Steelman Argument: "Words Are Violence"

[The Name of Love]

Just to be clear, a steelman argument is when you fix the problems with your opponent's arguments and be as generous as possible by examining the strongest possible version of his position. I don't actually believe this, so bear with me. I want to hear your thoughts on this. I came across this argument on Twitter, and I'm reworking it for this platform.

We understand that the State is, under the liberal formulation, the monopoly on violence. No more and no less. If the "State" does not have a monopoly on violence, then it is not the true State. Rather, something else is.

State = Violence

Furthermore, the State is a collection of laws and people who implement said laws. Behind every law is a threat of violence. Jaywalk? You're getting fined. Don't pay? Getting arrested. Resist? Violence. Every law ends up like this in the end.

Law = State = Violence

Now, the States we live in are democratic insofar as the laws of the State are an expression of public opinion. All laws in a democratic system are determined by electorally chosen politicians, who are chosen by popular vote. Popular vote is no more than a quantification of the public opinion.

Public Opinion = Law

In his work, Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann does a great job detailing how public opinion is formed. It's an excellent read, but TL;DR: public opinion is shaped via media, social groups, and emotion. The media you consume and the social groups you inhabit will determine your opinions on a given policy.

Media/Social Groups = Public Opinion

Now, the media and your social groups transmit their views - and thereby influence Public Opinion - via the written, spoken, or displayed word.

Words = Media/Social Groups

Therefore, words are used by the media and social groups in order to sway public opinion, which in turn determines elections, which results in the creation or negation of laws. Laws which, upon inspection, are no more or less than descriptions of how violence will be used, for what purposes, against whom, and in order to protect what.

Words = Media/Social Groups = Public Opinion = Law = State = Violence

Therefore, Words = Violence

In a democracy where the state has a monopoly on violence, this logic seems watertight. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Mimas]

We understand that the State is, under the liberal formulation, the monopoly on violence. No more and no less. If the "State" does not have a monopoly on violence, then it is not the true State. Rather, something else is.

State = Violence

...

In a democracy where the state has a monopoly on violence, this logic seems watertight. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

I am unsure how people would define monopoly on violence. Because while I'd agree that the state can escalate much higher than a single person can in terms of violence, that doesn't mean that the single person cannot get violent.

Every time there is a murder, or an assault, or a riot, there are people being violent. And a monopoly by definition is if a single party has that thing.

Furthermore, the US has a second amendment. Regardless of whatever laws obstruct it, or any one person's opinion on the right to bear arms, the fact that it exists implies that the government never expected to have a monopoly on violence, or else there would be no reason to arm citizens.

...

And... Is that the point of linking a 'true' state to a monopoly of violence? In that if you point out that most states don't have a monopoly on violence, that those states must not be 'true' ones?

Because that argument makes me think that the only 'true' state would be a heavily authoritarian one. And I hope that isn't the point of the words=violence argument.

 

[Largo]

I am unsure how people would define monopoly on violence. Because while I'd agree that the state can escalate much higher than a single person can in terms of violence, that doesn't mean that the single person cannot get violent.

Yes, people don't actually mean the state has a monopoly when they use that phrase. What it really means is that at the end of the day, if the state wants you dead, you're freaking dead.

Like, take the recent unrest in the cities and all that. While those incidents have somewhat shaken the concept of the monopoly of violence, they don't destroy it. Most people admit that at the end of the day, the government could roll in the tanks and enforce order at the point of military force and the Army. I think that would be a terrible idea, but whether it's good or legal or right is besides the point. The government has the military power to do something like that, and there wouldn't be a whole lot BLM individuals could do about the army right then and there.

 

[gral]

And... Is that the point of linking a 'true' state to a monopoly of violence? In that if you point out that most states don't have a monopoly on violence, that those states must not be 'true' ones?

It's a basic premise of political science: the State has a monopoly on legitimate violence. It usually gets shortened to 'monopoly of violence'.

 

[The Name of Love]

I am unsure how people would define monopoly on violence. Because while I'd agree that the state can escalate much higher than a single person can in terms of violence, that doesn't mean that the single person cannot get violent.

Every time there is a murder, or an assault, or a riot, there are people being violent. And a monopoly by definition is if a single party has that thing.

