6 ms·

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.
- IMTDb 6y ago
  > you absolutely imply physical harm What about anyone that would constantly belittle or insult someone else, make fun of him and so on. Isn't that a form a violence ? Even if never comes to anything physical ? You can really do damage that way. Given the replies above, it looks like your understanding of the word "violence" is narrowed down and only considers "physical harm made to people". It really encompass more than that. It is a powerful word that express the idea of harm being made, regardless of the target or the form.
  - joveian 6y ago
    I do think it tends to imply personal harm and in this case the reduction of salaries seems more violent than than the physical destruction of stuff so it is jarring to see the destruction of stuff labeled violent but the wage theft not labeled volent. However, if a person is physically injured in a significant way or dies due to the action of another person than that would almost always be considered violent unless it was both unintentional and resonable care was taken to avoid injury. So to me the core definition feels like physical violence while other uses are comparisons to physcial violence. I'm guessing some others may identify the perceived emotion as the core of the definition or just a situation that seems capable of causing immediate physical harm to a person. But in both cases it is only commonly used in a limited number of cases that would seem to meet either alternative definition so personally I would say that news usage should be limited to when actual injury or death occurs.
bigbubba 6y ago
If violence only includes harm to humans, I think you could probably reasonably say that destroying an empty hospital is still violence since the direct effect of destroying the hospital would be to harm the people who would otherwise be treated there. Tbh though I think destruction of property reasonably counts as violence; the more important question is whether that violence is justified. In this case it seems justified.

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.
IMTDb 6y ago
> you absolutely imply physical harm What about anyone that would constantly belittle or insult someone else, make fun of him and so on. Isn't that a form a violence ? Even if never comes to anything physical ? You can really do damage that way. Given the replies above, it looks like your understanding of the word "violence" is narrowed down and only considers "physical harm made to people". It really encompass more than that. It is a powerful word that express the idea of harm being made, regardless of the target or the form.
- joveian 6y ago
  I do think it tends to imply personal harm and in this case the reduction of salaries seems more violent than than the physical destruction of stuff so it is jarring to see the destruction of stuff labeled violent but the wage theft not labeled volent. However, if a person is physically injured in a significant way or dies due to the action of another person than that would almost always be considered violent unless it was both unintentional and resonable care was taken to avoid injury. So to me the core definition feels like physical violence while other uses are comparisons to physcial violence. I'm guessing some others may identify the perceived emotion as the core of the definition or just a situation that seems capable of causing immediate physical harm to a person. But in both cases it is only commonly used in a limited number of cases that would seem to meet either alternative definition so personally I would say that news usage should be limited to when actual injury or death occurs.

bigbubba 6y ago

If violence only includes harm to humans, I think you could probably reasonably say that destroying an empty hospital is still violence since the direct effect of destroying the hospital would be to harm the people who would otherwise be treated there. Tbh though I think destruction of property reasonably counts as violence; the more important question is whether that violence is justified. In this case it seems justified.