3 ms·

Words mean things. violence (n) a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure J

Words mean things. violence (n) a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure Just because someone made up his own redefinition doesn't mean much. Edit: In fact, making up a definition of "violence" that is explicitly not "violence" not only doesn't mean much, it's Orwellian and indicative of subterfuge.

anfilt 9y ago
--Note Most these questions here are rhetorical, but answer if you want.-- I agree words do mean things. Although, I would say putting someone in solitary confinement is an enactment of force. If that force destroys or damages their sanity would it meet the first definition? Also let's not forget about the connotation to words. If someone put someone in solitary confinement and basically left them for years on end. May I ask is that cruel? I would say it is cruel. The definition of cruelty is generally to inflict pain or suffering. So how different is cruelty from violence? I can go further. Inflict also means to impose. Impose can also mean to force. One can see that these words are related. So now I shall state what I feel is the most important question people should ask. What power do "you" think the state should have? I would clearly do not want the state to have the power to be cruel. What about the power to enact violence? I would say no again. (Power as in legal authority). However, one might ask what about war or defending the people with a potentially violent means? Just think about that? I can guess you would probably not want your government to be violent just because it can. However, I also guess that if your country is under attack you would not feel the government is acting wrongly or illegitimately for defending you and the rest of it's citizens. Where do you draw the line though? Lastly, I say it is wise to ensure a government does not have power that is either immoral or violates the rights of it's citizens. --edit-- I would agree that from a quick overview of that structural violence page. That seems a bit of a stretch for the word violence.
wfo 9y ago
A man with a gun and a baton beating you (if you resist) and physically forcing you into a tiny windowless cage and locking you in for an extended period of time is... not violence, you suggest? And you claim words mean things? Who is being Orwellian here? The only difference between your argument and literally 1984 is you've introduced a new ministry of non-violence, the organization that enacts non-violence on citizens by physically forcing them into torture chambers. Is grabbing someone in an alley and kidnapping them violent? No?
gerbilly 9y ago
Meh, words change and words mean what we want them to mean. Many people believe solitary confinement does as much harm or more than physical violence. By coining terms such as structural violence, we can attempt to disable the tactic of those who support supposedly "non violent" or "lawful" actions that are nonetheless immoral.

anfilt 9y ago

--Note Most these questions here are rhetorical, but answer if you want.-- I agree words do mean things. Although, I would say putting someone in solitary confinement is an enactment of force. If that force destroys or damages their sanity would it meet the first definition? Also let's not forget about the connotation to words. If someone put someone in solitary confinement and basically left them for years on end. May I ask is that cruel? I would say it is cruel. The definition of cruelty is generally to inflict pain or suffering. So how different is cruelty from violence? I can go further. Inflict also means to impose. Impose can also mean to force. One can see that these words are related. So now I shall state what I feel is the most important question people should ask. What power do "you" think the state should have? I would clearly do not want the state to have the power to be cruel. What about the power to enact violence? I would say no again. (Power as in legal authority). However, one might ask what about war or defending the people with a potentially violent means? Just think about that? I can guess you would probably not want your government to be violent just because it can. However, I also guess that if your country is under attack you would not feel the government is acting wrongly or illegitimately for defending you and the rest of it's citizens. Where do you draw the line though? Lastly, I say it is wise to ensure a government does not have power that is either immoral or violates the rights of it's citizens. --edit-- I would agree that from a quick overview of that structural violence page. That seems a bit of a stretch for the word violence.

wfo 9y ago

A man with a gun and a baton beating you (if you resist) and physically forcing you into a tiny windowless cage and locking you in for an extended period of time is... not violence, you suggest? And you claim words mean things? Who is being Orwellian here? The only difference between your argument and literally 1984 is you've introduced a new ministry of non-violence, the organization that enacts non-violence on citizens by physically forcing them into torture chambers. Is grabbing someone in an alley and kidnapping them violent? No?

gerbilly 9y ago

Meh, words change and words mean what we want them to mean. Many people believe solitary confinement does as much harm or more than physical violence. By coining terms such as structural violence, we can attempt to disable the tactic of those who support supposedly "non violent" or "lawful" actions that are nonetheless immoral.