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.

  • wild_dog
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    deleted by creator

          • JuneFall [none/use name]
            ·
            1 year ago

            It isn't quite what you wrote, but when I was in Cape Town doing couch surfing a white couple with a large farm house did host me. The husband who didn't seem to work except for telling people to better manage the farm and get his rental income was discussing politics with me. He did inherit the farm and the company from his father during the transition period of South Africa. Himself he did label as anarchist, since he is against people telling others how to live their lives. This included his wife being angry when he was interested in other women. Myself he labeled as being authoritarian - which I wasn't back then. Since I was in favour of collective action, collective bargaining, solidarity and (but that I did say only later) reparations - or more than reparations - and taxing people.

            I wish such "libertarian" colonists would be lumped together with Fascists as often as you are lumped together with Tankies. However liberals are quick at ignoring his economic power and looking at his social values instead of what power he does actually use (like supporting the Freedom Front Plus with donations).

            • MiraculousMM [he/him, any]
              ·
              1 year ago

              Himself he did label as anarchist, since he is against people telling others how to live their lives. This included his wife being angry when he was interested in other women.

              michael-laugh

              • Mindfury [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                my wife is a real tankie - but by tanks, she means the bins, and by Hungary, she means the kerb on a thursday night

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

                I agree with clowning on this guy to be clear but I do want to say that while authoritarian isnt the word I would use, enforced monogamy and monogamy as the socially expected default for life are bad things.

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

              I was in Cape Town doing couch surfing a white couple with a large farm house did host me.

              yikes-1yikes-2yikes-2yikes-3

              However liberals are quick at ignoring his economic power and looking at his social values instead of what power he does actually use (like supporting the Freedom Front Plus with donations).

              Die Vryheidsfront Plus is a literal fascist party lmao. They want actual Afrikaner homelands (otherwise known as apartheid lite), they say so on their manifesto. Of course they hide under the guise of protecting "minority rights" (as white people mathematically are are minority in South Africa) while pretending to ignore all the social context post apartheid.

              • JuneFall [none/use name]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Die Vryheidsfront Plus is a literal fascist party lmao

                Yes. Sometimes I forget to add context.

      • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tankie, (noun):

        1. Anyone to the left of the US state department on foreign policy
        • Erika3sis [she/her, xe/xem]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alternate definition: Anyone who advocates for doing something about Nazis that is not Calm and Rational Debate on how you deserve the right to live

      • NewLeaf
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anyone to the left of Reagan is a tankie to libs

      • wild_dog
        ·
        edit-2
        13 days ago

        deleted by creator

    • NewLeaf
      ·
      1 year ago

      maybe-later-kiddo actually sweaty, we ARE allies! Do you think Trump will do better for you? We will continue to do nothing and point to the worse alternative and throw you under the bus as soon as the election is over!

  • BelieveRevolt [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Civility fetishism is how fascists worm their way into liberal spaces.

    "No, we won't ban them just for their beliefs, they haven't done anything wrong."

    "angery Why did you tell the Nazi to fuck off? That's so uncivil, so much for the tolerant left who can't tolerate different opinions! The fascist has been nothing but civil!"

    I'm sick of trying to explain how you can't allow fascists into your space no matter how civil they're being. It's that Nazi bar scout story, it's a tactic they've been using forever. Allow fascists and now you have a fascist space.

  • AcidSmiley [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well put, but i'm going a step further: Insisting on civility while people are being subjected to systemic violence is, in itself, a form of violence and an instrument of societal opression. Cis shits have the privilege to calmly discuss my right to exist, as they have no skin in that game. I do not have that luxury. You can see this in action whenever one of us vents their rightful, justified anger about our mistreatment and our open extermination and is immediately shushed, silenced and equated with their opressors by the most despicable, most spineless liberals out there. The ones that deserve to hang right besides all their nazi friends.

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

    So much of what passes as @Civility@hexbear.net on the internet is passive-aggressive hostility behind plausible deniability. Crybully shit.

