3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Do you feel the people who were screwed out of their paycheck were subject to economic violence?
whimsicalism 6y ago
Strong disagree with what you define as the "traditional, long-established" meaning. It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent and it is counterintuitive to describe a "violent protest in which no one was hurt."
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  > It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent Maybe with your colloquialisms, but as someone in their mid 40s, I've never thought of violence in the narrow way you are describing it, and it does seem to me like this is a relatively recent redefinition of the term. I've always thought the primary characteristic of "violence" is rageful, wild, physical destruction, regardless of whether it was directed at a human or property. For example, graffiti and a riot that burns down a building are both forms of property destruction, but only one is violent. Similarly, killing someone with a chainsaw and killing someone by poison are both forms of murder, but only one is violent.
- rualca 6y ago
  > It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent and it is counterintuitive to describe a "violent protest in which no one was hurt." I don't believe your assertion is remotely true. The term "vandalism" has its origins on how the Vandals tribe attacked, invaded and sacked Rome, and it refers to violence which results in widespread property damage. You'd be hard pressed to describe 5th century barbarian invasion with words other than violence. And by the way, car crashes are also described as violent even when no harm comes to anyone involved.
- true_religion 6y ago
  It’s kind of weird though to say that someone burning down your house isn’t violence just because you aren’t in it. If it’s not violence it’s something equally bad not a prosaic term like “property damage” or “vandalism” which would imply you still have the property and only need to clean it up a bit.
rualca 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." The good old euphemism.
anigbrowl 6y ago
How is it not 'property damage'? That's categorically different from attacks on persons, so clearly using the same term for both phenomena lacks nuance.
throwaway2245 6y ago
This relates to the programming concept of overloading. The word 'violence' used without context would often be understood to mean 'violence against a person'. Here it is used to mean 'violence against property'. It's "literally" correct, but unclear and risks misunderstanding. The headline writer is taking advantage of this disconnect to exaggerate their point. Other words such as 'riot' fit better, but are less sensational.

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.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Do you feel the people who were screwed out of their paycheck were subject to economic violence?

whimsicalism 6y ago

Strong disagree with what you define as the "traditional, long-established" meaning. It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent and it is counterintuitive to describe a "violent protest in which no one was hurt."

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent Maybe with your colloquialisms, but as someone in their mid 40s, I've never thought of violence in the narrow way you are describing it, and it does seem to me like this is a relatively recent redefinition of the term. I've always thought the primary characteristic of "violence" is rageful, wild, physical destruction, regardless of whether it was directed at a human or property. For example, graffiti and a riot that burns down a building are both forms of property destruction, but only one is violent. Similarly, killing someone with a chainsaw and killing someone by poison are both forms of murder, but only one is violent.
rualca 6y ago
> It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent and it is counterintuitive to describe a "violent protest in which no one was hurt." I don't believe your assertion is remotely true. The term "vandalism" has its origins on how the Vandals tribe attacked, invaded and sacked Rome, and it refers to violence which results in widespread property damage. You'd be hard pressed to describe 5th century barbarian invasion with words other than violence. And by the way, car crashes are also described as violent even when no harm comes to anyone involved.
true_religion 6y ago
It’s kind of weird though to say that someone burning down your house isn’t violence just because you aren’t in it. If it’s not violence it’s something equally bad not a prosaic term like “property damage” or “vandalism” which would imply you still have the property and only need to clean it up a bit.

rualca 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." The good old euphemism.

anigbrowl 6y ago

How is it not 'property damage'? That's categorically different from attacks on persons, so clearly using the same term for both phenomena lacks nuance.

throwaway2245 6y ago

This relates to the programming concept of overloading. The word 'violence' used without context would often be understood to mean 'violence against a person'. Here it is used to mean 'violence against property'. It's "literally" correct, but unclear and risks misunderstanding. The headline writer is taking advantage of this disconnect to exaggerate their point. Other words such as 'riot' fit better, but are less sensational.