[cryptoz]

It's generally understood that violence is something that happens to a person or living entity; buildings being burnt down is very different from a person being attacked. The word violence might be used for both, but really, it is meant in the modern day to refer to people.

Violence isn't about property that can be rebuilt with mere money. It is about hurting people.

[Fellshard]

How does burning down someone's business cause them no harm? You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue; especially when many of the businesses called for burning were locally owned, and many minority owned. That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.

[cryptoz]

> You are implicitly making the claim that anyone who owns or leases a building for their business is rolling in excess money, which is incredibly ignorant, naïve, uncharitable, and untrue

You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned?

Those are two very different things.

I do not mean to suggest that the employee whose work is burned is not hurt, but certainly, it is not a violent act against them as the other situation with guns or stabbing is.

> That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.

I really don't know about this comment. I think it is your worldview that is 'warped' but I wouldn't insult you by calling your traits 'hideous'. Please be more polite on HN.

[shripadk]

> You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned?

You are literally burning down someone's place of work and then you expect them to not be hurt? What guarantee can you give that the person who comes to work the next day to find his business burnt doesn't die of shock? If he dies does it not amount to murder? Who takes responsibility for his death?

I can't believe you are actually saying this stuff! People spend their entire life savings building a business! Having it burnt down is as good as murdering them! It is no different from someone pointing a gun at you and trying to kill you. People have survived gunshot wounds just like people have survived their buildings being burnt down. They both were hurt. One was hurt physically while the other suffered psychological hurt. And if someone died from gunshot wounds he is no different from someone dying of shock seeing his business being burnt to the ground. Both were killed out of violence. Both suffered pain. You cannot say one is more benign than the other! It is not!

[Fellshard]

You're making a distinction between the employee and the owner, which is highly revealing. You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run. That is dehumanizing them. That is hideous. I stand by my words.

[dang]

Come on you guys, when the discussion gets to this point, it's past time to stop. We want curious conversation here. Among other things, that requires a certain degree of relatability with the other person. If you don't have that, please just let go. Hammering on other people's words doesn't help.

There's a model of debate in which harshly countering other people's mistaken arguments is held to be valuable, because errors eventually get hammered out that way and the truth emerges as a sort of well-tempered steel. That model does not work in internet forums—for many reasons—the most important of which is the container can't withstand it. That is, the hammering destroys the forum itself long before the process completes (assuming it ever would). An entirely different kind of arguing is necessary to keep this place from destroying itself.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[cryptoz]

I am making no such distinction! I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You stand by your words to insult me as hideous? Please stop.

> You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run.

I do not think like this. At all. I am not sure where you got that idea. Obviously the owner works, supplies and has value in the business they run...? I don't understand why you would think I don't agree with that?

You must please stop insulting me. I'm reporting your posts.

Edit: I've been banned (temporarily? For these posts?) and cannot reply to the user below.

[Fellshard]

Tell me: if a business owner has put all their life's savings into running a business, and comes one day to find it burned down by a mob, what is the likelihood that person will ever be able to return to any semblance of a normal life? What is the likelihood of despair, suicide, turning to drugs or alcohol?

It is very much a harm, as real and as tangible as those who receive physical injury, and just as much a threat to their lives.

EDIT: I've not reported your posts. I'd rather have a frank discussion regarding these and similar claims than to try to have them removed for perceived offensiveness.

[dang]

Come on you guys, when the discussion gets to this point, it's past time to stop. See the rest of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23606594 also.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[milkytron]

So I looked up their policy, and you seem to be correct there. Twitter defines violence as towards other individuals or groups. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

However, if users are encouraging or telling others to break the law, that is also against Twitters policies.

> You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities.

Encouraging or inciting others to break the law is illegal.

Although it's on the illegal goods page, I think this could still be against their policy.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goo...

[aifer4]

The definition of violence: "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Unless we're using words in the humpty dumpty sense of "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."