which of these is "violence"?

[lfromnj]

OK, this thread is by and large just a puerile waste of time to make fun of extreme woke parlance, but how the f**k are evictions not violence? Like, the Dules of the world are free to call it legitimate violence (every political ideology has its own definition of what violence is and isn't legitimate), but surely if words are to have any meaning then physically removing a person from a place against their will is clearly a violent act?

Yeah! And it's also violence when the waiter politely asks me to leave my table after I've been sitting there for six hours without ordering anything. I refuse to be physically removed! This restaurant is common property, comrade!

If the implication is that two big guys are gonna come in and forcibly haul you out of the restaurant, and if you're overwhelmingly likely to suffer physical harm as a result (like, say, there's a shootout in the street outside - or, you know, you're homeless and likely to starve or die of cold) how is it not violence? Are you going to criticize the woke people for defining violence as everything they don't like and then do the exact same thing? Well, I'm sorry, but I like to use consistent definitions for my terms regardless of whether they serve my ideological ends or not. If you definite violence in a way other than "a physical action taken against a person's will that causes them physical harm" then by all means let me know your definitions.

JacksonHitchcock, I'm sorry but your family sob story is of no relevance to the way we define concepts, and if you're looking for my sympathy then ranting like a self-righteous jackass is unlikely to get it.

What do you mean by this? You are the one who is redefining violence to suit his own ends, not me. Most evictions do not result in a situation where the property owner has to actually resort to physical violence. Now, perhaps the threat of potential violence is behind an eviction order (if the tenant does not comply with it), but backing up your words with a possibility for violence is not the same as a violent action. It's the difference between telling a burglar "Hey man, get your hands off my valuables and leave my property" and actually shooting him in the face.

If you're pointing a gun at the burglar, then I'd say is a violent act even if you don't actually shoot, yes. When the threat of violence is so intrinsically connected to an action, I think it's fair to say that the violent quality carries over to it. I guess we can agree to disagree on that but it seems to me that it's not helpful to obfuscate this connection.

Isn't all criminal law "violence" then for being backed up by the implicit threat of force? Laws criminalizing rape and murder are thus "violent".

Heck, I'm ok with this definition so long as we can all agree that taxation is violence too.

The mods say that's excessive hyperbole.

[lfromnj]

I actually do agree with Antonio here ,
to me its basically like all times a man kills a man is a homicide even if its literally self defense, its mostly just legal speak, I do think he might have different beliefs behind him but I don't have a problem with the base statements itsself.