words can kill essay

Can words kill? You might think that the obvious answer is that words don’t kill—people do! And, people don’t even kill with words, they kill with bombs and guns.

But is there some sense in words can be just as deadly as a gun or a bomb? I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense. We all can admit that words can hurt or offend. But I’m asking if they can literally kill?

Consider how the words that the Nazis used to torment their Jewish victims, or the words the Hutu used on the Tutsi. They did more than merely incite violence against those targeted. Their words were instruments of violence. In the mouths of genocidal killers and their henchmen, words can be every bit as deadly as a machete.

Now, obviously words can’t literally suffocate or cut a throat. They don’t kill through physical force. But they do kill through representational force. Think about the way the Nazi genocide unfolded. They started with latent anti-Semitism, then their propaganda transformed Jews from fellow citizens to subhuman vermin. Of course, the genocide took more than words. If they had stopped at words, they wouldn’t have been genocidal killers. But 1930s Germany was a loaded gun. Using those words was pulling the trigger of a loaded gun. So using propaganda in that context was committing genocide.

You might disagree and claim that representations can’t be acts of genocide all on their own. Until somebody moves beyond representation and acts—until they wield the machete or turn the knob—they haven’t committed genocide. But recall those Hutu journalists in Rwanda who engaged in hate radio. They were found guilty of actual genocide—not just of aiding and abetting those who wielded the machetes. Why? Because the International Tribunal for Rwanda recognized something really important: you don’t have to wield a machete to be a killer. In the right context, it’s enough to represent someone else as a subhuman cockroach. In one case you’re perpetrating physical violence. But in the other you’re perpetrating representational violence.  

Does violence have to be physical in order to be genuine violence? Is representational violence real violence, or just metaphorical violence? If you ask the victims of this demeaning, degrading, dehumanizing language, you’ll get one answer. It’s very real violence. But not everyone will agree, not because they deny how dangerous that kind of language can be—it certainly hurts and offends, it poisons politics, and it gives people license to do all manner of horrible things to one another. But if you accept that much, then why deny that representational violence is a real thing?

The question we started with was whether words can kill. If I haven’t managed to convince you of this possibility, that language can literally kill, let me make one more point. This distinction between metaphorical killing and literal killing seems to depend on a distinction that you might think is unproblematic, that between words and action. But according to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s picture of language games, that distinction is not so clear. What gives a word its meaning is not a fact given in isolation—it is deeply bound up with the way we act, with our “forms of life.” What gives the word “chair” its meaning, for example, is that we interact with the things we call “chairs” in specific way, by sitting on them. If a “chair” was something we never sat on, it would not mean what our current word “chair” means. How we interact with the object is part of its meaning. Sitting on something we call a "chair" is a final move in the game.

You might wonder what this has to do with genocide and words that kill. So, think of a genocidal act as the final move in a complex language game. The game starts with dehumanizing representations. These representations shape perception and thought, then these perceptions and thoughts culminate in murder. So when the Hutu called Tutsis  “cockroaches,” where cockroaches are the type of disgusting creature that ought to be crushed and exterminated, they were using words to license that move in the language game. They were saying that a Tutsi is the kind of disgusting creature that ought to be exterminated, which is what they then did. And that’s how words can kill.

Can Speech Kill?

Related shows, war, sacrifice, and the media, we've been framed: how language shapes politics, ethics in war, language of politics, language in action, freedom of speech in times of war.

• Philosophy of Language
• Freedom of speech

Blog Archive

Comments (4).

Thursday, December 14, 2017 -- 9:40 PM

If words can kill, then so can a look. Language is but a small part of human communication. Expressions, gesture, are less able to be faked by people. My disdain is expressed even if i do not speak. You can feel it by my choice of microexpressions, which i am ill-equipped to control, can you not? Therefore if words are lethal so are looks. You bark at shadows.

Log in or register to post comments

Thursday, December 14, 2017 -- 9:52 PM

What do your guests think about the use of trigger warnings in the social media setting, where there is a expectation that any topic that could potentially be harmful to someone must be marked TW to warn readers? And what of the expectation itself? That we should constantly try to anticipate any potential harm? Are people at fault for harm caused (when they didn't intend to harm)? Say mentioning a describing an experience with a mean family member, then being critiqued for not posting " TW: Abuse" ?

Thursday, December 21, 2017 -- 12:48 PM

Whether or not words are (or CAN be) lethal depends largely upon whether they have strong attachment(s) to belief systems. A prime example of this has to do with cult connections, such a a belief in voodoo or, perhaps, Santaria. Those few(?) who continue to be influenced by these "black arts" can be persuaded to die, if A. their belief is deeply seated in B. what continues to be what Jaynes called a bicameral mind. These circumstances are probably next to extinct. However, they would seem to illustrate the potentiality for such a willful dealing of death. What the mind imagines, the man can do. It's not for everyone...probably a good thing, that. This is anecdotal stuff, of course. But there is a wealth of it out there.

Sunday, March 14, 2021 -- 2:05 PM

It has been some years since my last remarks on this topic. Those preceded an administration, the likes of which I hope, we shall never see again. My own notion has morphed. But not so much. The whole issue of free speech has been forever altered. Harris', and others' notions of free-will, are attaining obsolescence. I think, just think, the scenario is shifting. This means there are indications ( at least) of an egregious 'something' we have no knowledge of, experience with, or notion of dealing with. Words kill us everyday. They have always killed. And this is just the point, if we adhere to the first amendment guarantees., we must accept the attendant contingencies. Yawn. I'll work on it. Still thinking. Bet ter, I hope. Trying harder, yes. Doing the best I can with what I've got. And what I know. And, just so. Come on.people. stop spinning. That is for fishing, Not reality..

• Create new account
• Request new password

Can words kill? You might think that the obvious answer is that words don’t kill—people do! And, people don’t even kill with words, they kill with bombs and guns.

But is there some sense in words can be just as deadly as a gun or a bomb? I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense. We all can admit that words can hurt or offend. But I’m asking if they can literally kill?

Consider how the words that the Nazis used to torment their Jewish victims, or the words the Hutu used on the Tutsi. They did more than merely incite violence against those targeted. Their words were instruments of violence. In the mouths of genocidal killers and their henchmen, words can be every bit as deadly as a machete.

Now, obviously words can’t literally suffocate or cut a throat. They don’t kill through physical force. But they do kill through representational force. Think about the way the Nazi genocide unfolded. They started with latent anti-Semitism, then their propaganda transformed Jews from fellow citizens to subhuman vermin. Of course, the genocide took more than words. If they had stopped at words, they wouldn’t have been genocidal killers. But 1930s Germany was a loaded gun. Using those words was pulling the trigger of a loaded gun. So using propaganda in that context was committing genocide.

You might disagree and claim that representations can’t be acts of genocide all on their own. Until somebody moves beyond representation and acts—until they wield the machete or turn the knob—they haven’t committed genocide. But recall those Hutu journalists in Rwanda who engaged in hate radio. They were found guilty of actual genocide—not just of aiding and abetting those who wielded the machetes. Why? Because the International Tribunal for Rwanda recognized something really important: you don’t have to wield a machete to be a killer. In the right context, it’s enough to represent someone else as a subhuman cockroach. In one case you’re perpetrating physical violence. But in the other you’re perpetrating representational violence.  

