: train them to live in a state of extreme neuroticism so they can't think critically. Offending someone is "violence", getting upset by anything means you now have PTSD (what an insult to real sufferers of PTSD) and therefor, anyone who challenges you has "harmed you". Everything in social justice theory is engineered so there's literally no way to challenge their ideas without being guilty of a criminal offense.
Good point, anyone who has ever seen actual violence would never mistake the two.
I don't agree. Maybe you've never been hurt emotionally. I can tell you it hurts a lot more than a punch in the face.
@@3ertin Who hasn't been hurt emotionally? Literally no fully functional human being that is capable of human emotion doesn't know what it feels like to be hurt emotionally. Not everyone knows what it is like to experience real violence and trauma. Lol...punched in the face...that doesn't really rise to the occasion of what I'm talking about here, just saying.
This was a great discussion, thanks to everyone who participated.
I think some of the people were equating violence with harm. If the question was “speech is harmful”, totally different answers.
I think the young woman who tried to make the argument for verbal abuse being violent was answering your question, not Peters. In domestic violence situations it is more clearly understood that abusive speech causes harm. I think in my understanding of defining domestic violence, it is held to familial relationships. Parents, children, siblings, significant others. I would also include harm caused by verbal abuse in the workplace as another area where a person would have legal recourse.
Everyone understands that words can be hurtful. I dread the idea of who dermines these words and what level of emotional damage is needed before it becomes a crime.
Thanks so much for letting students use reason to learn. You are an important teacher.
It's working their "critical thinking" skills, I believe.
Thank you.
@@notimportant3914 It's also a much healthier way of learning. If you are able to come to a conclusion yourself, with a little guidance, it's much more meaningful than a professor/teacher telling you what is and isn't, and what you should and shouldn't be thinking.
The old adage is that you can persuade someone much easier by helping them come to the same conclusion as you (making them think it was their own idea) rather than trying to force them. Peter is utilizing that concept, but in an unbiased way. He's allowing individuals to have a proper discussion and adding the persuasion talking points to all sides to more or less open everyone's mind to other points.
I think this is great and really wish this would become a staple to all levels of learning.
this was awesome. no one was freaking out, everyone was being respectful!
Because this topic doesn’t get people boiling much but once they talk about anything woke related-
A good conversation, rational, polite, impersonal. We need more of these in the public domain, but our infantile and emotively entertaining mainstream media and social media are suppressing any occurrence of it. Well done to everyone.
Words have definitions still I believe. Defintion of violence is: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. So there is no way that speech is violence, unless somehow the words bounce off your chest and hurts you psyically.
yes, and when we talk about abusive prices, we do not fear that numbers are going to beat us up. abuse can be interpreted as damage in a broad sense. violence is a very specific form of abuse that requires physical harm. words and prices can't do that, but they can damage our finances, reputation, mental well-being...
@@sithraeil And that’s not violent… but it’s definitely abusive
👌🏼👌🏼👌🏼
@@sithraeil why so deceptive?
Well, telling someone to attack or kill someone, can be violence. But that’s already illegal. Everything else tho? Nope
For what it's worth, Jonathan Rauch's quite thorough analysis (1993, Harpers?) "Why Incendiary Speech should be Protected" is one of the most eloquent arguments I've read on the subject.
Worth quite a lot! Thanks, fellow traveler.
Absolutely everything by Rauch is top tier.
Do you think talk on holocaust in any way should not be illegal???
@@WasifKhan29 It mos def shouldn't be illegal because it is summarily refutable.
"Speech is violence" is a justification for attack on someone whose ideas you don't like. It is the language of the ego, which constantly whispers that attack will get you what you want.
You are not hurt by anyone's words, but by YOUR PERCEPTION of their words.
Really loved the dude's response. The entire idea that spoken words could ever be equated with actual violence (yeah here it comes - strongly suggests that the proponents of such a definition twist, have um, possibly never actually experienced real physical violence in their life.)
Which is a bit of a blithering blizzard of linguistic mayhem to add to the pile.
Just as a micro aggression can be utilized as a kind of a stand-in understudy for the real thing. For example, the use of high pressure water hoses and menacing German Shepard dogs back in the Civil Rights days, we now mine the slop of human interactions for what might be, in comparison to a 600-pound Bluefin Tuna, a couple of cockles, mussels and alive, alive ho.
So too, can we now mine human speech like any good bottom-scraping trawler for anything of a dubious quality that might invoke conceptual violence.
