2023-06-19 14:28:51
Word are in fact not real weapons. M-W defines the word "weapon" primarily as "something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy". (A secondary definition involves anything used to debate, but that's surely not what the UN meant.) [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(13-0-7) Author
2023-06-19 15:58:58
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution in fact protects words from actually becoming weapons. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(16-1-6) Author
2023-06-19 16:06:20
The tweet is an opinion. No note needed. It also says words "can be" weapons. In a metaphorical sense, this is correct. Words can incite horrific violence. Der Stürmer or Interahamwe Radio are examples. [Link][Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(6-1-16) Author
2023-06-19 19:27:41
Words have no substantive mass, they cannot be wielded as physical weapons. While persuasive words may lead to physical violence, the violence is acted out by objects and not the words themselves. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(12-0-3) Author
2023-06-20 09:27:16
Whether you agree with it or not, this is an opinion. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(2-0-1) Author
2023-06-20 18:06:54
Communist Dictators call words weapons "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" - Joseph Stalin "The power of the word is inimitable. It can be both a weapon and a shield." - N. Korean Dictator Kim Jong-il: NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(1-0-2) Author
2023-06-21 10:46:11
The suggested notes are intentionally misinterpreting a very obvious and objective statement, choosing to ignore the metaphor and rely on semantics to try and undermine the UN for whatever reason. Quite blatant abuse of the CN feature. Words incite violence, they are weapons. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(2-0-1) Author
2023-06-21 11:12:54
This tweet is an obvious metaphor. But this opinion is largely used to silence oppositions and critics of religions worldwide, and to put responsability of crimes on victims (instance of Charlie Hebdo in France). [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(1-0-1) Author
2023-06-21 12:15:50
According to FIRE a US based free speech organization: "the First Amendment recognizes that the government cannot regulate “hate speech” without inevitably silencing the dissent and dialogue that democracy requires. " [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(1-0-1) Author