TLDR version of this critique might be: "Violence can be emotional, too, and Pinker is myopic for focusing, with reductionist logic, on physical harm and death

TLDR version of this critique might be: "Violence can be emotional, too, and Pinker is myopic for focusing, with reductionist logic, on physical harm and death in his definition and analysis." I, personally, find Pinker's analysis incredibly thorough and compelling, and focus on death and it's systematic avoidance over time an extremely meaningful measure. This critique seemed to imply that if ones definition of violence is merely physical, then better to throw out the whole thing. I almost get the impression that Ben Laws never fully read the book, as many of his points are dealt with directly. I do, of course, think there's room to think about the impact of emotional harm from and within societies, but that subject matter doesn't moot the impact of more animalistic harm. Further, I have difficulty being swayed by appeals to logic that logic is, itself, unappealing.