Yet we have also lived during a time wherein actual silence (shhh! You hear that?) is actually equated with violence.
Which should tell any average rational, reasonable, logical human being that the inventors of all this crap are indeed, batshit crazy. And leave it at that.
I just have to get this in one more time. This modern definition of hate speech. Which sounds to some, cuter than a bug's ear.
But in reality is the kind of word play that used to be found commonly in the playground and shared among lower-grade elementary students, on their way to figuring out a few things.
Hate speech is in fact, speech that is found hateful. By listeners who hate what they're hearing.
Yet the fact of the matter often is - that the speaker whose speech they find hateful, does in fact, not hate at all. The speech is not uttered (or written) for that purpose. And in most of these cases, it is not humanly possible to actually prove just what emotional secrets reside in the heart of the expressor.
However, there is hatred afoot. Those who react to the speech and indeed, do find it hateful, respond by identifying it as hate speech, and yet the only real hate evident in this transaction belongs to them. This is where the only real identifiable or measurable hate can be found - and often comes to be known by virtue of the actions of the speech-haters.
This is a cute trick. Hatred hiding in plain sight.
In any free society, speech was never designed to be owned or commodified for any particularly partisan purpose. Free people have always required free speech. This is a very simple and basic concept. Free speech is the bedfellow of free thought. Whose delightful purpose is to challenge bullshit, bad ideas, justifiable cruelties, oppression (lovely one, that) and all manner of human failings.
I remember distinctly being told that words can never hurt me 😁
Not physically.
Well....... a verbally abusive parent can very much cause harm. On the surface and as adults, speech is not violence but it can cause harm. Just to maken it clear, I do not equate speech wuth violence
They can hurt you.
@@rustynails68 yea just like chicks can have a dick ..
Well, how does it feel to be a loser with notions like you have. Are you brain dead?
Did your theory work, or did you feel that?
Peter is a class act and a real educator.
When I read "Is Speech Violence?" my initial reaction was "What are we even talking about these days?" but they've confused us all so much that it's unfortunately not surprising that we're having these conversations.
Thank you for another interesting video!
You can certainly abuse people with speech though. Imagine a child being verbally abused in the household for years, they will suffer lasting mental damage from this. So is verbal abuse violence?
Google definition of violence = using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
We would have to remove the word "physical" from the definition. But yes you can make many example where speech is abusive.
Either way abuse leads to harm but violence is a specific definition. We needn't change the definition. Can speech cause harm, yes. Do we need to get rid of it...no. Abuse and free speech should not be tied up together.
@@Mageblood abusive, yes. No doubt actually. I think the idea of this exercise was to teach people that words' definitions are no coincidence and we should be careful with labeling people as violent for expressing themselves.
Yup. Language is getting all mixed up and losing its definitions. It’s insanity.
Do you think talk on holocaust in any way should not be illegal???
The more I see people have these controversial conversations in a level headed way, the more I see the biggest problem is that people don't exactly know what words mean.
What I can't help but see is that they don't understand that changing the definition just means you're describing something else, you're not actually changing the thing that the original definition was meant to define.
By changing the definition of woman to mean... Well, you tell me. Something other than adult human female. We're still going to require a word for adult human female so women's sports will now become "walachical's" sports or whatever. You haven't actually changed adult human females.
And often it's because definitions are being intentionally muddied by political activists in academia who want to equivocate between popular definitions and their own obscure technical definitions in order to fool the public into going along with things they would never agree to when stated plainly.
It's why any obviously true moral position presented by a political activist should be met with 'and what exactly do you mean by that?' Because the chances are, they're not saying what you think they are.
@@Adam-zo7nz They don't see it like that. They are steeped in postmodernism and see language as constructing social conditions, so redefining a word means that you redefine the category and thus redefine the space people get to occupy without the 'violence' of social coercion being enacted on them.
That's what they actually mean by 'language is violence', not the arguments about incitement presented here.
Some types of theorists see any kind of categorization as unacceptable and 'violent', this is basically what queer theory revolves around.
You've spotted the completely obvious problem with the whole thing though. Apart from the fact that categorization is a basic tool of human awareness that you have to use to function at all, it's also not just an arbitrary imposition of language on the world. Categories like man and woman exist independently of whether you admit it and pretending they don't just means you start to live in a way that doesn't synchronise with reality, which means you have to use a lot of energy to try to plough through the bits where your map is wrong and ultimately you're going to get taken out, either by running out of energy or being outcompeted by someone who isn't wasting theirs.
