Glasgow bin lorry crash: Fury over Twitter troll

[Seth]

It's exactly the same with sexual assault and a light punch. Every person has the means to ignore the pain caused by those events. Why should harmful words be separate case to harmful actions??

Because word cannot cause any harm. Derp!

Stop 'derping' and start thinking. Punching someone lightly can't cause harm. Explain what the "harm" is when I slap your face not too hard. To save all the stupid to'ing and fro'ing, I expect you'll say that it "hurts". And THAT is my point. "Hurt" is an entirely mental phenomenon, just like feeling hurt after someone called you a pedophile, say. If one can ignore the psychological pain of being called a pedophile, why can't one ignore the psychological pain of being slapped??

Well, in the case of physical contact, such as a slap, there is physical act which triggers the sensation of pain, however slight. With psychological effects there is no physical injury (harm) involved. Moreover, with a physical assault there is physical contact between the actor and the victim which is the proximate cause of the injury which causes the sensation of pain. Psychological "pain" is not actually a sensation of pain, it's mental distress manifested in any of a number of self-created physical manifestations, none of which are predictable to the speaker.

If you slap someone, anyone, the physical contact causes the same nerves to fire and the same sensations to be felt in virtually all persons and the physical contact with them is the same in every case. Whether one or another persons can "ignore" that sensation or overreact to the sensation is again a personal psychological trait that the hitter cannot control. However, what the hitter CAN control is the strike itself. Absent that physical contact there is no nerve activity and no sensation to ignore or overreact to. Thus the law can forbid an uninvited or unwanted touching, even if that touch causes no pain at all or even if it produces pleasure.

Words have no physical force, only (arguendo) psychological effects. The psychological effect of a particular set of words is entirely unpredictable and unmeasurable in any objective sense of the word from one person to another or even one person at different times. What one person may deem a mortal insult may not even pique the interest of another, and the speaker has absolutely no way at all to know what the impact of the words will have upon the psyche of another person and cannot therefore be held responsible for the feelings or emotions the words engender in another. That is not within the control of the speaker.

Words, by their very nature, are intangible and harmless. They only have meaning to one who gives them meaning, and that meaning is self-generated and is not the product of the words themselves, they are the product of mentation and interpretation by the mind, which is what causes any harm, if any.

Exactly the same as light sexual assualt (like groping) and light physical attacks.

Nope. There is no physical contact, ergo it's entirely different.

If someone says something intended to cause me psychological disturbance in Tagalog, which I don't understand, am I harmed? Of course not.

That's a non-sequitur. Of course it doesn't harm you (as long as you never learn the meaning of what was said). This is analogous to someone punching someone else. Of course it doesn't harm you (in the sense that you want to use harm).

It's not non sequitur at all, it's the point itself. Words only result in distress if they are understood by the listener. Therefore it is logically obvious that the distress occurs inside the listener's mind, as a result of the listener's interpretation of the words. The words themselves as spoken cause no harm or distress at all.

[Seth]

Because word cannot cause any harm. ... Words, by their very nature, are intangible and harmless. They only have meaning to one who gives them meaning, and that meaning is self-generated and is not the product of the words themselves, they are the product of mentation and interpretation by the mind, which is what causes any harm, if any.

And that's why we have no libel or defamation laws.

What causes the harm is the content of the libel, slander and defamation, not the words themselves. There is no law against speaking or writing libelous, defamatory or slanderous things, there is merely law that allows a person harmed by the content of those words to gain redress.

Words without content? Interesting concept that. Apply that to "So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day." I can see content there, though I think it's just a joke made in bad taste, and it's not only ridiculous to be arrested for it, it is downright dangerous.

The definition of "making a malicious communication" is being stretched way too far. Definition (i) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, "a message which is indecent or grossly offensive", invites abuse. True or not, arresting someone for tweeting that Glaswegians are trash, one and all, is ridiculous. It becomes ominous when you consider that the author who wrote that Guy Fawkes was the only man who ever entered parliament with honest intentions could be arrested under that law.

I agree. It's absurd and dangerous overreach by the government.

What creates the context by which you interpret the words? Your mind does. Take out the words "100 people" and what does the phrase produce? A "harmless" statement about collecting garbage in Glasgow. It might be interpreted as meaning that Glasgow is a dirty city, but that interpretation is built in your mind, and any outrage you might feel about the propriety of the statement is likewise created in your mind. The words themselves have no force nor meaning except as interpreted by you (or others), and therefore it is not the words that cause psychological distress, it's the interpretation of the words by the listener that causes it, and the interpretation of words by an individual is entirely unpredictable and unique to each listener and therefore the speaker cannot be held liable for any supposed distress or injury caused by speaking those words because the speaker cannot know how every person who hears the words will interpret them.

