Words are not Violence: A Proof

Claim

Words are not violence.

Many people today, especially in left wing politics, believe that "words are violence", and use this category mixing to justify punishing words in a way that would be justified for punishing violence. This is very dangerous, because violence can be punished with violence and be Just. In this brief article, I provide a "proof" of sorts that words are not violence, and if you find it useful, feel free to share this article with your colleagues on the left who might actually appreciate a proof against their position.

1) Define terms

This is where most of the confutsion occurs.

Violence = physical force applied to a person or property

Words = symbolic communication (sounds, text, ideas)

These are categorically different kinds of things:

One is physical action

One is expression / information

2) Category distinction (core logical step)

Violence requires:

Physical force

Direct bodily or material impact

Words:

Do not exert force

Do not physically alter the body or environment

Therefore:

Words cannot meet the definition of violence.

3) Consequence vs nature

People often argue:

Words can hurt people deeply

This is true, but that’s about effects, not category.

Example:

A stock market rumor can cause panic → financial harm

Bad advice can lead to injury

But we don’t say:

“Rumors are violence”

“Advice is violence”

Because:

Causing harm ≠ being violence

4) Intent vs mechanism

Even hostile intent doesn’t convert words into violence.

Threat: “I’m going to hit you” → not violence

Actual hit → violence

The difference is execution, not intent.

5) Legal distinction (objective grounding)

Modern legal systems consistently separate:

Speech crimes (threats, harassment, incitement)

Violent crimes (assault, battery)

If words were violence, this distinction would collapse.

6) Slippery definition problem

If “words = violence,” then:

Disagreement = violence

Criticism = violence

Offense = violence

Which leads to the concept of violence loses meaning entirely.

7) Moral clarity

Calling words “violence” creates a false equivalence:

Being insulted ≠ being physically attacked

Emotional discomfort ≠ bodily harm

Blurring that line:

Minimizes real violence

Overstates speech

Conclusion

Words can influence, offend, or even cause indirect harm--but they are not violence because they lack any physical force. Calling them violence confuses categories and weakens both moral and legal clarity.