You should be careful when attributing reasons for suicide. It's a whole thread on its own. There are multiple reasons for it with genes being a big factor amongst others.

No one sensible supports destructive feedback as healthy for anyone. However, life isn't just about the angels of our nature but its holistic reality. When people try to frame 'words as violence' then you go down a road with huge dangers for the suppression of ideas.

The law quite rightly bans 'incitement to violence' and that is what words can be.....words can only ever portray intent....that's all they can do. To take a step beyond that isn't only logically bereft but it's a step along the path to Orwell's nightmare of 'thoughtcrime'.

Idiots who seriously abuse people in various ways are already dealt with by law. There is no requirement to start introducing any further concepts.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Aug 2017 3.33am)

Im not sure what suppression of ideas you get from not having people being nasty to each other or other minorities.

Of course people have to hear things they don't agree with for debate to take place, but that doesn't mean they should have to endure torrement from other people's words.

Well I thought that most of the singing in the ground is pretty harmless (though not according to that documentary), but the direct gay abuse I heard shouted by Palace across at that family section at the Amex was shocking. And it's worse outside the ground; for e.g. at E.Croydon the night of the play-off 1st leg one of our idiots shouted at a 10 year old in a blue and white scarf that he had better look out coz his b***** dad was going to s*** him up the a*** when he got home.

I see no contradiction personally.

There is a large difference between 'incitement to violence' and 'words are violence'.

The former specifies intent to cause physical harm, the latter can cover anything an individual regards as negative towards them.

One is a necessary protection the other can become 'thoughtcrime' for lots of things once you accept it.

The President of Uganda has described gays as "disgusting".

Robert Mugabe has spoken of gays as: "... no to homosexuality. John and John, no; Maria and Maria, no. They are worse than dogs and pigs. I keep pigs and the male pig knows the female one.”

Plainly neither an "incitement to violence"

Hard to argue either do not help legitimise and stir up violence against gays in those countries.

Same in history.Multiple speeches by Hitler early on using "words are violence" about jews but not any specific "incitement to violence"

Those are very extreme examples.But IMHO,its as plain as night follows day that there can be a very meaningful link between "words are violence" and "incitement to violence".Hard to see how it can't be appropriate to try to nip racist or homophobic or similar "words are violence" in the bud.

Edited by legaleagle (10 Aug 2017 11.28pm)

Think Mugabe and Hitler were maybe better examples but each to there own...

Edited by Goldfiinger (11 Aug 2017 6.36pm)