4 ms·

Here is the distinction, I think: Anyone who endures verbal abuse chooses to do so. In the case of physical abuse, the intuitive presumption is that coercion

• pron 11y ago
  > Anyone who endures verbal abuse chooses to do so. That is factually wrong. People are abused in school and in their workplace. Of course, they could choose to change schools or workplace, but the existence of the abuse is a severe, coercive, limitation of their freedom. Most common form of coercions work in non-physically-violent ways, both in human and animal societies. Coercion is not binary, and bodily harm is not the only coercive force. Not recognizing that is simply ignorance of both human psychology and sociology as well as zoology. It's a little like saying, "in physics, the only force that matters is the electromagnetic force!" I understand that you're making an assertion of value, but values should (I believe) at least be somewhat based on fact. If an experiment were to show that physical force coerced 100% of people to do something, and intimidation coerced 80% of people, you could not say that intimidation is not coercion. You could say that intimidation is a strong coercive force, but one that is weaker than physical violence, and with that I -- and everyone else -- would agree. My point is that the effect of intimidation on people is a matter of empirical observation -- not an assertion of value -- that yields clear results, even if the effect size is less than 100%.