Do words have power?


Where can I can get those amazing mind control powers?

If I could hypnotize people into killing anybody I want dead I could be a comic book villain.

The Mueller investigations thread

Being Al Pacino is not like getting a TEFL certificate, man. It takes years of training and practice.


Just words…



Words are not what matter most. Intent is what matters. We’re entering an age where you are not only told what words you are NOT to say, but also what words you MUST say.



Intent is generally not objectively measurable. Perceived intent is just something else to get irrationally butthurt over. Results are all that matters.

Reasonable people focus on results, and don’t get into silly arguments over words and intent.

Reasonable people solve problems. Butthurt people ARE problems.


Saying it’s just a word undermines the importantance of freedom of speech. Words are powerful, therefore we have the right to free speech.


Say what!?!?
I assume “we” means “everyone”. So everyone has the right to say whatever they want because words are powerful. That is what you said. But then you contradict your statement with this:

You should make up your mind there. Either you can say whatever you want or you can’t.

I think this sums it up nicely:
offense can not be given, offense can only be taken.

Words do have power, but only if we allow them power. Can be for good or bad. We make that choice internally.


Just my little philosophical thoughts, lol.

Words have power and they hid inside politic, economic and social discourses. Through words and language, power is coerced on people and shapes their realities.

Is it a white middle-class man who says people shouldn’t be offended by the n-word, that the word has a meaning only when we give meaning to it? By brushing off a preoccupation about words belonging to a minority, the hierarchal group continues to exert its power and diminishes the position of the minority.

By a rule, we should ask and listen, and not say “you shouldn’t be offended, you’re giving power to it”.


Just an example of how much we load meanings - and power - in common words.

In France, the English word “black” referred to black people is used with a racist connotation. French black people would prefer the word “noir”.

I can only find articles in French but will look for something more.


We could argue over the extent to which anything is objective. I would argue that intent is discernible in most communication scenarios.

However, I think we are ultimately in agreement on this issue. Some people just want to be butthurt and will use any excuse to be so. I think this ‘butthurtedness’ is used as a weapon, as what those who want to control your speech ultimately want is power.


Yet the people society entrusts with the power to resolve disputes (judges) keep using it to determine culpability. I really would love to see how Rowland’s favorite judges get around this. :slight_smile:


You completely miss my point. Right to free speech is important because words are powerful. Words start wars, revolutions, rise and falls of nations and empires. Why do you think the most oppressive country control free speech, media, press, literature etc. they know words have tremendous power in influencing minds and spreading ideas. Saying words don’t have power undermines why it’s important to have the right to free speech.


The power to silence is the power to kill public thought and strangle the public sphere.

Dolores Umbridge is the enemy. Moral narcissism and political correctness and plates with cats.

Because of her we dare not tell lies… especially the true ones.

Who should arbitrate what may or may not be said? No one. No one can be trusted with such authority. That is my case for free speech absolutism.

Who should arbitrate how something may not be said? No one. Why? Observe what they do. The typical conversation goes like this:

“It’s not what you say. It’s how you say it. Couldn’t you say it some other way?”

“What other way? How should I say it?”

“I don’t know. Just not that way.”

And eventually you wise up that there is no way they’ll allow you to say it. The “some other way” is the lie behind which they hide.


Antifa is a thing. Not an imputation. An actual thing.

If it’s tiresome to impute actual facts, we’ve got a problem.


who are you even talking to? i’ve never actually heard you say a thing about neo nazis, but you keep blabbering on about antifa.


Neo-Nazis are a thing… barely. But Antifa is out there, and until recently enjoyed a lot of support. That’s the difference.


Really? Thank heavens! I nearly had an aneurysm worrying about it. All those hippies with their black masks. So frightening!

I guess we can hope the recent loss of support will be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the unremitting angst shed over it. :tired_face:


Neo-Nazism is well known and still a thing. Until recently, most people had never heard of Antifa. That’s the difference.

Who should arbitrate what may or may not be said? No one. No one can be trusted with such authority. That is my case for free speech absolutism.

You still haven’t explained your utopian system.

  • A speaks a command to B to murder C. Rowland finds B guilty of murder (perhaps?), but A is innocent. :innocent: :rainbow:
  • A writes a command to B to murder C. Rowland finds B guilty of murder (perhaps?), but is A protected by freedom of “speech” even though it was in writing? :ponder:
  • A waves his hand so as to communicate that B should murder C. Same problem. :thinking:
  • A gives a certain look to B to communicate that he should murder C. Same problem. :ponder: :thinking:
  • A presses a button that causes a bell to ring, which is the signal B has been programmed to watch for so that he knows when to murder C. Same problem. :thinking: :ponder: :thinking:

It’s all nonsense, of course, but it would still be amusing to watch you try to make sense of it. :popcorn:

If it’s the whole concept of courts with judges that you’re opposed to, just come out and say it. Don’t distract with all this whining about freedom of speech, m’kay?


If there were no B, A would be powerless, and C would safe.

If you’re capable of being manipulated into initiating violence, then you’re the problem.

Besides which, who’s to say A is even doing it on purpose?