tm3308
Well-Known Member
You know this is finally an interesting discussion. The distinction between physical and verbal abuse is being questioned as evidence of neural damage from verbal abuse is being discovered.
This calls into question the Descartian mind/body dualism. The old sticks and stones thinking is now about as sound as thinking the world is flat. Science lets us know better.
The issue is how do we determine the extent of neural damage in respect to certain amounts of verbal abuse? Is a nasty tweet the same as a physical push, that affects the person's physical state, but doesn't leave a mark? Is a systematic campaign of abuse the same as giving someone a black eye?
What we do know is that the psychological impact of verbal abuse is much more long lasting than physical abuse.
Boys have traditionally set physical boundaries in response to verbal abuse, perhaps if we thought of it as a physical response to a neural physical harm, we would see things differently. Also, if we considered that certain physical harms done to the body could be more focused on neural abuse, we might be able to determine whether a physical response might be more or less legitimate.
The problem is physical responses have become deamonized, while verbal abuse, with the exception of hate speach, has not.
McCabe could probably fight this using the First Amendment, specifically the part about fighting words that has been established through the courts.
That said, he's still an idiot. Why a college athlete on a major university campus would even think about having a Twitter account is beyond me. At least Facebook can be controlled. But the entire world can take potshots at you on Twitter.