No more weird than spending time thinking about what other behaviours should or should not be censored (criminalised). Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions? Is it the case that blaring a loud noise at night is harmful enough to be banned, but putting racist leaflets through letterboxes is harmless?

What about online forums where it's not about moralistic control, but a pragmatic action because if you don't censor some kinds of words and speech, it's like a positive feedback loop where everything gets more intense until Godwin or his equivalents turn up? It does seem to be the case that control feedback is needed to keep discussion forums relevant and on topic, and that involves thinking about what needs censoring and by whom and in which situations. Does that same effect and consideration not apply in wider society?

> Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions?

Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words and name-calling -- "Sticks and stones" is a common nursery rhyme for a reason.

This is naive. Even if you can make yourself immune, you can't influence those around you. I barely care about words like "shit" and "fuck" but I can't stand lying because there will always be somebody who falls for it and starts treating you negatively because of it. And that's how harm using words turns into harm using actions.

Of course you can't censor lies automatically. Toxicity doesn't have a technical solution.

Even if you could demonstrate the long term impact on somebody's mental health and sense of self worth through constant name calling was worse than the short term impact of, say, busting their nose? (But I agree censorship isn't likely to help prevent the former. I assume physical abuse is subject to criminal charges far more often than mental/ verbal abuse is largely because damage from the latter is far harder to prove in court)

> "Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words and name-calling"

Maybe. Maybe not. If you choose to educate yourself about financial scams, and are always wary when strangers call you, that's sensible given the world we live in. If you see pensioners being scammed out of their life savings and support doing nothing because "I would never let that happen to me, they should take responsibility like I do" that's naieve at best and maybe cruel.

Similarly, a society full of media which insults and swears at people because "people should toughen up" is like refusing to clean dogshit off the streets because people should just wear shoes. Great, now you have people trampling dogshit everywhere, what a success.

Like, yes you should lock the door of your house when you go out. But isn't it interesting that there are places where people don't have to? Wouldn't that be ... nice? Better? Do we really want to encourage a society full of people who are wary, calloused, defensive, always on edge, because doing something about it would be 'weak'?

> Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions?

I don’t think so, so let’s treat the two cases similarly. We can forbid harming people with words without forbidding words altogether, just as we do for cars, knifes, hands, etc.

Context matters. In the right context, said in the right tone, “Yeah, beauty” can be quite an insult.

>Should harming people with words be separate from harming people with actions?

Have you ever been physically assaulted, punched in the face, had your ribs broken, or been put in a strangle hold?

Thankfully, I haven't. Telling someone who was physically assaulted that at least they weren't murdered isn't much comfort. If you're saying "the amount of harm they do is different", I agree. If you're saying "people can't be harmed by words", I disagree - especially at a population level; popularising and spreading of ideas that certain subgroups are subhuman has happened over and over in many countries and caused lots of harm. Punching someone is worse than calling them a moron, but bruises from childhood heal in weeks where verbal assault from childhood (e.g. by an abusive parent or teacher, as well as by peers) can still be hurting decades later with wider knock-on effects.

I think people very generally miss the very important subtlety that words never hurt people. It's the intention behind the words that hurt and you don't need words to communicate intent. So banning/censoring words really doesn't do much other than placate the people who just wanted to feel involved in changing the status quo.

Compare that to a punch to the face. It really doesn't matter if someone was just joking or angry with you, 150 psi to your jaw is going to do damage.

"Only someone who is so privileged as to have never been physically assaulted could think that it doesn't cause life long physiological and psychological damage"

Depends entirely on the degree and nature of the assault. I was beat up badly at school at least a few times, I'd dare suggest if anything it made me stronger, and certainly can't think of anything likely longterm damage it's caused. But I certainly don't presume it's the same for all kids.

I don't think phsyical assault cannot cause lifelong damage. Is it a terrible weakness of my privilege that I would like a society where other people have such a good life as I have had, instead of a difficult stressful dog-eat-dog life to try and toughen them up to survive a dog-eat-dog life? As if that's my business?

> "I was beat up badly at school at least a few times, I'd dare suggest if anything it made me stronger"

Overcoming challenges builds character, but wouldn't it be nicer if you chose the challenges? If you had built strength by choosing to do Karate and learn Mandarin instead of being badly beaten up being foisted upon you? Women report being catcalled from puberty around age 13; is your response to that "if anything it makes them stronger; women who didn't get catcalled are just privileged and weak"?

