2 ms·
> 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 vi
by 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 agoI 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.