When did words become violence?

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

Most of us grew up hearing or saying that well-known rhyme. We knew it wasn’t fully true – words did hurt – but we also knew insults and name-calling didn’t hurt the same as a broken arm or a rock to the forehead. The rhyme wasn’t so much about how words didn’t matter but a reminder of resilience – a mantra you told yourself in order to stay strong in the face of the school bully. At the core, it was a way of saying: I can choose how much power words will have over me.

My kids have never heard that rhyme. I must assume that’s because it doesn’t represent the spirit of our age.

We now live in a society where many believe that words are violence. And tragically, it seems that belief may help pave the way for real violence – like the brutal assassination of conservative commentator and Christian activist Charlie Kirk. (See The Stand 11/25.)

In an age of safe spaces, performative outrage, and labeling a sitting U.S. president “literally Hitler,” it is easy to recognize that free speech has become contested ground. But the real question is … why? How did words become violence?

When reports and video from Utah Valley University began to circulate on the afternoon of September 10, 2025, most of us watched in horror and sadness. Waiting for updates, unsure of how factual each new piece of hearsay might be, reputable news couldn’t come fast enough. Sadly, within moments of the announcement that Kirk had indeed been killed, the phrase “He’s Dead” (in all caps) began to trend on the social media platform known as X. The vile messages showed GIFs and images of celebration – all marked by that simple message that gloated over the death of a husband, father, and patriot.

But why? The people who gave such loathsome responses are supposedly intelligent and civilized; they claim to live with supreme empathy, but, ironically, offer none to those with whom they disagree. According to them, Charlie Kirk was a “fascist,” “Nazi,” “white supremacist,” and “Christian nationalist.”

In a piece titled “Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning”, published in the progressive magazine The Nation, Kirk is presented not as a promoter of free speech and civil discourse, but as a “white Christian nationalist provocateur” who “preached hate, bigotry, and division.”

These toxic labels stand as de facto critiques of Kirk’s conservative Christian views. However, there is no content to these labels. They are incendiary insults – eliciting emotional reactions, both pro and con. But more troubling, in light of Kirk’s assassination, it is being revealed that these labels are actually subtle inferences that his murder was justified. As historian Victor Davis Hanson recently observed, among the Left, “There is a contextualization, a normalization … for the use of violence as a political means.”

This sentiment was evident in the now-infamous on-air comments from MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd, who was later fired. Dowd stated that Kirk was “constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech … aimed at certain groups,” and concluded, “hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions.” Though hedged with the words “sort of,” the implication was clear: Kirk’s views were dangerous and inherently violent.

Dowd’s logic invites two interpretations – both troubling. One is that Kirk’s “hate speech” incited others to harm those he allegedly targeted. The other, more fitting in light of his murder, is that Kirk’s speech provoked a violent retaliation. In either case, the cause-and-effect logic serves to contextualize the violence, casting it not as an atrocity but as an unfortunate inevitability – just part of “the environment we’re in.” In other words, “Why should we mourn when the man brought it on himself?”

Words as violence

The issue is deeper than the way many on the Left have reacted to the murder of Charlie Kirk. In October 2024, a national survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) found that 4 in 5 Americans (80%) agreed to some extent with the statement, “Words can be violence.” While all groups are represented in that sample, there were three groups most likely to agree:

• Women

• Gen Z

• Democrats

What is noteworthy is, at a time when actual violent crime is decreasing, our cultural understanding of violence is paradoxically expanding. Speech that wounds a person’s feelings is being seen increasingly as the equivalent of actions that harm a person’s body. Once speech is labeled as violence, it naturally follows that physical violence becomes a justifiable response to disliked speech.

The assassination culture

This is surely why the justification of political violence has also been increasing recently. In another recent survey, Rutgers University’s Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) identified a rise in what they labeled “assassination culture.”

The study found that over half of respondents (56%) who identified as politically “left-of-center” stated that the murder of President Donald Trump would at least be somewhat justified. Even more chilling was that 14.1% said it would be completely justified. The survey also found that 10.7% of respondents said the same of the murder of Elon Musk.

A double standard

These aren’t just fringe opinions – they reveal a trend where violence is increasingly seen as a morally appropriate response to disliked speech or people. Statements and viewpoints themselves become acts of violence in this view – but only, it seems, for those of a certain political class.

Labeling Charlie Kirk a “bigot,” for example, is not seen as “hate speech” in the way that labeling a gay man a “sinner” would be. It doesn’t matter that Charlie Kirk (along with any Bible-believing Christian) would label all mankind – himself included – a sinner. The problem is that Kirk wouldn’t affirm homosexuality as good.

The formula in the leftist paradigm is simple:

To not affirm someone's sexual identity is a denial of one's personhood.

To deny one's personhood is to deny someone's existence.

To deny someone's existence is equal to an act of violence.

This is why LGBTQ activists frequently speak about erasure – tying the denial of gay or transgender identity to a denial of the personhood of gay or transgender individuals. It creates an inevitable category where a conservative critic of the LGBTQ agenda doesn’t merely hold an opinion but is actually espousing hateful, violent rhetoric.

There is no room for differing views at this table because the conservative view is, by the new definition, hateful and violent. This is how an associate professor at the University of Michigan can justify Kirk’s murder by saying: “Even if you believe violence isn’t the answer, it is a solution, especially to the violent conditions and violent rhetoric spewed by empowered people that create them.”

Additionally, the Left has, at times, insisted that “silence is violence.” What is meant is not that society is hindered when open discourse is hindered, but that those who agree with progressive causes have a duty to speak out in support. This further narrows the already-shrinking range of acceptable discourse.

Meanwhile, those who dissent, hesitate, or remain silent are now equivalent to violent oppressors. Such a concept encourages rash reactions and thoughtless hot takes by people who agree with leftist sentiments – which, in turn, invites the same from the Right. This is emotional manipulation, designed to elevate agreeable speech and to denigrate anything that counters it. Honest dialogue disappears entirely, as the narrative feeds an echo chamber.

The value of persuasion

If words are violence and disagreement is hate, then there is no longer any room for persuasion. This is the challenge of free speech: two parties with differing viewpoints can hash things out, presenting facts and perspectives, and enrich themselves and others through the exchange. But when feelings become truth, that exchange is no longer a dialogue – it’s considered harmful, and therefore dangerous.

The deeper reason words are seen as violence is because they carry a weight that feelings cannot: an objective connection to truth. The redefinition of language is a redefinition of reality. We cannot fully escape the edges of actual reality crashing against our perceptions – though we try. And when truth is replaced by emotion, the ability for meaningful discourse disappears.

Maybe it’s time to reclaim the resilience behind the old adage, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Speech has power to build up or tear down, it’s true. But words are not the same as actions. A word spoken in anger – though liable to God’s judgment (Matthew 5:21–22) – is not equivalent to a violent act. To conflate the two makes society unworkable and unsafe.

Words give voice to ideas, revealing the heart and mind of the speaker. Listening forces us beyond ourselves, challenging our assumptions and sharpening our view of reality. In an age dominated by imagery and emotion, reclaiming reasoned discourse is more essential than ever.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warned, “Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.”

If we allow lies about speech, truth, and harm to govern our culture, real violence will not just be excused – it will be inevitable.

Editor’s Note: The above commentary was revised from the original, which was posted at afn.net on September 17, 2025.