3 ms·

I assume that by "violence" we mean, like, physical violence, things like beating, choking, tazing, tear gas, shooting, etc., things by which one is exerting po

by drdeca 5y ago

I assume that by "violence" we mean, like, physical violence, things like beating, choking, tazing, tear gas, shooting, etc., things by which one is exerting power over another through physical exertion, in a way that can directly cause injury or pain. "using violence against someone" doesn't refer to "taking advantage of an implicit threat of violence", it means actively doing violence (or actively directing others to do so).

jrochkind1 5y ago
What about an explicit threat of violence? If someone who is not the police does that, we generally consider them "violent" and (ironically?) support police violence against them. Like if someone points a gun at someone (an explicit(?) threat of violence, but not yet violence itself?), if the police shoot them, people consider that a justified violent response to violence. Then we can ask if, say, imprisoning someone is "violence" on it's own -- again, if someone that wasn't the police kidnapped you and locked you in the basement, we'd probably consider it a violent act, even if they didn't have to punch you to get you into the basement? I think it's interesting to talk about because I think what's violent and not is not as clearcut as we sometimes assume, and is worth interrogating. (I don't mean to suggest that anything anyone finds emotionally uncomfortable is "violence" either... there is lots going on culturally around "violence" these days...) Still, regardless, I think it's probably true that the majority of policing hours are not spent in the active use of violence (although some are spent preparing for use of violence, or looking for opportunity to use violence), and also, that the majority of times that are use of violence are against people who were not being violent.
- drdeca 5y ago
  I think I would consider whatever process they used to get hypothetical-me into their basement to be violence, but not their keeping the basement door locked or whatever is used to keep hypothetical-me in. (Possibly if I was actually in this situation my opinions would change, and I would conclude that what I’m saying now was mistaken. I don’t know.) The point about a clear/explicit threat of imminent violence is a good one. Yes, we typically would call such a person violent, and want someone to deal with the situation. Do we consider the person to be violent because we regard them as doing/engaging-in violence / “being- violent as-an-action”, or because their threats lead us to conclude that they are the type of person who would be likely to do violence, and therefore a violent person? And many (most?) people do support direct violence used in response to an explicit threat of imminent violence. If they also believe that violence should not be done to people who aren’t doing violence, then that would seem to indicate that they consider an explicit threat of imminent violence to be doing violence. So, it seems there are good arguments that suggest that “violence” is perhaps generally used in a way that includes imminent threats of violence. Overall, my feeling is that it is probably kind of a borderline case. Edit: also, yeah, my claim wasn’t on the basis of “because they aren’t so bad as to spend a majority of their working time doing it” so much as on “spending the majority of one’s working time doing that would be exhausting, and I’m not sure anyone is even physically capable of it”. (Well, someone standing in one place and repeatedly pulling a trigger on a gun for a total of 4.5 hours of each day is probably not exceeding a person’s physical limits, but that’s not the relevant situation)
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    And I guess that's exactly the challenge. Who "we" think are "the type of person who would be likely to do violence" or even posing "an explicit threat of imminent violence" is not only subjective, but in our society very based on the social positions of the judgers and the doers. No doubt the police in the OP will swear that they had good reason to think that deaf guy was "the type of person who would be likely to do violence" and posed "an explicit threat of imminent violence"; if you take them at their word, then the police 100% of the time only use violence against such people because that's always what they'll swear they were doing. I don't take them at their word. Or even if they honestly believed that, they've trained themselves to see that in people who are not that, and they are terribly terribly wrong, And are in the majority of times they are using violence against people in the USA.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      nitpick : posing a threat and making a threat are different things, and I meant to be talking about making a threat, as the thing that seemed borderline as to whether it is considered "violence". I don't think whether someone is making a threat is subjective.

by drdeca 5y ago

jrochkind1 5y ago

What about an explicit threat of violence? If someone who is not the police does that, we generally consider them "violent" and (ironically?) support police violence against them. Like if someone points a gun at someone (an explicit(?) threat of violence, but not yet violence itself?), if the police shoot them, people consider that a justified violent response to violence. Then we can ask if, say, imprisoning someone is "violence" on it's own -- again, if someone that wasn't the police kidnapped you and locked you in the basement, we'd probably consider it a violent act, even if they didn't have to punch you to get you into the basement? I think it's interesting to talk about because I think what's violent and not is not as clearcut as we sometimes assume, and is worth interrogating. (I don't mean to suggest that anything anyone finds emotionally uncomfortable is "violence" either... there is lots going on culturally around "violence" these days...) Still, regardless, I think it's probably true that the majority of policing hours are not spent in the active use of violence (although some are spent preparing for use of violence, or looking for opportunity to use violence), and also, that the majority of times that are use of violence are against people who were not being violent.

drdeca 5y ago
I think I would consider whatever process they used to get hypothetical-me into their basement to be violence, but not their keeping the basement door locked or whatever is used to keep hypothetical-me in. (Possibly if I was actually in this situation my opinions would change, and I would conclude that what I’m saying now was mistaken. I don’t know.) The point about a clear/explicit threat of imminent violence is a good one. Yes, we typically would call such a person violent, and want someone to deal with the situation. Do we consider the person to be violent because we regard them as doing/engaging-in violence / “being- violent as-an-action”, or because their threats lead us to conclude that they are the type of person who would be likely to do violence, and therefore a violent person? And many (most?) people do support direct violence used in response to an explicit threat of imminent violence. If they also believe that violence should not be done to people who aren’t doing violence, then that would seem to indicate that they consider an explicit threat of imminent violence to be doing violence. So, it seems there are good arguments that suggest that “violence” is perhaps generally used in a way that includes imminent threats of violence. Overall, my feeling is that it is probably kind of a borderline case. Edit: also, yeah, my claim wasn’t on the basis of “because they aren’t so bad as to spend a majority of their working time doing it” so much as on “spending the majority of one’s working time doing that would be exhausting, and I’m not sure anyone is even physically capable of it”. (Well, someone standing in one place and repeatedly pulling a trigger on a gun for a total of 4.5 hours of each day is probably not exceeding a person’s physical limits, but that’s not the relevant situation)
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  And I guess that's exactly the challenge. Who "we" think are "the type of person who would be likely to do violence" or even posing "an explicit threat of imminent violence" is not only subjective, but in our society very based on the social positions of the judgers and the doers. No doubt the police in the OP will swear that they had good reason to think that deaf guy was "the type of person who would be likely to do violence" and posed "an explicit threat of imminent violence"; if you take them at their word, then the police 100% of the time only use violence against such people because that's always what they'll swear they were doing. I don't take them at their word. Or even if they honestly believed that, they've trained themselves to see that in people who are not that, and they are terribly terribly wrong, And are in the majority of times they are using violence against people in the USA.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    nitpick : posing a threat and making a threat are different things, and I meant to be talking about making a threat, as the thing that seemed borderline as to whether it is considered "violence". I don't think whether someone is making a threat is subjective.