An extreme example would be insulting Mohammed in front of a crowd of radical Muslims.

[Seth]

Your idea of logic and reason is infantile.

Really? Let's see your work.

If your words cause a predictable and natural reaction in the target, then it's the words that cause the damage.

How does one "predict" what another's reaction to words will be?

If you push someone in front of a train, it's moronic to say that it wasn't the push, it was that train that killed the victim.

It's not moronic, it happens to be true.

It's a predictable, forseeable and natural outcome of the push.

Indeed. But then again that's a physical act which does happen to have a predictable, foreseeable and natural outcome...in that specific situation. Without the train it becomes something quite different. Context is everything, and with words, context is created in the mind of the listener.

The same applies to words.

Nonsense. If I say to you "Mohammed was a child-raping pedophile maniac" you'd probably agree with me. If I say the same thing to a Muslim his reaction would be entirely different and unpredictable. A radical Muslim might whip out a knife and cut my throat without warning. Another Muslim might interpret the statement as a misunderstanding of Islam and seek to educate me.

The point is that words can NEVER have a "predictable, foreseeable and natural outcome" because every person is going to interpret those words in a different way and is going to react differently to those words.

Your "logic" is a bully's charter. It's not the bully at fault. It's the victim who has the responsibility to deal with it.
Not the real world.

You can't be bullied with words if you don't allow yourself to become upset by them. Trust me, I'm an expert on that particular subject.

The one thing bullies hate worse than anything is being ignored.

[Seth]

Words without content? Interesting concept that.

It's not "words without content" it's "content and meaning are subjective to the individual."

[pErvinalia]

In relation to our conversation, why do you attribute special status to physical contact?? It's absolutely wrong to say that a slap will produce the same physical effect in all (or perhaps most) people. If you jump out of the bushes and take me by surprise and slap me, that is going to feel far more harmful to me than if we arrange beforehand to test a theory and let you slap me with the same force in a controlled environment. And even aside from this, it's simply not true to say that all physical pain signals are "harm". As I said, it's very possible to block out pain signals with your mind. Just the same as it is possible to "choose" to not take offense to words spoken to you. They are the same category of things, but with words generally being of less pain intensity than physical pain. But to say that the line must be definitely drawn between the physical and the verbal, is unreasonable. I agree and most people on this board, other than some of our UK sheep, would agree that a line needs to be drawn and that line is in the vicinity of the verbal/physical distinction. But to say that all physical "assaults" are harmful and all verbal assaults aren't, is too simplistic thinking.

[pErvinalia]

And the other thing to say is that unless you are a dualist (which you probably could be), there is no distinction between psychological and physical. The psychological IS physical. Psychology is just an abstraction of the physical, just the same as biology is an abstraction of physics.

[Hermit]

You don't take responsibility for your utterances? Riiiiiiiight.

I never thought lolbertardianism made any sense, but this makes it more nonsensical than I thought possible.

As for content and meaning being subjective to the individual, I guess so much for the advertising industry, demagoguery, bullying, verbal harassment, incitement to violence, news reporting bias... The people who indulge in those activities know exactly the meaning of their words and how it will "subjectively" affect their targets' attitudes, influence opinions and change their moods.

[Seth]

In relation to our conversation, why do you attribute special status to physical contact??

Because it's physical contact of course.

It's absolutely wrong to say that a slap will produce the same physical effect in all (or perhaps most) people.

The same slap will cause the same physiological response in every person. Some of the effects include transmission of nerve impulses and reddening of the skin. The interpretation of the nerve impulses is the same in almost everyone: pain. The reaction to those pain signals is subjective and individualized.

If you jump out of the bushes and take me by surprise and slap me, that is going to feel far more harmful to me than if we arrange beforehand to test a theory and let you slap me with the same force in a controlled environment.

No, the physiological effect of the slap is objective and would be the same no matter what the attending circumstances. It would be the same if you built a machine to do the slapping. Your interpretation of the slap however is dependent on the attending circumstances, which is a psychological effect, not a physical one. The "harm" is based on your interpretation of the events, not the raw physical events themselves.

And even aside from this, it's simply not true to say that all physical pain signals are "harm".

Pain is the body's warning system that damage has occurred or is occurring.

As I said, it's very possible to block out pain signals with your mind.

Yes, it can be, but blocking out the pain signals of your hand being burned on a stove does not change the nature of the physical damage caused by the heat.

Just the same as it is possible to "choose" to not take offense to words spoken to you.

Nope. Physical harm or injury is physical, objective and quantifiable. Psychological distress is entirely subjective and unquantifiable.

They are the same category of things, but with words generally being of less pain intensity than physical pain.

They are not in the same category. Words do not cause pain, they might engender psychological distress in particular individuals which is the result of their interpretation of the words.

But to say that the line must be definitely drawn between the physical and the verbal, is unreasonable.

Well, there is an obvious line between the physical and the verbal, so I don't see how it's unreasonable at all.

I agree and most people on this board, other than some of our UK sheep, would agree that a line needs to be drawn and that line is in the vicinity of the verbal/physical distinction. But to say that all physical "assaults" are harmful and all verbal assaults aren't, is too simplistic thinking.

I didn't say that a "verbal assault" cannot result in psychological distress, I'm saying that the psychological distress is caused by the interpretation of the words by the listener, not by the word themselves. That being the case, the speaker cannot be held liable for that interpretation because that would require that a speaker be intimately familiar with the mental state of each and every person he or she speaks to. That's entirely unreasonable.

[Seth]

And the other thing to say is that unless you are a dualist (which you probably could be), there is no distinction between psychological and physical. The psychological IS physical. Psychology is just an abstraction of the physical, just the same as biology is an abstraction of physics.

I wouldn't say that biology is an abstraction of physics. Biology is a concrete example of physics.

And there is certainly a difference between the psychological and the physical. As an abstraction of the physical, psychology is entirely subjective to the observer, whereas the physical is objective, but may be viewed abstractly or subjectively by the mind.

[Seth]

You don't take responsibility for your utterances? Riiiiiiiight.

I said nothing of the kind.

I never thought lolbertardianism made any sense, but this makes it more nonsensical than I thought possible.

You never think, that's your problem.

As for content and meaning being subjective to the individual, I guess so much for the advertising industry, demagoguery, bullying, verbal harassment, incitement to violence, news reporting bias... The people who indulge in those activities know exactly the meaning of their words and how it will "subjectively" affect their targets' attitudes, influence opinions and change their moods.

Well, they like to think that they do. That doesn't mean that they actually do, which is why not all such attempts are effective at engendering the desired behavior. They work on probabilities, not certainties. And probabilities means subjective interpretation, which proves my point.

[pErvinalia]

In relation to our conversation, why do you attribute special status to physical contact??

Because it's physical contact of course.

It's absolutely wrong to say that a slap will produce the same physical effect in all (or perhaps most) people.

The same slap will cause the same physiological response in every person. Some of the effects include transmission of nerve impulses and reddening of the skin. The interpretation of the nerve impulses is the same in almost everyone: pain. The reaction to those pain signals is subjective and individualized.

If you jump out of the bushes and take me by surprise and slap me, that is going to feel far more harmful to me than if we arrange beforehand to test a theory and let you slap me with the same force in a controlled environment.

No, the physiological effect of the slap is objective and would be the same no matter what the attending circumstances. It would be the same if you built a machine to do the slapping. Your interpretation of the slap however is dependent on the attending circumstances, which is a psychological effect, not a physical one. The "harm" is based on your interpretation of the events, not the raw physical events themselves.

That's exactly my point. The harm from physical events can be just as subjective as the harm from verbal events.

And even aside from this, it's simply not true to say that all physical pain signals are "harm".

Pain is the body's warning system that damage has occurred or is occurring.

Yes, but as you agree above, "The 'harm' is based on your interpretation of the events..". So I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me.

As I said, it's very possible to block out pain signals with your mind.

Yes, it can be, but blocking out the pain signals of your hand being burned on a stove does not change the nature of the physical damage caused by the heat.

So what? Why does physical damage have special status? If, as you agree, harm is experienced in the mind, then it doesn't matter what physical damage is done, unless that physical damage stops you going about your reasonable daily activities.

Just the same as it is possible to "choose" to not take offense to words spoken to you.

Nope. Physical harm or injury is physical, objective and quantifiable. Psychological distress is entirely subjective and unquantifiable.

This is in direct contradiction to what you wrote above. You said that harm was subjective. Which it is.

They are the same category of things, but with words generally being of less pain intensity than physical pain.

They are not in the same category. Words do not cause pain, they might engender psychological distress...

That's EXACTLY what pain is. That's why by shutting down the mind (either personally, or via anaesthetic et al) you experience no pain.

