5 ms·
It's a very contemporary interpretation of violence that has gained a lot of steam, though it is in opposition to historical use. For example, in many situation
by creddit 5y ago
It's a very contemporary interpretation of violence that has gained a lot of steam, though it is in opposition to historical use. For example, in many situations today, people will consider "silence to be violence".
- grayhatter 5y agorhetorically I might agree but only in the context of obviously misusing the language to make a point. ethically I don't agree that inaction is as bad as action, only that it's close. silence could be apathy and apathy + inaction cannot reasonably can be considered violent
- creddit 5y agoI'm not making a claim of validity. I'm pointing out how the term "violence" has evolved in contemporary society.
- pyrale 5y agoThe evolution of what people understand as violence simply evolved hand in hand with the evolution of our understanding of medical conditions, especially psychiatric disorders. For instance, it's also a very contemporary thing to avoid calling war vets wimps, but it's better explained by the evolution of our understanding of their condition than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse.
- creddit 5y ago> ... than by an ideological plot to reframe discourse. You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. You're in basic agreement that "violence" in contemporary understanding has evolved to include non-physical contexts but you seem to have imputed that I have the belief that it is due to an "ideological plot to reframe discourse". That's odd and completely absent from any statement I've made.
- pyrale 5y ago> You seem to have read a lot into what I wrote. My apologies, then. That part of the answer was in response to the general reaction to what I meant to be an uncontroversial statement. I should have clarified that it wasn't yours.