5 ms·

Here's the thing though - those are both entirely fair uses of the word. Economic violence is a real thing. And selling rice with internationally illegal leve

Here's the thing though - those are both entirely fair uses of the word. Economic violence is a real thing. And selling rice with internationally illegal levels of arsenic and other toxins is violent too.

kortilla 3y ago
Why don’t we ratchet the Overton Window a bit further and introduce the term “economic rape” when you force product into an economy. That’s bound to produce some useful discussions.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  Dude, poisoning people is violent. Fucking up their economy for profit is violent. What is complicated about that?
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Don’t be obtuse. When people say “economic violence” they aren’t referring to poisoning. There are two things in discussion: - the “economic violence” of food relief programs because it makes it hard for local farmers. - high arsenic levels in US rice
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      Both of those things were addressed - in tfa, by OP, and by me. Both are perfectly valid uses of the word violent. Stunned that people are defending this tbh. American exceptionalism is a hell of a drug.
      - kortilla 3y ago
        It’s not exceptionalism, it’s perspective. Anyone who has been exposed to actual economic violence (severe embargoes, depression collapses, hyper inflation, etc) sees writing like this and discredits the author for being an out of touch desk warrior. >Stunned that people are defending this tbh. It’s frankly shocking that you think deriding the author for calling food programs “economic violence” is defending this scenario. Take a step back and realize that multiple things can be wrong at once.
- chaps 3y ago
  Or we could stop bike shedding here and just try to understand the intent of the written words.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    It’s not bike shedding. It makes the writer look like an emotional moron when they use terms like “economic violence” for an export program that disrupts one small industry. Do you consider cheese exports from France to be economic violence against Wisconsin?
    - chaps 3y ago
      Not going to get involved in this any further because I still think you're bike shedding. Just -- there's some intense irony in saying someone looks like "emotional moron" to win an argument. Stones, glass houses, etc. But if France was knowingly shipping arsenic-laden cheese to the US in a way that displaced the local economy to the degree that the only available cheese is poison? That'd, at least, cause some violent diarrhea.
      - kortilla 3y ago
        The intent of the words is wrong, not the literal meaning. There is no violence to someone offering a cheaper product. You either don’t understand the meaning of “bike shedding” or you think one small portion of the economy struggling to compete on the price is “violent”. Either way, I think you’re confused about the definition of something pretty fundamentally. If it was really the choice between, “you’ll get poisoned and have violent diarrhea if you eat this cheaper option” or “keep buying the previous local option”, both options would stay available. So the point you tried to make really missed the mark. The way that arsenic rice could crush the local market is only if it had essentially no near to mid term side effects. If it was obvious people wouldn’t buy it.
        chaps 3y ago
        Lol, friend. The "mark" I was trying to hit wasn't any point about arsenic or sickness. The entire point of that post was to use "violent" as a flavor word in an attempt to be clever to show that words are wibbly wobbly. Calm down and take a breath.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> And selling rice with internationally illegal levels of arsenic and other toxins is violent too. You’d have to prove intent to call it violence. Seems more like negligence. Its also puzzling why someone would assume an intent to harm in this scenario .
- mandmandam 3y ago
  > You’d have to prove intent to call it violence. Are we supposed to believe no one involved in selling this massive amount of rice knows what we learned in 2007 [0] ?! > At one point during the reign of King Cotton, farmers in the south central United States controlled boll weevils with arsenic-based pesticides, and residual arsenic still contaminates the soil. Today, rice paddies cover fields where cotton once grew, and a large market basket survey published in the 1 April 2007 issue of Environmental Science & Technology now shows that rice grown in this area contains, on average, 1.76 times more arsenic than rice grown in California. 'Negligence' is not the word for this. It's violence, and it's inexcusable. 0 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892142/
  - krapht 3y ago
    the way rice is cooked can reduce arsenic levels by 80%. we don't need to completely forbid rice production in the southern US
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Your own sources show its not violence. Again, you would need to show intent to harm. But instead the intent was to increase yields by eliminating pests.

kortilla 3y ago

Why don’t we ratchet the Overton Window a bit further and introduce the term “economic rape” when you force product into an economy. That’s bound to produce some useful discussions.

mandmandam 3y ago
Dude, poisoning people is violent. Fucking up their economy for profit is violent. What is complicated about that?
- kortilla 3y ago
  Don’t be obtuse. When people say “economic violence” they aren’t referring to poisoning. There are two things in discussion: - the “economic violence” of food relief programs because it makes it hard for local farmers. - high arsenic levels in US rice
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    Both of those things were addressed - in tfa, by OP, and by me. Both are perfectly valid uses of the word violent. Stunned that people are defending this tbh. American exceptionalism is a hell of a drug.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      It’s not exceptionalism, it’s perspective. Anyone who has been exposed to actual economic violence (severe embargoes, depression collapses, hyper inflation, etc) sees writing like this and discredits the author for being an out of touch desk warrior. >Stunned that people are defending this tbh. It’s frankly shocking that you think deriding the author for calling food programs “economic violence” is defending this scenario. Take a step back and realize that multiple things can be wrong at once.
chaps 3y ago
Or we could stop bike shedding here and just try to understand the intent of the written words.
- kortilla 3y ago
  It’s not bike shedding. It makes the writer look like an emotional moron when they use terms like “economic violence” for an export program that disrupts one small industry. Do you consider cheese exports from France to be economic violence against Wisconsin?
  - chaps 3y ago
    Not going to get involved in this any further because I still think you're bike shedding. Just -- there's some intense irony in saying someone looks like "emotional moron" to win an argument. Stones, glass houses, etc. But if France was knowingly shipping arsenic-laden cheese to the US in a way that displaced the local economy to the degree that the only available cheese is poison? That'd, at least, cause some violent diarrhea.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      The intent of the words is wrong, not the literal meaning. There is no violence to someone offering a cheaper product. You either don’t understand the meaning of “bike shedding” or you think one small portion of the economy struggling to compete on the price is “violent”. Either way, I think you’re confused about the definition of something pretty fundamentally. If it was really the choice between, “you’ll get poisoned and have violent diarrhea if you eat this cheaper option” or “keep buying the previous local option”, both options would stay available. So the point you tried to make really missed the mark. The way that arsenic rice could crush the local market is only if it had essentially no near to mid term side effects. If it was obvious people wouldn’t buy it.
      - chaps 3y ago
        Lol, friend. The "mark" I was trying to hit wasn't any point about arsenic or sickness. The entire point of that post was to use "violent" as a flavor word in an attempt to be clever to show that words are wibbly wobbly. Calm down and take a breath.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> And selling rice with internationally illegal levels of arsenic and other toxins is violent too. You’d have to prove intent to call it violence. Seems more like negligence. Its also puzzling why someone would assume an intent to harm in this scenario .

mandmandam 3y ago
> You’d have to prove intent to call it violence. Are we supposed to believe no one involved in selling this massive amount of rice knows what we learned in 2007 [0] ?! > At one point during the reign of King Cotton, farmers in the south central United States controlled boll weevils with arsenic-based pesticides, and residual arsenic still contaminates the soil. Today, rice paddies cover fields where cotton once grew, and a large market basket survey published in the 1 April 2007 issue of Environmental Science & Technology now shows that rice grown in this area contains, on average, 1.76 times more arsenic than rice grown in California. 'Negligence' is not the word for this. It's violence, and it's inexcusable. 0 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892142/
- krapht 3y ago
  the way rice is cooked can reduce arsenic levels by 80%. we don't need to completely forbid rice production in the southern US
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Your own sources show its not violence. Again, you would need to show intent to harm. But instead the intent was to increase yields by eliminating pests.