I suspect it is fundamentally hard to think of language as a weapon. Trying to weaponize language is like trying to weaponize a kitchen. Sure there are knives and acids and stuff, but it's mainly designed to cook, not kill. Ditto language: designed to communicate, not damage.
Conversation
Replying to
the internet is a communication network but we still have "cyber warfare"
Replying to
Why so? The good intent in cooking is assumed but largely concealed until output. Only once ingested could the recipient judge for themselves. Language has volume and meaning as soon as it’s uttered. Digestion often not necessary to render sound judgment. More obvious.
1
Replying to
by that analogy, would you consider toxic messages/misleading news akin to food poisoning?
1
Replying to
Like a hammer, language has great utility as a weapon. Language can be used to effectively change people's behavior in all sorts of ways: it has weapon-like characteristics. The solution may be to contextualize language to defuse its potential as a tool to inflict harm.
4
Replying to
Isn't "weaponized" language equivalent to forcing that you can no longer use the kitchen to cook such or such things?
Replying to
this is sth that bugs me abt the tool/weapon dichotomy in general, it's useful as a spectrum to place things on but almost nothing is purely or even predominantly one or the other
1