The student on the left says she is a historian. If she were to hear certain historical accounts which describe tragic events, they might bring her to tears, may cause gut wrenching anxiety, and even cause nightmares. Should that be considered violence? Since it caused her emotional and physical harm? Speech is not violence.
I like that Peter actually did the exercise himself.
Thanks. I’d like to do this more frequently, but I don’t want to make it about me. It’s about the process. In this instance, I think it was good that I modeled the process.
@@drpeterboghossian that makes sense why you did it at the end
@@drpeterboghossian Do you think talk on holocaust in any way should not be illegal???
Wow I like this!!
This is one of the few times I’ve seen young people (university age) being eloquent and logical!
Instead of the emotional argument UA-cam is filled with
They are indeed confused over words. Violence hurts as it is physical, being offended hurts emotions. That is not the same thing. The pain is not the same thing...
Violence is not a subjective feeling, violence is an objective fact.
It is sad that we must ask this question but I am glad they are actually thinking instead of simply telling us how it makes them feel.
Just saw you description of this technique of having a difficult conversation the other day in your conversation with that Canadian professor in London the other day. While your description was perfect seeing it in action gave me a whole new confidence that it works. I am buying your book immediately.
When you understand that your reaction is the source, and when you begin to practice honing how you react, you will gain a glimpse of freedom
So was the civil rights movement (reaction) the source of the racial violence perpetrated against African Americans by the state and white civilians??
I thought the second speaker, the girl on disagree, did a fantastic job of representing the reality of the "speech is violence" idea. She acknowledged the ways in which it has merit but dismissed it as a claim. A+ for her.
She was good. The problem is that she is defining violence as a subjective experience. Stress is real but those words don’t cause every individual stress. If you define violence in a subjective way, you will often be wrong when you point at something and call it violence. If you define violence as a real, observable physical attack, you will not often be wrong and you can easily verify that something was violent. Making laws or policies based upon the subjective experiences of individuals results in weaponized laws and standards and a departure from the usefulness of words in pointing at real things in the world.
I initially tuned into this thinking on, it's gonna be a bunch of screeching and yelling. I was pleasantly surprised in the end. This was impressive and I think my gf and I could enjoy your videos.
Listening to this actually changed my mind somewhat. This is what free speech is about - it's about persuading people, not just shouting them down because they don't agree.
Violence is _not_ the same as harm. There is a reason we have the two words.
Calling violence the same as harm diminishes the true horror that is violence. It's like saying stubbing your toe is violent. It's not.
Damn, didn't see your post, just repeated above basically.
@@jimb9063 No worries, I don't mind at all. The more people saying what you said, the better.
This is only a debate for someone who’s never been punched in the face. Get punched and you’ll never mistake speech for violence.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear anyone make a distinction between harm and violence. I remember Jonathan Haidt discussing the difference and it really shaping my view on how 'hate speech' can be harmful, but are not violence. Certain forms of harm, which is far more subjective than violence, is protected under 1A, but violence certainly is not.
Yeah, this where the sleight-of-hand is being done; With the conflation of "harm" with "violence".
Around 13:00 the girl in the mask, claiming that verbal abuse is inherently "violence" makes it most explicit; She says that "ABUSE is inherently violence", rather than "HARM is inherently violence", but the basic thinking is the same.
But if you CONSISTENTLY used this logic, where cause and effect become "the same thing", ALL words would just become meaningless.
If harm is inherently "violence" (because violence CAUSES harm), then heat is inherently fire (because fire CAUSES heat)... But this overlooks the fact that convection, friction, radiation, these are all ways to cause heat WITHOUT fire.
The great depression, influenza, aging, sunlight, water, the allied victory in ww2; These are all things that "cause harm" (often MUCH more directly than speech can), so now water, sunlight, and defeating the Axis powers are all "inherently violence", too?!? This is obviously absurd.
Speech can cause MANY things; EVERY modern bridge is the result of somebody SPEAKING a bunch of measurements, materials criteria, timetables for different work-crews, etc. So that means that "speech is inherently bridges"?!?
The whole value of language, is that it convey a literally INFINITE range of ideas; Speech can cause ANYTHING that is humanly possible...
...But if we conflate the RESULT of speech, with the speech itself, then speech is simultaneously "joy", "confusion", "large-scale construction projects", "boredom", "international commodity trading" and "sex", JUST AS MUCH as it is "violence"...
