The Left’s Dangerous Game of Redefining Violence and Speech

https://m.primal.net/Ppcx.webp

In recent years, we’ve watched an unsettling trend take root in political discourse—particularly from the progressive left. It’s not just about what’s being said, but how certain behaviors and expressions are being labeled. The left has increasingly blurred, bent, and outright inverted the traditional definitions of violence and speech to fit a convenient political narrative. This isn’t just semantic sleight-of-hand—it’s deeply disingenuous and dangerous.

Violence Is Now “Speech” (When It’s Convenient)

Take the 2020 riots, for example. Billions of dollars in property damage. Lives lost. Businesses destroyed. Neighborhoods torched. Yet, these were often brushed off by mainstream media and left-leaning pundits as “mostly peaceful protests.” In some cases, the violence was defended outright as a form of “speech.” A justified outlet for the voiceless. A righteous fury.

Arson, looting, and even direct physical violence were framed not only as acceptable—but as necessary and powerful forms of political expression. Some went as far as to suggest that torching a police precinct or vandalizing a private business was a legitimate form of resistance. The implication? When the cause is “just” enough, violence is not violence—it’s speech.

Even symbolic acts of destruction, like setting a Tesla on fire, are seen by some as a political statement rather than criminal damage. The irony? Tesla is a company led by Elon Musk, a figure often despised by the left for his critiques of progressive orthodoxy. So again, violence gets recast as speech, but only when it targets the right people.

Speech Is Now “Violence” (When It’s Inconvenient)

On the flip side, we’ve seen a disturbing trend where mere words—especially those that challenge progressive ideology—are labeled as “violence.” A controversial tweet? Violence. A misgendered pronoun? Violence. Refusing to use someone’s preferred language or simply remaining silent on a hot-button issue? Also violence.

When speech doesn’t conform to left-wing orthodoxy, it becomes “harmful.” Not just offensive or disagreeable—but a threat to physical safety. The bar keeps lowering until disagreement itself becomes an act of aggression. In universities, we now see speakers deplatformed or shouted down because their ideas are labeled “violent,” regardless of how calmly or respectfully they’re delivered.

This distortion extends to silence too. The demand for ideological conformity is so high that silence in the face of certain events is seen as a form of “violence” or “complicity.” In this worldview, there's no safe harbor. You must parrot the narrative—or you're an aggressor.

The Danger of Selective Labeling

This kind of rhetorical gymnastics isn’t just hypocritical—it’s corrosive to rational discourse. When speech is violence and violence is speech, we lose the ability to distinguish between actual threats and uncomfortable ideas. It cheapens real suffering and real harm. It erodes the meaning of words, which makes real communication—and real progress—nearly impossible.

Selective labeling creates a two-tiered system of justice. If you're aligned with the "right" cause, you're allowed to break things. If you're on the "wrong" side, your mere words—or your refusal to speak—can be enough to cancel you, fire you, or destroy your life.

It’s not about protecting the vulnerable. It’s about power. Control the language, and you control the narrative. Control the narrative, and you control perception. That’s the endgame here—and it’s one that should concern everyone, regardless of political leaning.

What We Need Now

We need to reclaim honest definitions. Violence is physical harm or the threat of it. Speech is expression—whether we like it or not. Disagreement is not danger. Protest is not destruction. And silence is not complicity.

If we want a society where ideas can be tested, debated, and improved, then we must reject these manipulative redefinitions. Because when truth becomes subjective and language becomes a weapon, democracy itself is on the chopping block.