3 ms·

I am fairly certain that if I organized a campaign of robbery against people who use hacker news you would not be opposed to calling that violence even if I did

I am fairly certain that if I organized a campaign of robbery against people who use hacker news you would not be opposed to calling that violence even if I didn't need to resort to physical violence to get your money. It doesn't really matter though, "violence" does not need to be physical as per the dictionary definition. nor in common usage is it uncommon to talk about violence in many senses. You're free to define it as you like, but this is not what most people mean when they say, "violence" so I'm afraid a lot of miscommunication is in your Future if you choose to persist.

matz1 7y ago
Unless you or someone else actually do the robbery physically then I wouldn't call it violent. There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Okay, but we just had another person cite the dictionary and only one of the four senses agrees with you. Searching for "economic violence" brings up literally millions of hits. > There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way. I just want to press down firmly on this since I doubt you've thought it through. If you held to this standard of words having meaning, then you'd believe that language can't evolve. The Dictionary reflects usage so broadly common it ought to be universally recognized. It's a lagging indicator. So if folks can't use words in recognizable senses, They're just universally better.what criterion do dictionaries use to recognize "enough people use it that way?" Ultimately, "The dictionary says otherwise" is a circular argument. It's like witnessing a breaking news event and saying, "Well the newspaper didn't say so, so it isn't true!" Of course they haven't written about it... yet. The recognition for a dictionary is in response to the meaning that folks are already, not the source. The dictionary derives its authority from our usage. Therefore, if millions of people use the term "economic violence" then it is a valid use of that term, even if you do find it challenging. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue otherwise, because the fact that you recognized what the term meant and therefore could object was evidence itself that it exists.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Economic "violence" isn't real violence. You're just making things up and trying to derail the conversation.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      We've just been through it. Yes it exists and yes it is. What's more, you and are the ones derailing MY point about harassment online. So if you care about derailing a conversation I started with Jerf, please don't simply restate what we've already been over.
  - matz1 7y ago
    No, I too believe language can evolve. I too believe there exist many other definition of violence that even more absurd. There still million of people that use the term violence like mine, it is still a valid use, even if you do find it challenging.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      I agree that there are an awful lot of people who'd like to put forth your point as a means to defend their actions. And like them, you're the one seeking to erase senses from the dictionary by pretending they aren't there to begin with.
      - matz1 7y ago
        Yes, I too agree that there are an awful lot of people to put forth your point as a means to defend their actions. And like them, you're the one who contribute the support to replace the current definition.
        KirinDave 7y ago
        It's pretty amazing how you started out arguing for the dictionary definition, suggesting that's how we know common usage. But here we are with you, days later, still completely unable to incorporate that fact into your worldview. Still insisting that your desire to erase the other senses of "violence" is somehow the status quo. The one who wants to erase bits that have been in the dictionary for decades and ignore the real world use of many senses of violence just to protect your political beliefs? In this thread: it's you

matz1 7y ago

Unless you or someone else actually do the robbery physically then I wouldn't call it violent. There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.

KirinDave 7y ago
Okay, but we just had another person cite the dictionary and only one of the four senses agrees with you. Searching for "economic violence" brings up literally millions of hits. > There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way. I just want to press down firmly on this since I doubt you've thought it through. If you held to this standard of words having meaning, then you'd believe that language can't evolve. The Dictionary reflects usage so broadly common it ought to be universally recognized. It's a lagging indicator. So if folks can't use words in recognizable senses, They're just universally better.what criterion do dictionaries use to recognize "enough people use it that way?" Ultimately, "The dictionary says otherwise" is a circular argument. It's like witnessing a breaking news event and saying, "Well the newspaper didn't say so, so it isn't true!" Of course they haven't written about it... yet. The recognition for a dictionary is in response to the meaning that folks are already, not the source. The dictionary derives its authority from our usage. Therefore, if millions of people use the term "economic violence" then it is a valid use of that term, even if you do find it challenging. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue otherwise, because the fact that you recognized what the term meant and therefore could object was evidence itself that it exists.
- nradov 7y ago
  Economic "violence" isn't real violence. You're just making things up and trying to derail the conversation.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    We've just been through it. Yes it exists and yes it is. What's more, you and are the ones derailing MY point about harassment online. So if you care about derailing a conversation I started with Jerf, please don't simply restate what we've already been over.
- matz1 7y ago
  No, I too believe language can evolve. I too believe there exist many other definition of violence that even more absurd. There still million of people that use the term violence like mine, it is still a valid use, even if you do find it challenging.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    I agree that there are an awful lot of people who'd like to put forth your point as a means to defend their actions. And like them, you're the one seeking to erase senses from the dictionary by pretending they aren't there to begin with.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Yes, I too agree that there are an awful lot of people to put forth your point as a means to defend their actions. And like them, you're the one who contribute the support to replace the current definition.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        It's pretty amazing how you started out arguing for the dictionary definition, suggesting that's how we know common usage. But here we are with you, days later, still completely unable to incorporate that fact into your worldview. Still insisting that your desire to erase the other senses of "violence" is somehow the status quo. The one who wants to erase bits that have been in the dictionary for decades and ignore the real world use of many senses of violence just to protect your political beliefs? In this thread: it's you