3 ms·

You are using a word in a way it is seldom used. You could define your take up front. Or better yet, figure out the words other people will be able to recogni

You are using a word in a way it is seldom used. You could define your take up front. Or better yet, figure out the words other people will be able to recognize and understand you, without unnecessary linguistic gymnastics.

K0balt 8mo ago
Huh. I don’t think in my experience that the term violence is seldom applied to things outside of humans, and IME the terms economic violence and social violence, emotional violence, and many others are common parlance. Perhaps we come from different cultures. At any rate, given the definition I find in several dictionaries I think my point stands. I will concede that coercion, exploitation, or extortion might be better descriptors.
- Nevermark 8mo ago
  You are right, some people are stretching that word a lot. I don’t think that’s changed how most people interpret the word. More of a weakening of its meaning often with an activist or persuasive bent. Toxic is another word similarly getting stretched and watered down by some. > Farming is violence. This would definitely fall into the stretched / watered down pattern. I don’t think the other strong words you are using are any different in this context. I am not saying you don’t have a point, but over dramatizing can make it hard to relate to, when people are being expected to accept a level of verbal shrillness that isn’t necessary to make a point. Humanity is certainly damaging a lot of ecosystems, not by any single farmer, but in aggregate. Change is normal, but we are driving it faster than nature can keep up with. It is a problem. But outside of poetic or proselytizing use, violence usually means inflicting intentional harm, not a problem of conflict between reasonable local tradeoffs (creating food being a positive use of land) vs. the global impact that needs to be balanced too.
- ineedasername 8mo ago
  The term violence, when applied in any context, is applied in context. With a scope and meaning determined as much by tacitly accepted scope as it is by lexicon. So, to all of your questions— “no”. You are wrong, on all counts, because you are using language itself to set a scene where it has no right, attempting to have a meaning context-free applied to one contextual—- but only when it suits you. That isn’t conversation or discussion— it’s performative, and so you cannot be correct where there is no correctness to be had, only performance.
  - K0balt 8mo ago
    I agree with you on context, but given my original context : “Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation. Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situation, in exchange you get access to tools at a cost less than they cost to access on your own. It’s inherently violent on some level. Ending violence shouldn’t be traumatic.” I invoke violence in the context of exploitation or coercion. It seems clear to me that “inherently violent on some level” clearly invokes an unconventional interpretation of “violence” implicitly aligned with the previous context. I have to conclude that a misconception of what was meant by “violence” here is either pedantism, low reading comprehension, or intellectual belligerence for the sake of grandstanding on a point. I really am having a great deal of difficulty substantiating a more charitable interpretation. Perhaps you are accidentally missing the OP in this case and are missing the entire contextual picture?

K0balt 8mo ago

Huh. I don’t think in my experience that the term violence is seldom applied to things outside of humans, and IME the terms economic violence and social violence, emotional violence, and many others are common parlance. Perhaps we come from different cultures. At any rate, given the definition I find in several dictionaries I think my point stands. I will concede that coercion, exploitation, or extortion might be better descriptors.

Nevermark 8mo ago
You are right, some people are stretching that word a lot. I don’t think that’s changed how most people interpret the word. More of a weakening of its meaning often with an activist or persuasive bent. Toxic is another word similarly getting stretched and watered down by some. > Farming is violence. This would definitely fall into the stretched / watered down pattern. I don’t think the other strong words you are using are any different in this context. I am not saying you don’t have a point, but over dramatizing can make it hard to relate to, when people are being expected to accept a level of verbal shrillness that isn’t necessary to make a point. Humanity is certainly damaging a lot of ecosystems, not by any single farmer, but in aggregate. Change is normal, but we are driving it faster than nature can keep up with. It is a problem. But outside of poetic or proselytizing use, violence usually means inflicting intentional harm, not a problem of conflict between reasonable local tradeoffs (creating food being a positive use of land) vs. the global impact that needs to be balanced too.
ineedasername 8mo ago
The term violence, when applied in any context, is applied in context. With a scope and meaning determined as much by tacitly accepted scope as it is by lexicon. So, to all of your questions— “no”. You are wrong, on all counts, because you are using language itself to set a scene where it has no right, attempting to have a meaning context-free applied to one contextual—- but only when it suits you. That isn’t conversation or discussion— it’s performative, and so you cannot be correct where there is no correctness to be had, only performance.
- K0balt 8mo ago
  I agree with you on context, but given my original context : “Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation. Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situation, in exchange you get access to tools at a cost less than they cost to access on your own. It’s inherently violent on some level. Ending violence shouldn’t be traumatic.” I invoke violence in the context of exploitation or coercion. It seems clear to me that “inherently violent on some level” clearly invokes an unconventional interpretation of “violence” implicitly aligned with the previous context. I have to conclude that a misconception of what was meant by “violence” here is either pedantism, low reading comprehension, or intellectual belligerence for the sake of grandstanding on a point. I really am having a great deal of difficulty substantiating a more charitable interpretation. Perhaps you are accidentally missing the OP in this case and are missing the entire contextual picture?