3 ms·

Depends on how you look at it, if you think people have an innate right to privacy then something that stomps on their privacy is a form of violence, not all vi

Depends on how you look at it, if you think people have an innate right to privacy then something that stomps on their privacy is a form of violence, not all violence is physical violence.

evrydayhustling 1y ago
Ok, so you define violence to include advocating for a law that tramples someone rights. The next person says that advocating for laws is its own inalienable right, so you trampled him. And the whole semantic redefinition snake just eats its own tail. If we want constitutional to have any force, we have to push for a world where words mean something.
- varispeed 1y ago
  Words do mean something - which is exactly why “violence” already has recognised psychological and coercive forms in law and medicine. Pretending otherwise isn’t defending meaning, it’s narrowing it for comfort. People who’ve lived under regimes of fear understand that harm doesn’t need batons to leave marks. But sure, if the only kind of wound you acknowledge is one that bleeds, then the rest of us must be imagining things.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Most people just means physical violence when they say violence, if you use the word differently you will trick many people into thinking you say something you don't.
    - varispeed 1y ago
      “Most people” once thought depression was laziness and marital rape was impossible. Appealing to what most people think isn’t clarity, it’s inertia. Language changes because our understanding of harm does. The fact that many still default to the physical doesn’t make the rest untrue - it just shows how far denial can pass for common sense.
barry-cotter 1y ago
All violence is physical violence and any non-metaphorical attempt to define anything else as really violence is Orwellian.
- varispeed 1y ago
  That would surprise every court that’s convicted someone of coercive control, stalking, or psychological abuse. None involved broken bones, yet all involved measurable harm and loss of agency.
- kbelder 1y ago
  I might include threat of violence in that definition. "Give me your money or I'll shoot you." But then that immediately opens the definition up to include all laws. "Obey this rule or we will imprison or kill you."

Depends on how you look at it, if you think people have an innate right to privacy then something that stomps on their privacy is a form of violence, not all violence is physical violence.

evrydayhustling 1y ago

Ok, so you define violence to include advocating for a law that tramples someone rights. The next person says that advocating for laws is its own inalienable right, so you trampled him. And the whole semantic redefinition snake just eats its own tail. If we want constitutional to have any force, we have to push for a world where words mean something.

varispeed 1y ago
Words do mean something - which is exactly why “violence” already has recognised psychological and coercive forms in law and medicine. Pretending otherwise isn’t defending meaning, it’s narrowing it for comfort. People who’ve lived under regimes of fear understand that harm doesn’t need batons to leave marks. But sure, if the only kind of wound you acknowledge is one that bleeds, then the rest of us must be imagining things.
- Jensson 1y ago
  Most people just means physical violence when they say violence, if you use the word differently you will trick many people into thinking you say something you don't.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    “Most people” once thought depression was laziness and marital rape was impossible. Appealing to what most people think isn’t clarity, it’s inertia. Language changes because our understanding of harm does. The fact that many still default to the physical doesn’t make the rest untrue - it just shows how far denial can pass for common sense.

barry-cotter 1y ago

All violence is physical violence and any non-metaphorical attempt to define anything else as really violence is Orwellian.

varispeed 1y ago
That would surprise every court that’s convicted someone of coercive control, stalking, or psychological abuse. None involved broken bones, yet all involved measurable harm and loss of agency.
kbelder 1y ago
I might include threat of violence in that definition. "Give me your money or I'll shoot you." But then that immediately opens the definition up to include all laws. "Obey this rule or we will imprison or kill you."