But to say that the line must be definitely drawn between the physical and the verbal, is unreasonable.

Well, there is an obvious line between the physical and the verbal, so I don't see how it's unreasonable at all.

I've explained why it is unreasonable. Just pointing out an arbitrary distinction isn't reasoning.

I agree and most people on this board, other than some of our UK sheep, would agree that a line needs to be drawn and that line is in the vicinity of the verbal/physical distinction. But to say that all physical "assaults" are harmful and all verbal assaults aren't, is too simplistic thinking.

I didn't say that a "verbal assault" cannot result in psychological distress, I'm saying that the psychological distress is caused by the interpretation of the words by the listener, not by the word themselves. That being the case, the speaker cannot be held liable for that interpretation because that would require that a speaker be intimately familiar with the mental state of each and every person he or she speaks to. That's entirely unreasonable.

EXACTLY the same with mild physical pain. All (or most) people have the ability to block out pain. You are making a distinction that doesn't exist.

[pErvinalia]

And the other thing to say is that unless you are a dualist (which you probably could be), there is no distinction between psychological and physical. The psychological IS physical. Psychology is just an abstraction of the physical, just the same as biology is an abstraction of physics.

I wouldn't say that biology is an abstraction of physics. Biology is a concrete example of physics.

It most certainly is an abstraction. The same as chemistry is an abstraction of physics. It's looking at the physical interaction of particles in a different context and framework. As a materialist (which most rationalists are), one believes that all processes break down to the physical. There are no "real" emergent processes. They are only abstractions of more simpler rules and processes.

And there is certainly a difference between the psychological and the physical. As an abstraction of the physical, psychology is entirely subjective to the observer, whereas the physical is objective, but may be viewed abstractly or subjectively by the mind.

This is just dualistic nonsense. If you are a dualist, there's no point discussing this part any further. The mind is an "emergent process" out of the pure physical. Nothing happens in the mind without a corresponding physical process in the brain. Psychological pain in the "mind" emerges out of physical processes and properties in the brain. There's no magic happening there.

[Hermit]

As for content and meaning being subjective to the individual, I guess so much for the advertising industry, demagoguery, bullying, verbal harassment, incitement to violence, news reporting bias... The people who indulge in those activities know exactly the meaning of their words and how it will "subjectively" affect their targets' attitudes, influence opinions and change their moods.

Well, they like to think that they do. That doesn't mean that they actually do, which is why not all such attempts are effective at engendering the desired behavior. They work on probabilities, not certainties. And probabilities means subjective interpretation, which proves my point.

Whatever you think capitalists are, many of them are not stupid. If advertising didn't work as intended they'd soon stop paying billions of dollars on it every month. Demagogues would get nowhere with their speeches. And they don't require a 100% success rate either. A smaller one is effective enough for them. All in all this fact remains: People use words that are carefully chosen to achieve a particular effect on their targets, and they work. Depending on what words are chosen you can achieve different outcomes. They are quite effective at shaping people's opinions.

[surreptitious57]

Words in and of themselves are just arrangements of signifiers no more no less. But when they are given a context they become emotional and
it is that which makes them powerful. And though one is entirely responsible for how they re act to the words of others in principle the reality
is that there is a sliding scale. The greater the provocation the more understandable the reaction to it will be if motivated by anger. In English
law provocation is a legitimate defence against assault. So if the words of someone cause another to react in a negative way that is deemed to
be reasonable then that is taken into account. Human beings are not automatons and one simply cannot go through their whole life never once
being provoked by the words of another regardless of how restrained they may actually be as words convey emotion and humans are emotional

So with regard to free speech as I have already said the line should be where there is harm not offence because offence is not good enough as a
criteria. Offence can manifest it self as simply a bigoted point of view and nothing else. And so the bar has to be set much higher than that and
psychological and / or physical damage should be where that point is

[Seth]

In relation to our conversation, why do you attribute special status to physical contact??

Because it's physical contact of course.

It's absolutely wrong to say that a slap will produce the same physical effect in all (or perhaps most) people.

The same slap will cause the same physiological response in every person. Some of the effects include transmission of nerve impulses and reddening of the skin. The interpretation of the nerve impulses is the same in almost everyone: pain. The reaction to those pain signals is subjective and individualized.

If you jump out of the bushes and take me by surprise and slap me, that is going to feel far more harmful to me than if we arrange beforehand to test a theory and let you slap me with the same force in a controlled environment.

