[komali2]

> which is exactly what the second person you quote does, and can be safely ignored because it is obviously dishonest mental gymnastic.

I disagree that highly cited Solnit is engaging in "obviously dishonest mental gymnastics" and can be safely ignored. Now what?

Great, you found another definition of violence, let's apply your definition to your own example.

Note that your definition includes "intended or likely." For some reason you ignore the "intended to" when discussing firefighters. Firefighters are obviously intending to cause damage to a door they axe down. Why is this not violence and why is this not a criminal offense? It's violence per your definition.

Do you want to use the same word to describe, and justify the criminalization of, all things that can be described by this word? It sounds like you don't because you seem to want to indicate that a firefighter axing a door and a protester bricking a window are different things, and that one is bad and one is good.

If you're ok with using the same word to describe both, then there's not really a point in discussing whether something is violence or not - many things good and bad are violence, and so we don't need to determine if something is violence or not to determine if the action should be criminalized, we need to consider other factors.

If you're not ok with using the same word to describe both, then we need to engage in what you're erroneously describing as "goal post moving." It's actually just seeking to define what "violence" encapsulates. In this case your chosen definition from Cambridge probably isn't great. Though it's in a dictionary, we can always change the definitions of words if we like, it happens all the time. Cambridge describes our language, not defines it.

As to your final sentence I'm not sure the relevancy, nobody ever brought up suffering and its relation to violence, so far as I can tell.

[mytailorisrich]

> For some reason you ignore the "intended to" when discussing firefighters

Hmm, this is an excerpt from my previous comment: "you'll note that what firefighters might do is not intended to cause damage while vandalism obviously is". You do also seem not to understand the meaning of "intent"...

Anyway, this is obviously useless, and in a way illustrates the issue when trying to tackle extremism, which is that it is outside the bounds of logic and reason, so bye.

[komali2]

You don't believe the firefighters intend to damage the door preventing them from entrance? Or are you conjecting that the firefighters dream of a platonic door that functions stoutly as a door should, but magically vanishes when the firefighters (perfectly identified without fault) appear at it and need to force entry? And since this doesn't exist they don't intend to damage the door but do so anyway?

Because if that's the case, then vandals also dream of a platonic city that doesn't require statements to be made through thrown rocks in order to achieve systemic justice.

> Anyway, this is obviously useless, and in a way illustrates the issue when trying to tackle extremism, which is that it is outside the bounds of logic and reason, so bye

It saddens me that when you find someone you disagree with, you assume they're simply irrational lunatics and thus not worth paying attention to.