Hacker News Reader

Comment by brandonbloom | Hacker News Reader

Please ignore the overly literal pendants who can’t be bothered to look past the word “physical” in the first of several dictionary entries defining the word “violence”. Words can cause harm, and whether you call it violent or not doesn’t make it any more morally justifiable.

View on HN

I think you’re being uncharitable in the reason why myself and others are disagreeing that advocation of violence is necessarily violence. This is a problem of definitions, but not the way you’ve said: in the common case, using the word “violence” denotes a sort of harm that is not equitable with the negative effects of advocating for violence.

This is important because of accountability and nuance. If I advocate for war, it is unreasonable to try to invalidate my position by claiming that I should volunteer to go to war. You can incorporate that into your argument, but it does not on its own invalidate my argument. Similarly, my advocation of violence is not violence itself, despite how violent all war must necessarily be.

This is a matter of using the right methods of investigation and persuasion; you might end up at the rational conclusion using an irrational method, but that method will insidiously steer you wrong elsewhere. It is important to be able to posit advocation of an idea is wrong according to some set of moral axioms without trying to posit the much stronger (and untenable) stance that advocation of violence is itself violence. Rational methods of investigation generalize, and irrational ones do not.

The war advocacy example is a straw man. I don’t even know where to start with the rest of your comment built around that premise.

Do you mind explaining why it’s a strawman? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m not. But we can’t really find out if you tell me I am without explaining why. That’s not a discussion in good faith.

From my perspective, war seems to be a pretty good example. War is violent almost by definition. If you argue that advocating violence is also violence itself, this implies that advocating for war is an example of violence, does it not?

Edit: To reiterate for those downvoting - I do not understand why this is a strawman, and my example seems to be relevant, reasonable and logical to a discussion of whether or not advocacy of violence is violence itself. If it is not a good example, I don’t understand how you think silently downvoting is going to meaningfully alter my perspective or provide context for others to see why I’m incorrect. I’m happy to receive your downvote, but I’d ask that you at least try to engage with my argument instead of dismissing it out of hand.

The word "violence" only recently had its definition broadened to encompass hurt feelings. There is an established legal definition for violence that makes it clear it is always physical

The term has unfortunately been redefined by the same people who want to use it to censor speech.

sigh I couldn't disagree any more strongly.

1) This isn't about "feelings", it's about the fact that speech _has consequences_. People get hurt both emotionally and physically because of things other people say, especially in aggregate.

2) Etymologically speaking, violence comes from "violent", which meant "having a marked or powerful effect".

3) Legally speaking, violence includes intimidation.

4) Practically speaking, arguing definitions is a total waste of time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com