Does violence have to be physical in order to be genuine violence? Is representational violence real violence, or just metaphorical violence? If you ask the victims of this demeaning, degrading, dehumanizing language, you’ll get one answer. It’s very real violence. But not everyone will agree, not because they deny how dangerous that kind of language can be—it certainly hurts and offends, it poisons politics, and it gives people license to do all manner of horrible things to one another. But if you accept that much, then why deny that representational violence is a real thing?

The question we started with was whether words can kill. If I haven’t managed to convince you of this possibility, that language can literally kill, let me make one more point. This distinction between metaphorical killing and literal killing seems to depend on a distinction that you might think is unproblematic, that between words and action. But according to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s picture of language games, that distinction is not so clear. What gives a word its meaning is not a fact given in isolation—it is deeply bound up with the way we act, with our “forms of life.” What gives the word “chair” its meaning, for example, is that we interact with the things we call “chairs” in specific way, by sitting on them. If a “chair” was something we never sat on, it would not mean what our current word “chair” means. How we interact with the object is part of its meaning. Sitting on something we call a "chair" is a final move in the game.

You might wonder what this has to do with genocide and words that kill. So, think of a genocidal act as the final move in a complex language game. The game starts with dehumanizing representations. These representations shape perception and thought, then these perceptions and thoughts culminate in murder. So when the Hutu called Tutsis  “cockroaches,” where cockroaches are the type of disgusting creature that ought to be crushed and exterminated, they were using words to license that move in the language game. They were saying that a Tutsi is the kind of disgusting creature that ought to be exterminated, which is what they then did. And that’s how words can kill.

Can Speech Kill?

Related shows, war, sacrifice, and the media, we've been framed: how language shapes politics, ethics in war, language of politics, language in action, freedom of speech in times of war.

• Philosophy of Language
• Freedom of speech

Blog Archive

Our minds are amazing prediction machines—and sometimes they can even make their predictions come true!

Derek Parfit was a really interesting thinker when it came to identity and the self. He had a particularly cool thought experiment involving tele-transportation.

This week we’re thinking about how to create a world in which our leaders are not just effective legislators, but also good people.

This week we're thinking about the Changing Face of Antisemitism—a program recorded last month at the Stanford Humanities Center for our first live, in-person event in 2-1/2 years.

Comments (4)

Thursday, December 14, 2017 -- 9:40 PM

If words can kill, then so can a look. Language is but a small part of human communication. Expressions, gesture, are less able to be faked by people. My disdain is expressed even if i do not speak. You can feel it by my choice of microexpressions, which i am ill-equipped to control, can you not? Therefore if words are lethal so are looks. You bark at shadows.

Log in or register to post comments

Thursday, December 14, 2017 -- 9:52 PM

What do your guests think about the use of trigger warnings in the social media setting, where there is a expectation that any topic that could potentially be harmful to someone must be marked TW to warn readers? And what of the expectation itself? That we should constantly try to anticipate any potential harm? Are people at fault for harm caused (when they didn't intend to harm)? Say mentioning a describing an experience with a mean family member, then being critiqued for not posting " TW: Abuse" ?

Thursday, December 21, 2017 -- 12:48 PM

Whether or not words are (or CAN be) lethal depends largely upon whether they have strong attachment(s) to belief systems. A prime example of this has to do with cult connections, such a a belief in voodoo or, perhaps, Santaria. Those few(?) who continue to be influenced by these "black arts" can be persuaded to die, if A. their belief is deeply seated in B. what continues to be what Jaynes called a bicameral mind. These circumstances are probably next to extinct. However, they would seem to illustrate the potentiality for such a willful dealing of death. What the mind imagines, the man can do. It's not for everyone...probably a good thing, that. This is anecdotal stuff, of course. But there is a wealth of it out there.

Sunday, March 14, 2021 -- 2:05 PM

It has been some years since my last remarks on this topic. Those preceded an administration, the likes of which I hope, we shall never see again. My own notion has morphed. But not so much. The whole issue of free speech has been forever altered. Harris', and others' notions of free-will, are attaining obsolescence. I think, just think, the scenario is shifting. This means there are indications ( at least) of an egregious 'something' we have no knowledge of, experience with, or notion of dealing with. Words kill us everyday. They have always killed. And this is just the point, if we adhere to the first amendment guarantees., we must accept the attendant contingencies. Yawn. I'll work on it. Still thinking. Bet ter, I hope. Trying harder, yes. Doing the best I can with what I've got. And what I know. And, just so. Come on.people. stop spinning. That is for fishing, Not reality..

• Create new account
• Request new password

Pain Management Methods

• Pain management techniques
• Headaches and migraines
• Neuropathic pain
• Arthritis pain
• Fibromyalgia pain
• Cancer pain
• Menstrual pain

Words Can Hurt: The Power and Impact of Hurtful Language

What is words can hurt

Words can hurt is a concept that highlights the emotional and psychological impact that spoken or written language can have on individuals. It emphasizes how certain words, phrases, or comments can cause harm and have long-lasting effects on a person’s well-being.

It is important to recognize that verbal abuse, insults, and derogatory remarks can inflict deep emotional wounds. Such negative language has the power to damage self-esteem, create insecurity, and contribute to mental health issues.

How do hurtful words impact individuals emotionally?

Have you ever been on the receiving end of hurtful words? If so, you likely understand the emotional impact they can have. Hurtful words can wound us deeply, affecting our self-esteem, confidence, and overall emotional well-being.

1. They lower self-esteem: Hurtful words can attack our sense of self-worth and make us question our value as individuals. 2. They cause emotional pain: Negative comments or insults can create deep emotional pain and distress, leading to feelings of sadness, anger, or even depression. 3. They damage relationships: Hurtful words can strain or destroy relationships as they erode trust and create resentment. 4. They fuel self-doubt: When confronted with hurtful words, we may start doubting ourselves and questioning our abilities or worthiness in various aspects of life. 5. They leave lasting scars: The impact of hurtful words can stay with individuals long after they are spoken, resulting in long-term emotional trauma.

Facing hurtful words can lead to a significant decrease in an individual’s mental well-being and quality of life. It is vital to remember the power of our words and strive to uplift others rather than tear them down.

Hurtful words impact individuals emotionally by lowering their self-esteem, causing emotional pain , damaging relationships, fueling self-doubt, and leaving lasting scars.

Explanation: This question highlights the emotional toll that hurtful words can have on individuals and seeks to understand the specific ways in which they are affected.

1. Hurtful words can deeply affect an individual’s self-esteem and confidence. 2. They can cause feelings of sadness, anger, or resentment. 3. Hurtful words may lead to social isolation, as individuals may withdraw from others to protect themselves from further harm. 4. They can create long-lasting emotional scars and make it difficult for individuals to trust others or form new relationships.

Hurtful words have a profound impact on an individual’s emotional well-being . The negative comments and insults can pierce through their self-worth, leaving them feeling inadequate and small. Such hurtful language often leads to a significant decrease in self-esteem and confidence, causing individuals to doubt themselves and their abilities.

Furthermore, hurtful words evoke strong emotions like sadness, anger, or resentment within the targeted individual. These intense negative emotions can linger for days or even weeks, affecting their overall mood and mental state. Being constantly bombarded with hurtful remarks can also contribute to feelings of anxiety and depression.

Moreover, hurtful words have social implications too. When faced with consistent criticism or derogatory comments, many individuals tend to isolate themselves from social interactions as a means of protection. They may distance themselves from friends and family members who might inadvertently say something hurtful, fearful of encountering any more pain .

The impact of hurtful words is not temporary; it stays with the individual for a long time even after the actual incident has passed. The psychological wounds inflicted by these harmful expressions often leave deep scars that influence future relationships. Individuals who have experienced this verbal abuse may find it challenging to open up and trust others due to fear of being hurt again.

In conclusion, the emotional toll that hurtful words inflict on individuals cannot be underestimated. From damaging self-esteem and triggering intense negative emotions to causing social isolation and long-term psychological scars, hurtful words have far-reaching effects . It is essential for us to recognize the power of our words and strive to treat others with kindness and respect.

Short answer: Hurtful words can have a devastating impact on individuals, affecting their self-esteem, emotions, social connections, and future relationships.

What strategies can be used to effectively respond to and cope with hurtful words?

Have you ever been hurt by someone’s words? Whether it was an intentional insult or an unintentional remark, hurtful words can leave a lasting impact on us. It’s important to have strategies in place to effectively respond to and cope with these hurtful words, so that we can maintain our emotional well-being. Here are some strategies that can help: 1. Take a deep breath and stay calm. 2. Reflect on the situation and try to understand the motive behind the hurtful words. 3. Practice self-compassion and remind yourself that you are worthy of love and respect. 4. Seek support from friends, family, or a trusted confidant who can provide comfort and guidance.

In difficult moments, taking a deep breath and staying calm is crucial. It allows us to pause before reacting impulsively, giving us the opportunity to respond rather than retaliate out of anger or hurt . By staying calm , we are better able to assess the situation and choose our response wisely.

It’s important to reflect on the situation and try to understand the motive behind the hurtful words. Sometimes people lash out due to their own insecurities or personal issues – it may not have anything to do with us at all. This perspective helps detach ourselves emotionally from their comments, making it easier for us to cope.

Practicing self-compassion is essential when dealing with hurtful words. Remind yourself that everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect. Treat yourself with kindness, understanding that you deserve love and respect regardless of what others say.

Seeking support from friends, family, or a trusted confidant can make all the difference during challenging times. They can provide solace, perspective, advice, or simply lend an empathetic ear when we need someone to lean on.

In conclusion, responding effectively while coping with hurtful words involves staying calm in difficult situations, reflecting on motives behind those comments, practicing self-compassion, and seeking support. These strategies help us maintain our emotional well-being and ensure that hurtful words do not define us.

Explanation: This question focuses on seeking practical advice or techniques that individuals can employ to deal with hurtful words, emphasizing the importance of finding effective coping mechanisms.

Dealing with hurtful words can be challenging, but it’s important to find effective coping mechanisms. Here are some practical tips to help you navigate through difficult situations:

1. Take a deep breath and stay calm. 2. Practice assertiveness and communicate your feelings calmly. 3. Surround yourself with positive people who uplift you. 4. Focus on self-care activities such as exercise, journaling, or meditation.

Remember that everyone copes differently, so choose the techniques that work best for you. It’s essential to prioritize your well-being and not let hurtful words define your self-worth.

While dealing with hurtful words isn’t easy, there are strategies you can utilize:

1. Develop a support system of friends and family who truly care about your well-being. 2. Reframe negative thoughts into positive affirmations that counteract the hurtful words. 3. Seek professional help if needed, such as therapy or counseling services. 4. Practice self-compassion by treating yourself with kindness and forgiveness.

Finding effective coping mechanisms may take time, but investing in your emotional health is worth it. Remember that resilience is built through facing adversity and finding ways to overcome it.

To deal with hurtful words effectively, it’s crucial to acknowledge your emotions without judgment or suppression. Find healthy outlets where you express yourself freely without causing harm to others or yourself.

In conclusion, dealing with hurtful words requires finding effective coping mechanisms tailored to your individual needs. By practicing mindfulness, seeking support from loved ones, and taking care of yourself mentally and physically, you can navigate through challenging situations more easily. Ultimately, remember that you are in control of how these words affect you; choose empowerment over despair.

Dealing with hurtful words? Focus on finding practical coping mechanisms like seeking support from loved ones or practicing mindfulness.#selfcare #positivity #copingmechanisms

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms And Conditions

clock This article was published more than  6 years ago

Opinion Can words kill people?

Words matter , journalists are fond of saying.

This comes lately in the context of presidential tweets that conceivably could have serious repercussions. Otherwise, we seem conflicted about how much words should matter when used in a potentially consequential way among everyday people.

Political correctness, or ignorance, has caused us to discard words and expressions that some find offensive, despite the Constitution’s protections for nearly every form of speech short of the “fire”-in-a-crowded-theater prohibition.

As a result, most people put up with objectionable "art" and inflammatory language in the interest of protecting the First Amendment's broader application. Thus, even " hate speech " — or a museum exhibit featuring " Piss Christ " — is grudgingly deemed less offensive or dangerous than abridgments to our liberties.

Too much free speech is better than too little, the courts have decided.

But what rules apply when a teenager allegedly persuades her boyfriend to kill himself? Aren’t we free to say whatever we choose in a private conversation with another person?

Michelle Carter's conviction last week on involuntary-manslaughter charges in the 2014 suicide of her 18-year-old boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, raises fresh questions about what one is allowed to say in private, as well as the role of virtual presence in modern conduct.

At the time of the suicide, Carter was a 17-year-old whose boyfriend spoke frequently of taking his own life. He finally did by filling his parked truck with carbon monoxide. Mind you, Carter was nowhere near. She had no physical hand in the death, although she did text and call Roy, urging him to go ahead and do it. When he had second thoughts and got out of his vehicle, she instructed him to get back in.

Manslaughter? Evil? Or just dumb?

If Carter’s words were Roy’s death sentence, then his death was hers, if not literally, then, indeed, virtually. For her clearly tangential role, which one could as easily interpret as drama-queen excess, Carter faces up to 20 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Aug. 3.

It is easy to feel outrage at what transpired. Prosecutors introduced hundreds of text messages between Roy and Carter in which she encouraged him to end his life and sometimes taunted him for his lack of courage. In one, she wrote : "You're ready and prepared. All you have to do is turn the generator on and you will be free and happy. No more pushing it off. No more waiting."

This alone is enough to make one dislike or even despise Carter. But is it enough to blame Carter for Roy’s death? His parents think so, as do some of Roy’s friends. At one point, Carter chillingly told Roy that his family would get over losing him. What could a teen possibly know about a mother and father’s love for their child? It was a cruel and possibly self-serving thing to say.

Other messages and conversations were equally repellent, but were they really persuasive? Or would Roy have killed himself anyway? Whatever the answer, the two were engaged in a deadly game that suggests a disturbing Hollywood aspect — drama in the guise of existential angst. Despair as aphrodisiac?

Who knows? What mothers of boys know and deeply respect is that females wield formidable power over males. In hushed tones, we often compare notes and agree that boys are really more vulnerable than girls. (P.S. For every person scrambling to send an exception, a thousand women are nodding their heads.)

My point: A girl like Michelle Carter has and did have power over a boy like Conrad Roy. As his mother said to "48 Hours" in an interview that aired the night of the conviction: "She knew exactly what she was doing and what she said."

This surely seems true, but then, teenage girls who seem “knowing” often don’t have a clue. They may flirt with men — or death — to learn their own limits, but this doesn’t mean they fully understand the consequences of their actions, and certainly not of their words. This isn’t to excuse Carter’s callousness or, frankly, her meanness toward a sad friend, whose suicide note to her revealed a sensitive, kind and loving person.

But what she said to Roy isn’t — or shouldn’t be — the crux of a legal argument. Not even her own sense of blame and remorse, as subsequently expressed in texts to friends, should be construed as legal guilt.

Carter may have been despicable for her damning encouragement, but we should be very clear: She didn’t kill anyone. Words do matter, but they’re not lethal.

Read more from Kathleen Parker's archive , follow her on Twitter or find her on Facebook .

Read more here:

Eugene Volokh: Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment

The Post’s View: Portland’s mayor is dangerously wrong about free speech

The Post’s View: The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech

Eugene Volokh: Is @RealDonaldTrump violating the First Amendment by blocking some Twitter users?

The Post’s View: Harvard’s revocation of admission offers is no attack on free speech

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Conference Media
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Upcoming Events
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

Words Kill, Words Give Life

More By Jeff Robinson

God’s book of wisdom contrasts the life of the foolish man with the life of the wise man. It shows us how life works best in a fallen world. And talk is deeply important in recognizing which of those two paths we’re walking. Paul Tripp even argues that Proverbs is most fundamentally a treatise on talk. He summarizes Proverbs’ teaching on talk this way: “words give life; words bring death—you choose.” Every utterance that escapes our lips mat­ters, which means you’ve never spoken a neutral word in your life.

You’ve never spoken a neutral word in your life. Advertise on TGC

Our words are moving either in a direction of life or death. If our words are moving in a life direction, they will be words of encourage­ment, hope, love, peace, unity, instruction, wisdom, and correction. But the death direction brings forth words of anger, malice, slander, jealousy, gossip, division, contempt, racism, violence, judgment, and condemnation. We don’t give much thought to our talk in mundane times, yet that’s where we tend to get into trouble, and Proverbs instructs us well.

Killing Words

Proverbs 10 contrasts two kinds of talkers—the wise and the foolish:

The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth. The lips of the righteous feed many. But fools die for lack of sense. (Prov. 10:20–21)

The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom, but the perverse tongue will be cut off. The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverse. (Prov. 10:31–32)

Solomon cuts to the heart of what this book is arguing in Proverbs 18:21: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.”

In America when police officers arrest a person, they caution him regard­ing his rights, including the Miranda warning, which begins, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Words, when uttered by a person accused of committing a crime, can be a matter of life and death, at least when it comes to what could happen during the trial. Say something foolish, and life could become even more difficult for you. So it is in everyday life. Words have the potential to kill and to give life. We all know people (maybe even ourselves) who have been verbally abused by parents, spouses, even friends, to a point that the insults have become part of their identity and have ruined their lives.

Say something foolish, and life could become even more difficult for you.

In college I had a friend whose father had told him he was stupid for so many years he’d come to believe it and embraced it as central to his iden­tity. His father’s constant disapproval, usually shown through verbal jabs, led him to a life of drug and alcohol abuse before college. In a sense, his father’s words had killed him. Our words affect others, with the potential to destroy them.

Life-Giving Words

Words can also give life. Think of how en­couraging that Christian friend was to you when she told you how skilled you were in something you valued—maybe your singing voice, your teach­ing ability, your golf swing, how well your children read. Think about how your daughter smiled when you told her how proud you were that she had made the honor roll or all-star team.

Pastors have a special relationship to Monday. We often call it “Blue Monday,” because it’s the day we spend in recovery mode from the rigors of Sunday and that sermon we spent 15 hours preparing, only to see it fall as flat as the Kansas prairie. It’s the day that church member emails his pastor to complain about the music or the length of the sermon or how the youth group isn’t meeting his family’s needs.

I remember one particularly depressing Monday a couple of years ago when I was down and out over what church members had apparently re­garded (but didn’t notify me) as low attendance Sunday. I’d also learned our giving was way down, and one prominent family had announced to me that they were leaving because they didn’t like the elders’ vision. “Too much Bible,” they told me.

I opened my inbox that day, convinced I would only encounter additional ill news, but the first message to appear was from a relatively new member. His words were as humble as they were sweet. He was grateful for our church’s faithfulness, for the elders’ clear-headed vision, for our church’s friendliness. He loved that we valued the Bible enough to make it central to everything we do. The Monday blues were gone. In two short paragraphs, his words breathed new life into my week. I could look up at the mountain peak that was next Sunday with a smile. He had given me what Solomon describes in Proverbs 25:11: “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver.”

Words kill and words give life—that’s what Solomon is saying. Remember that with every word you speak today.

This article was adapted from Jeff Robinson’s book Taming the Tongue: How the Gospel Transforms Our Talk (TGC, 2021). On December 28–January 31, Taming the Tongue is 50 percent off in the TGC bookstore .

Is there enough evidence for us to believe the Gospels?

Jeff Robinson (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is director of news and information at Southern Seminary. He was a senior editor for six years at The Gospel Coalition. A native of Blairsville, Georgia, he pastors Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and serves as adjunct professor of church history at Southern Seminary. Prior to entering ministry, he spent nearly 20 years as a newspaper journalist in Georgia, North Carolina, and Kentucky. He is coauthor or coeditor of six books, including Taming the Tongue: How the Gospel Transforms Our Talk (TGC, 2021), To the Ends of the Earth: Calvin’s Mission Vision and Legacy , and 15 Things Seminary Couldn’t Teach Me (Crossway, 2018). Jeff and his wife, Lisa, have four children.

Now Trending

1 can i tell an unbeliever ‘jesus died for you’, 2 the faqs: southern baptists debate designation of women in ministry, 3 7 recommendations from my book stack, 4 artemis can’t undermine complementarianism, 5 ‘girls state’ highlights abortion’s role in growing gender divide.

The 11 Beliefs You Should Know about Jehovah’s Witnesses When They Knock at the Door

Here are the key beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses—and what the Bible really teaches instead.

8 Edifying Films to Watch This Spring

Easter Week in Real Time

Resurrected Saints and Matthew’s Weirdest Passage

I Believe in the Death of Julius Caesar and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Does 1 Peter 3:19 Teach That Jesus Preached in Hell?

The Plays C. S. Lewis Read Every Year for Holy Week

Latest Episodes

Lessons on evangelism from an unlikely evangelist.

Welcome and Witness: How to Reach Out in a Secular Age

How to Build Gospel Culture: A Q&A Conversation

Examining the Current and Future State of the Global Church

Trevin Wax on Reconstructing Faith

Gaming Alone: Helping the Generation of Young Men Captivated and Isolated by Video Games

Raise Your Kids to Know Their True Identity

Faith & Work: How Do I Glorify God Even When My Work Seems Meaningless?

