If only this were in any way true. There is a such thing as mental abuse, after all. Some folks lived through this growing up. Gaslighting is just words too. Folks kill themselves due to harassment. That harassment? Yeah, it can be nothing more than daily messages and/or phone calls and/or letters. Widespread, open racist speech generally signals an environment where racist actions are well-tolerated, I'm assuming (I have no links to back it up at the time). Oh, and this mental distress from words can produce physiological symptoms. But hey, they are nothing more than words, right?

The old cliche you speak of only works in a few situations. Someone calling you names or saying mean things on the street don't really hurt you if they are isolated incidents. This is the usual context when this is used. But in a broader sense? It simply doesn't pan out. It isn't the same thing, no, but I'm not sure why that matters. A slap on the rear someone should be able to get over, a punch maybe not. I'm pretty sure both can be prosecuted as physical assult in some situations yet in others, be perfectly acceptable courses of action. Same with words, it depends on how you use them to how much damage it will do.

I used to be a Chomsky-esque defender of free speech. Believing the correct response to Holocaust denial was refuting it, not banning it.

But now we know better. How you talk changes how you think. Violent rhetoric normalizes that behavior. Refuting misbeliefs cements the falsehood. Propaganda works.

Worse, the hate speech has become a virtue signal, a tribal identifier. It's become overtly political, a bludgeon.

I now prefer to think of free speech as a form of hygiene. Sure, feel free to poop on the sidewalk, but don't expect me to accept that as permissible behavior.

The problem is that we still keep labeling a satirical speech as a hate speech and it's getting worse.

> Violent rhetoric normalizes that behavior.

Consider "A Modest Proposal" where Swift normalizes eating babies http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

I see this trend as deeply disturbing where only those official journalist are allowed to write satirical essays online and common persons are banned because they become labeled as racists, mysogenists etc. Heck even PewDiePie was kicked from youtube red because some journalists blatantly mislabeled his satire as racism.

This debate, like most, has a bell curve distribution of positions. Two tails of snowflakes on either side, throwing tantrums, yelling at each other, and the majority in the middle who are tired of their shit.

Who's right? Who's wrong? I don't care. I'm fresh out of goodwill.

My only desire is that society stop enabling the bickering. Which will continue as long as clickbaiting (selling advertisement) makes money.

Exactly. The link from thinking about doing something and actually doing it is much less if one can openly talk about doing it. Oddly enough, much like the act of pooping.

>If only this were in any way true.

It's true in the ways that are pertinent to this discussion. Another poster equated speech with assault. I would guess most with that worldview haven't spent much time being assaulted in the physical sense.

No one is saying that words don't have significance or power. The point is that, in a very literal way, words can never hurt, physically hurt, those who hear them. The listener has time to collect their thoughts, understand the circumstances, and choose an interpretation and a reaction. We hope they will choose healthy interpretations and reactions, even if the original speaker did not.

Meanwhile, a victim of a true violent crime like a mugging, carjacking, or politically-motivated beating doesn't have time to think down the road about how badly someone's words hurt their psyche, because they're busy bleeding and dying, in the literal sense that their body may permanently cease to function, if they aren't treated within minutes or hours. They were attacked without choice or option, and their body is reacting to the physical realities thrust upon it, and all the victim can really do is try to remain optimistic about things.

Yes, it is sad when someone is bullied or otherwise made to feel bad about themselves. But it isn't anywhere near the same thing as a person who has undergone an actual assault.

The saying really is not really hard to grasp, and it's widely applicable. That's why it's a tired old cliche. :)

How far do you want to take this? Criticizing someones religion might hurt their feelings but greatly benefit the society and democracy. Does it mean that critique of a religion or religious sects should be banned or should we just prohibit the critique or those which proponents are most vocal, intolerant or justifying to literally turn to violence about their religion?

I think that one should be clear here and distinguish between slander/defamation of a person and speech that "hurts someones feelings". If I criticize the ideas that you hold and it hurts your feelings it's is not a mental abuse if you start to interpret it that way it's your fault and should seek the psychiatrist. There is a real danger that we keep redefining words: hateful speech, mental abuse. Ideas are not people, religion is not an ethnicity, your beliefs are not sacred. What is a form of mental abuse btw is indoctrinating your (or someones) children, meaning religious schools are a form of mental abuse, sending your kids to a political party camp or enforcing your particular ideology on them is a form of mental abuse etc. But somehow everyone keeps ignoring it, it's not my kids so why should I care; I regard it as deeply hurtful for society.

>"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me". This old cliche is underappreciated in our day and age.

Because it's false. Words can and do hurt people, and it's not necessarily a result of their choices.

You can argue that this harm is less severe, or that preventing it isn't worth limiting speech, but to suggest it doesn't exist is just myopic.

To clarify, I am not saying that words cannot be hurtful. I am saying that they are not equivalent to physical assault, as someone else in the thread asserted. Physical assault presents a much more immediate personal danger, and deserves to be distinguished from verbal exchange.

>Individuals are free to choose the way they process the information and commentary they receive.

Some individuals fight tooth and nail to silence this idea because they're threatened by the implication that their own choices have any role to play in their misery. Life requires a lot less effort when everything bad is somebody else's fault.