Reflection on the Outcome of Believing Words are Violence

Censorship, silencing of narratives, and the demand of spoiled generations to cancel people and destroy their careers are part of a growing movement, directly connected to the fall of democracy and the loss of freedom. It started slowly in the COVID period and has accelerated since then exponentially, eroding everything the Western world fought to protect for the last century. The latest steps of the UK government outlawing posting certain content on social media with the threat of jail time is just another step towards the general takeover of Western governments over our freedom of speech and apparently freedom of thought. Like most hostile takeovers of tyrannical regimes, general support is needed by the majority of the population in the early stages of the tyrannical grasp on power. It is only by having the support of a big part of the population that it rises from the first place. In many historical cases, a reality is created in which the population asks for extreme measures. Building legitimacy for the regime to rise and establish itself. While in some cases this social movement comes from external factors such as war or general depression, some other times it is built based on a divergence of the population perspective, regardless of the well-being of the population. In the latter case, it is done slowly and then all at once. For reference see  - Rudi Dutschke's “The long march through the Institution”.

The loss of freedom and demand from our government to censor, cancel, and eliminate all opinions that contradict the beliefs of certain minorities or the general population was slow and then happened all at once. It started with the defense of fragile soles and escalated to protecting any narrative that do not fit the indoctrination message of the controlling party. This movement is the hallmark of a falling apart population. One that historically, brings chaos, death, and poverty. Democracy and freedom of speech are one of the most fundamental goods developed by the West. Protecting its citizens and allowing them to thrive. In the case of the current movement supporting the censorship of voices, the lose of freedom of speech has been supported by a boomer generation that is too afraid to speak or offend anyone. Holding the line in the general belief of compliance to authority. The real poster child of the slow and certain fall of the Western system and its values is led by the young generation that not only supports the cancel culture, safe spaces, and controlled censoring but demands it from their government due to their lost and fragile souls.  (I wrote about it extensively in my latest book – “Meaning in the Age of Absurdity”).

The bottom line of all the supporters of this movement comes to a simple line repeated ad infinitum – the notion that words are violence. This is the line they protect. Giving them the support they need to move forward with peace of mind, believing logic is with them. As many other ideas repeated in that way, a logic exists that supports their insanity. One that some people find hard to handle with. It is not by mistake or by chance. It is part of the general propaganda pushed on everyone for half a decade now. Helping to create the necessary foundation for the general takeover of autocrats in our free and peaceful democracy. As I will show later on, this argument at best shows the fragility of people and supports the lack of capacity of many people to take control or responsibility for their own actions. Projecting their incapacity into humanity as a whole. At worst, it is just a blind repetition of an exhausted mind that lived too long in a state of fear and lost the capacity to fight propaganda. We are walking into autocrat socialism and the majority of the population is not only supporting it but asking for it.

I believe that if we are to save our democracy and protect our freedom, the idea that words are violence needs to be addressed and dissolved. At its core this idea mainly supports the logic needed for our government to increase its grip on our life, dangerously degrading our democracies. While allowing people to hide behind their comfortable wall of misery, justifying the victimhood story that they hold so dear.

The first argument people use to justify this notion goes as follows (and believe me, I’m doing here an intellectual favour to most of the people who hold this notion) – Words are used by humans to express ideas. Many people acquire their ideas from hearing them from someone else. Ideas can bring to action, which sometimes can be violent. Conclusion – words are violence. 

While this argument sounds solid, it has some wrong assumptions at its core. Words are a tool of communication. By itself, words are neutral and are part of the tool we as humans developed. Language is a human phenomenon used uniquely by our species, promoting collaboration, trust, and expression. Words are a tool, while violence is an action. Philosophically and logically words cannot be violent as at their core one is a tool while the other is an action. It is possible to use a tool for a certain action, which does not make a tool the action itself. A car is not dangerous, the driver is. A gun is not dangerous, the person who uses it is. Alcohol is not dangerous, irresponsible drunk people are.  As a first conclusion when approaching this subject, we can conclude that violence is dangerous but not words. Fundamentally, it is the people that should be addressed and not the tools they are given. The written sentence would be in this case – Some words can bring some people to commit violent acts. At this point, an important question arises – Do some words always bring all people to commit violence? the answer is no. Meaning that not all people will immediately commit violent acts upon hearing a set of words. Meaning it is neither the words nor the people in general that can be categorized as violent.

Now let’s move to the concept of violence. Violence is an important concept. It is an inevitable part of human existence and nature. The effect of physical violence is important to frame and withhold. By butchering the word and its concept, we bring society to a very dangerous place. One in which real problems and victims cannot be addressed and treated properly. Opening the door to absurdities and dissonance that do not help society. I hope we can all agree that we cannot compare a case of rape to a case in which an overweight person is called fat. Or the violent act of a bitten wife to a confused young adult when addressed based on his sex of birth and not his momentary pronounce. Or that a war veteran's PTSD cannot be compared to a woman who has been explained she is not physically equal to men due to her genetic composition. Crossing and blurring the line of the concept of violence is a dangerous game that will prevent us from helping real victims while preventing us from identifying violence and its danger when it erupts. Additionally, it promotes the overreach of government and the silencing of diversity of opinions, promoting tyranny and eroding democracy from within.

