6 ms·

Property Damage is not violence, it is vandalism. Using the wrong word sends a totally different and wrong message, the things being damaged are just stuff. Stu

Property Damage is not violence, it is vandalism. Using the wrong word sends a totally different and wrong message, the things being damaged are just stuff. Stuff probably worth less than the amount of salary they are owed. The bias in this story towards equating property damage and physical violence is most terrifying in that the authors seem to legitimately not even notice it.

crowf 6y ago
So that explains why articles covering BLM protests with burning stores and looting in the background were called "peaceful". BTW, I don't know where you get you definition, but I consider people violently smashing objects as violence.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Well, except from begging the question when saying that violently smashing object is violence, at least the WHO disagrees, for which violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.", where property damage doesn't qualify as violence. Also, in judicial systems where the distinction exists, vandalism is generally considered a non-violent crime.
  - seibelj 6y ago
    If you burn down a city, even if not one person is hurt, I think a high majority of people would consider it violent - if only because property damage is often a signal of malevolent intent.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      There is an important distinction between malevolent intent, even malevolence, and violence. In the event that a city was destroyed without physically or psychologically hurting anyone even indirectly, which would mean material restitution, and as long as the intent clearly wasn't to threaten human harm, I don't know that it would be considered violent. Take this scenario, for example. Would hacking a factory to damage some sensors be violent? Of course not. If you think that some cases of property damage are indeed violence, you'd have to find a reason to draw the line, and I'm not sure you can without referring to human harm.
      - seibelj 6y ago
        I believe you are making a philosophical argument, but I can't ignore that in reality a city being destroyed - even partially, as we saw in various places with rioters burning down specific areas and looting businesses - doesn't cause any psychological stress. I live in Boston, and rioters lit many fireworks in my neighborhood and in front of my house (all fireworks are illegal in Massachusetts) late into the night, for months. I am familiar and friendly with many people in my community, including my neighbor who is a black woman, and she was very displeased with the actions she was observing and experiencing, especially given she is a front-line medical worker who needed sleep to battle COVID. In summation, the protests and property destruction indeed had psychological effects, even if you want to believe they did not.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure, and the argument is that it's violent because and insofar as there (intended) psychological effects. Not insofar as property was destroyed. And even then, trying to equate the discomfort caused by such property destruction and the violence of brutalizing and killing people is completely unjustifiable.
  - jupiter90000 6y ago
    The dictionary definition of violence seems to include meaning the use of physical force to damage or destroy. I mean we can say this is different here, but I'd imagine we'd feel different if it was like right wingers smashing up black owned businesses. Maybe I'm wrong though.
    - neltnerb 6y ago
      My main point is that the spin is so strong that if they had instead written "workers who believe they are being taken advantage of riot and destroy factory" it would be a heck of a lot less inflammatory (and is more accurate) than "the workers were violent". Maybe I'm being overly legalistic, but I think if no one is in the hospital and no one's life was put under direct threat the crime was not violent. I am definitely not saying there shouldn't be a civil suit involved, or that it is okay. If said right wingers were rioting over unpaid wages and abuse over many months and years well, I would likely have a different opinion right? These are people acting in a way that causes financial injury in protest over financial injury, not out of racial bias or desire to cause physical harm. It is not about violence to me at all; calling breaking a machine violence really dilutes the meaning and clearly is intended to make the reader think the the people doing this are hurting people.
      - jupiter90000 6y ago