'If that's the case you really should be under professional care' my sentiments exactly!
1/3 of the population needs a good therapist at this point lol
Speech CANNOT cause emotional violence. As long as you are not physically constrained (violence) you can walk away. Your reaction is yours and yours alone.
Speech can be kind, hurtful, harmful, uplifting, but it cannot and is not by definition violent. It can certainly feel abusive but I believe we have control over if we allow words to influence us.
violence:
the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.
Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force.
People can scream up to 129dB. Sustained Sound over 120dB damages can permanently damage hearing. Therefore loud speech us violence.
@@hansolo8225
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
Incidentally, the plural of "person" is "persons", NOT "people".🙄
You are saying the decibels are what cause damage and that’s what categorizes it as violence? Is loud music also considered a act of violence too? Perhaps an airplane taking off, a blender, or chainsaw? If you use this argument Who decides when loud is acceptable and when it is violent? No, respectfully I don’t think this is a defendable argument to the question.
@@risebyliftingothers7016, your response was EXCELLENT. :)
here's the problem for me:
to agree with "speech is violence" means that it is easier to rationalize responding to speech with violence, because you can respond to violence directed at you with violence, so you would then also be able to respond to speech directed with you with violence.
for that reason alone, I think there needs to be a differentiation between speech and violence.
(edited for typo)
Nah, that makes no sense at all. First of all, the cause of the violence, which you completely seem to ignore, is essential. Punching someone (physical) is different than verbally abusing and manipulating (psychological) or abusing (sexual) or depriving them.
Abuse, for example, may not result in any physical damage done to the body and yet is a form of violence.
Now on to your point about responding with violence: no, experiencing violence does not automatically give you the right to respond with violence. Even non-violent retaliation is typically illegal.
When a child burns your finger with a lighter you cannot respond by burning the child's fingers. Even if it's just the tip, or a less severe burn .. no, you just cannot do that.
Or if someone gives you a single slap you cannot then end that person. Even actual self-defense should be proportionate.
Both examples stay within the category of violence and already refute your point, but what you actually argue for is switching categories altogether. That's a category error.
Furthermore, it is a slippery slope fallacy.
@@xnoreq you are incorrect. People absolutely all the time say that speech is violence and they are therefore justified to respond with violence. they are making this argument today, so the idea that they will make the argument (that is already being made by Yvette Falarca (by any means necessary) and a lot of others ) is not a slippery slope, because it already happens.
speech is not violence, so it is not proper to respond to it with violence (fighting words) or punish speech as if it was violence (hate speech). there are certainly people who want to blur the lines so they can find justification to engage in violent acts, so the fact that they are not justified, doesn't change the fact that they are making the argument.
People who say speech is violence are either itching for a fight or wanting to turn the government on their enemies because they cannot refute their arguments or cannot stand that everyone doesn't agree with them. It's a power gran or intimidation argument.
basically it is an argument that garbage humans make almost exclusively (no offense).
@@theoverunderthinker Well, if these people commit the same category error, then we should point out that error instead of denying the fact that speech can cause harm and if exerted as such is violence by definition.
You just repeat your point on response which I already refuted.
Again, if people make the same argument then we should point out to them that it is invalid, and that they are, in fact, not only not justified to respond with physical violence but that it is illegal.
No offense taken.
@@xnoreq you disagreed, you did not refute. just because something causes subjective harm does not make it violence, it makes it harmful.
I reject that premise.
without it the rest of your statements do not hold.
since we have different definitions of the word violence, we will never agree.
@@theoverunderthinker I could just as well say that just because something causes physical harm does not make it violent, it makes it harmful. ... so that was a moot point.
Yeah, you're using a different definition. You seem to limit it to harm caused by physical force only. I don't and I don't see a good reason why anyone should.
They are conflating violence and harm… violence does not necessarily cause harm, and harm can be caused by violence but not always, you can tear up a room going nuts , causing all kinds of violence, likewise you can stub your toe and cause harm and it’s not a violent situation.
Wow! Great discussions at Dartmouth! It's heartening to watch these discussions.
I can't speak to holocaust denial, but to Peter's point, I've found it perfectly fits my experience in listening to flat earthers. Don't get me wrong, they are 100% incorrect, but by listening to them and trying to understand their side, you 1.) get a better understanding of how they think which is always important, and 2.) they raise interesting observations that when rebuttal by scientist have more greatly informed me on the shape and structure of the world then anything I learn in all my science classes.
