Speech Became Violence and Violence Became Virtuous
(1) Collapses moral categories by equating speech with violence.
(2) Sanctifies identity so that disagreement becomes an existential threat.
(3) Delegitimizes dissent by labeling it “harm.”
(4) Justifies rhetorical retaliation through fierce moral labeling.
What does this create? Terms like “bigot,” “fascist,” “transphobe,” and “Nazi” become moral weapons intended to dehumanize opponents and strip them of legitimacy — and eventually of protection from real violence. It creates a culture where rhetorical or physical retaliation feels righteous and even necessary. Institutions, media, and universities that excuse or moralize acts of hostility if they’re performed in the name of “safety” or “justice” create moral permission for aggression.
In that worldview, silencing opponents isn’t oppressing them, it’s “self-defense.” The primary concern isn’t just the amount of political violence, but the moral architecture that gives permission to real violence that feels like “self-defense.”
When one collapses the distinction between intentional harm and moral disagreement, it destroys discourse and justice. There is a moral inversion that occurs in which violence becomes virtue and speech becomes sin. Augustine, Aquinas, and C.S. Lewis all warn that when moral categories collapse, cruelty is ultimately rebranded as kindness.
I am talking about the liturgical preparation for violence, and of the rituals of language and moral signs that make aggression feel righteous.
If someone sincerely believes that words are violence, that speech causes harm equivalent to physical injury, and that certain groups’ “existence” is threatened by disagreement — then by logical extension, physical retaliation looks morally justified.
Rev. Christian Leto | Editor-in-Chief