6 ms·
Tweets and internet posts are not violence.
by derp_dee_derp 7y ago
Tweets and internet posts are not violence.
- Kye 7y agoViolence is an expansive concept beyond the usual usage. Tweets and posts can lead to all kinds. Recent example: at least one politician being milkshaked after the first incident. And even though I find fascist views abhorrent, I can see the fear they feel about the possibility of being clocked post-Spencer as a sort of violence. Oddly, these same people would reject the notion of violence as something beyond immediate and physical... And then LGBTQ+ people experience economic violence all the time. There are no protections in most places, and plenty of people are happy to fire them/kick them out of apartments based entirely on stereotypes.
- derp_dee_derp 7y agoThere is no such thing as economic violence either. The word you are looking for is discrimination.
- BillSaysThis 7y agoActually, maybe calling these things violence would do more good in getting people to understand the problems need solutions.
- KirinDave 7y agoWhy is there no such thing? Because you say so? That exact phrase appears to be in common usage globally. Given that, who's actually out of step with reality here? The word discrimination describes what an discriminator does. Violence usually applied to what a victim experiences. Surely we can imagine a scenario where someone experiences violence without discrimination occuring.
- derp_dee_derp 7y agoyou. you are the one out of step with reality. here is the dictionary definition of violence for your reference. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
- KirinDave 7y agoThere are 4 senses of the word and only 1 names physical violence. Thank you for helping my argument, but we can all check the dictionary on our own time.
- derp_dee_derp 7y agoCool story. Call me when you come back to reality.
- KirinDave 7y agoHave a nice time doing whatever it is you do besides critically examining reality.
- ionised 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence "It refers to a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, speciesism, racism, and sexism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung. According to Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs"."
- matz1 7y agoSure, if you redefine the word violence. To me violence has to involve physical force.
- Kye 7y agoI don't need to redefine it. This usage is common among people who work on and with these subjects. KirinDave was using it in the sense used by sociologists and people who depend on their work. These kinds of conversations would be less touchy if people defined their terms in advance so everyone is on the same page. It's okay though. It's all cleared up now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Types
- KirinDave 7y agoI am sorry these characters are downvoting you rather than actually engaging with your arguments. Please know that someone else sees it happening and thinks it's... uh... par for the course given the post histories of at least one person here.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cgriswald 7y agoI don’t think it’s simply a matter of defining terms. The choice to call non-violent actions “violence” is a political one. It is certainly not made less so because certain people use it regularly when discussing these issues. Nor is your choice to use it any less political. You can’t wash your hands of it by pointing to others’ use. What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence). People, rightly or wrongly, object to the conflation of speech and violence. I happen to think the normalization of speech as violence is dangerous doublespeak. What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost?
- 7y ago
- KirinDave 7y agoI'm fairly certain that I did not describe tweets. I describe information and identity disclosures that led to significant negative outcomes for individuals. That the internet is their delivery medium is not particularly important to the outcome, but it is the subject of the conversation here.
- derp_dee_derp 7y ago> Or lost their job because of a tweet about men being sexisg. a direct quote from your comment. you describe tweets. how do you not remember what you just wrote?
- KirinDave 7y agoTo quote myself: "describe information and identity disclosures that led to significant negative outcomes for individuals." The violence is the disclosure. That it is a tweet doesn't matter anymore than the ammunition type used in a fatal shooting is uninteresting to most victims. > how do you not remember what you just wrote? How do you not read more than one sentence of what I just wrote? It's difficult to see your response as anything but a disingenuous reading.