To your first point, and to Peters point about the outcome not being what you think it would be. If you have a work colleague with misplaced hatred. You are now aware of the type of person that they are. You can make a decision to question his/her thought process, choose to not work with this person anymore or any number of alternatives. If they can't speak their mind because it is illegal, you could be placing trust in somebody who secretly wants to harm you or others around you. Which is potentially far more dangerous.
Flat earthers are 100% incorrect? There are hundreds of FE talking points, you think they are wrong on every single one??
@@EuropeDominate LOL, just the one about the Earth being flat.
@@matthewmullin6042 Why laugh? Sounds like you aren't engaging with FE in good faith then. Both groups have good talking points (why do you call them "sides"? You're being dogmatic).
@@inspiritandtruthchannel You are talking to me, not the globe-Eather, right? I don't know the shape of the Earth, I'm agnostic about it. The only people who would really know, like you said, are some astronauts who have supposedly been up very high. Branson and Bezos both used fish eye cameras when they went up last year.
What if each side is offended by the others' opinionated speech? At what point should there be a legal intermediary to decide who's personal boundaries are more important?
It reassures me to see that these sort of discussions are happening in colleges these days. I’m about to have a child and I’m terrified about their education. I want them to learn how to think not want to think and it was really great seeing these highly intelligent young people work through this very difficult topic.
I actually like how this is set up so that different points of view can peacefully debate one another and potentially change the mind of one or the other when they understand more where each one is coming from. I respectfully understand that not everybody has the same ability to think deeply and critically and so maybe some people need a little bit more help than others into understanding both sides of the argument
oOO -- You have made a very thoughtful comment ...
The definition of abuse is not violence. Violence is encompassed in the definition of abuse amongst other things like cruelty. That’s why all violence is technically abuse but not all abuse is violence.
Peter's practical argument against not having free speech is solid, I think. But the far more salient point to me is the argument concerning liberty, and the issue with allowing a centralized power determine what's good or bad speech.
If That Power is democratic controlled I do not see a problem.
@@Pyladin There is no democracy without speech.
@@llywelyngruffydd8474 and?
@@Pyladin you're not for freedom
@@edwinamendelssohn5129 depends on which freedoms. No, I don't support your wish to be free to harash and kill people, that is correct.
Wow, I wish I could have taken a class or been involved in an exercise like this. This was very informative.
It’s very different to say “speech is a ViOlence” than “speech leads to violence”. Those are two different things.
the only people who think words are violence have never been decked in the face. Not enough people in our societies have experienced actual violence
I almost think encouraging school fistfights would have a net positive effect, for the reason you mention. What a world this is!
Bingo 🙌🏻
@@poissonpuerile8897 that’s why we have a generation of weak men, they got in trouble in school for even defending themselves.
Violence is part of human nature, best we teach people to understand that
These discussions are encouraging. I wonder if you're only attracting the groups that are open to this discussion vs those who would tend to agree with this statement. Is this representative of the campus?
I am just so pleased to see members of this generation demonstrating the ability to calmly and rationally discuss a contentious issue.
This shouldn't be contentious.
It's interesting to see that the students on the agree side have been taught that changing the definitions of well established words is a valid form or reasoning/ argumentation.
Aka Marxism
Doublespeak
Peter I love these. Thanks.
The answer to this one is really simple though…if you can say “no thank you” it’s not violence lol.
I’m surprised no one brought up the idea that you can physically escape unpleasant speech by simply moving locations. That is not the same for violence.
The reason is, violence exist in the physical manifestation of reality, speech does not.
Joe. -- How true !
This college’s motto translated from the Latin, is “A voice crying out in the wilderness” therefore, it is to be expected that it’s values would incorporate respectful debate as well as freedom of speech. This example shows how debate, without heat, even if some of the ideas put forward lack logic or seriousness is the most conducive to arriving at mutual understanding if not mutual agreement. Excellent.
I'm so happy to see there is some common sense out there in these schools. Good Professor!
Critical thinking skills need to be taught more in schools. Starting in elementary school.
This is the 2nd time I’ve watched this one, and when the Q is asked of Peter “what might cause him to move a line” I started thinking what might make ME move a line over as well (since I would be on the same line as Peter) and I think my response would be that if there was a word or phrase that affected everyone the same way…. If it caused pain to all humans…. Then it would be “violence”. With physical violence, if I hit another human… no matter who they are, it causes pain. And even if they were a masochist, and derived pleasure from the pain, pain would be caused, and therefore, it’s still violence, even if the violence is considered pleasurable.
