5 ms·

You should look up the definitions of the word «violence». You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essent

You should look up the definitions of the word «violence». You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition. Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force». Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean: > Extreme or powerful emotion or expression. > Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness. > Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault. > Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. > an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists) Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.
- redbar0n 1y ago
  From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Which stands in contrast to «speech». Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force). I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.
  - lordkrandel 1y ago
    "Speech" does not oppose "action". I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world. Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today. Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.) > what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal. There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical. > I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.
    - ilikehurdles 1y ago
      Orwellian doublespeak. Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force». Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean: > Extreme or powerful emotion or expression. > Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness. > Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault. > Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering. > an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists) Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.

redbar0n 1y ago
From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Which stands in contrast to «speech». Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force). I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.
- lordkrandel 1y ago
  "Speech" does not oppose "action". I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world. Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today. Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression» Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.) > what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal. There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical. > I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.
  - ilikehurdles 1y ago
    Orwellian doublespeak. Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago