5 ms·

> There's such a thing as "Psychological violence". That's a dishonest redefining of a word. The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll c

> There's such a thing as "Psychological violence". That's a dishonest redefining of a word. The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so people think this thing is worse that they already think.

_ak 10y ago
What redefinition? Just look at modern definitions of violence, for example that of the World Health Organization. That definition has been around for ages, and is rather uncontroversial, unlike you seem to suggest. And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of violence.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of violence. Heck, even back to the very etymology of the word from latin it means both "vehement" (showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense) and exerting strong physical force.
coldtea 10y ago
>That's a dishonest redefining of a word. It's neither dishonest nor redefinition. Check a dictionary for "violence". You'll find several lemmas unrelated to force and beating. Also Google for "psychological violence", "emotional violence" etc. You'll find it's a common use. >* The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so people think this thing is worse that they already think.* People have been using the word "violence" for non-physical for centuries, it's not some sudden "motivation" that causes this. It makes sense to use the term for something like exposing an ex-girlfriend's/wife's naked photographs on the world. I don't think many would find the practice acceptable in the first place, for there to be any need to classify it as "violence" to convince people it's bad.

_ak 10y ago

What redefinition? Just look at modern definitions of violence, for example that of the World Health Organization. That definition has been around for ages, and is rather uncontroversial, unlike you seem to suggest. And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of violence.

coldtea 10y ago
>And even if you want to a total nitpicker, from an etymological standpoint there's nothing that suggests that violence only describes physical acts of violence. Heck, even back to the very etymology of the word from latin it means both "vehement" (showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense) and exerting strong physical force.

coldtea 10y ago

>That's a dishonest redefining of a word. It's neither dishonest nor redefinition. Check a dictionary for "violence". You'll find several lemmas unrelated to force and beating. Also Google for "psychological violence", "emotional violence" etc. You'll find it's a common use. >* The motivation behind it is: people think violence is bad, we'll call this thing violence even though it isn't, so people think this thing is worse that they already think.* People have been using the word "violence" for non-physical for centuries, it's not some sudden "motivation" that causes this. It makes sense to use the term for something like exposing an ex-girlfriend's/wife's naked photographs on the world. I don't think many would find the practice acceptable in the first place, for there to be any need to classify it as "violence" to convince people it's bad.