Who said that was my response?? I totally agree that physical AND mental/verbal abuse should be chargeable offenses. I'm less sure why the former is necessarily always worse than the latter, but it's sure easier to prove the damage in court.

That's a very good point which I totally agree with, and also why martial arts and controlled sparring can be extremely beneficial experiences

>bruises from childhood heal in weeks where verbal assault from childhood (e.g. by an abusive parent or teacher, as well as by peers) can still be hurting decades later with wider knock-on effects.

That's like saying physical damage from a rape will heal in weeks but verbal sexual harrassment can still be hurting decades later.

You're trying to say that I'm suggesting verbal sexual harrassment is worse than rape because it lasts longer? But you're ignoring that rape involves psychological traumas of losing trust in people, nightmares, loss of bodily autonomy and control, being afraid to go out in some situations, or to some places, which lasts much longer than the physical damage (of a non-violent rape). If you include those things then you have both types of attack having mental harm and rape having more of it (because of the intimacy and intensity and loss of control, among other things) and rape having physical harm too, which makes rape worse.

> but verbal sexual harrassment can still be hurting decades later.

In the vein of putting words in peoples mouths, you think this is a positive good thing and a reason you support verbal sexual harassment because it will toughen people up for decades? (I suspect not).

Yes to all of those, and verbal attacks are often incitement or a precursor to physical attacks. I think anyone with security experience could summon numerous examples from memory.

Some words have specifically pejorative or derogatory meanings, and if general swears are considered acceptable I'm afraid there are people who will exploit that for genuinely offensive purposes.

As someone from a culture with normalised swearing, yes this happens sometimes. However dickheads are dickheads, and will abuse and exploit regardless of the rules.

Just for clarification:

Do you mean "offensive" as in people's feelings, or as in the antonym of "defensive"?

I mean people's feelings. See my reply to Brendinoo for my position on that in more detail.

Is it less offensive to use the n-word with explicit intent to offend by saying “n-word” or by actually saying the word?

I think it’s the same. ie: it’s not the word that’s the problem, it’s how you use it.

To expand further: I think the obsession over words is the left’s version of thoughts and prayers. We would rather debate what something should or shouldn’t be called than fix the problem. Because it’s easier and feels like progress.

Censoring words is much more the right's obsession than the let's. You're right in the particular case of the n-word, and slurs in general, but the conservative right has been adamant in banning all use of swear-words in mass media for decades.

You are right and I think censoring swear words is even sillier.

Although it does lead to the particularly beautiful art of the British swear word. How they can turn any random noun into an insult is pure poetry. I wish American media did more of that.

I don’t think the conservative right gives a flying fuck about censoring swear words.

The religious right, on the other hand, cares a whole ducking lot.

Makes arguments easier if you lump both groups together though.

"MyPillow CEO’s free speech social network will ban posts that take the Lord’s name in vain" - “You don’t get to use the four swear words: the c-word, the n-word, the f-word, or God’s name in vain,” - https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/14/22383841/mike-lindell-soc...

"Parler CEO Says He'll Ban Users for Posting Bad Words, Dicks, Boobs, or Poop" - https://gizmodo.com/parler-ceo-says-hell-ban-users-for-posti...

In 2022 America, those two groups are welded at the hip, and the latter are steering the boat, while the former smiles and nods. It's a distinction without a difference.

> Makes arguments easier if you lump both groups together though.

Which is easy to do when the only two parties with any influence are massive conglomerates of many different groups and factions.

What non-religious conservative right is there, at least in the USA? Who would be an example of such a thing?

I do agree that the libertarian right does not care about this (say, Ron Paul).

There are plenty of people who are politically conservative but don’t have particularly strong religious beliefs. Not every republican is anti-abortion and pro-prayer in school no matter how the media portrays them.

You should meet some real people sometime and see how the other half lives.

—edit—

Though…if you don’t look like you walked straight off the set of Duck Dynasty they are probably closet conservatives and won’t risk offending some random stranger with their “hate speech” because that’s what ‘merica has become.

> Not every republican is anti-abortion and pro-prayer in school no matter how the media portrays them.

Sure, but not every republican is conservative. Most that I've seen or heard are either religious and conservative, or they are libertarian.