No, it's not. Please stop with the weasel-worded equivalencies. I agree that Milo's tirade about the student was ill-advised, but it is not violence.
Also, I find it side-splittingly hilarious how people are going after his Rogan interview comments (calling him pro-NAMBLA is top-notch clickbait, where were you Monday morning when all these stories were going out?!), yet the same people didn't give a shit when Lena Dunham admitted to molesting her sister.
> Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", although the group acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional understanding of the word.
I agree with the WHO here, and what Milo did definitely caused psychological harm from a position of power (being a chosen speaker in their school).
As far as I can tell "psychological harm" is too vague and open to interpretation. It's a very broad definition that looks like it prohibits hate speech; I believe in complete free expression by voice or text (criminal/ civil court can handle the rest).
Personally, I stay away from such people in the digital world (but, IRL I'm meaner than most and enjoy 'interacting' with these people).
If you engage in a course of action with an intent to harm another in any way, or behave in a manner likely to result in harm to another, you have committed violence, whatever form that action takes — words, bullets, or anything else.
If you can't accept that basic definition, "then you're already beyond help."
(See how easy it is to poison a discussion with accusations and snide remarks?)
I think this is too imprecise. Would you write code in this manner?
If one can establish a cause and effect of actual harms, then criminal statutes already apply.