Speech is Violence According to The New York Times

I've noted before that it appears on a bigger and bigger slice of the Left, the new slogan seems to be something like "Speech is violence and violence is self defense." As absurd as that statement is, look at the actions of Antifa and BAMN, and now read this parody of an article from The New York Times "When is Speech Violence?"
​
"Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?

"The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

"But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system."

​Yes, because someone saying mean words to you is the same as a physical threat.

"If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?"

What is "the rightwing type" for $1000 Alex.
​
"​That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.
​
"That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering."

One assertion after the next.

Indeed, the idea that only rightwingers harass only leftwingers (or only men harass women) is completely and totally false. It's not even wrong, it's just a lie. But the author of this piece, Lisa Feldman Barrett, would have you believe that. Whatever you think of Milo, he had a syringe mailed to his house by his "victims" amongst other abuse hurled at him. But whatever, he deserves it whereas those on the Left don't because reasons or something. 

The Left after all has plenty of provocateurs, or at least it did before it became the establishment and thus boring. Should they be banned? 

By this argument, the whole "black people can't be racist" or "women can't be sexist" shtick falls apart because it's not about political power, it's about whether something hurts my feelings.

So I guess we need to ban anti-white civil rights activists, anti-male feminists, anti-Christian atheists and the like. 

And we obviously need to ban communists!

Also, FYI, I will decide who is anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian and a communist.