The Function of “Words Are Violence”

Translation of “Words are Violence”: A) You need to shut up and let ME talk. B) I am the sole judge of what words you are permitted to speak. C) I’m so fragile that I can’t bear to talk with people I disagree with. D) I forbid you to use facts, logic and persuasion while we talk. E) If you say anything I don't like, it will be blasphemy and sacrilege and it proves that you are a bad person engaged in "hate speech." F) I am justified ending our relationship and/or inflicting violence on you if your words piss me off.

The above attitude does not invite meaningful debate of anything of importance. Thus:

In "Bury the ‘words are violence’ cliché," Greg Lukianoff reminds us that words are not like bullets:

I had my disagreements with Charlie Kirk—sometimes sharp ones—but none of that matters right now. What I respected, and too many of his critics never noticed, was that he showed up. He stood in the quad, took hard questions, argued back, let students argue back at him. That takes time, patience, and courage. Our culture has been teaching young people to scorn that everyday civic courage and to treat contested speech as a kind of physical harm. On that Utah campus we received the final proof that “words are like bullets” is a poisonous and cruel metaphor.

In other words, what looks like a plea for civility is actually a threat. This pertains to both "Words are Violence" and claims of "Hate Speech."

Continue ReadingThe Function of “Words Are Violence”

Hate Speech is an Authoritarian Religious Concept

"Hate Speech" is a claim that some topics/claims are off-limits, that someone ELSE gets to decide what's off-limit and that you are irredeemably "bad" if you try to apply facts, logic and persuasion. Yes, "hate speech" is the modern secular authoritarian version of "blasphemy" or "sacrilege."

I was provoked to write the above after reading the thoughtful post below by Greg Lukianoff, who was provoked by reading this text messages between Tyler Robinson, the accused Charlie Kirk assassin, and his roommate and romantic partner, per prosecutors:

Lukianoff:

This is going to be a Rorschach test for a lot of people. What I see when I look at this is the harm of a quasi-mystical idea of “hate” as a spectral, even demonic, force. It’s a superstition that allows you to turn off your critical faculties, ignore anything that might contradict a sacred belief on a particular topic or about a particular individual — as in this case — and act with impunity.

It has always been a profoundly anti-intellectual idea, developed by those who saw intellectuals as mere tools for often extremely simplistic partisan ends to allow them to win arguments by brute force rather than logic and proof.

It has spread into the rest of society and across the globe in a way that allows taboo to defeat reason and skepticism almost every time.

I hope it’s an idea — like “speech is violence” — that we can relegate to the dustbin of history. If you believe the world is divided into a simplistic binary of “good people” and those infected with hate, then maybe the post-Enlightenment world is not for you.

And for those of us who believe that human morality and nature is more complex and less flattering than the sacred warriors in this battle, it's time to remember that Enlightenment values are not easy. But they are absolutely worth fighting for because the world without them is a place that lets you excuse the most monstrous behavior and never lose your sense of moral superiority.

That's the trap of the binary.

Continue ReadingHate Speech is an Authoritarian Religious Concept

Social Contagion and Kayfabe: When 2 + 2 = 5

Fascinated by the ubiquitous occurrences of social contagion, where seemingly intelligent people start saying things that don't add up. I've documented hundreds of these things at this website, many of which are illustrated under the category of "Media Narratives."

Recently, a friend of mine gave me an old example that is rather strange and stunning, the case of Florence Foster Jenkins, and exceedingly bad singer who was enthusiastically praised in the 1920s through the 1940s. I'll quote a few passages about her from Wikipedia:

Florence Foster Jenkins (born Narcissa Florence Foster;[a] July 19, 1868 – November 26, 1944) was an American socialite and amateur coloratura soprano who became known, and mocked, for her flamboyant performance costumes and notably poor singing ability. Stephen Pile ranked her "the world's worst opera singer ... No one, before or since, has succeeded in liberating themselves quite so completely from the shackles of musical notation."[1]

Despite – or perhaps because of – her technical incompetence, she became a prominent musical camp cult-figure in New York City during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Cole Porter, Gian Carlo Menotti, Lily Pons, Sir Thomas Beecham, and other celebrities were counted among her fans.[2][3] Enrico Caruso reportedly "regarded her with affection and respect".[4]

The poet William Meredith wrote that a Jenkins recital "was never exactly an aesthetic experience, or only to the degree that an early Christian among the lions provided aesthetic experience; it was chiefly immolatory, and Madame Jenkins was always eaten, in the end."

Perhaps this is not exactly social contagion. Maybe it's better described as Kayfabe, the classic example being pro wrestling, but it seems to have widespread application in our dysfunctionally performative modern culture. Kayfabe [pronounced Kay-Fabe] is described by Grok as follows:

Kayfabe is a term originating from professional wrestling, referring to the practice of presenting staged events, characters, storylines, and rivalries as genuine or "real" to maintain the illusion for audiences.

It's essentially a form of suspension of disbelief, where wrestlers (and sometimes promoters) stay in character both in and out of the ring to preserve the fiction of the sport.

The word itself is believed to derive from carny slang (carnival worker lingo), possibly a Pig Latin variation of "be fake" or "fake," though its exact etymology is debated and dates back to the early 20th century in wrestling circles.

History and Usage in WrestlingIn the early days of pro wrestling, kayfabe was strictly enforced to protect the industry's secrets. Wrestlers would avoid being seen together in public if their characters were rivals, and they'd even use separate travel arrangements or fake injuries to sell storylines.

Breaking kayfabe—revealing the scripted nature of events, going off-script, or acknowledging the fakery—could result in fines, suspensions, or blacklisting. For example, in the 1980s and '90s, figures like Hulk Hogan or The Undertaker maintained their personas rigorously outside the arena.Over time, with the rise of the internet and "dirt sheets" (insider newsletters), kayfabe has become harder to uphold. The 1999 documentary Beyond the Mat and WWE's own "reality era" in the 2010s blurred lines further, leading to more meta-storylines where wrestlers reference real-life events.

Today, it's more flexible, but elements persist—like wrestlers "working" the crowd or media with in-character interviews.Broader Cultural MeaningBeyond wrestling, kayfabe has entered wider slang to describe any situation where people collectively pretend something scripted or artificial is authentic, such as in politics, reality TV, or corporate culture. For instance, it might apply to politicians maintaining a public facade despite behind-the-scenes deals.

It's about a tacit agreement to ignore the "fourth wall" for the sake of the performance.

Continue ReadingSocial Contagion and Kayfabe: When 2 + 2 = 5