← Back to context

Comment by _heimdall

11 days ago

If the act is only words then it doesn't require privilege, I'm honestly curious how you would connect the two.

Words aren't terrorism or violent. That doesn't mean people can't interpret them that way and feel harm, but a word alone can't harm anyone.

>If the act is only words then it doesn't require privilege, I'm honestly curious how you would connect the two.

Because words carry weight based on who says them. Which is based on power/privileged. The president making an announcement about MedBeds would cause a much bigger conversation than a crackpot conspiracy group on Facebook. And that's sadly not belittling the FB group (give who I've seen fall for it), that's demonstrating how much more authority the president's words have.

>but a word alone can't harm anyone.

In the same way a pebble can't harm you, but it can be holding back a rockslide that can cause mass damage.

  • > In the same way a pebble can't harm you, but it can be holding back a rockslide that can cause mass damage.

    That analogy doesn't hold. For one thing a pebble can in fact hurt you by itself. For another, the words still wouldn't be what harmed you, the actions people took later are what harmed you and those are what would be illegal.

    • The fear and anxiety caused by threats issued by those with the capability and proclivity for violence against those with no defense against it is the injury.