Let’s Talk (Live): Growing in Gratitude

Getting Rid of Your Fear of the Book of Revelation

Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places: A Sermon from Julius Kim

Introducing The Acts 29 Podcast

The Power of Words to Kill

Gregory Gordon helped to prosecute the landmark "media" cases in Rwanda -- where hate speech, broadcast over the radio, was directly linked to the genocide of the Tutsi people. Gordon believes that the lesson learned in Rwanda could be applied to Iran and elsewhere, to prevent these incitement tactics from taking hold.

Here , Gordon discusses the power of words with Aleisa Fishman in the Museum's Voices on Antisemitism Podcast Series .

“"We don't want another genocide to take place. And I think from a truth-telling perspective, one of the important aspects of what the international criminal tribunals are doing is to make a record of what happened, so that future generations can study it. And when we see these red flags going up, when we see these warning signs, we have to act."”

Gordon is Director of the Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies and Assistant Professor at the School of Law, University of North Dakota.

• Genocide Prevention Blog

This Section

Find information on historical cases of genocide and other atrocities.

• Announcements and Recent Analysis
• Take Action

WORDS CAN KILL

This is a shortened version of an article posted on CNSNews.com that was written by Bill Donohue.

Michelle Carter has been sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for encouraging her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, to kill himself. Her lawyer argued this was, at least in part, a free speech case, but Judge Lawrence Moniz was not persuaded: he ruled she was guilty of involuntary manslaughter after texting dozens of messages beckoning Roy to commit suicide.

There are several moral and legal issues involved in this case; they have grave implications for the First Amendment and right-to-die matters. From a Catholic perspective, the latter issue is the most crucial. But free speech is also important, and cannot be breezily dismissed.

Can words kill? Some civil libertarians say it is preposterous. Indeed, Carter’s lawyer, Joseph Cataldo, said, “This is clearly just speech. There was no physical action taken by Michelle Carter in connection with the death. It was just words alone.”

Here’s a scenario worth considering. A white racist speaks at a rally, getting his angry followers all ginned up. He spots a black man walking by, and then urges his audience to “get that guy and kill him.” They do.

Is this free speech? No. It constitutes incitement to riot. No competent judge would ever say that this speech is covered by the First Amendment. So, yes, words can kill.

Treasonous speech may also kill. Moreover, there is no constitutional right to solicit a murder over the Internet.

The question in the Carter case is whether her words are responsible for Roy’s suicide.

Carter did not simply send one text to Roy encouraging him to kill himself: She spent two weeks laboring him to do so. He finally complied, driving to a mall parking lot, filling his truck with carbon monoxide from a generator, and waiting for it to overwhelm him.

We know that Roy called Carter while the truck was filled with fumes. At one point he had second thoughts and exited the car, but Carter pleaded with him to get back in and finish the job. Judge Moniz noted that she “can hear him coughing and can hear the loud noise of the motor.” That is why he said her role “constituted wanton and reckless conduct…where there was a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would arise to Mr. Roy.”

The texts Carter sent are chilling. Here is an excerpt (no grammatical changes have been made). The exchange begins after Conrad Roy confesses that he is hesitant about ending his life.

Carter: “You are so hesitant because you keeping over thinking it and keep pushing it off. You just need to do it, Conrad. The more you push it off, the more it will eat at you. You’re ready and prepared. All you have to do is turn the generator on and you will be free and happy. No more pushing it off. No more waiting.”

Conrad: “You’re right.”

Carter: “If you want it as bad as you say you do it’s time to do it today.”

Conrad: “Yup. No more waiting.”

Carter: “Okay. I’m serious. Like you can’t even wait ’till tonight. You have to do it when you get back from your walk….Always smile, and yeah, you have to just do it. You have everything you need. There is now way you can fail. Tonight is the night. It’s now or never….[D]on’t be scared. You already made this decision and if you don’t do it tonight you’re gonna be thinking about it all the time and stuff all the rest of your life and be miserable….You’re finally going to be happy in heaven. No more pain. No more bad thoughts and worries. You’ll be free.”

Is there freedom in death? To the proponents of euthanasia, this is certainly true. Was it really true for Conrad, a clinically depressed young man? Does it matter that vulnerable people like him can easily be seduced by such appeals? Was not Conrad exploited?

This case involves issues that transcend these two persons. Does society have a right to intervene by dissuading those who are suicidal from succeeding? Cops, representing the public, involve themselves all the time: some are trained to stop jumpers. Indeed, we put up with traffic snarls on bridges to allow these cops to do their job. Why? Because we, as a society, believe that suicide is wrong. If this is the case, how can we blithely disregard the role of suicide enablers?

The ACLU is smart enough to know that Carter’s conviction may work against its efforts to support euthanasia. The Massachusetts chapter director, Matthew Segal, knows what is at stake. “If allowed to stand, Ms. Carter’s conviction could chill important and worthwhile end-of-life discussions between loved ones across the Commonwealth.”

From a Catholic perspective, Carter’s conviction may also put the brakes on doctors and insurance agents, as well as family members and friends, who have an extrinsic motive to put down a troubled person. In this case, Carter’s role was so obvious that it is hard to write her conduct off as purely a matter of free speech.

Three months after Conrad’s death, Carter sent a text to a friend saying, “his death is my fault, like honestly I could have stopped him. I was on the phone with him and he got out of the car because it was working and he got scared and I f***ing told him to get back in [the truck].” He did, and that is why he is dead. Words matter. They can even kill.

Related Posts

ABUSE LOBBY UPENDED; AGENDA EXPOSED

TENNESSEE TRIUMPH

LOOKING BACK

BIAS AND BIGOTRY AT THE BBC PART II

SEXUAL ABUSE LOBBY IS AGENDA-RIDDEN

Places on our 2024 summer school are filling fast. Don’t miss out. Enrol now to avoid disappointment

• 40 Useful Words and Phrases for Top-Notch Essays

To be truly brilliant, an essay needs to utilise the right language. You could make a great point, but if it’s not intelligently articulated, you almost needn’t have bothered.

Developing the language skills to build an argument and to write persuasively is crucial if you’re to write outstanding essays every time. In this article, we’re going to equip you with the words and phrases you need to write a top-notch essay, along with examples of how to utilise them.

It’s by no means an exhaustive list, and there will often be other ways of using the words and phrases we describe that we won’t have room to include, but there should be more than enough below to help you make an instant improvement to your essay-writing skills.

If you’re interested in developing your language and persuasive skills, Oxford Royale offers summer courses at its Oxford Summer School , Cambridge Summer School , London Summer School , San Francisco Summer School and Yale Summer School . You can study courses to learn english , prepare for careers in law , medicine , business , engineering and leadership.

General explaining

Let’s start by looking at language for general explanations of complex points.

1. In order to

Usage: “In order to” can be used to introduce an explanation for the purpose of an argument. Example: “In order to understand X, we need first to understand Y.”

2. In other words

Usage: Use “in other words” when you want to express something in a different way (more simply), to make it easier to understand, or to emphasise or expand on a point. Example: “Frogs are amphibians. In other words, they live on the land and in the water.”

3. To put it another way

Usage: This phrase is another way of saying “in other words”, and can be used in particularly complex points, when you feel that an alternative way of wording a problem may help the reader achieve a better understanding of its significance. Example: “Plants rely on photosynthesis. To put it another way, they will die without the sun.”

