[janalsncm]

I don’t like expanding the definitions of things like this. People have had a commonplace definition of violence for a long time. One that encompassed throwing Molotov cocktails and doesn’t include more intangible things like poverty or inequality or racism.

Academia doesn’t get to just assert that their broader definition is the real one.

[pibaker]

But every "intangible" thing you mentioned was in fact maintained by very tangible violence that those in power decide legitimate. What happens if a poor man decides to squat a rich man's vacation home? What happens if a black woman living under segregation refuses to give up her bus seat for a white person? In both cases the police will be called, and i'm damn sure that the cops don't shy away from using violence if it gets the thing done.

[janalsncm]

Again, your definition is too broad to be meaningful. If tolerating poverty is “violence” and genocide is “violence” the term no longer serves a purpose.

Further, just because governments use physical force to protect a thing does not make that thing violent. The federal government sent in the army to protect the Little Rock Nine in Arkansas. Does this mean racial integration is “violent”? Or is it only “violent” when the government tolerates inequality?