4 ms·

It seems pretty reasonable to call a punitive action that is intended to cause bodily harm violence.

• DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  It really doesn’t, for me. Violence usually implies direct physical force. I find this to be a core aspect of the word. It’s punitive action, sure, but it isn’t violence because *nobody got hit/shoved/shot/etc. I don’t think any unfair, bad, or evil thing that indirectly affects another persons bodily health is violence. You’d start seeing violence everywhere, it seems. Bit of a stagnant, but is a tax increase violence because it affects an individuals ability to afford medicine? Just writing this comment makes me realize the main issue I have with this sort of reasoning is that it distracts from what’s actually happening. It’s playing games with semantics for pizazz, as opposed to critiquing with clarity.
  • tehwebguy 4y ago
    I mean, is a blockade that stops delivery of food & medicine violence if they never fire a shot?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • exolymph 4y ago
      No. I wouldn't call it peaceful, but it isn't violence either. Plenty of things that don't involve the application of physical force are nonetheless bad, and there are plenty of negative descriptors that don't derive their oomph from the implication of physical force. "Despicable" and "heinous" are good ones.
    • DiggyJohnson 4y ago
      No, I don’t think that’s violence. You could call it violence only by analogy, in my opinion.