Furthermore, the US has a second amendment. Regardless of whatever laws obstruct it, or any one person's opinion on the right to bear arms, the fact that it exists implies that the government never expected to have a monopoly on violence, or else there would be no reason to arm citizens.

...

And... Is that the point of linking a 'true' state to a monopoly of violence? In that if you point out that most states don't have a monopoly on violence, that those states must not be 'true' ones?

Because that argument makes me think that the only 'true' state would be a heavily authoritarian one. And I hope that isn't the point of the words=violence argument.

The theory that the state has the monopoly on the use of violence is standard liberal theory, actually. The sociologist Max Weber said of the state: "only human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force. However, this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a particular area is one of the things that defines a state." The state may allow the legitimate ability to use violence to the citizenry (second amendment), but if it really wanted to, it could crush those gun-owning citizens. In places where the state doesn't have the monopoly on violence, you have non-state actors taking over the role of the state in certain areas. Examples include the Sicilian and Russian Mafias, the Japanese Yakuza, the Mexican cartels, and other such protection rackets.

Like, take the recent unrest in the cities and all that. While those incidents have somewhat shaken the concept of the monopoly of violence, they don't destroy it. Most people admit that at the end of the day, the government could roll in the tanks and enforce order at the point of military force and the Army. I think that would be a terrible idea, but whether it's good or legal or right is besides the point. The government has the military power to do something like that, and there wouldn't be a whole lot BLM individuals could do about the army right then and there.

Exactly this. If the state doesn't have the ability to do this in a given territory, it's not in charge of that territory. The group that can exercise violence in that territory is the state.

 

[hyperspacewizard]

So if I understand the argument the reason for censorship of others and yourself is that your words could influence public opinion which could lead to laws which could lead to violence.

As an example me expressing the “wrong” opinion on the morality of sexual promiscuity could eventually under this argument make sexual promiscuity illegal and subject to violence?

So there’s no nuance between law and morality in this argument?

 

[Bear Ribs]

I can see the chain of reason here. However it can be carried further and hasn't reached it's logical conclusion in the essay.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words as the old saw says. Any action you take, regardless of words involved, also has the probability of swaying public opinion, possibly more so than words. Not taking an action is, in itself, a form of action and can still sway public opinion by being observed.

As Actions and Inactions = Public Opinion = Law = State = Violence, we can logically conclude that all possible human behaviors are violence and it is impossible to perform any act or avoid performing an act without that choice, in itself, being violence.

 

[The Name of Love]

So if I understand the argument the reason for censorship of others and yourself is that your words could influence public opinion which could lead to laws which could lead to violence.

As an example me expressing the “wrong” opinion on the morality of sexual promiscuity could eventually under this argument make sexual promiscuity illegal and subject to violence?

So there’s no nuance between law and morality in this argument?

I chose specifically not to speculate why people make this argument. But keep in mind that there are power differentials that are missing here. Public opinion may control democracy, but that some people have more sway over public opinion than others. The public opinion isn't generated internally by the person but comes from the outside.

Not everyone's words are equal. Some people's words are more influential than others according to their social status, their wealth, their popularity, their technological prowess, their personal charisma, and other factors. When people say "words are violence" as they try to ban you, it's not just because you are saying something dangerous, but that you are an influential person saying something dangerous. You are being irresponsibility with your power over public opinion.

I can see the chain of reason here. However it can be carried further and hasn't reached it's logical conclusion in the essay.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words as the old saw says. Any action you take, regardless of words involved, also has the probability of swaying public opinion, possibly more so than words. Not taking an action is, in itself, a form of action and can still sway public opinion by being observed.

As Actions and Inactions = Public Opinion = Law = State = Violence, we can logically conclude that all possible human behaviors are violence and it is impossible to perform any act or avoid performing an act without that choice, in itself, being violence.

Again, this view requires nuance. Your actions need to convey some meaning, i.e. they must be a form of language, in order to affect public opinion like this. For example, if you decided to jump off a bridge, the media might spin this as any number of things based on their interpretation of your actions. This interpretation will affect public opinion, not the actual action in question. You can negate this only by making clear what your intentions are, but the only way to do that would be with... words.

I think you've also misunderstood what "actions speak louder than words" even means. It doesn't mean that actions without context can sway public opinion, but that what an individual does is a better indicator of their inner state than what an individual says. For example, if a media figure says one thing then does another, that action will communicate something to the audience something different than if the media figure had not performed such an action. But is this not a form of language too?

