@menthol6 @cummies Obviously, written speech isn't vibrational unless one wants to get nit picky about light waves. Anyway, speech being violence is eh, that's a grey area. I understand the concept, I just don't know if it holds together.

@Jazzy_Butts @cummies no I mean irl more than online. you can't just mute yourself in real life to unprompted verbal violence and that it is violence is out of the question. it has the potential to cause long term psychological harm and is used with intent to do so. that's square violence in verbal form

@menthol6 @Jazzy_Butts irl isnt real

@cummies @Jazzy_Butts so true

@menthol6 @cummies I see now, those are threatening acts, I agree, and I call them acts because I separate them from speech. For example, if someone says "I'm going to fucking kill you" but they are your friend, and you're both laughing, and you're playing a videogame, this is a non-threatening act. This will not cause you distress, or any ill effects long or short term. It is all context based.

@menthol6 @cummies If someone lunges at you, while drawing a weapon, you would be right to react defensively, even before contact has been made. In nonviolent circumstances their bodily movements would be free speech, but because of the context, they are a threatening act.

@Jazzy_Butts @cummies context does not transform the act of speaking to not be speech. it just contextualizes the form of speech to be of ironic nature and therefore not received as hate speech regardless of the fact that it was. ironic hate speech is still hate speech but contextually not causing harm therefore it's appropriate in niche contexts

@menthol6 @cummies if ironic hate speech is still hate speech, and ironic hate speech is appropriate contextually, that means not all hate speech is bad

@Jazzy_Butts @cummies correct. all forms of violence are contextually appropriate and sometimes necessary

@menthol6 @cummies I understand your position now! I agree!