Indeed, because, unlike sticks and stones, wielding words aggressively depends on context to be considered violent, but denying the possibility outright is simply wrong.
Violentia is the root you’re thinking of, meaning the use of force to cause harm or injury. Words may not have mass but they are plenty capable of causing injury, including medically diagnosable injury. But I’m labouring the point…
Some folks seem to have totally run with the 'words as violence' concept
Defo. See also the mythical ‘(excessively) woke’ crowd who take offence to everything and anything. Fortunately they’re not as numerous and nowhere near as powerful or impactful as their scapegoating political critics make them out to be, but they do exist and are thoroughly unpleasant.
Yeah, figured it was possibly a Latin word I'd never come across. Ta.
But I guess you don't necessarily need to consider ancient words so much as the cloud of connotations surrounding related modern terms; the Latin root did, uh, violence to the point we were both making ;)
Indeed, because, unlike sticks and stones, wielding words aggressively depends on context to be considered violent, but denying the possibility outright is simply wrong.
Violentia is the root you’re thinking of, meaning the use of force to cause harm or injury. Words may not have mass but they are plenty capable of causing injury, including medically diagnosable injury. But I’m labouring the point…
Defo. See also the mythical ‘(excessively) woke’ crowd who take offence to everything and anything. Fortunately they’re not as numerous and nowhere near as powerful or impactful as their scapegoating political critics make them out to be, but they do exist and are thoroughly unpleasant.