Words being “violence” is a totally subjective standard with infinite possibilities where ANYONE can label ANYTHING said as “violence” (whether in good faith or not). Physical violence… actual violence, causes pain REGARDLESS of the person it is being inflicted upon, or even if it is desired by that person.
Tom -- Any utterance could upset someone , thus no speech , no utterance can be allowed , that would make absolutely no sense . Thus there should be absolutely no hate speech laws ...
What is wrong with these young adults?! I am responsible for my own actions, period! I don't care what I hear, or how passionate or angry whatever I hear is, NO ONE CONTROLS, ONLY ME, PERIOD!! Language is not violent. No matter how violent a person's words are, we are ultimately responsible for our actions. If someone is unpleasant or awful in his or her verbal expressions, I will leave! Who wants to be around that depressive or violent verbal vitriol? Just walk away. No one forces you to engage them in their violence! You have the power to not partake. God almighty, Peter, I admire your patience with these youngsters who have obviously been disempowered by their indoctrination.
watching these college videos makes you wish that one day everyone would get this level of reasoning and understanding. These students are wonderful.
Vous plaisantez?
pas du tout. Vous n'avez pas fait d'etude superieur aux Etat Unis.
The question to ask might be " is hurting your feelings the same thing as an act of violence?" A violent act of hurt feelings? My feelings have been hurt before, and it always is uncomfortable. Not the same as being hit in the face with a metal pipe.
Also what hurts your feeling is completely out of other people’s control. My wife è.g freaks out when someone chews gum next to her.
There's obviously a spectrum if violence. But there actually been cases where people have physically been affected by words. People died from broken hearts
Do you think talk on holocaust in any way should not be illegal???
@@WasifKhan29 I should be able to critique Islam without getting death threats.
Suggesting speech is violence is absolutely identical to suggesting people don't have agency of their own and are in some manner not responsible for their actions. If speech can "incite" anything it by the same definition takes away agency+responsibility from the people being "incited."
I love what you do. It's something I could do in a similar setting. It will really expose any shortcomings in your thinking and test your ideas, opinions. I find it in its essence to be geared towards synthesis. Proper dialectic process. Well done.
I love this video because I love to see difficult topics covered rationally and calmly. I have two comments I'd like to make
1. Because speach can lead to violence does not mean that speach is violence. Food can lead to weight gain but food is not weight gain.
2. Dr. Boghossian said that it doesn't matter if someone defines violence as a pastrami sandwhich. I think it matters very much if society doesn't agree on the meaning words because how are we supposed to communicate if we don't agree on the meaning of words?
In a discussion like that, the definition you are using truly doesn't matter so long as it is both Consistent and communicated to the other participants. If they chose to define emotional violence as a "Pastrami Sandwich" AND this definition was communicated as soon as possible to everyone involved, then it doesnt matter that they use the term Pastrami Sandwich to refer to the emotional violence. The key part is that you fully define your terms, keep them constant throughout the discussion, and communicate said definitions as soon as it is apparent that there is a difference in definition in the discussion.
It makes you wonder, in their eyes, what would be the ‘violent speech’ equivalent of a massacre? You know, one that might involve things like machetes and severed limbs
I think this was a terrific exercise and I love this exercise format. I think the truth came out about whether or not speech is violence. It is not except for under very extreme certain circumstances.
There can be no language, in this country, that should be "offensive". If a person cannot draw a base line to describe an offensive statement and make all people agree, then it is only "offensive" to a select few. Therefore, it isn't the speech itself that offends, but is the person that is being offended. Why should I be limited to certain kinds of speech when the real problem is the person taking offense? I can't MAKE anyone be comfortable with what I say, but the uncomfortable person can walk away, not be so thin skinned, or have a rational conversation to clarify things. Either way, the power to change anything is held by the offended person not the other way around. Honestly, most people that are offended by speech are looking to be offended and are used to getting their way.
very good point
Do you feel this holds true with defamatory statements? Are they direct physical violence, no. But there can be clear social/monitary impacts which can then cause physical impacts (stress, depression, etc).
Are you seriously arguing that no language should be offensive? So racist slurs directly targeted at someone shouldn’t be “offensive” at all, I would agree that most language taken as offense in todays time shouldn’t be considered offensive. However I think there is definitely a line to be drawn, everyone is different and when something is offensive to a large % of the population it’s not just offensive to a select few.
