I had so many examples to link that I actually had to delete some of them because the text got too long to fit into a single email. The list could have been significantly longer.
I cannot be sure, because it probably has it's roots in academia prior to this, but the book "Nonviolent Communication" written by Marshall Rosenburg in 2003 is the first instance I can remember of this phenomenon. It's not taken to the degree that it gets taken now, but there's definitely a pattern there of calling things violent that no sane person would recognize as such.
There's a similar trend with the word 'oppression'. My brother and I are pretty far apart on politics, for example, me being a subscriber here and him being an anarchist (at least ideologically), but we've both had really nasty jobs in the past. I'm talking sweltering factory work in the summer with no A/C and a twenty minute lunch break. Coming home covered in granite dust or buffing compound. And we both roll our eyes when you read some story about a work environment that was "oppressive as fuck" because someone (as an entry-ish-level employee) was asked to clean out a conference room for an important meeting that didn't involve them, for example.
I don't think the link used here was a good example. If you actually read the linked article, it clearly says that in the context of discussing how peaceful protest movements had to face physical violence, and how some advocated for self-defense through things like weapons ownership. Unlike the other examples, it is *not* taking some non-physical action and terming it violent.
A good discussion in general, but "the coddling of the American mind" remains a reach.
To understand this phenomenon, all we need to do is acknowledge that, in the face of exponentially increasing volumes of information flowing in all directions, speakers are pushed to simplify (I talk about X; all things I talk about are X; all X are fundamentally similar) and heighten (X is the most important class of information; this is the most urgent information of class X) in order for the message to be heard at all. This very quickly creates a feedback loop on twitter-type platforms that leads to everyone screaming about everything all the time.
Meanwhile if you want to assert "coddling" as the cause, I'd have to ask you to at least identify a coddler.
This is great. Calling everything you don't like "violence" really is one of the worst parts of the current discourse. From what I can see, this often comes from people whose lives are so easy and coddled that they simply don't understand what real violence and trauma is and therefore need to define ever more mundane acts as horrific transgressions so that they can feel like they are raging against something meaningful.
I'm saying that many people want their fight to feel more consequential, so they need to frame their perceived injustice as "literally violence" rather than "hurting someone's feelings". Trying to encourage people to be nice to each other is a good thing, but for a lot of people, it's not the existential struggle they need it to be to convince themselves that what they're doing is super important and critical.
I'm very curious to know if you believe that these things are not(!) super important and critical, but if it's a sensitive area you only like talking about in certain ways (the (apparent) shortcomings of others) I can understand.
While it may be overused to a certain degree, the way in which you’ve referred to the use of violence by a lot of lefties kind of points in the direction of the concept of “structural violence,” which is commonly used to refer to the make in which certain governance or societal structures facilitate or block access to certain resources (i.e., food or education or otherwise) to specific groups in society. In not facilitating resources to specific communities, they’ve essentially made it more difficult for certain groups of people to thrive. While this may not be entirely analogous to direct violence, it can certainly result in poor health outcomes in much the same way, no?
Additionally, I would actually encourage you to more deeply investigate why it is that violence perpetuated by state actors and carried out using the threat of force is not considered violent (the state-based monopoly of violence).
Again, a lot of it is kind of odd, because it’s based on the misapplication of theory and political philosophy, but that doesn’t mean the concept of structural violence, which permits state actors to enact violence more covertly against its subjects, is irrelevant point of discussion.
A fun note:
I had so many examples to link that I actually had to delete some of them because the text got too long to fit into a single email. The list could have been significantly longer.
Email length restrictions are V I O L E N C E
I cannot be sure, because it probably has it's roots in academia prior to this, but the book "Nonviolent Communication" written by Marshall Rosenburg in 2003 is the first instance I can remember of this phenomenon. It's not taken to the degree that it gets taken now, but there's definitely a pattern there of calling things violent that no sane person would recognize as such.
There's a similar trend with the word 'oppression'. My brother and I are pretty far apart on politics, for example, me being a subscriber here and him being an anarchist (at least ideologically), but we've both had really nasty jobs in the past. I'm talking sweltering factory work in the summer with no A/C and a twenty minute lunch break. Coming home covered in granite dust or buffing compound. And we both roll our eyes when you read some story about a work environment that was "oppressive as fuck" because someone (as an entry-ish-level employee) was asked to clean out a conference room for an important meeting that didn't involve them, for example.
> As far as I can tell there’s no outer limit. Some activists will write with a straight face that non-violent action has always been violent. (link to https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/05/rethink-violence/)
I don't think the link used here was a good example. If you actually read the linked article, it clearly says that in the context of discussing how peaceful protest movements had to face physical violence, and how some advocated for self-defense through things like weapons ownership. Unlike the other examples, it is *not* taking some non-physical action and terming it violent.
A good discussion in general, but "the coddling of the American mind" remains a reach.
To understand this phenomenon, all we need to do is acknowledge that, in the face of exponentially increasing volumes of information flowing in all directions, speakers are pushed to simplify (I talk about X; all things I talk about are X; all X are fundamentally similar) and heighten (X is the most important class of information; this is the most urgent information of class X) in order for the message to be heard at all. This very quickly creates a feedback loop on twitter-type platforms that leads to everyone screaming about everything all the time.
Meanwhile if you want to assert "coddling" as the cause, I'd have to ask you to at least identify a coddler.
This is great. Calling everything you don't like "violence" really is one of the worst parts of the current discourse. From what I can see, this often comes from people whose lives are so easy and coddled that they simply don't understand what real violence and trauma is and therefore need to define ever more mundane acts as horrific transgressions so that they can feel like they are raging against something meaningful.
Is this to say that it is a fact that they are not raging against something meaningful (and real)?
I'm saying that many people want their fight to feel more consequential, so they need to frame their perceived injustice as "literally violence" rather than "hurting someone's feelings". Trying to encourage people to be nice to each other is a good thing, but for a lot of people, it's not the existential struggle they need it to be to convince themselves that what they're doing is super important and critical.
I'm very curious to know if you believe that these things are not(!) super important and critical, but if it's a sensitive area you only like talking about in certain ways (the (apparent) shortcomings of others) I can understand.
I'm glad you can understand, because I have no idea what that word salad of a comment is supposed to mean
"Word salad" often comes up in these scenarios.
OK
While it may be overused to a certain degree, the way in which you’ve referred to the use of violence by a lot of lefties kind of points in the direction of the concept of “structural violence,” which is commonly used to refer to the make in which certain governance or societal structures facilitate or block access to certain resources (i.e., food or education or otherwise) to specific groups in society. In not facilitating resources to specific communities, they’ve essentially made it more difficult for certain groups of people to thrive. While this may not be entirely analogous to direct violence, it can certainly result in poor health outcomes in much the same way, no?
Additionally, I would actually encourage you to more deeply investigate why it is that violence perpetuated by state actors and carried out using the threat of force is not considered violent (the state-based monopoly of violence).
Again, a lot of it is kind of odd, because it’s based on the misapplication of theory and political philosophy, but that doesn’t mean the concept of structural violence, which permits state actors to enact violence more covertly against its subjects, is irrelevant point of discussion.