The word violent can mean destructive so in that vein there is such a thing as emotional violence. Obviously the comparison to physical violence should be greatly discouraged but I do think that at least some people using the label “emotional violence” are simply describing emotional abuse, which does exist.
I agree with the idea that hate speech should not be proscribed without a clear credible and at least somewhat immediate or highly specific threat or incitement underpinning it but I don’t think you’re considering any of the bigger picture such as does an aggregate of venomous speech create a critical mass that actually does affect individuals who likely are already troubled but being bathed in confirmation of their worst fears and beliefs, are tipped over the edge. I would not dismiss this possibility especially considering the structure of social media to cocoon people and feed them repetitive streams of what they are most interested in and often repeated validation of their ideas.
Another important point to consider- does an aggregate of venomous speech desensitize people to the violence of others when the actor is “on their side” or “in their camp.” I don’t mind presidential assassination jokes so long as they’re funny but I was taken aback by the wellspring of rather sociopathic not jocular responses to the Trump assassination attempt and of course I don’t think all these posters are sociopaths but I do find myself concerned that they don’t mind at all representing themselves in this way. What implications this has and to what extent I don’t know but it’s worth studying. I suspect the sums of venomous speech do stunt moral reactions.
I would never dismiss the force of venomous speech when it’s spreading across populations. To ignore that would be ahistorical and frankly dangerous. The mechanism through which this might empower an already unstable person or someone with poor coping abilities or someone who grew up hearing very disturbing ideas I do think relates to ironically (given the common profile of the enraged loner) feeling part of a group or a mission larger than oneself. The effect is magnified by social media.
I also believe that when harassment is protected under the banner of free speech, you remove a critical boundary that may then empower someone to become physically violent or destructive. The main reason we protect free speech even on the margin is because to not protect it requires an arbiter (as it is literally impossible to outline infinite examples of what is or isn’t okay into credible consistent categories and have a consenus) and we’ve seen enough examples of what happens when self interested arbiters are in control. The assault on hate speech as something to be reigned in is only one side of the coin. The other side is replete with bizarre breaches of laws and norms under the banner of free speech- invading private property to give a protest lecture, forcing others to listen to you, things of this nature. The boundaries of how people express themselves have to be delineated and these are eroding as well. an Ozzy Osborne song didn’t drive someone to suicide from a state of calm and you can outline correlations that are well established versus ones that are emotional and quite flimsy on the evidence but given the way most people are receiving their information in modern times, and this doesn’t mean the solution is censorship, I’m not sufficiently moved to dismiss a significant correlation between hateful rhetoric and violence as I think a strong link could be established with proper research between violence and the reaction to it, the perception (true or false) that a contingent would approve of one’s violent behavior or be sympathetic because in these highly polarized times, they very well might.
The word violent can mean destructive so in that vein there is such a thing as emotional violence. Obviously the comparison to physical violence should be greatly discouraged but I do think that at least some people using the label “emotional violence” are simply describing emotional abuse, which does exist.
I agree with the idea that hate speech should not be proscribed without a clear credible and at least somewhat immediate or highly specific threat or incitement underpinning it but I don’t think you’re considering any of the bigger picture such as does an aggregate of venomous speech create a critical mass that actually does affect individuals who likely are already troubled but being bathed in confirmation of their worst fears and beliefs, are tipped over the edge. I would not dismiss this possibility especially considering the structure of social media to cocoon people and feed them repetitive streams of what they are most interested in and often repeated validation of their ideas.
Another important point to consider- does an aggregate of venomous speech desensitize people to the violence of others when the actor is “on their side” or “in their camp.” I don’t mind presidential assassination jokes so long as they’re funny but I was taken aback by the wellspring of rather sociopathic not jocular responses to the Trump assassination attempt and of course I don’t think all these posters are sociopaths but I do find myself concerned that they don’t mind at all representing themselves in this way. What implications this has and to what extent I don’t know but it’s worth studying. I suspect the sums of venomous speech do stunt moral reactions.
I would never dismiss the force of venomous speech when it’s spreading across populations. To ignore that would be ahistorical and frankly dangerous. The mechanism through which this might empower an already unstable person or someone with poor coping abilities or someone who grew up hearing very disturbing ideas I do think relates to ironically (given the common profile of the enraged loner) feeling part of a group or a mission larger than oneself. The effect is magnified by social media.
I also believe that when harassment is protected under the banner of free speech, you remove a critical boundary that may then empower someone to become physically violent or destructive. The main reason we protect free speech even on the margin is because to not protect it requires an arbiter (as it is literally impossible to outline infinite examples of what is or isn’t okay into credible consistent categories and have a consenus) and we’ve seen enough examples of what happens when self interested arbiters are in control. The assault on hate speech as something to be reigned in is only one side of the coin. The other side is replete with bizarre breaches of laws and norms under the banner of free speech- invading private property to give a protest lecture, forcing others to listen to you, things of this nature. The boundaries of how people express themselves have to be delineated and these are eroding as well. an Ozzy Osborne song didn’t drive someone to suicide from a state of calm and you can outline correlations that are well established versus ones that are emotional and quite flimsy on the evidence but given the way most people are receiving their information in modern times, and this doesn’t mean the solution is censorship, I’m not sufficiently moved to dismiss a significant correlation between hateful rhetoric and violence as I think a strong link could be established with proper research between violence and the reaction to it, the perception (true or false) that a contingent would approve of one’s violent behavior or be sympathetic because in these highly polarized times, they very well might.
Do you know who Marc Elias is? Tell me what he was up to prior to the election and tell me that was not shenanigans.