Still, I do think you make a good point. Yes, under government by public opinion, your every action or inaction could be dangerous depending on your influence.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Again, this view requires nuance. Your actions need to convey some meaning, i.e. they must be a form of language, in order to affect public opinion like this. For example, if you decided to jump off a bridge, the media might spin this as any number of things based on their interpretation of your actions. This interpretation will affect public opinion, not the actual action in question. You can negate this only by making clear what your intentions are, but the only way to do that would be with... words.

I think you've also misunderstood what "actions speak louder than words" even means. It doesn't mean that actions without context can sway public opinion, but that what an individual does is a better indicator of their inner state than what an individual says. For example, if a media figure says one thing then does another, that action will communicate something to the audience something different than if the media figure had not performed such an action. But is this not a form of language too?

Still, I do think you make a good point. Yes, under government by public opinion, your every action or inaction could be dangerous depending on your influence.

The fact that Media (or other poster's) will spin your actions to affect public opinion is just as true for words. How often have you made a reasoned statement only to be told that it was a "dog whistle" or otherwise implied to have said something completely different than your original meaning? I would argue that actions do convey meaning, often better than words. It's somewhat harder to deliberately misinterpret body language (though as the Sandmann case shows, hardly impossible).

Indeed studies indicate that a face-to-face meeting, where body language and tone can enrich communication, is some 34 times more effective than email. Actions do indeed communicate better than words do.

 

[Cherico]

The fact that Media (or other poster's) will spin your actions to affect public opinion is just as true for words. How often have you made a reasoned statement only to be told that it was a "dog whistle" or otherwise implied to have said something completely different than your original meaning? I would argue that actions do convey meaning, often better than words. It's somewhat harder to deliberately misinterpret body language (though as the Sandmann case shows, hardly impossible).

Indeed studies indicate that a face-to-face meeting, where body language and tone can enrich communication, is some 34 times more effective than email. Actions do indeed communicate better than words do.

Sandman was next to a crazy person who was fucking with him, he litterally did nothing wrong.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Sandman was next to a crazy person who was fucking with him, he litterally did nothing wrong.

But he still committed violence, by influencing social media.

 

[Mimas]

But he still committed violence, by influencing social media.

I would say that if Sandman committed violence by influencing social media, then the person who was messing with him committed just as much or more violence for creating the situation in the first place. And of course all the other people on either side of the issue created just as much violence for commenting on it.

The whole words=violence idea has been frustrating me, and I think that while the chain of logic is pretty firm, the whole reducing each link to a single word is part of what makes it so.

It's like saying .75 is equal to 1, because you rounded .75 to 1.

To take what I mean, I thought that the first link 'violence' was monopoly of violence. Which would mean state=monopoly of violence, except that it was instead legitimate monopoly of violence.

So instead of State=Violence, it would be State ≈ Violence

And furthermore, the capacity to do something does not automatically mean that thing occurs. It's the reason why you can't just assume that a person across the room is going to attack you just because they could theoretically pick up a pair of scissors and try to stab you.

Words can indeed influence individuals, social groups and media, but just as someone doesn't win all arguments, you won't always or even often influence the targeted group or individual.

So Words ≈ Social Media

Social media does influence many people, but there are many media outlets, and some people will outright ignore some media for a number of reasons. So while social media definitely helps shape public opinion, it does not do so in totality.

So Social Media ≈ Public Opinion



I guess what I'm trying to say is that while there is a point in each link, saying one always equals another distorts the truth.

I don't think anyone can reduce the issue so simply to words=violence without stripping out tons of context, and without context, a single phrase can be greatly twisted in its meaning.

 

[Bear Ribs]

The thing is that generally the people who genuinely argue that words=violence aren't using a chain that starts with monopoly on force (it's not monopoly on violence).

Generally I find they begin with violence=hurting and words=hurt feelings, obviously hurt feelings=hurt, thus words=violence. This chain of reasoning is much simpler and harder to dispute than the connection to a government having monopoly on force. Generally the chain will be backed by anecdotes and sometimes studies about how hurtful words spoken to someone in their childhood can result in trauma that requires years of therapy which is a clear sign of hurt, thus obviously those words were violence.

 

[Mimas]

Bleh, that simplistic chain of reasoning is irritating. Name of Love's logic was solid and I had to think hard on the subject, and also consider why I was thinking so hard on it.

Words=hurt=violence is... Bleh

Therapy is usually done by communication, communication is words. Words=therapy, and therapy=healing.

So obviously Words=Therapy=Healing, which means Healing=Violence.

We're all doomed, because anyone can play a word association game. Unless we want to just stop using language, we can't shut down communication because of possible hurt feelings

 

[Bear Ribs]

Bleh, that simplistic chain of reasoning is irritating. Name of Love's logic was solid and I had to think hard on the subject, and also consider why I was thinking so hard on it.

Words=hurt=violence is... Bleh

Therapy is usually done by communication, communication is words. Words=therapy, and therapy=healing.

So obviously Words=Therapy=Healing, which means Healing=Violence.

We're all doomed, because anyone can play a word association game. Unless we want to just stop using language, we can't shut down communication because of possible hurt feelings

Irritating, yes, but it is indeed the logic being used and addressing another person's argument is rather the point. For instance there's a New York Times article here:

Opinion | When Is Speech Violence? (Published 2017)

Brain science distinguishes verbal abusiveness from mere offensiveness.

www.nytimes.com

That article uses that chain, though they add an extra step. Harm=violence, stress=harm, words=stress, words=violence, thus rioting to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking in public is preventing violence (yeah, that's in there).

 

[Mimas]

I get that a person can indeed use words as a weapon to inflict harm, but as none of us are psychic, it is always going to be possible to say something deeply hurtful to another person without even realizing it.

And if one does intend to cause harm with their words, at what point do you say that the harm they've caused is equivalent to assaulting another? As opposed to the equivalent of a rough shove?

Because its hard to communicate your mental state to another person. I went years not knowing that when people said 'picture this' they meant that literally, because I have aphantasia, and I didn't realize that other people were different.

And how are you supposed to judge how much damage and violence you're preventing vs how much is caused in a riot?

And then there's the fact that you can give mental trauma via deliberately giving a cold shoulder to someone, i.e. ostracization or ignoring someone in need.

...

I guess...

I just don't see how words are the issue, rather than an individual who's using them maliciously. And the whole issue is a complex mess that I have trouble with.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I just don't see how words are the issue, rather than an individual who's using them maliciously. And the whole issue is a complex mess that I have trouble with.

“Trigger Warnings” from I can tell are a thing because supposedly people can become extremely and easily traumatized by seeing and hearing specific things

Whether they had traumatic experiences or not to begin with

 

[Cherico]

Irritating, yes, but it is indeed the logic being used and addressing another person's argument is rather the point. For instance there's a New York Times article here:

Opinion | When Is Speech Violence? (Published 2017)

Brain science distinguishes verbal abusiveness from mere offensiveness.

www.nytimes.com

That article uses that chain, though they add an extra step. Harm=violence, stress=harm, words=stress, words=violence, thus rioting to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking in public is preventing violence (yeah, that's in there).

Milo turned out to be right about a lot of stuff unfortantly.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Well yes, the point of the "words are violence" strategy isn't to facilitate conversation, it's to shut conversation down by associating it with something other people dislike. The Name of Love's chain of reason leads directly to "everything anyone could possible do or not do is violence." The shorter chain still allows virtually anything to be shut down at will by claiming it's traumatized someone somehow.

Two things to keep in mind, first that debate isn't about convincing the other person of something. That rarely happens. Both of you are making a case to an unseen neutral party, the reader who might take a look at the debate and make up their minds based on the content. Making a claim that your opponent is violent because they are speaking will never cause your opponent to shut down and quit talking because they're so moved. Rather, it is a way of swaying the unseen neutral reader, by creating an association between your opponent and violence.

The second thing to remember is that current debate strategy isn't about proving your points with better evidence than the other person, it's about preventing your opponent from being able to present their evidence in the first place. That's why there's so much emphasis on deplatforming and censorship. Those things don't change the minds of the people being censored, but the neutral party will not find the arguments available online, nor find the studies cited or the sources to back those arguments, thus making it far harder for them to be swayed because the swaying arguments don't exist.

 

[Mimas]

Yeah, I think that's why I wanted to argue The Name of Love's chain in the first place. Because current debate strategy is depressing.