As I showed above, this argument attacks people and their actions. It collectivizes the usage of the word violence to absurdity and assumes humans have little agency or self-control. It strips people of their autonomy, capacity to evolve, and wish to be part of society. At its core, it reflects a general belief held by many people today claiming that the main issue with humanity is humans. An approach that I find to be devastating. The greatness of humans is based on our capacity to think, create, self-regulate, and peacefully collaborate. The fact we are all here is proof that most of the people are aiming for peace and prosperity. It shows how capable we are of cooperation and proves that we are not the problem but the solution. While some of us can be violent and fewer are psychopathically evil, generalizing humanity based on the sick minority is not only wrong but unproductive. Most of us are responsible adults, with the capacity to think, self-regulate, and aim for peace and prosperity in our own domain.

The second approach supporting the notion that words are violent goes along this lines – Violence creates physical pain. Words can offend a person. Offense can be described as mental pain. Mental experience is as relevant and existing as physical pain. This means words are violent. While this approach is less sophisticated it is a red flag and a symptom of the sickness that engulfs the current Western society.

This logic is a symptom of the progressive mind virus taking over our society. The logical tactic used in this argument is often used by the progressive, as it is extremely effective in shutting down opposition or healthy intellectual conversation. It has all the components that neo-progressives love and cherish. First, it is based on a subjective experience. After all, it is complicated to argue with a person about the level of pain one feels inside. Secondly, it distorts the words we are using in order to create mental chaos. By applying the word pain to every discomfort the word loses its value and with it the real horror of physical pain. Moreover, if met with resistance, the immediate reaction of the progressive will be to admit that pain comes in different levels but immediately counterattack by accusing the other side of lack of sensibility, empathy or in some cases (mainly reflecting low intelligence or just blind repetition) they will start to shout toxic masculinity/ racism/ bigotry or fascism.

The most important aspect of this argument is that it sits beautifully with the main philosophy of the progressive – Victimhood. In the mind of a progressive he is oppressed. Which on many levels is true. We are all oppressed in one way or another. That’s life. Life is hard, demanding, and complicated and nobody is coming to save you. The real question is what you do about it. The oppressed card is always amusing, as it comes with a baggage of emotional distress. Most of the time, the mixture of facing an emotionally distressed person who explains he is in pain, combined with the direct attack claiming the other person is at best unempathetic and in the worst case a fascist, toxic bigot, degrades the level of the intellectual conversation to zero. Making one side highly uncomfortable and the other believing he or she just got the confirmation that they are not only right but also increases the validity that they are a real victim or protectors of one.

The real difference between this argument and the previous one is that unlike the first, the second has to do with the weakness and mentality of the people using this argument. It has nothing to do with human behavior or the fear of a violent Armageddon. This time it has to do with how the people that use this argument see the world and their place in it. It represents the standardization of fragility and the general softening of a spoiled, peaceful entitled Western society. One that has been promised that they deserve everything at the price of nothing. And that what really counts is not the world and the capacity to integrate into it but how they feel and the requirements of the world to bend to that. It represents the failure of our educational system. The loss of meaning and the need to be a victim for the purpose of being something in this world. In my last book “Meaning in the Age of Absurdity”, I address this phenomenon in detail, including its cause, social symptoms, and the potential steps we can take to start to overcome this crisis.

The disturbing aspect of the second argument is that for most people, it is impossible to handle. The logic itself is impact. It is the fundamental truth of the statements which is the problem. The twisting of words and their redefinition is a tool often used by manipulators and sales personnel. It leaves many people defenseless as they do not have neither the time nor the intellectual training to handle with such problems. Additionally, it touches on a very peculiar feeling most humans have – the wish to feel we are good people. A direct attack of this kind will leave people frozen and make them retreat to agreement or acceptance of the argument presented.

After all, if someone calls me fat and it hurts me it can be for two simple reasons. The first is that I share the notion that I’m fat and I’m unhappy about it. Making the other person simply stating a fact that I feel bad about. If it is a fact and I get offended, it is because of my inner world and my uncomfortably with it and not the problem of the other person stating that. On many levels, people need to hear the hard truth and learn to handle with it. It is the basic requirement for development and real friendship and maturity.  While it is not nice to state the obvious to a struggling person, it is a big stretch to call it violence or to blame my mental dissonance on an external existence. Additionally, if I do not believe I’m fat or do not know the person claiming it, I find it hard to understand how I can be offended in the first place. Not taking hard every nonsense that a stranger throws at you is a big part of maturing. As a father to a 6-year-old child, I can attest to the fact that we all start there and hopefully evolve over time. A young adult who gets offended by false statements heard from strangers mainly reflects a weak mind with a lack of confidence. Which again reflects the weakness of the individual and not the violent aspect of words. If we are to emerge from this chaos, it is strength that we need. Creating policies base on the lower denominator of our society promise continual and evolving weakness. A General trend that will not benefit our current generation or any future one.

of opinion is what makes me different than you and what creates curiosity and creativity. Democracy is based on plurality of opinion and the belief that we don’t have to agree on everything but still fight to allow others to express their opinions. (see Voltaire). Without allowing people the freedom to speak their minds, democracy collapses. It makes us weaker and dumber. Words are not violence. They are the most incredible tool we ever invented. Let us not be guided by the weakest denominator of our society or the fear of hearing we are wrong just because it is uncomfortable. We ought to our future generations. Words are the solution to our problems, they allow us to understand each other better, overcome the gaps of cultural diversity, and make us feel we are heard and relevant.  After all, we all knew until yesterday that it is when diplomacy fails (the usage of words) that wars begin (the usage of violence). Let this one sink in.