        I agree about the inflammatory part regarding the headline. Keep it in context about the particular situation at hand. That said, in general, I think it can be frightening and traumatic to some people to see angry people destroying things. I know it would be for a kid seeing an angry drunk parent destroy their tablet they play games on, even if it's just a machine. This isn't the same as that, but just trying to say, we should try to understand that certain violent (or whatever you'd like to call destructive) actions will frighten some people.
      - rualca 6y ago
        > My main point is that the spin is so strong (...) There is no spin. It was a violent riot. There is no way around it. Oddly enough, you're the one trying to spin the news to somehow hide the violent nature of the protest, and instead pretend it was just a few people mildly annoyed for having half they paycheck stolen by their employer. I get it, you feel that the focus on the violent protests shifts the attention away from the salaries being stolen by the employer. Yet, are you really doing any favours by trying to spin away the resulting violence and brush it under the rug? Think about it. Do you believe that the kind of people who feels empowered to steal half the paycheck from all their employees is the kind of people who get bothered by the resulting mild annoyance? Or do you believe that having to face direct consequences in the form of.violent actions directed at them is a more effective way of ensuring this abuse is dissuaded?
  - dx87 6y ago
    The property being destroyed belongs to people, so you don't have any basis to claim that burning cars and stores doesn't cause "psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation".
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      In case where it clearly did, especially if done so on purpose, maybe you could call it violent. Do you think smashing the wares of a company did, or breaking insured store windows qualifies?
      - zepto 6y ago
        Yes - the ‘corporation’ or shareholders may not be affected, but local employees who are responsible for those things can easily be harmed.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Well, in this case it's the local employees doing it, isn't it?
        zepto 6y ago
        Not all of them, wouldn’t you agree?
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Apparently, people who saw fit to steal money from the people working for them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
  - meragrin 6y ago
    The World HEALTH Organization? Not someone I would look to about whether destroying property is considered violence.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Crimes in general are often considered through an epidemiological lens, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is under the purview of the WHO.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    18 U.S. Code § 16. Crime of violence defined The term “crime of violence” means— (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Yes, this is indeed the case in the US, which is why I specified "generally". For example, in Canada crimes against property are not considered violent crimes (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2010002/definitions-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2010002/definit...), neither are they in the UK, nor in France or Australia. The US is in the minority here.
      - smnrchrds 6y ago
        That's a fair point. We can say that there are differing and equally valid definitions of violent crime, with some including and some excluding property crimes.
    - mjbeswick 6y ago
      That might be the definition in the US, but doesn't necessarily apply in the rest of the world
- spoonjim 6y ago
  It's dangerous to blur the line between smashing windows and smashing skulls because if the line between them is blurred the escalation from one to the other becomes much more likely.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
So I guess countries bombing (unoccupied) hospitals, infrastructure, etc. isn’t violence?
- neltnerb 6y ago
  I'm not saying property damage isn't an attack. I'm not saying it is okay. I am saying that if you call something violence you absolutely imply physical harm. Call it something less ambiguous to make clear that what is going on is about property damage, not taking hostages or something which I hope you agree is vastly more serious.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    Physical harm? Since when has violence been a body-centric term? Looking at the etymology doesn’t help your case either: > late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-French and Old French violence (13c.), from Latin violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violation). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.
    - neltnerb 6y ago
      Ah. Okay, I am talking about how native English speakers read the phrase. I do not think your definition is good enough. If I tell someone "there was violence downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of physical injury. If I tell someone "there are riots downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of chaotic potential for violence, but not violence in and of itself. I appreciate how you are attempting to use linguistic arguments for your case, which is laudable, but I am talking about how I think it would be read by people without a deeply technical reading of the language.