4. That is to say

Usage: “That is” and “that is to say” can be used to add further detail to your explanation, or to be more precise. Example: “Whales are mammals. That is to say, they must breathe air.”

5. To that end

Usage: Use “to that end” or “to this end” in a similar way to “in order to” or “so”. Example: “Zoologists have long sought to understand how animals communicate with each other. To that end, a new study has been launched that looks at elephant sounds and their possible meanings.”

Adding additional information to support a point

Students often make the mistake of using synonyms of “and” each time they want to add further information in support of a point they’re making, or to build an argument . Here are some cleverer ways of doing this.

6. Moreover

Usage: Employ “moreover” at the start of a sentence to add extra information in support of a point you’re making. Example: “Moreover, the results of a recent piece of research provide compelling evidence in support of…”

7. Furthermore

Usage:This is also generally used at the start of a sentence, to add extra information. Example: “Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that…”

8. What’s more

Usage: This is used in the same way as “moreover” and “furthermore”. Example: “What’s more, this isn’t the only evidence that supports this hypothesis.”

9. Likewise

Usage: Use “likewise” when you want to talk about something that agrees with what you’ve just mentioned. Example: “Scholar A believes X. Likewise, Scholar B argues compellingly in favour of this point of view.”

10. Similarly

Usage: Use “similarly” in the same way as “likewise”. Example: “Audiences at the time reacted with shock to Beethoven’s new work, because it was very different to what they were used to. Similarly, we have a tendency to react with surprise to the unfamiliar.”

11. Another key thing to remember

Usage: Use the phrase “another key point to remember” or “another key fact to remember” to introduce additional facts without using the word “also”. Example: “As a Romantic, Blake was a proponent of a closer relationship between humans and nature. Another key point to remember is that Blake was writing during the Industrial Revolution, which had a major impact on the world around him.”

12. As well as

Usage: Use “as well as” instead of “also” or “and”. Example: “Scholar A argued that this was due to X, as well as Y.”

13. Not only… but also

Usage: This wording is used to add an extra piece of information, often something that’s in some way more surprising or unexpected than the first piece of information. Example: “Not only did Edmund Hillary have the honour of being the first to reach the summit of Everest, but he was also appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire.”

14. Coupled with

Usage: Used when considering two or more arguments at a time. Example: “Coupled with the literary evidence, the statistics paint a compelling view of…”

15. Firstly, secondly, thirdly…

Usage: This can be used to structure an argument, presenting facts clearly one after the other. Example: “There are many points in support of this view. Firstly, X. Secondly, Y. And thirdly, Z.

16. Not to mention/to say nothing of

Usage: “Not to mention” and “to say nothing of” can be used to add extra information with a bit of emphasis. Example: “The war caused unprecedented suffering to millions of people, not to mention its impact on the country’s economy.”

Words and phrases for demonstrating contrast

When you’re developing an argument, you will often need to present contrasting or opposing opinions or evidence – “it could show this, but it could also show this”, or “X says this, but Y disagrees”. This section covers words you can use instead of the “but” in these examples, to make your writing sound more intelligent and interesting.

17. However

Usage: Use “however” to introduce a point that disagrees with what you’ve just said. Example: “Scholar A thinks this. However, Scholar B reached a different conclusion.”

18. On the other hand

Usage: Usage of this phrase includes introducing a contrasting interpretation of the same piece of evidence, a different piece of evidence that suggests something else, or an opposing opinion. Example: “The historical evidence appears to suggest a clear-cut situation. On the other hand, the archaeological evidence presents a somewhat less straightforward picture of what happened that day.”

19. Having said that

Usage: Used in a similar manner to “on the other hand” or “but”. Example: “The historians are unanimous in telling us X, an agreement that suggests that this version of events must be an accurate account. Having said that, the archaeology tells a different story.”

20. By contrast/in comparison

Usage: Use “by contrast” or “in comparison” when you’re comparing and contrasting pieces of evidence. Example: “Scholar A’s opinion, then, is based on insufficient evidence. By contrast, Scholar B’s opinion seems more plausible.”

21. Then again

Usage: Use this to cast doubt on an assertion. Example: “Writer A asserts that this was the reason for what happened. Then again, it’s possible that he was being paid to say this.”

22. That said

Usage: This is used in the same way as “then again”. Example: “The evidence ostensibly appears to point to this conclusion. That said, much of the evidence is unreliable at best.”

Usage: Use this when you want to introduce a contrasting idea. Example: “Much of scholarship has focused on this evidence. Yet not everyone agrees that this is the most important aspect of the situation.”

Adding a proviso or acknowledging reservations

Sometimes, you may need to acknowledge a shortfalling in a piece of evidence, or add a proviso. Here are some ways of doing so.

24. Despite this

Usage: Use “despite this” or “in spite of this” when you want to outline a point that stands regardless of a shortfalling in the evidence. Example: “The sample size was small, but the results were important despite this.”

25. With this in mind

Usage: Use this when you want your reader to consider a point in the knowledge of something else. Example: “We’ve seen that the methods used in the 19th century study did not always live up to the rigorous standards expected in scientific research today, which makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions. With this in mind, let’s look at a more recent study to see how the results compare.”

26. Provided that

Usage: This means “on condition that”. You can also say “providing that” or just “providing” to mean the same thing. Example: “We may use this as evidence to support our argument, provided that we bear in mind the limitations of the methods used to obtain it.”

27. In view of/in light of

Usage: These phrases are used when something has shed light on something else. Example: “In light of the evidence from the 2013 study, we have a better understanding of…”

28. Nonetheless

Usage: This is similar to “despite this”. Example: “The study had its limitations, but it was nonetheless groundbreaking for its day.”

29. Nevertheless

Usage: This is the same as “nonetheless”. Example: “The study was flawed, but it was important nevertheless.”

30. Notwithstanding

Usage: This is another way of saying “nonetheless”. Example: “Notwithstanding the limitations of the methodology used, it was an important study in the development of how we view the workings of the human mind.”

Giving examples

Good essays always back up points with examples, but it’s going to get boring if you use the expression “for example” every time. Here are a couple of other ways of saying the same thing.

31. For instance

Example: “Some birds migrate to avoid harsher winter climates. Swallows, for instance, leave the UK in early winter and fly south…”

32. To give an illustration

Example: “To give an illustration of what I mean, let’s look at the case of…”

Signifying importance

When you want to demonstrate that a point is particularly important, there are several ways of highlighting it as such.

33. Significantly

Usage: Used to introduce a point that is loaded with meaning that might not be immediately apparent. Example: “Significantly, Tacitus omits to tell us the kind of gossip prevalent in Suetonius’ accounts of the same period.”

34. Notably

Usage: This can be used to mean “significantly” (as above), and it can also be used interchangeably with “in particular” (the example below demonstrates the first of these ways of using it). Example: “Actual figures are notably absent from Scholar A’s analysis.”

35. Importantly

Usage: Use “importantly” interchangeably with “significantly”. Example: “Importantly, Scholar A was being employed by X when he wrote this work, and was presumably therefore under pressure to portray the situation more favourably than he perhaps might otherwise have done.”

