[StopDisinfo910]

> Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved

Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made.

So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.

[intended]

The fact is that many people actually follow through on their desire to boycott something, to the point that it’s not a trivial branch of the population.

Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.

[StopDisinfo910]

Should we be proud that a non trivial branch of the population is apparently wedging their power to silence another part who would like to say things they don't like?

Personnaly, that doesn't sound very healthy to me.

[intended]

I mean, no one cared when the shoe was on the foot. America has an information system that has one section that disconnected its viewers from other views. For decades now.

[karlgkk]

Is it violence?

describes something non violent

This is violence!

[StopDisinfo910]

Putting pressure on people in order to destroy someone life definitely is violence, yes, especially considering the point is preventing someone from having the capacity to have a livelihood. Pushed to its logical conclusion, if it worked perfectly, it's more or less murder (or ostrasism if you want to be nice but as some vocal opponents are openly implying murder would be okay I feel founded in saying it is murder).

Violence is not limited to physical violence. The fact that this apparently eludes some is probably the most worrying part of the current American trend and I think in no small part responsible for the sorry state of the country.

[oasisaimlessly]

Getting someone's home foreclosed is just SWATing them in slow-motion.