@@KingCalixoxo The emotions of people have been overvalued. And due to that overvaluation, we no longer can compete on the world stage in any serious sense. Good job
@@Gnaritas42 worlds can also be said with the *intent* to cause offense. In this case it isn't simply an issue of one taking offense.
I was walking past a lucrative begging spot in London where a pirate DVD vendor was selling his wares. An aggressive beggar came up, claiming the patch as his. The DVD guy protested as he was there first and a public pavement, of course, isn't anybody's private property. So the beggar got literally within an inch or two of the vendor's face and started screaming his demands. His expression was one of disgust, hatred and rage, his blood vessels were pulsating as he turned red. Not letting the vendor respond, just projecting his voice in an extremely aggressive and coarse manner. I was very near them and I could see little droplets of spit hitting the vendor's face with every word. Eventually the vendor shoved the beggar i.e. he was the first to use physical force. As on cue, the beggars' wife emerged from a convenient hide-away. She used a baby as a shield and started screaming about her man being attacked. It kept escalating from there, the vendor grabbed a broom from a passing street cleaner's cart but that's when the police arrived and he dropped it and ran down an underground walkway with his bundle of dodgy DVD's. The beggars went to the cops with their story of a violent Chinese man attacking them and their baby. UNPROVOKED!
I've omitted a lot of detail, but the vendor didn't use profanity or racial slurs, just an extremely aggressive manner of speech. If anything, it was hard to make out what he was actually saying. I've witnessed career criminals do this and suspect they've had years of purposeful practice in verbal and non-verbal intimidation. So where was the line crossed from speech into physical? The vendor laying hands on the beggar or the beggar emitting spittle that most bystanders wouldn't have noticed?
Violence, threats of violence and the incitement of violence are not the same thing, yet all should be punishable by law. Simple.
I agree. A lot of people involved on every level of the BLM riots including complicit politicians should be indicted.
Right. And all of them are.
It isn't that simple because somebody who believes that this or that ideological tendency is inherently violent can then argue that ideas amount to threats of violence.
@@llywelyngruffydd8474
An idea that amounts to violence comes before the violence, and therefore is not the violence.
It's ok to criminalize rhetoric that incites or threatens violence, but it's silly to call it violence in itself -- and rather pointless. What is to gain from this conflating of terms?
Words can't physically harm anybody. Only actions can do that. Period.
Scream in someone's ear something really loud and cause hearing damage to that person. That's the only way speech can be violence. And the content of that speech really doesn't matter, unless the frequency is considered content.
If your mom tells you to kill yourself every morning and night . Then you kill yourself. Is that violence?
You'd sing a different tune if you'd ever been really hurt emotionally. You'll loose weight, you'll loose sleep, you're blood pressure rises etc.
If there is an intent to hurt someone, it doesn't matter if it is physical or lyrical.
@@3ertin so every relationship breakup would be violence?
@@cartrips9263 no
Good show Dartmouth 👏 Very respectful conversation. That room should be packed. Too many empty seats
6:23 I think this is an interesting argument. On the one hand, it is necessary for a person in this world to gain emotional resilience and to realize that, as you say, they are not in control of what others say and think about them. On the other hand, does that mean that someone who is consistently cruel in their ideas, who manipulates and belittles others, or who takes advantage of someone during a vulnerable time should be let off the hook?
I think it's a mischaracterization, a straw man to act as if these things are mutually exclusive. I can both believe that people shouldn't say hurtful things to me AND understand that when they do, it says nothing about *me*. Maybe this would be analog to attempted physical violence (ie someone tries to beat me up but fails)?
I also think that the examples so far in this debate have been slightly unfair; calling someone a slur one time isn't the same as shooting them and it's pretty obvious which one is worse. I think it's far more difficult to determine the relative amounts of damage between someone who has gone through long emotional abuse, where they are controlled and their life is caged in and they are taken advantage of, and someone who has been attacked nonfatally but who still bears scars*. Those two things are very different and clearly both very hurtful--unless you're someone who believes that the victims of abuse are at fault. In that case, this debate becomes much more difficult, because in order to understand my point of view, you would have to agree with me on countless other small premises about human nature.
I guess I just feel like acting as if physical pain is the only kind of pain which merits serious discussion, understanding and help is incredibly flat. I think it's a worldview that leads to a lot of harm. And though that isn't precisely what anyone is saying, I feel like the "strongly disagree" position leads to that conclusion.
*This person likely bears emotional scars as well, but I feel like that strengthens my point about emotional pain.