Summarising

You’ve almost made it to the end of the essay, but your work isn’t over yet. You need to end by wrapping up everything you’ve talked about, showing that you’ve considered the arguments on both sides and reached the most likely conclusion. Here are some words and phrases to help you.

36. In conclusion

Usage: Typically used to introduce the concluding paragraph or sentence of an essay, summarising what you’ve discussed in a broad overview. Example: “In conclusion, the evidence points almost exclusively to Argument A.”

37. Above all

Usage: Used to signify what you believe to be the most significant point, and the main takeaway from the essay. Example: “Above all, it seems pertinent to remember that…”

38. Persuasive

Usage: This is a useful word to use when summarising which argument you find most convincing. Example: “Scholar A’s point – that Constanze Mozart was motivated by financial gain – seems to me to be the most persuasive argument for her actions following Mozart’s death.”

39. Compelling

Usage: Use in the same way as “persuasive” above. Example: “The most compelling argument is presented by Scholar A.”

40. All things considered

Usage: This means “taking everything into account”. Example: “All things considered, it seems reasonable to assume that…”

How many of these words and phrases will you get into your next essay? And are any of your favourite essay terms missing from our list? Let us know in the comments below, or get in touch here to find out more about courses that can help you with your essays.

At Oxford Royale Academy, we offer a number of  summer school courses for young people who are keen to improve their essay writing skills. Click here to apply for one of our courses today, including law , business , medicine  and engineering .

Comments are closed.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Liz Cheney: The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim

By Liz Cheney

Ms. Cheney, a Republican, is a former U.S. representative from Wyoming and was vice chairwoman of the Jan. 6 select committee in the House of Representatives.

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Donald Trump’s arguments that he is immune from prosecution for his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election. It is likely that all — or nearly all — of the justices will agree that a former president who attempted to seize power and remain in office illegally can be prosecuted. I suspect that some justices may also wish to clarify whether doctrines of presidential immunity might apply in other contexts — for example, to a president’s actions as commander in chief during a time of war. But the justices should also recognize the profoundly negative impact they may have if the court does not resolve these issues quickly and decisively.

If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury, and our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account.

The Jan. 6 House select committee’s hearings and final report in 2022 relied on testimony given by dozens of Republicans — including many who worked closely with Mr. Trump in the White House, in his Justice Department and on his 2020 presidential campaign. The special counsel Jack Smith’s election-related indictment of Mr. Trump relies on many of the same firsthand witnesses. Although the special counsel reached a number of the same conclusions as the select committee, the indictment is predicated on a separate and independent investigation. Evidence was developed and presented to a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C.

The indictment and public reporting suggest that the special counsel was able to obtain key evidence our committee did not have. For example, it appears that the grand jury received evidence from witnesses such as Mark Meadows, a former Trump chief of staff, and Dan Scavino, a former Trump aide, both of whom refused to testify in our investigation. Public reporting also suggests that members of Mr. Trump’s Office of White House Counsel and other White House aides testified in full, without any limitations based on executive privilege, as did Vice President Mike Pence and his counsel.

The special counsel’s indictment lays out Mr. Trump’s detailed plan to overturn the 2020 election, including the corrupt use of fraudulent slates of electors in several states. According to the indictment, senior advisers in the White House, Justice Department and elsewhere repeatedly warned that Mr. Trump’s claims of election fraud were false and that his plans for Jan. 6 were illegal. Mr. Trump chose to ignore those warnings. (Remember what the White House lawyer Eric Herschmann told Mr. Trump’s alleged co-conspirator John Eastman on Jan. 7, 2021: “Get a great f’ing criminal defense lawyer. You’re gonna need it.”) There is little doubt that Mr. Trump’s closest advisers also gave the federal grand jury minute-to-minute accounts of his malicious conduct on Jan. 6, describing how they repeatedly begged the president to instruct the violent rioters to leave our Capitol and how Mr. Trump refused for several hours to do so as he watched the attack on television. This historic testimony about a former president’s conduct is likely to remain secret until the special counsel presents his case at trial.

As a criminal defendant, Mr. Trump has long had access to federal grand jury material relating to his Jan. 6 indictment and to all the testimony obtained by our select committee. He knows what all these witnesses have said under oath and understands the risks he faces at trial. That’s why he is doing everything possible to try to delay his Jan. 6 federal criminal trial until after the November election. If the trial is delayed past this fall and Mr. Trump wins re-election, he will surely fire the special counsel, order his Justice Department to drop all Jan. 6 cases and try to prevent key grand jury testimony from ever seeing the light of day.

I know how Mr. Trump’s delay tactics work. Our committee had to spend months litigating his privilege claims (in Trump v. Thompson) before we could gain access to White House records. Court records and public reporting suggest that the special counsel also invested considerable time defeating Mr. Trump’s claims of executive privilege, which were aimed at preventing key evidence from reaching the grand jury. All of this evidence should be presented in open court, so that the public can fully assess what Mr. Trump did on Jan. 6 and what a man capable of that type of depravity could do if again handed the awesome power of the presidency.

Early this year, a federal appeals court took less than a month after oral argument to issue its lengthy opinion on immunity. History shows that the Supreme Court can act just as quickly , when necessary. And the court should fashion its decision in a way that does not lead to further time-consuming appeals on presidential immunity. It cannot be that a president of the United States can attempt to steal an election and seize power but our justice system is incapable of bringing him to trial before the next election four years later.

Mr. Trump believes he can threaten and intimidate judges and their families , assert baseless legal defenses and thereby avoid accountability altogether. Through this conduct, he seeks to break our institutions. If Mr. Trump’s tactics prevent his Jan. 6 trial from proceeding in the ordinary course, he will also have succeeded in concealing critical evidence from the American people — evidence demonstrating his disregard for the rule of law, his cruelty on Jan. 6 and the deep flaws in character that make him unfit to serve as president. The Supreme Court should understand this reality and conclude without delay that no immunity applies here.

Liz Cheney, a Republican, is a former U.S. representative from Wyoming and was vice chairwoman of the Jan. 6 select committee in the House of Representatives.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

When Words Can Kill

The traumatizing and healing effect that words can have on people..

Posted August 10, 2017

I’m sure most of you have followed a story that received tremendous coverage in the news: a teenage girl convinced her boyfriend to kill himself through a series of relentless text messages. She bullied and cajoled him into acting on his suicidal ideation, even accused him of being weak when he had second thoughts and tried to back out of the plan. Those of us who work in the mental health community have long understood the incredible impact of words. The way others talk to us profoundly influences our emotional states, our subsequent thoughts, and many of our behavioral choices. Unkind or abusive words can literally be used as weapons; adversely affecting self-esteem by “cutting” someone down to size; or talking someone into dangerous acts of self-harm that can be life threatening.

Clients in their 60’s and 70’s can still recall the exact words and phrases that belittled and hurt them in childhood .

I have worked with many clients who still carry in their heads the abusive messages they received from significant others. Words that criticized, taunted, ridiculed, accused, judged, shamed or blamed linger years later. And their emotional punch doesn’t lessen either. Clients in their 60’s and 70’s can still recall the exact words and phrases that belittled and hurt them in childhood. And when they do, they are still overcome with sadness, helplessness, self-doubt, or self-loathing . The messages remain powerful because they were spoken by people who were supposedly safe, trustworthy, and loving. Therefore, the words and their meaning were never challenged: they were accepted as core truths. The teenaged boy who ultimately killed himself trusted his girlfriend’s words: “You’ll be better off,” “You just have to do it,” “No more pushing it off. No more waiting.”

