@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss To address the assertions presented in the article, it is important to establish what is violence. Violence is the utilization of physical force to inflict harm or injury. This is something words can never do. The article itself is predicated on the idea that long-term...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...exposure to stress can lead to harm, therefore words that cause said stress could be considered violence. However, for this idea to hold, there must be a definitive criteria of terminology that can be utilized to categorize words that cause harm. The author of the article...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...could not do this, as it is impossible. The words themselves are innocuous. The source of adversity lies with the recipient. Their subjective perception is going to determine if they respond negatively or positively to particular stimuli.
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss In the article it is stated, "If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media." However, this leaves significant questions completely unanswered. What specifically causes one to fear for their safety? Is this fear rational in nature? Could the words merely be an exacerbation...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...of an underlying issue? This is where the argument "words can be violence" falls apart. Should the words themselves be violence, then the response should be identical regardless of the recipient, as is the case with true violence. Given the expansive variability, harm...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...cannot reasonably be attributed to the words themselves. Even the author contradicts herself irrevocably. She states, "When you’re forced to engage a position you strongly disagree with, you learn something about the other perspective as well as your own. The process...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...feels unpleasant, but it’s a good kind of stress — temporary and not harmful to your body — and you reap the longer-term benefits of learning." Her statements pertain to a debate regarding eugenics. Is it not possible for a participant to interpret the topic as a threat...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...their safety? Why is this particular stress temporary? Could a participant not reflect upon the discussion and find it distressing on the basis of their personal interpretation? Does the author truly see stress as an inevitability among the participants?
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss Furthermore, in the case the author mentions (the debate), it is not the words that cause the stress, it is the participant's unfamiliarity. To those familiar with a particular idea, stress does not occur. Therefore, it holds that the harm is not caused by vocabulary. Rather,...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...harms comes to those inclined to receive it. It is not the words themselves, it is the recipient's rationalization that induces stress. In the case of the eugenics debate, if the recipient is uncomfortable with the topic, finds it to be offensive, and rationalizes...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ....that harm may befall them, harmful stress will occur. The author mentions the provocateur Milo, but fails to state how his terms cause harm. Milo never incites violence, so why would some fear for their safety? Why is this their response as opposed to a challenge to Milo's...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...utterances or a formulation of a opposing idea? If harm is inevitable as a result of Milo's speech, why is such stress not a universal phenomenon? The explanation is simple, those who fear for their safety are inclined to do so and will be regardless of the purveyor.
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss The author makes another statement that dismantles the central argument, "On the other hand, when the political scientist Charles Murray argues that genetic factors help account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores, you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided,...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...but it’s only offensive. It is offered as a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not thrown like a grenade." So is it to be understood that the method of conveyance is the source of harm, or is it the words themselves? Why does the method of conveyance matter if the words...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...themselves are the violence?
In summation, it is not the words, the method of conveyance, or the purveyor that is the source of harm. Rather, the source of harm is rationalization. If one perceives there safety to be threatened, harmful stress shall befall them. The...
In summation, it is not the words, the method of conveyance, or the purveyor that is the source of harm. Rather, the source of harm is rationalization. If one perceives there safety to be threatened, harmful stress shall befall them. The...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...censorship advocated for by the author fails to address the problem entirely. That problem can expressed succinctly as follows: Why does one perceive the words to be harmful? Why do some find Milo's utterances to be a point of intellectual contention while others...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...find his utterances to be abusive. If the words are violence, such variability should not exist. Harm only befalls some as something inside them invites it when in the presence of adversity, while others possess the courage to confront it. To claim words are violence...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...is to shift responsibility from the afflicted to the purveyor. The afflicted must find why their perception of fear exists and subdue it. Otherwise, they will forever be enslaved. Unfortunately, the author has already conceded in their efforts to aid the afflicted. While...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...the author seeks censorship on the absurd notion that words are violence, those who are unable to escape their irrational fear of opposition shall remain lost as the reason they find certain words to be stressful will never be addressed. The conflation of violence with...
@JeffreyASachs @jasonintrator @bariweiss ...words is a self-defeating argument. If you prefer to ignore the true cause of stress (why one is stressed by particular words but not others), feel free. However, you must know that such an approach is erroneous and insatiable.
