4 ms·
It is violent, not physical violence but it is violent. Especially in a world where people toss around the ideas of microaggression, death by a thousand cuts an
by dudul 11y ago
It is violent, not physical violence but it is violent. Especially in a world where people toss around the ideas of microaggression, death by a thousand cuts and others.
How is publicly shaming someone and aggressively lobbying for them to be fired not violent?
- wlesieutre 11y agoIt may be aggressive, but it is not violent. Violence is generally understood as the use of physical force. Violently going after someone's job would be punching their boss in the face until they agree to fire the person. EDIT: Speaking from an American English perspective, anyway.
- jerf 11y agoYou know, I agree with you. But in a world of "microaggressions" and a systematic devaluation of the meaning of English words, I'm not sure the people you're sort of defending would necessarily agree.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoIf you mean the students, they'd call it violence when it was done to them, and not violence when done to the administration (or others they disagreed with).
- masterleep 11y agoLikely they would not. That does not mean we should cooperate with them to change the meaning of words to confuse people.
- dudul 11y agoI confess, I'm not myself an English native speaker, but there seems to be a proper definition for non-physical violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Non-physical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Non-physical
- oldmanjay 11y agoThat's not a definition, it's a modern attempt to hijack the emotions associated with violence into a non-physical setting. Definitionally, violence is physical. Redefining it to include non-physical acts is pure politics, and I for one will not let it pass without calling it out for the bullshit it is.
- 7afc2c69fd4fde6 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Non-physical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Non-physical
- wlesieutre 11y agoI mean, if I stretch the definition far enough, Ghandi's nonviolent protests were actually a (nonphysical) violent assault on the East India Company. So it's a question of where you want to draw a line. Wikipedia talks about nonphysical violence in the context of a "power relationship," where someone with a significant amount of power/control over the victim is the instigator. Things like emotionally abusive relationships. A bunch of people with no direct authority over you trying to get someone fired for inappropriate behavior doesn't fit that narrative. If you told me people were violently going after someone's job, 100% my assumption is going to be "so they burned his garage down and threatened that his house is next unless he quits?" (or something along those lines). Calling phone calls and #FireBob tweets coming from people of no authority "violent" is an attempt at grabbing all the emotional baggage that comes with the word and attaching it somewhere that it doesn't belong.