The act of simply being mean to someone is not violence. The act of being called names and pejoratives is not violence. Cussing someone out is not violence. Being curt, angry, blunt, rude, mocking, sarcastic, taunting, smug, smarmy, condescending, patronizing, whatever is not violence. Being an asshole is not inherently the same as being violent.

If any of these things removed from context constitute violence, then the term violence is a thought-terminating cliche that lump-sums everything that makes people uncomfortable into one gray amorphous blob.

To utilize a term that can collapse hate crimes, genocide, colonization, imperialism: unspeakable atrocities into calling someone ignorant/privileged/bigoted/etc., mocking/clowning on someone, cussing someone out: just being mean/standoffish/rude/condescending, is to equate discomfort with harm, to flatten social relations, and to fundamentally terminate all thought about anything that causes enough discomfort.

I am not a linguistic prescriptivist. If you want to use violence to describe uncouth behavior, you are more-than-welcome to do so. What I'm trying to say with this is that, if you are to broaden the definition like this, it's harmful to you to use it as a term of any weight in discussions; you narrow your viewpoint and considerations based on how nice and polite people are to you, and reduce all anger, no matter it's righteousness, to an undue equivalence.

My personal definition of violence, and you're welcome to disagree with me, is harm that can be, or is, materially (as in, in reality) reinforced.

If you want an example of an actually violent form of communication: slurs. The point of a slur, as contrasted with a pejorative, is to remind the targeted individual of their place within society; of their 'inferiority', and subjugation. Thus, the function of a slur is an attempt at domination, reinforcement of hierarchy, and an implicit threat. The point of, say, the use of the N-word, is to remind the black people targeted by it that they are not safe within the person's vicinity, that they are seen as 'lesser', and to reinforce the social hierarchy of racism. A slur is a threat, and I'd categorize it as violence.

Violence is much more than just slurs, of course. However, I wanted to use slurs specifically for my point: What harm, in reality, does someone calling you an ignorant chucklefuck on an internet forum cause to you? Even in real life, if they called you that, what material harm would that imply?

I'm not saying people don't say worse here, we do, and I'm not here to debate individual instances of gray-areas you believe cross the line that you've experienced, but I've seen people on this network of forums lump pejoratives 'shithead', 'freak', 'nerd', 'dickbag', ‘asshole’, etc. into an all-encompassing violence, an attack, some form of harm. I ask again: what harm do these imply? Because a slur implies a threat. A pejorative is simply uncouth. Lump-summing the two neuters your capacity to analyze harm.

I just think it's a personal disservice to consider violence utilizing the aforementioned framework. At that point, it's a thought-terminating cliche. You kneecap your ability to understand the wide array of perspectives on this bright, beautiful earth if you dismiss all that are expressed with any form of mirth or edge.

Feel free to pick this apart, I'll leave it here. I've said my piece, and I remind you that I'm not here to talk about any anecdotes you might have for instances of behavior. I simply won't get into the weeds of it. It's not something I want to do with my finite time on this earth.

    • WhyEssEff [she/her]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 year ago

      hello. welcome to hexbear. have you considered that you are the exact target of this post makima-think

    • egg1918 [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know what makes Lemmy actually suck to use? Fascists. Playing civility with fascists does nothing but make them feel welcome and give them an opportunity to infest and take over.

    • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If I went on Lemmy or Reddit and said "Russians are subhuman orcs and all deserve to be punished for their actions in Ukraine, fuck the stupid incompetent fascist Putin" then I can guarantee that not a single person there would be like "errmmmm!! you're being uncivil!!! we need calm and rational language about Russia here!!" I would probably get a dozen gold awards or whatever.

      "Incivility" to liberals is what "political" is to chuds. It's a bludgeon that is indiscriminately used for any opinion they dislike, and almost always used for things to their left. When you say "You're being uncivil!", to us it sounds basically like when a right-winger sees a black person in a video game and says that the game is therefore "too political".

    • impiri@lemm.ee
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe you’re right! I just don’t care because you’re assholes about it.

      This is not a great way to learn and grow, tbh

    • betelgeuse [comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know what, I agree with you. You may be wrong in every way but gosh darn-it, you sure are polite about it.

      • UlyssesT
        cake
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        deleted by creator

    • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you care more about how we say things than what we're saying then you deserve to have this platform suck for you.

      More importantly if the kind of things we are uncivil towards are okay with you, then fuck off

    • Mindfury [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just don’t care because you’re assholes about it.

      incivility detected, all posters from your instance rejected

    • booty [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think Lemmy should suck for you to use and I think you should go fuck yourself all the way back to Reddit with the rest of the fash.

    • UlyssesT
      cake
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      deleted by creator

    • WashedAnus [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      You did a racism. You did an imperialism. You did a nationalism. You did a xenophobia. You did a white fragility. You did a weak apology. You did no growth. This makes it abundantly clear you don't understand the intersectional nature of the multiplicity of your offenses

    • SacredExcrement [any, comrade/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why would I be nice to people perfectly ok with platforming overt Nazis?

      Maybe you’re right! I just don’t care because you’re assholes about it.

      Why are you here and not reddit with their fed mod head, you whiny-ass lib?

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most users here are going to be nice to someone who is unassuming and not themselves advocating something horrendous [see the recent "not all Nazis" discourse by libs vis-a-vis the Canadian parliament]. I have many times attempted to talk to pugnacious liberals while being gentle, but then they will just pull out some other accusation like "sealioning," "trolling," "bad faith," and there is no standard that one can reach that will satisfy them besides agreeing with them on whatever the point in question is.

      A couple weren't like this, but this is almost universally how leddit liberals are.

    • iie [they/them, he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      if you spent years reading about how the world works and discovered that the suffering is on purpose, it might make you an angry person, especially when the internet is flooded with people who are ignorant of the depth and structure of that suffering and who seem to cheer on the institutions most responsible for it.