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        If a mob trashed a neighborhood and destroyed stuff, yea I’d call it a violent mob.
thegrim33 6y ago
The literal definition of the word violence includes more than just person on person harm. For example, "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.". But I guess that's probably next on the list of definitions to be "re-written" by a certain political ideology. Within a few years I bet the current definition will be memory-holed and dictionaries will list a new definition, like so many other words/terms that have had their meanings changed in the last decade.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  There aren't any "literal" defintions of words. I can look at a brick in a wall and think it "red" while you think it "purple." Words mean what people think they mean, and conflating personal "violence" with property "violence" erases the essential difference between the two. I can tell you that this kind of "violence," when unaddressed, can easily escalate to the other kind of violence: https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/ceo-beaten-to-death-by-workers-in-noida/story-MB7uW7xQouYiYrU1MCc3TJ.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/ceo-beaten-to-death-by-...
  - rualca 6y ago
    > There aren't any "literal" defintions of words. Pretty much every single dictionary managed to get all their definitions of "violence" to point to the same meaning, which includes destruction of property. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence
Niten 6y ago
Of course vandalism is a form of violence. I haven't yet read into the details of this case, and I may end up siding with the protestors once I have. But I do not abide the corruption of language for whatever political ends.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have never understood violence to mean property damage, rather than physical harm to someone. It may be that the dictionaries define it differently, but that is certainly not the colloquial usage.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  So if someone is arrested for spray painting graffiti on a building you'd call them a "violent criminal"?
throwaway201103 6y ago
I've noted a trend recently where the traditional, long-established meaning of words is being cast aside so as to present normally unacceptable actions as "not really so bad." One of these words that (to some) no longer means what it has always meant is "censorship," and now "violence" is getting the same treatment. Look up "violence" in any legitimate dictionary and you will see that it is not limited to personal injury. You will see definitions such as: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy" or "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force" TFA describes employees "who were exiting the facility after completing their night-shift, went on a rampage destroying the company's furniture, assembly units and even attempted to set fire to vehicles." To describe these actions done in this manner as "property damage" mischaracterizes the reality of what happened and suggests that an agenda is being pushed on the reader.
- neltnerb 6y ago
  They rioted and destroyed property. Some people were probably scared. That sucks. It also sucks that stuff got busted. I'm sure some people will get arrested and charged with things. But these are things solved with money. No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. I was reading with horror to see how many had died. That was why it stuck out to me when there were not even injuries. It is as simple as that. Using a word that does not imply something that didn't happen -- it is just good writing, it's not pushing an agenda. Replace "violence" with "riots" and it has a much more generic implication. Simple.
  - tasuki 6y ago
    > My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. It doesn't.
  - rualca 6y ago
    > They rioted and destroyed property. You're describing acts of violence. > No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. You're trying to play the humpty dumpty game of just making up meanings of words to fit your whim of the moment. Riots are acts of violence. Destroying entire car lots in rage is an act of violence. Destroying buildings in protest is violence. There is no way around it. Enough with the doublespeak. People got screwed out of their paycheck, they felt enraged, thus sparking a violent protested. Understandingly so. There's no need to pretend things were different.
manigandham 6y ago
Violence is the act, and is not defined by what or whom it is committed against.

