this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
71 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43953 readers
1179 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn't violence.
For example, suppose you're walking across a bridge and you see someone about to jump to their death. So you run over, pull them back from the brink, knock them down, and sit on them. Have you committed an act of violence? I would say not.
On the other hand, suppose the person is just standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change. If you run over, pull them back from the curb, knock them down, and sit on them, that would in fact be an act of violence.
A legal arrest can be violent. A soldier killing another is definitely going to be violent. Both can be legitimate uses of force.
You're right, but just to be clear: That is an English differentiation that doesn't exist in many other languages.
That's just a rhetorical device. I'm not suggesting that word definitions are prescriptive.
Weird. The question was asked in English.
Downvoted for being factually incorrect. Nowhere in the (non-doctrinal) definition of violence does it include "unjustified"
I'm the one defining violence here.
As someone who uses the original definition of fascism (before liberals changed it to exclude themselves) people generally don't like that.
The OP is a prompt as to the nature of violence.