[moate]

What about a lynch mob murdering a violent criminal (I'm specifically thinking of a pedophile because culturally that's one of the 'worst') who got off due to a technicality? How is that not a small scale version of state violence? Society has a problem that was unable to be solved through normal, peaceful ways, so violence needed to happen.

Also, just throwing this out there for people in the back who seem to forget: You cannot commit violence on things. You can't murder a building, or a car, or a city. Only the people who may be inside those things at the time. They're objects and in a riot become symbols ("we destroy the rich by destroying what makes them rich") but they're not people. A riot can be destructive without being violent.

[dodobirdlord]

This is a weird take. Is an armed robbery not violence if the victim gives up their money and doesn’t actually get shot? A riot is violent because it caries the threat of violence for anyone who tries to stop it, in the same way that a stick-up is violent because the alternative to losing your money is getting shot. If you limit someone’s choices via force, that is violence.

[zigzaggy]

So in your opinion, someone can only commit violence against people? So outside of personal injury behavior cannot be violent? I'm sorry to say I disagree with you. (To be clear, this is not an endorsement for or against either "side" in the current culture war in the US.)

I hate to be that guy that quotes the dictionary, but let's start with dictionary.com[0]: Violence (noun): - swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. - rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. - an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.

Now, Wikipedia [1]: Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy". Less conventional definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

What about domestic abuse violence that doesn't even involve physical abuse? From WebMD [2]: Domestic abuse is more than just hitting, shoving, and other physical attacks. It’s a pattern of controlling behaviors. The goal always is to get and keep power over an intimate partner.

To be clear, I'm not comparing these riots to domestic violence. What I'm trying to do is debunk this argument that somehow because these rioters aren't hurting anyone that they're not committing acts of violence. These acts of destruction are very much acts of violence. Words are important and the truth matters. Let's call this what it is, violence and destruction. Just because people might not be being targeted doesn't mean that they aren't getting hurt and traumatized. And yes, this is violence.

0. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence?s=t 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence 2. https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/mental-whatis-domestic-a...

(Edit: forgot my references, and changed "Webster's" to "Dictionary.com"