[redbar0n]

You should look up the definitions of the word «violence».

You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition.

Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».

Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean:

> Extreme or powerful emotion or expression.

> Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness.

> Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.

> Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.

> an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)

Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.

[redbar0n]

From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression»

Which stands in contrast to «speech».

Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force).

I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> From each except the first: - «force, assault» - «action» - «an act of aggression»

Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.)

> what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force

Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal.

There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical.

> I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech».

On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.

[redbar0n]

I am not arguing that terms cannot be used in broader or more expansive or even metaphorical meaning. But I am arguing that the accuracy/essence of the term «violence» ought to be respected. Especially because diluting it (i.e. washing out the border of it) can have such disastrous consequences.

There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. So if you think the term «violence» isn’t a part of defining that line (or even the terms «attack», «aggression», «force», «assault» etc. which you seem willing to use to describe speech), then I am eager to hear what term(s) you propose to uphold that distinction?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force.

Sure, I agree, and can see that this is possible. You made this exact distinction between "saying something" and "physical force" without even using the word violence. This is clearly not a problem.

[redbar0n]

The fact that the Wikipedia page on «verbal abuse» has to use «verbal» as a prefix term to the terms «abuse», «violence», «assault» etc. actually underscores the point: If those terms were obviously verbal in nature, then «verbal» wouldn’t have been needed as a prefix to them.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

So if I say "physical abuse" is it because abuse is presumed non-physical? Obviously not; I am simply being specific.

[ilikehurdles]

Orwellian doublespeak. Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Nope, just regular singlespeak. Violence can plainly be non-physical.

> Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.

This isn't a description of doublespeak. An example of doublespeak could be someone using their speech to call for violence against others and then saying speech can't be violence.

[redbar0n]

Why would you even need to say «call for violence» if speech were violence in itself?

No one is opposing the fact that speech can be used to call for violence, but that doesn’t make the speech itself violence. The speech part of it is the «call for» or «incitement to» or even «lead to». But we must not mix up cause and effect.

[schoen]

Using speech to call for violence against someone is intermediated by the minds and bodies of listeners, who have their own free will, their own intelligence, and their own responsibility.

In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something).

All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.

[lordkrandel]

"Speech" does not oppose "action". I hope we all can agree what "hate speech" brings to the world. Especially with all the innocent brown people getting killed in the world today. Yeah, there also are innocent brown people getting killed, in thousands, and mostly because of retaliation, justified through hate speech.