Whenever possible, I try to find meaning in acts that are senseless. One of the lessons we can learn from this horrible tragedy is a reminder of the power of words. This event shines an ugly spotlight on how deadly words can be. We also need to be reminded of the positive impact of words.

Words that are compassionate and non-judgmental have the power to calm, soothe, and re-ground us. They activate our social engagement response, helping us to feel safely connected to other people. This has the effect of reducing fears, anxiety , and a sense of isolation. Words can de-escalate a flight-fight response, enabling us to successfully navigate challenges rather than wildly striking out or fleeing. Loving words of encouragement give us hope, enhance self-esteem, and enable us to take healthy risks in life that allow for ongoing personal and professional growth.

Words that are compassionate and non-judgmental have the power to calm, soothe, and re-ground us.

So please take the time to notice the words you use when interacting with others. Ask yourself, “Is what I am about to say to my child, my partner, my co-worker, the stranger in line ahead of me, kind or unkind?” “What impact will my words have on this person?” And keep in mind that when you text or e-mail, tone of voice, emotion , animation, body language , and facial expressions are all missing. Therefore, your word choice is even more important as it is the sole way in which your message will be communicated and received. Offhanded insulting, sarcastic, or condescending comments still hit their mark and can hurt deeply- whether you intended them to or not. Derogatory language, critical and judgmental words can reverberate years later and be just as debilitating as when they were first spoken. Words can heal and words can traumatize. And as we were recently reminded.

Lisa Ferentz, LCSW-C, DAPA, is a clinical social worker, psychotherapist, and the founder of the Institute for Advanced Psychotherapy Training and Education.

• Find Counselling
• Find Online Therapy
• New Zealand
• Christchurch
• Palmerston North
• New Plymouth
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

'I can't breathe.' Canton police bodycam footage captures Frank Tyson's final words

CANTON ‒ Frank Tyson's last words were "I can't breathe."

The city of Canton released 911 calls and police body camera footage Wednesday night showing Tyson's arrest and struggle with two police officers last week .

Tyson, 53, who lived in the East Canton area, died after being taken to the ground and handcuffed inside the AMVETS building on Sherrick Road SE.

Police say he crashed his car into a utility pole, abandoned the vehicle and ran into the building.

The bodycam video shows police, directed to the AMVETS by witnesses, going into the bar area and taking Tyson to the floor as he screamed that police officers were trying to kill him.

Police got him onto the floor; one officer applied his knee to Tyson's back for about a minute as another police officer handcuffed him. Tyson said several times that "I can't breathe." And then less than a minute after the officers handcuffed him, he went silent.

The police officers left Tyson, who had been released from state prison earlier this month after serving a 24-year sentence for kidnapping, on the floor face down for nearly 8 minutes before the officer who handcuffed Tyson realized he couldn't feel a pulse. He took the handcuffs off and he and another officer applied chest compressions for several minutes.

Canton police have turned the investigation over to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and officers Beau Schoenegge and Camden Burch have been placed on administrative leave. The Stark County Coroner's Office sent Tyson's body to the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office for an autopsy and no cause of death has been released yet.

The city showed the 35-minute video to Tyson's family before releasing it publicly.

“Today we have released the bodycam footage of the arrest incident involving the death of Mr. Frank E. Tyson," Mayor William V. Sherer II said in a prepared statement. "I sat down with members of the Tyson family to not only allow them to see what is now being released to the public, but to give them my condolences in person.

"As we make it through this challenging time, my goal is to be as transparent with this community as possible. This investigation is in the hands of BCI, and we will continue to provide them with all the required information they need to do their work. Given this is a pending investigation, we are limited on what further information we can provide.”

What does the Canton police bodycam of Frank Tyson's arrest show?

The police officer with the body camera arrived in the 1700 block of Sherrick Road SE at 8:24 p.m. Thursday to discover that a utility pole had been sheared, apparently by Tyson's vehicle. Much of the pole was hanging from the power lines.

"The guy who did this. He's in the VFW. He ran in there. And his car's right there," said a passing motorist who stopped.

The video was altered so witnesses in the video could not be identified.

One neighbor called 911 about the downed pole and crash and two more called 911 complaining about Tyson's erratic behavior inside AMVETS, seeking to have him removed from the private club.

The police officer accompanied by another officer went toward the AMVETS building. The officer found a vehicle with its airbag deployed, hazard lights flashing and driver's door open in the front yard of a home by the building.

As officers entered the building around 8:27 p.m., a woman standing in the foyer told police: "Please get him out of here now."

Tyson, standing at the bar wearing a white shirt and shorts, saw the police officers and was agitated. He yelled something inaudible on the video.

"No," the police officer said. "We're going outside. We're going outside."

"You ain't killing me. You ain't killing me tonight," he said.

The police officers grabbed Tyson by his arms.

Tyson resisted and a struggle began, with bar stools being knocked to the floor.

"They're trying to kill me. They're trying to kill me," Tyson yelled repeatedly. "Call the sheriff! Call the sheriff's department! They're trying to kill me. They're trying to kill me. ... Call the sheriff!"

The woman yelled that the police were trying to help him.

As Tyson was on the ground still yelling, an officer put his knee on Tyson's back and he was handcuffed.

Frank Tyson repeatedly says, 'I can't breathe.'

"I can't breathe," Tyson said, his words sounding gurgled.

"Stop fighting," the police officer said.

"I can't breathe," Tyson said again. "I can't breathe. I can't breathe."

He then gurgled a few more words that were inaudible.

"You're fine," the police officer said, with his hand around Tyson's handcuffed wrist. "Shut the (expletive) up."

Tyson then lay motionless with his face on the floor, the top of his pants slightly pulled down.

At 8:30 p.m., the police officer, apparently seeing movement, told Tyson, "Calm down. Stop fighting. Stop fighting."

At 8:34 p.m., more than 5 minutes after Tyson had last spoken, another officer looking down at Tyson on the floor asked if Tyson had calmed down.

"He might be out," the police officer said.

"Is he breathing?" the other officer asked, bending down to examine him. But then he got up and walked away.

At 8:35 p.m., the police officer said to Tyson, "All right, stand up." He turned Tyson around onto his back. The officer began shaking Tyson. The police officers then turned him onto his side.

"Come on, man," the police officer said to Tyson.

He tapped him a few times.

Another police officer said, "Is he breathing? ... I have medics coming."

The police officer put his hands on Tyson's back looking for any signs of life.

Officer: 'Does he have a pulse?'

At 8:37 p.m., nearly 8 minutes after Tyson had last spoken, the police officer removed the handcuffs.

"Does he have a pulse?" the other police officer said, as they turned Tyson onto his back.

"I didn't feel one," the police officer said. "Will you tell medics to step it up? He's not responsive. I don't know if I can feel a pulse."

The police officer then began administering chest compressions. After a minute, another police officer took over applying compressions. They also applied two doses of naloxone, a medication used to reverse opioid overdoses.

Medics later arrived to take over.

Reach Robert at [email protected]. X formerly Twitter: @rwangREP.

Customer Reviews