crowf 6y ago

So that explains why articles covering BLM protests with burning stores and looting in the background were called "peaceful". BTW, I don't know where you get you definition, but I consider people violently smashing objects as violence.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Well, except from begging the question when saying that violently smashing object is violence, at least the WHO disagrees, for which violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.", where property damage doesn't qualify as violence. Also, in judicial systems where the distinction exists, vandalism is generally considered a non-violent crime.
- seibelj 6y ago
  If you burn down a city, even if not one person is hurt, I think a high majority of people would consider it violent - if only because property damage is often a signal of malevolent intent.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    There is an important distinction between malevolent intent, even malevolence, and violence. In the event that a city was destroyed without physically or psychologically hurting anyone even indirectly, which would mean material restitution, and as long as the intent clearly wasn't to threaten human harm, I don't know that it would be considered violent. Take this scenario, for example. Would hacking a factory to damage some sensors be violent? Of course not. If you think that some cases of property damage are indeed violence, you'd have to find a reason to draw the line, and I'm not sure you can without referring to human harm.
    - seibelj 6y ago
      I believe you are making a philosophical argument, but I can't ignore that in reality a city being destroyed - even partially, as we saw in various places with rioters burning down specific areas and looting businesses - doesn't cause any psychological stress. I live in Boston, and rioters lit many fireworks in my neighborhood and in front of my house (all fireworks are illegal in Massachusetts) late into the night, for months. I am familiar and friendly with many people in my community, including my neighbor who is a black woman, and she was very displeased with the actions she was observing and experiencing, especially given she is a front-line medical worker who needed sleep to battle COVID. In summation, the protests and property destruction indeed had psychological effects, even if you want to believe they did not.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure, and the argument is that it's violent because and insofar as there (intended) psychological effects. Not insofar as property was destroyed. And even then, trying to equate the discomfort caused by such property destruction and the violence of brutalizing and killing people is completely unjustifiable.
- jupiter90000 6y ago
  The dictionary definition of violence seems to include meaning the use of physical force to damage or destroy. I mean we can say this is different here, but I'd imagine we'd feel different if it was like right wingers smashing up black owned businesses. Maybe I'm wrong though.
  - neltnerb 6y ago
    My main point is that the spin is so strong that if they had instead written "workers who believe they are being taken advantage of riot and destroy factory" it would be a heck of a lot less inflammatory (and is more accurate) than "the workers were violent". Maybe I'm being overly legalistic, but I think if no one is in the hospital and no one's life was put under direct threat the crime was not violent. I am definitely not saying there shouldn't be a civil suit involved, or that it is okay. If said right wingers were rioting over unpaid wages and abuse over many months and years well, I would likely have a different opinion right? These are people acting in a way that causes financial injury in protest over financial injury, not out of racial bias or desire to cause physical harm. It is not about violence to me at all; calling breaking a machine violence really dilutes the meaning and clearly is intended to make the reader think the the people doing this are hurting people.
    - jupiter90000 6y ago
      I agree about the inflammatory part regarding the headline. Keep it in context about the particular situation at hand. That said, in general, I think it can be frightening and traumatic to some people to see angry people destroying things. I know it would be for a kid seeing an angry drunk parent destroy their tablet they play games on, even if it's just a machine. This isn't the same as that, but just trying to say, we should try to understand that certain violent (or whatever you'd like to call destructive) actions will frighten some people.
    - rualca 6y ago
      > My main point is that the spin is so strong (...) There is no spin. It was a violent riot. There is no way around it. Oddly enough, you're the one trying to spin the news to somehow hide the violent nature of the protest, and instead pretend it was just a few people mildly annoyed for having half they paycheck stolen by their employer. I get it, you feel that the focus on the violent protests shifts the attention away from the salaries being stolen by the employer. Yet, are you really doing any favours by trying to spin away the resulting violence and brush it under the rug? Think about it. Do you believe that the kind of people who feels empowered to steal half the paycheck from all their employees is the kind of people who get bothered by the resulting mild annoyance? Or do you believe that having to face direct consequences in the form of.violent actions directed at them is a more effective way of ensuring this abuse is dissuaded?
- dx87 6y ago
  The property being destroyed belongs to people, so you don't have any basis to claim that burning cars and stores doesn't cause "psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation".
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In case where it clearly did, especially if done so on purpose, maybe you could call it violent. Do you think smashing the wares of a company did, or breaking insured store windows qualifies?
    - zepto 6y ago
      Yes - the ‘corporation’ or shareholders may not be affected, but local employees who are responsible for those things can easily be harmed.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Well, in this case it's the local employees doing it, isn't it?
        zepto 6y ago
        Not all of them, wouldn’t you agree?
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Apparently, people who saw fit to steal money from the people working for them. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
- meragrin 6y ago
  The World HEALTH Organization? Not someone I would look to about whether destroying property is considered violence.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Crimes in general are often considered through an epidemiological lens, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is under the purview of the WHO.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  18 U.S. Code § 16. Crime of violence defined The term “crime of violence” means— (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Yes, this is indeed the case in the US, which is why I specified "generally". For example, in Canada crimes against property are not considered violent crimes (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2010002/definitions-eng.htm https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2010002/definit...), neither are they in the UK, nor in France or Australia. The US is in the minority here.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      That's a fair point. We can say that there are differing and equally valid definitions of violent crime, with some including and some excluding property crimes.
  - mjbeswick 6y ago
    That might be the definition in the US, but doesn't necessarily apply in the rest of the world
spoonjim 6y ago
It's dangerous to blur the line between smashing windows and smashing skulls because if the line between them is blurred the escalation from one to the other becomes much more likely.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

So I guess countries bombing (unoccupied) hospitals, infrastructure, etc. isn’t violence?

