I must plead ignorance. But fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so let me rush in to answer the points you raise:
>She
>argues, explicitly, that words can hurt. Pretty much all
>violent activity, military or what have you, start with an
>exchange of words.
I note a slippage here. 'Violent activity' begins with words? No, I don't think so. Words might precede violent activity.
> Words are the cause of many
>forms of violence
Further slippage. Words are no more the cause of violence than violence is the cause of words. They are too distinct modes of communication.
>(and, of course, the surplus effect of
>the violence tends to make speech impossible).
Good reason to favour jaw jaw over war war.
> With a
>single sentence its possible to move someone to jump across
>a table and take a swing at you... to bring you to tears...
>to make you laugh... or convulse, paralized with anger and
>humiliation.
This is poetic, but untrue. It is not the words that move anyone, but the social relations that lie behind the words. If the words are out of the context of the necessary social relation then they will not be accompanied by the effects you outline.
Take the example 'your mother just died'. I have to believe the speaker, have a living mother and so on. If all of those are in place, then where does the injury lie? In the words? No. In the deception.
> The Conservative mistake
Conservative? Free speech is conservative? No. Bans on free speech are conservative.
> They
>locate the problem in external things, not with the way in
>which a person views the world. In other words, the
>strategy ignores the psychodynamics of the context.
No, I think it is you that is blurring the distinction between speech and 'the psychodynamics of the context'.
> If
>Conservatives really want to put an end to hate speech they
>should outlaw identification, not rhetoric. And isn't
>*that* foolish?
It might be (it's hard to tell from your account). But I don't recognise this strategy as bearing upon my own. I don't want to end *hate speech* but end discrimination. Challenging hate speech is a tactic in that struggle, but challenging the existence of hate speech is not.
> Salecl's point here is that it isn't
>speech that is the problem,
Well, I certainly agree with her on that one. But then that's why I would not ban it. -- Jim heartfield