which of these is "violence"?

[dead0man]

go

[Antonio the Sixth]

2, 3, 5, 12

Physical acts that cause material harm.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wait, I accidentally voted 4. The way you've arranged these options makes no sense even for the point you're trying to make.

[John Dule]

2, 3, and 12, obviously. You could argue that evictions are a form of violence (if physical coercion becomes necessary), but if so they're no different from other legitimate and legal exercises of force, like shooting a burglar who is invading your property.

[AtorBoltox]

There's an assumption in this questioning that violence is inherently wrong irregardless of circumstance

[John Dule]

There's an assumption in this questioning that violence is inherently wrong irregardless of circumstance

That assumption was not expressed in the original post at all.

[AtorBoltox]

There's an assumption in this questioning that violence is inherently wrong irregardless of circumstance

That assumption was not expressed in the original post at all.

The placement of actual physical acts like destroying alongside frivolous options like 'writing an op-ed' is clearly an attempt to draw comparison with protesters and Tom Cotton's op-ed, with the obvious subtext being that Cotton cannot be morally worse than people tearing down statues of white supremacists because he wasn't 'violent'

[John Dule]

There's an assumption in this questioning that violence is inherently wrong irregardless of circumstance

That assumption was not expressed in the original post at all.

The placement of actual physical acts like destroying alongside frivolous options like 'writing an op-ed' is clearly an attempt to draw comparison with protesters and Tom Cotton's op-ed, with the obvious subtext being that Cotton cannot be morally worse than people tearing down statues of white supremacists because he wasn't 'violent'

Even if what you just said was true (and it isn't), that still does not establish that dead0man's post operated off of the assumption that violence is inherently wrong, which is what your initial claim was. You are moving the goalposts.

[S019]

2, 3, and 12 only, violence implies physical action, a number of others could apply under bullying or something similar, but not violence.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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?

[Orwell]

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?

Have you ever been a landlord?

Well, let's say there is a union construction worker who works for 20 years until he has financial freedom. He didn't graduate college or even high school, he did it the old fashioned way he came from nothing and he made something of himself, he worked 6-7 days a week 12 hours a day, he would make around $75,000 to $115,000 in any given year. In 2010 his father dies and he inherits his home, with what that worker has saved through his years of work and the inheritance he received from his father he is able to buy 2 more homes one for $19,900 that had been foreclosed upon. The man puts about $5,000 into the house to give it a new roof, make sure the flooring is nice, and to increase the quality of life. In the summer of 2011, the guy rents out this home to a person and all is well for a couple of years, sometimes the renter falls behind on his payments, but he always makes them up, then in the summer of 2012 something happens, he stops paying and then month after month this keeps happening so after three months the property owner begins the eviction proceedings and then one day in the fall goes to check out the house and there is nobody there and the door is wide open. So the property owner goes into the house and he finds a great big nothing. The appliances the property owner had supplied were gone, the ceiling fans were gone, the light switches were gone, the walls were smashed up, and the furnace was smashed. So the property owner calls the police, the police say that they will look into it. Now the property owner, who had been a working-class Joe his entire life who is trying to get higher in the ladder, now is out of 3 months rent, thousands of dollars of appliances and repairs, and a tenant. See we don't have to think of this as a hypothetical because it really happened to my father, everything in this is true and it happened in the timeframe given. And the landlords are the bad people.

So yes, Antonio and the rest of the forums residents woke Socialists, I'm sorry that you feel that a person taking a risk and spending their own capital to provide a service to others is a monster. Life is not rosebuds and candy for landlords, they are people and 99% of them are people who have worked hard to get where they are in life.

[Beet]

Only 2 and 3 are definitely violent, and they are a very mild form of violence, as destroying property is not the same as harming persons. Also, it depends on what you mean by destroying property. Burning down a definitely unoccupied house? Definitely violent. Graffiti or spray paint that can easily be wiped off? Not violent. Hacking? Destructive but not violent.

Throwing liquid on someone's face, assuming it's a beverage that will easily dry off, is not really violence either. This is also sometimes done as a prank.

Generally I have a pretty high bar for violence. You have to be actually hurting or coercing someone in a bodily way.

[John Dule]

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!

[Mr. Reactionary]

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!

Unlimited seating in the restaurant of your choice is a human right!

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

It's 2, 3, 10, 12. Considered 8 but it's not all situations. 10 is clearly mental violence even if it is not necessarily to their face.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Options 2, 3, and 12.

[John Dule]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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".

[John Dule]

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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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".

...of course it is. Ever heard of Max Weber?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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".

#HotTake: Yes and that's fine. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Seriously, this is common knowledge to the point of truism among people who know anything about political theory.