3 ms·

Using intentionally ambiguous language to misdirect is only temporarily convincing until people cotton to your game.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I am not sure whether your claim is that my use or the GP's use of "violence" is ambiguous. My point is that most property crimes are violence by the most common and widespread definitions. The attempt to recast property crimes as non-violent is very recent, pushed by progressive activists to play down widespread property crime in places like San Francisco or to play down crimes committed during riots throughout 2020. A non-violent crime would be something like identity theft, not someone using physical force, like a hammer to break a car window or whatever else.
- rhizome 5y ago
  >My point is that most property crimes are violence by the most common and widespread definitions Don't be coy, which definitions? When someone in a coffee shop goes to the bathroom and their laptop is gone when they come back to their seat, where is the violence? Actual violence, not abstract "they murdered my trust in society" stuff. I think if you're honest, you'd say that you prefer property crimes to be treated as violence.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    I linked a definition above in my earlier comment. Violence involves exertion of physical force to cause damage or injury. The recipient of the violence (be it property or a person) is not relevant. Would I consider your example violence? No. But I would consider someone forcefully breaking into a car or someone committing arson to be violence, due to the unusual exertion of physical force. > I think if you're honest, you'd say that you prefer property crimes to be treated as violence. I have the opposite perspective, that most people have a wider definition for violence than just harm against a person. I feel activists who want to excuse low level crime or rioting tend to be the ones who prefer to narrowly define violence. But such a redefinition wouldn’t make sense - we already have terms like “assault” for narrow cases like harm against a person. Violence is something broader.
    - rhizome 5y ago
      There you go again with the groundless "most," not to mention your thinly veiled bias against "activists." >The recipient of the violence (be it property or a person) is not relevant. The law disagrees, for decades if not centuries, and your sense of the relationship between assault and violence are misinformed, if not completely upside-down, backwards, and possibly with i's dotted with flowers.

I am not sure whether your claim is that my use or the GP's use of "violence" is ambiguous. My point is that most property crimes are violence by the most common and widespread definitions. The attempt to recast property crimes as non-violent is very recent, pushed by progressive activists to play down widespread property crime in places like San Francisco or to play down crimes committed during riots throughout 2020. A non-violent crime would be something like identity theft, not someone using physical force, like a hammer to break a car window or whatever else.

rhizome 5y ago
>My point is that most property crimes are violence by the most common and widespread definitions Don't be coy, which definitions? When someone in a coffee shop goes to the bathroom and their laptop is gone when they come back to their seat, where is the violence? Actual violence, not abstract "they murdered my trust in society" stuff. I think if you're honest, you'd say that you prefer property crimes to be treated as violence.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I linked a definition above in my earlier comment. Violence involves exertion of physical force to cause damage or injury. The recipient of the violence (be it property or a person) is not relevant. Would I consider your example violence? No. But I would consider someone forcefully breaking into a car or someone committing arson to be violence, due to the unusual exertion of physical force. > I think if you're honest, you'd say that you prefer property crimes to be treated as violence. I have the opposite perspective, that most people have a wider definition for violence than just harm against a person. I feel activists who want to excuse low level crime or rioting tend to be the ones who prefer to narrowly define violence. But such a redefinition wouldn’t make sense - we already have terms like “assault” for narrow cases like harm against a person. Violence is something broader.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    There you go again with the groundless "most," not to mention your thinly veiled bias against "activists." >The recipient of the violence (be it property or a person) is not relevant. The law disagrees, for decades if not centuries, and your sense of the relationship between assault and violence are misinformed, if not completely upside-down, backwards, and possibly with i's dotted with flowers.