No, the physiological effect of the slap is objective and would be the same no matter what the attending circumstances. It would be the same if you built a machine to do the slapping. Your interpretation of the slap however is dependent on the attending circumstances, which is a psychological effect, not a physical one. The "harm" is based on your interpretation of the events, not the raw physical events themselves.

That's exactly my point. The harm from physical events can be just as subjective as the harm from verbal events.

Wrong. Part of the problem is you conflating the term "harm" with the proper label, which is "mental distress." It is not true that all mental distress is "harm." Thus the distinction between physical harm and mental distress. And yes, the magnitude of the mental distress is indeed subjective, and that's the point. Being subjective, it cannot be assessed or accounted for by the speaker.

And even aside from this, it's simply not true to say that all physical pain signals are "harm".

Pain is the body's warning system that damage has occurred or is occurring.

Yes, but as you agree above, "The 'harm' is based on your interpretation of the events..". So I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me.

I'm talking about the nature and genesis of the "harm" involved. If I agree, arguendo that physical injury even to the slightest degree (like reddening of the skin from a slap) and mental distress caused by the individual interpreting words in a way that causes the distress are equally "harmful" to the individual, the point is that the proximate cause of the "harm" in the case of physical force is the perpetrator of the force, whereas the proximate cause of the mental "harm" is the individual's own mind, not the speaker or the speaker's words. Such "harm" can only occur if the individual hearing the words interprets them in a way that he or she finds mentally distressing.

As I said, it's very possible to block out pain signals with your mind.

Yes, it can be, but blocking out the pain signals of your hand being burned on a stove does not change the nature of the physical damage caused by the heat.

So what? Why does physical damage have special status? If, as you agree, harm is experienced in the mind, then it doesn't matter what physical damage is done, unless that physical damage stops you going about your reasonable daily activities.

Because, in the case under review, you are trying to make the speaker of offensive words the perpetrator of the harm, which is not the case, whereas the use of force against another is a direct intrusion on the liberty and bodily integrity of the victim. It does matter whether physical damage is done, and it matters who does the damage. If you cut yourself because I said something you found mentally distressing, I'm not responsible for that application of force any more than I'm responsible for how you interpreted what I said.

Just the same as it is possible to "choose" to not take offense to words spoken to you.

Nope. Physical harm or injury is physical, objective and quantifiable. Psychological distress is entirely subjective and unquantifiable.

This is in direct contradiction to what you wrote above. You said that harm was subjective. Which it is.

No, I said physical harm is objective, whereas mental distress is subjective.

They are the same category of things, but with words generally being of less pain intensity than physical pain.

They are not in the same category. Words do not cause pain, they might engender psychological distress...

That's EXACTLY what pain is. That's why by shutting down the mind (either personally, or via anaesthetic et al) you experience no pain.

Perhaps, but that's not relevant. What's relevant is what the proximate cause of the sensation or emotion is. Psychological distress is not the same thing as physical pain response, no matter how much you try to conflate the two things. They are triggered by two different mechanisms entirely.

But to say that the line must be definitely drawn between the physical and the verbal, is unreasonable.

Well, there is an obvious line between the physical and the verbal, so I don't see how it's unreasonable at all.

I've explained why it is unreasonable. Just pointing out an arbitrary distinction isn't reasoning.

What's arbitrary about the distinction between physical force and spoken words? They are obviously not the same thing at all.

I agree and most people on this board, other than some of our UK sheep, would agree that a line needs to be drawn and that line is in the vicinity of the verbal/physical distinction. But to say that all physical "assaults" are harmful and all verbal assaults aren't, is too simplistic thinking.

I didn't say that a "verbal assault" cannot result in psychological distress, I'm saying that the psychological distress is caused by the interpretation of the words by the listener, not by the word themselves. That being the case, the speaker cannot be held liable for that interpretation because that would require that a speaker be intimately familiar with the mental state of each and every person he or she speaks to. That's entirely unreasonable.

EXACTLY the same with mild physical pain. All (or most) people have the ability to block out pain. You are making a distinction that doesn't exist.

The result is not relevant, only the cause is relevant. If for some strange reason you have an affliction that makes you extraordinarily sensitive to sound to the point that people talking causes you to have the sensation of physical pain (and I knew a man who had such an affliction cause by some obscure African disease he contracted), he may feel actual pain when loud sounds are present, but this does not mean that the person making the noise is responsible for his pain. This would assume that nobody can ever make any noise lest someone, somewhere, feel pain because of the noise, which implies a duty on the part of everybody else to cater to the "disability" of that individual, which is of course nonsense.

The making of noise does not cause the pain, the disease causes the pain, just as the mental state causes the mental distress, not the words.