neltnerb 6y ago
I'm not saying property damage isn't an attack. I'm not saying it is okay. I am saying that if you call something violence you absolutely imply physical harm. Call it something less ambiguous to make clear that what is going on is about property damage, not taking hostages or something which I hope you agree is vastly more serious.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Physical harm? Since when has violence been a body-centric term? Looking at the etymology doesn’t help your case either: > late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-French and Old French violence (13c.), from Latin violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violation). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.
  - neltnerb 6y ago
    Ah. Okay, I am talking about how native English speakers read the phrase. I do not think your definition is good enough. If I tell someone "there was violence downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of physical injury. If I tell someone "there are riots downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of chaotic potential for violence, but not violence in and of itself. I appreciate how you are attempting to use linguistic arguments for your case, which is laudable, but I am talking about how I think it would be read by people without a deeply technical reading of the language.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      If a mob trashed a neighborhood and destroyed stuff, yea I’d call it a violent mob.

thegrim33 6y ago

The literal definition of the word violence includes more than just person on person harm. For example, "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.". But I guess that's probably next on the list of definitions to be "re-written" by a certain political ideology. Within a few years I bet the current definition will be memory-holed and dictionaries will list a new definition, like so many other words/terms that have had their meanings changed in the last decade.

spoonjim 6y ago
There aren't any "literal" defintions of words. I can look at a brick in a wall and think it "red" while you think it "purple." Words mean what people think they mean, and conflating personal "violence" with property "violence" erases the essential difference between the two. I can tell you that this kind of "violence," when unaddressed, can easily escalate to the other kind of violence: https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/ceo-beaten-to-death-by-workers-in-noida/story-MB7uW7xQouYiYrU1MCc3TJ.html https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/ceo-beaten-to-death-by-...
- rualca 6y ago
  > There aren't any "literal" defintions of words. Pretty much every single dictionary managed to get all their definitions of "violence" to point to the same meaning, which includes destruction of property. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence

Niten 6y ago

Of course vandalism is a form of violence. I haven't yet read into the details of this case, and I may end up siding with the protestors once I have. But I do not abide the corruption of language for whatever political ends.

whimsicalism 6y ago
I don't really have a dog in this fight. I have never understood violence to mean property damage, rather than physical harm to someone. It may be that the dictionaries define it differently, but that is certainly not the colloquial usage.
spoonjim 6y ago
So if someone is arrested for spray painting graffiti on a building you'd call them a "violent criminal"?

throwaway201103 6y ago

I've noted a trend recently where the traditional, long-established meaning of words is being cast aside so as to present normally unacceptable actions as "not really so bad." One of these words that (to some) no longer means what it has always meant is "censorship," and now "violence" is getting the same treatment. Look up "violence" in any legitimate dictionary and you will see that it is not limited to personal injury. You will see definitions such as: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy" or "intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force" TFA describes employees "who were exiting the facility after completing their night-shift, went on a rampage destroying the company's furniture, assembly units and even attempted to set fire to vehicles." To describe these actions done in this manner as "property damage" mischaracterizes the reality of what happened and suggests that an agenda is being pushed on the reader.

neltnerb 6y ago
They rioted and destroyed property. Some people were probably scared. That sucks. It also sucks that stuff got busted. I'm sure some people will get arrested and charged with things. But these are things solved with money. No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. I was reading with horror to see how many had died. That was why it stuck out to me when there were not even injuries. It is as simple as that. Using a word that does not imply something that didn't happen -- it is just good writing, it's not pushing an agenda. Replace "violence" with "riots" and it has a much more generic implication. Simple.
- tasuki 6y ago
  > My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. It doesn't.
- rualca 6y ago
  > They rioted and destroyed property. You're describing acts of violence. > No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. You're trying to play the humpty dumpty game of just making up meanings of words to fit your whim of the moment. Riots are acts of violence. Destroying entire car lots in rage is an act of violence. Destroying buildings in protest is violence. There is no way around it. Enough with the doublespeak. People got screwed out of their paycheck, they felt enraged, thus sparking a violent protested. Understandingly so. There's no need to pretend things were different.

manigandham 6y ago

Violence is the act, and is not defined by what or whom it is committed against.