Taken literally, the old sticks and stones adage never really made sense. Of course words can be hurtful. The point however, was to educate children that there was a difference between words and actions. Unpleasant words may indeed be unpleasant, but in a civilised society you needed to recognise that there was a difference between what someone said and what they did.

Someone saying, "I’m going to punch your face in", is not the same as them actually doing it. This old saying was used to teach children, to toughen them up to deal with insults. It was also about teaching self restraint. Just because little Bobby called you a name does not mean it is alright for you to punch him in the face.

If in comparison, we teach children and adults alike that words do hurt, that words are as bad as actions, or indeed worse than them, we should not be surprised if we start to see a decline in this distinction between words and actions or in self restraint.

Consequently, it is possible that we will begin to see a rise in intolerant and potentially even violent behaviour carried out by those who feel that they have been "offended", or by those who act on their behalf. Last year saw the back of the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act (OBA), an act that could lead to the imprisonment of a fan for up to five years. Here we find a certain loss of the distinction between words and actions, with, on paper at least, the potential that someone could be imprisoned for the song they sing or words they shout, for a far longer period than someone who commits a violent criminal act.

As one fan said to me when the OBA was being introduced, "It’s now possible that a song-singing Celtic fan could be locked up for longer than the Rangers fan who chins him for singing the song!"

The authorities are becoming less and less tolerant of words or ideas that are deemed intolerant or offensive. And there is an increasing acceptance that the force of law should be used against those who say offensive things. Given this, there is the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that certain individuals or sections of society will become equally intolerant of these words and ideas – perhaps to the extent that they too decide to use force to stamp it out. This is made all the more likely when society constructs a moralised sense of victimhood.

Our present culture gives significant moral weight to victimhood. With moral weight on their side, victim activists will often call on the authorities to use force against those they see as being hateful. Some take to social media in an attempt to destroy an individual, often demanding a person be sacked for their words or opinions – something that was, until relatively recently, seen as an extreme response. Others take it upon themselves to disrupt events. And then there are those who take things into their own hands, like the social justice warriors who not only shout "punch a Nazi", but in their state of moral righteousness, carry out the deed.

In America we have seen a recent rise in public protests against conservative and alt-right individuals like Milo Yiannopoulos or the Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson. But these are not protests at public events but in bars or, in Carlson’s case, at his home. Carlson’s home was vandalised by a crowd shouting "racist scumbag", his wife was alone in the house at the time and locked herself in the pantry, waiting for the police.

The crossover into violence appears to be worse in America than in Scotland or the UK, and perhaps it will stay that way. But with the collapsing distinction between words and actions things are likely to get worse.

This year, for example, we saw the rise of transactivism. Constructed by the authorities as a "vulnerable group", today transgender activists carry with them the moral weight of victimhood. Those who question the transgender outlook have consequently had their words depicted as a form of violence, or at the very least had these ideas described as encouraging violence towards transgender people. As a result, a strong sense of moral outrage and indeed rage can be seen in the activities of some transgender activists, with the result being that numerous events across the UK have been disrupted, sometimes violently by these activists.

Those who poo-poo the sticks and stones adage like to think of themselves as being more civilised than the old school types who see insults as water off a ducks back, but they are wrong. Once we lose the distinction between words and actions we open the door to a form of vengeful, emotional intolerance that, taken to its logical conclusion, results in violence. And why not? After all, if the state can use its full force to stamp down on certain words and ideas, why not the rest of us?