Words are not violence
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"Charlie Kirk has been politically violent since he stepped in the game. That man is anti-trans, anti-women, anti-black people, anti-immigrants, and then some. He has been politically violent for 10-15 years now!"
That's how one left-wing TikTok influencer justified the bloody assassination of MAGA superstar Charlie Kirk. They did so in a viral video that has more than 2.7 million views and has received more than 700,000 "likes." Such sentiments are no longer fringe. Words that offend are akin to violence, and therefore, violence against those who utter these "violent" words is fair game.
This message is not just untrue. It fundamentally threatens the fabric of American civilization.
While the idea that words are violence may seem obviously false to anyone who has been punched in the face, it's worth explaining why it literally is not true. By definition, violence is an action that causes bodily harm. Yes, words can cause tremendous hurt and harm. But words cannot make you bleed and see your pulse fade away, leaving your children to grow up without a parent. Words and violence are not, and never will be, the same.
People who push this lie never seem to realize that it cuts in both directions.
"Under this logic, my speech — even if sharp, brutal, and filled with invective — is still simply speech," Greg Lukianoff explained. "Indeed, it might be commendable, righteous rage. But their speech, even if it's similarly sharp and brutal, is violence — and I am therefore allowed to respond with violence."
There is no coherent logical framework in which Charlie Kirk's right-wing opinions can be construed as "violence," but various left-wing opinions cannot be similarly classified in the minds of their opponents. Whether it's advocating to preserve abortion access ("your words are killing babies!") or advocating lax immigration policies ("you're letting murderers into our country!"), the same tortured "logic" could easily be used to justify the murder of any progressive pundit whom these Charlie Kirk haters adore.
Either we live in a civilized society, or we don't. Either we settle our differences with ballots and arguments, or with bullets and bloodshed.
As Kirk himself said, "When people stop talking, that's when you get violence, that is when civil war happens."
So, the justification being put forward to defend Charlie Kirk's murder isn't just outrageous, insensitive, and grotesque in its own right. If widely adopted, the underlying sentiment that "words are violence" could quite literally destroy the fabric of our civilization — and eventually result in civil war.
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
even if it's similarly sharp and brutal, is violence — and I am therefore allowed to respond with violence
People who've been saying words are violence for the last few decades have been building towards this for a while.
Equating the two is incredibly dangerous.
Words themselves cannot be considered violence, but words themselves can CAUSE violence. In other words, even "free speech", can be a weapon of sorts. Hate speech has often caused violence so even "free speech" requires limitations.
Things interpreted as hate speech has often caused violence by the wackadoodles, not by normal folk who understand when someone says we need to fight does not actually need we need to shoot. Now everything is considered hate speech if someone doesn't like what has been said. Limitations can be a slippery slope to go down more than we already have. We don't want to become like some countries that arrest people because they insulted someone's delicate sensibilities.
That being said I believe politicians should know better and understand that there are some wackadoodles listening to them and are looking for the OK to go shoot someone. They should know better and cool down the rhetoric.
Then you don't comprehend how hate speech can invoke others to commit harmful crimes. Other nations, like Canada, consider hate speech that can and does cause harm to be a criminal offence.
I understand it I just don't think everyone has the same definition of hate speech. It seems some say hate speech is anything they don't want to hear. Looks at the colleges that did not want conservatives on their campus because they accused them of hate speech.
I don't think saying bad things about conservatives would qualify to be "hate speech" unless what was said would tend to encourage harming someone.
When was the last time someone called conservatives fascist, Hitler, white supremacists, etc.......and got shot for it?
How would I know that?
I don't know that you do or not, however, it was proven last week that words only causes violence by a left winger...and it's not the first time.
I would think that you do not mean EVERY TIME, or else there would be a hell of a lot of assassinations happening.
And this mental midget has probably attended quite a few Charlie Kirk events and listens to every speech. The part these idiots never consider is that nobody is forcing them to pay any attention. They have the option to walk away / ignore it.
That is the genius of "Free Speech". You can walk away just as easy as you can stay and listen.
And there lies the problem.
Many leftists need ammunition to carry out the violent acts that they do. Taking words out of context or condensing a sentence to meet their insane beliefs is one of those ways to get that ammunition (figuratively....and I guess now..literally..speaking)
Yet they are the ones calling to lower the rhetoric. I guess they are afraid that the right will lower themselves to their level.
And I believe the right is much more ethical and moral than that.
If there was going to be revenge shootings about Kirk, it probably would have happened by now.
Notice something else many on the left loves to do that the right has not done? rioting, looting, burning, etc.....
The only thing that I would even consider remotely adverse are the people losing their jobs celebrating somebody's death. It does show a higher level of ethics and morality.
Have you noticed the left calling for a "cooling" of the rhetoric? They're afraid their own actions (verbal and otherwise) will be used against them somehow.
Yea but they are not calling on themselves to cool it. They are trying to call out conservatives or go the "both sides" route.
It is well known that the vast majority of shootings have taken place by left wingers....especially things like gang shootings.
Because in their warped non-functioning minds, it's not them. They think it's the rhetoric from the right that caused this.
Pretty pathetic.
One thing I noticed is they stopped calling for "gun control". Almost like they support what happened.
Well, if you take a good look at social media...ESPECIALLY Bluesky, that is exactly what happened.
Well, if you take a good look at social media...ESPECIALLY Bluesky, that is exactly what happened.
Apple, google etc all deplatformed Parler for tolerating violent talk. Strange the same corporations aren’t doing to to bluesky reddit etc…
When the violence benefits your message......
Creating the equivalency between words and murder? yep
Using opposition to democratic policies to imply racism sexism etc etc ? yep
Hits the main democratic propaganda points in a paragraph. Efficient
And that is how they justify it all.
Proof?
Charlies' method was to engage people rather than lecture them. Only months ago, democrats were discussing how they could get their own version of Charlie Kirk.
The thing I recall most about him was that he introduced subjects that we seldom talk about like Americans not having enough children. He called it a crisis. His argument was that it would stabilize the society. Young people would think about those issues.
Actually, Charlie Kirk was irreplaceable. Think about what he did. A young guy like him was able to do a podcast or create a huge organization as he did without any training in administration, he somehow knew how to get out a youth vote which clearly helped Trump in the last election (a 10% increase in younger voters) and being able to engage people on their own terms was truly unique. Without a doubt this was a key political assassination.