which of these is "violence"?

[John Dule]

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.

Legally speaking, the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. That does not, however, mean that everything the state does is a violent action. Violence refers specifically to physical actions that are harmful and destructive. State actions are inherently coercive, yes, but they are not all violent. Not everything you don't like is violent, and not everything violent is inherently bad. Stop trying to condescend in order to mask your misunderstanding of these terms.

[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.

[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.

Legally speaking, the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. That does not, however, mean that everything the state does is a violent action. Violence refers specifically to physical actions that are harmful and destructive. State actions are inherently coercive, yes, but they are not all violent. Not everything you don't like is violent, and not everything violent is inherently bad. Stop trying to condescend in order to mask your misunderstanding of these terms.

lol, I'm a big fan of the state, so that's clearly not what I'm saying

The monopoly on legitimate violence is not an incidental characteristic of the state - it's almost universally accepted by social sciences as its defining characteristic. To be a state is to exercise a monopoly on legitimate violence within a defined territory. Not everything the state does is violent, but everything it does carries the implicit or explicit threat of violence. Whether or not the act itself is violent depends, as I said, on how explicit the threat is. Criminalizing something carries the very explicit implication that those caught doing that thing will be forcibly imprisoned and/or killed, so the relationship seems pretty damn direct to me.

And yes, that's an inherently arbitrary boundary, but it still makes more sense to me than the alternative. Otherwise, I guess armed robbery and kidnapping are also non-violent crimes, since you can in fact commit them without causing direct physical harm.

[John Dule]

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.

Legally speaking, the state has a monopoly on the use of violence. That does not, however, mean that everything the state does is a violent action. Violence refers specifically to physical actions that are harmful and destructive. State actions are inherently coercive, yes, but they are not all violent. Not everything you don't like is violent, and not everything violent is inherently bad. Stop trying to condescend in order to mask your misunderstanding of these terms.

The monopoly on legitimate violence is not an incidental characteristic of the state - it's almost universally accepted by social sciences as its defining characteristic. To be a state is to exercise a monopoly on legitimate violence within a defined territory. Not everything the state does is violent, but everything it does carries the implicit or explicit threat of violence. Whether or not the act itself is violent depends, as I said, on how explicit the threat is. Criminalizing something carries the very explicit implication that those caught doing that thing will be forcibly imprisoned and/or killed, so the relationship seems pretty damn direct to me.

There is already a specific term used to describe situations in which the threat of violence is used to force someone to do what you want them to-- it is coercion. If you want to call an eviction, a law, or any other sort of order backed up by force a coercive act, be my guest. But the threat of violence is not violence in and of itself. To quote the thought leader of the modern left, just look up the definition.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well this is pointless. If you really want to distinguish between harm applied by physical force and harm applied by the immediate threat of physical force, good for you. But coercion is not what I'm talking about. Blackmailing is not a violent crime, but armed robbery is. Both involve threat, but in one case the threat is inherently violent, and in the other it isn't. I think that's a more important distinction than that between whether or not one specific eviction is resolved by sending the police to physically remove the occupant or whether the occupant just complies to avoid that situation. But I guess if you're willing to say that armed robbery is nonviolent then I guess we can leave it there.

[John Dule]

Well this is pointless. If you really want to distinguish between harm applied by physical force and harm applied by the immediate threat of physical force, good for you. But coercion is not what I'm talking about. Blackmailing is not a violent crime, but armed robbery is. Both involve threat, but in one case the threat is inherently violent, and in the other it isn't. I think that's a more important distinction than that between whether or not one specific eviction is resolved by sending the police to physically remove the occupant or whether the occupant just complies to avoid that situation. But I guess if you're willing to say that armed robbery is nonviolent then I guess we can leave it there.

Armed robbery is considered in the category of "violent crimes" because it quite frequently involves someone being physically harmed. A page ago you were very concerned about the exact definitions of words; now you are flippantly dismissing the difference between actual physical force and the threat of physical force. If you want to end this here and say that this is just semantics, that is your right. But the distinction is relevant.

[HisGrace]

You're making the mistake of focusing on the substance of people's actions. The correct answer is that everything is violence if someone I don't like does it and nothing is if me or someone I like does it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

If you're going to go there, isn't physically remaining in a property you have no legal right to remain in and thus preventing others from using it, violence?

If eviction is violence, then clearly so is squatting, as they are two sides of the same coin.  If your point is that instigating physical action is what counts as a violent act, then squatting is clearly more deserving of the term than eviction, even if you consider it to be "legitimate violence".

[Horus]

2, 3, 5, 12. 5 is by far the worst, though.

[All Along The Watchtower]

this thread is violence sorry dead0

[Fuzzy Bear]

The two (2) "destroying property" choices and the choice of "throwing liquid" at someone.

Evictions are not violence, although I do believe that the issues we have in America regarding housing are issues of greed.

The "making fun of" options are not "violence" but they do cause emotional harm and are scumbag things to do.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't think eviction is inherently violent anymore than any other government act (e.g. you could say taxation is violence). But that's not what 'violence' is in normal usage.