Do you think talk on holocaust in any way should not be illegal???
@@WasifKhan29 Absolutely! Talking about the Holocaust or any other atrocities should be legal
You’re proving that people can have difficult conversations.
Thanks. And nobody is damaged! Amazing!!
@@drpeterboghossian I was thinking that same thing in reply to this comment before I saw what you said, lol. It is amazing, keep up the great work!
Really well done. I think the biggest issue we have in colleges (after tuition), is people who aren't smart enough to be impartial professors challenging their students positions on things. Students get very partial passionate Thanksgiving dinner table views from their professors about social justice, they blow more of the same air into their social bubbles, and their students come out brainwashed thinking that diversity of thought means that others must be wrong. Yikes on bikes. This professor did a great job in this video. Glad I stumbled here, and was excited to hear the great Christopher Hitchens quoted.
The student on the left is confusing violence with physical harm. Some people seem to struggle to understand the consequences of verbal racism, sexual harassment etc., nor seem to comprehend the extent of the harmful effects that this sort of emotional abuse can have on especially marginalised people. From what I've observed, it seems mostly to be those with a certain level of privilege.
Violence and threats of violence may be separate components in the sequence, however the causes/methods of inciting violence can themselves be inherently violent hence why as this understanding is widening in society, they are becoming more and more punishable by law.
Just finished the video and saw where Peter aligned himself. Even when questioning "theories" and "history", the crux is still rooted in getting to the truth and ironing out facts. And does not what he says at 26 minutes already exist at large...?
Why would you say he is 'confusing' violence with physical harm? I would say he is equating violence with physical harm as that is the definition of violence. Verbal abuse etc may very well cause harm on some emotional level, but that does not make it violent, unless you are redefining the word. Had the question been can speech cause harm? Then you would have a point, but it wasn't.
@@wholuvsubaby1 in that tight and strict definition, I guess so. Modern Law, even with things such as Domestic Violence encompass verbal abuse that amount to emotional or psychological abuse, at least in the UK. This may soon also be the case for sexual harassment - the strategy for it is being looked at now. Good thing I live here.
@@stephenh694 No one is saying that psychological and verbal abuse are anything other than harmful on some level. That’s why we use the word abuse. The word is enough, there’s no need to alter the meaning of violence to include non physical abuse, just to give the word abuse some extra weight. And that just wouldn’t work anyway. If we dilute the meaning of the word violence, then we would have to find a new word to distinguish physical abuse from verbal abuse. And more importantly the law needs to be able to distinguish between the two.
@@wholuvsubaby1 I would agree from a current legal standpoint. Both abuse and violence can be defined, be part of and covered under the same legislation as is. However, violence is clearly complex and understood differently by different people. I do hope that a standard definition evolves.
I've had verbal abuse thrown at me before, mainly racial abuse and political gaslighting, but I've also known physical abuse as well seen the absolute worst that can ever possibly be imagined. Truth is, some people don't know the reality of violence. All violence has a psychological aspect and that is usually at the core of it.
An interesting thing is that unlike emotional harm I cannot decide how hurt I will be if I get hit by a stick, but with words and emotions you can develop healthy coping mechanisms and skills over come those difficult situations.
If I'm being bullied and someone calls me a "waste of space" that term only hold the power I am willing to give it.
Similarly if someone says something that in itself doesn't carry any negativity, like "you look good today" I can easily twist it into something that does bring me harm and give it that negative power. Eg: "are you implying that I look awful any other day? Why are you focusing on my appearance?" ect.
Words are only harmful if you let them be 🤷♀️
Love it
As Eleanor Roosevelt (I think it was )said you cannot give offence you can only take it.
I like the way this prof has these young people talk out there thoughts. We need to do that more often
Speech can have an effect that is equivalent to physical violence. I'm not talking about pathetic claims that 'misgendering' (i.e. refusal to go along with a lie) hurts someone's feelings but I have many years experience of working with victims of domestic violence and I vividly recall being told by a victim that what broke her wasn't the punches and kicks that caused physical bruises but the words calculated to degrade her and make her feel like she was trash. The effect lasted far longer than bruises.
This isn't to belittle the experience of anyone who has suffered serious physical violence - the bottom line is that we would all rather endure verbal abuse than serious life threatening physical assault. I just want to point out that some of us would rather endure a minor physical assault than tolerate years of endless verbal abuse. It is the latter that has had a life-shattering effect in my case.