    "Ah, yes, it's almost as if Hexbears might be deranged and unhinged and are delusional. I'm just concerned about that. Who hurt them? Mental health resources are available. I'm just saying!" smuglord

    • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who hurt them? Mental health resources are available. I'm just saying!"

      The same people who send reddit care packages.

        • HornyOnMain
          ·
          1 year ago

          There's a button on peoples Reddit accounts to automatically make Reddit send you suicide prevention numbers and stuff, basically reddit just added a fully automated "kys" button to harass people with which people immediately started to use it for.

  • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always like to remember that George Washington especially, but the founding fathers loved to pride themselves on their civil mannerisms and discussion while they weren't either slaughtering natives for their land or forcing black people to work on stolen land at gunpoint. It really showcases how much the term "civility" is worth

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

      Incivility of action is fine to them, as long as they don't have to witness it

      Incivility of language? In broad daylight? Unacceptable

  • Sickos [they/them, it/its]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh man, if we get friction for "internet comments aren't violence", "vandalism isn't violence" is going to blow minds.

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

      Libs abhor all fake forms of violence. They really love state sanctioned violence though, as long as it confirms with us-foreign-policy when non white states do a violence of any kind its evil authoritarianism

      • GriffithDidNothingWrong [comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right, if China requires its government officials to be qualified that's authoritarian. But if the United States thinks that housing its poorest people doesn't cause them to suffer enough, so instead chooses to house them as expensively as possible in prisons were they will be subjected to the maximum amount of cruelty allowable by American law than that's not authoritarian

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

          When the US does it its freedom and democracy amerikkka-clap

          Or I've noticed they'll pull the classic, "Well yeah its bad, but you can say its bad and not go to jail, because freedom," or "The fact that you are not in jail for saying that proves US is free"

          • GriffithDidNothingWrong [comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I remember a video I saw of a veteran yelling at George W. Bush at a speaking event, calling him a war criminal. As security dragged the man off Bush said something about how only in America could you yell at a former president like that. Motherfucker, he got dragged off by armed men. I could yell at Kim Jong Un if I wanted to, its physically possible, and I would get dragged off

    • Ho_Chi_Chungus [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Miner correction

      I believe the term you're looking for is minor correction. A Miner Correction is what they did to Trotsky's skull pika-pickaxe

  • Awoo [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Also smashing and/or burning property isn't violence either.

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

      think-about-it if they admit property crimes aren't violence, then how else will they justify being against protestors and rationalize state sanctioned violence agsinst them

    • GriffithDidNothingWrong [comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hmm. If we're defining violence as harm that can be materially reinforced I'd say burning down a black church definitely qualifies. But I get what you're saying

      • JuneFall [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The violence doesn't lie in destroying the church, else any demolition would be violent (but most are only forceful, not violent). The violence here is created by the act being an attack against a group, the violence is supporting white supremacy and racism. But that is just my opinion.

        "In defense of looting" does take some of @Awoo@hexbear.net 's aspects and makes a book from it. Do recommend it, it is a quick read and a quicker skim. Not the most foundational text, but does present the post Ferguson spirit of quite a few people.

        • GriffithDidNothingWrong [comrade/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          It does, but if I call my neighbor a cracker it doesn't hurt him in any material sense. If I throw a brick through his window it does. I don't care about some people looting a walmart but destroying personal rather than private property is violent. Its like saying punching a nazi isn't violence, it might be justified but its violence

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

            I think I agree. Destroying a person's home is the same violence as eviction, but destroying private property is clearly a very different thing.

            So destruction of private property isn't violence, but destruction of personal property is.

    • HornyOnMain
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idk, I'd say its violence but if you do it to rich people it's good violence

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        If no one is injured, it isn't violence. There is good violence, but vandalism and theft are typically non-violent.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    SMH hexbear keeps gaslighting me by supporting a different opinion