I survived a 9 and a half year long abusive marriage. People who were aware of the details of my partner's behavior referred to me as a "battered spouse." I had a tremendous amount of trouble accepting that label, not because of gender stereotypes, but because my spouse almost never initiated physical violence. 80% of the abuse was limiting my food intake, preventing me from sleeping, denying me the ability to communicate with others and breaking sentimental items in order to dehumanize me. My spouse, on several occasions, spent hours commanding me to use a sharp object on myself to end my own life. Other acts which constitute the type of violence you discussed include telling me that she will file paperwork that paints me as an abusive monster and puts me in jail. That paperwork was used as a threat for three years before she filed it, making me homeless in the deep south, an area where we moved shortly before she chose to follow through on her manipulative threat. She once stood in front of me, holding a hammer in her hand, and calmly said, "you better not fall asleep tonight, because as soon as you fall asleep, I am going to murder you with this hammer." Violence in the non-physical sense is very real, and it is all around us. Thank you for composing and delivering this monologue. This is something that people need to understand.
This is awesome, I love it! Love the new format and all of it, great work! I think with sports and BDSM maybe the key thing is that people ideally do them voluntarily? So they've chosen to give up their choices temporarily and abide by some rules in exchange for pleasure or excitement, but with safewords or walking off the field they can take that power back. So it's like play violence. On a different note, in "Toward a Political Philosophy of Race" Falguni Sheth talks about how we usually think of the state as an entity that is supposed to limit violence tout court, but she argues that its real function is to limit violence by maintaining a monopoly on it. So it disapproves of vigilantism and of aggressive action by other nations but will use physical violence when it suits its own ends.
I think it's really cool that you referenced this in your latest video! I'm in uni and currently writing a short paper on violence within student protests, and your video actually reminded me to look through this for sources! The social discourse ecosystem on RUclips can, every once in a rare while, be splendid
@athekeeper7234 how did that paper go? I'm a student as well writing about the narrative of violence surrounding social movements. Going to be focusing on the bom movement in 2020. Would love to compare notes/sources I'd you end up seeing this.
For anyone who thinks his definition of violence is too broad, remember that neglecting a child is definitively violent behavior (child abuse), yet by definition, requires you to take no action, whatsoever.
+futurestoryteller I think those on the "Too broad" side would say that not all child abuse is violent (i.e. neglect), but all child abuse is wrong nonetheless.
Timothy Milligan Ask a doctor if starving to death is a violent way to go - ask a doctor if drowning is a violent way to go. I'm betting the odds are extremely high they're not going to say "of course not."
+futurestoryteller Your argument is tautological. *Why* is child abuse definitely violent behavior? "Ask a doctor if starving to death is a violent way to go" That is how bodies work. The same result could occur if that child's parents died in a car crash on the way home to feed it. Would the child then be violently killing itself by starving to death?
"Sometimes nothing is the most violent thing to do." One of my favorite quotes echoes that idea: came from Martin Luther King: "Our generation will have to repent not only for the acts and words of the children of darkness but also for the fears and apathy of the children of light." If doing nothing can be violent, King showed us how doing something can inversely be the most peaceful thing to do.
If violence is the removal of choice, is some violence good, and some bad? What if someone raise a hammer to hit someone else on the head, but I grab the hammer before they can bring it down, thus removing ability to complete their choice to hit the other person; in this situation, I would be the only person who completed a violate act?
+btdtpro This is a great question and something I meant to add to the list of things we'll talk about next week - is violence always bad? I think the short answer is "no". See Bogart, for one, on creative violence, but also lots of other people who've written about Violence Proper over the years being necessary (to an extent) to maintain the largely peaceful rule of law, to challenge harmful regimes of all shapes and sizes, change economic, cultural or political status quo, improve the state of education, etc, etc, etc. Would love others' perspective on this question, too.
+btdtpro To cause harm for the sake of harm is an act of evil. To cause harm for the sake of embetterment is an act of good. Intent is important, and not overriding. One may have good intentions but still FUBAR a situation; there is no redeeming quality, instead perhaps a lessening of a sentence, or at least a modification of it to instead deal with ignorance. Violence, as described in this video, is simply another act in the human equation. Of itself it is neither good nor bad, but another variable bringing influence to the equation. To attempt to quantify violence under a morality code assumes a higher power to the human psyche than it may possess. In other words, is a sense of right and wrong, in any regard, a purely human concept, or a universal constant? Thus we arrive back at intent. In your example provided, it would seem, at face value, that you stopping some one else from being hit in the head by another person as a "good" thing. However, your reaction to this action was based on a face value assessment as well. While your example good include the possibly of you knowing the background story of the person about to be hit, and the person about to hit, nevertheless your comment doesn't specify. As such, to impose your violence in an unknown situation where you are unaware of the context is perhaps "more violent". Herein is demonstrated the importance of context as well, 'good intent' be damned. Lastly, to presume the capacity to remove some one's choice is to take personal responsibility not only for your self, but also of the other person.
+PBS Idea Channel Could "bad" violence be when it "transforms a person into a thing," and "good" violence be when it transforms a thing back into a person? From btdtpro's example, the first person transformed the second person into a "thing to be hit," and perhaps you could argue that btdtpro transforms the first person into a "thing to be stopped," but really he is revealing the "person-ness" of the one being hit. And in another sense he is not removing choice from the first person, but allowing the first person to make the same choice again, except to a person instead of a thing. The same can be said about challenging harmful regimes, changing the political status quo, and improving the state of education. Are you really removing their choice, or are you just revealing the humanity of the ones they just turned into things, and allowing them to make the same choice?
Micah Hunsberger I would say this is why I like words , or what might be called "violent speech", over actions. If I stop someone from hitting another person with a hammer, I won't be "allowing the first person to make the same choice again, except to a person instead of a thing.", becuase they won't automatically change from seeing the person they once saw as a thing to hit, now as a person they're about to hit; unless I also impact their thinking with words. It's like the old, teach a person to fish saying, "Force a person to not hit another person with a hammer, and they'll not hit the other person as long as you're there to enforce it, but help that person understand why they shouldn't hit someone with a hammer, and they'll not only stop trying to hit the person, but they might also teach others the same important information; or maybe shorter put, actions are important for fast but temporary change, but should be fallowed up, or even accompanied by, well thought and communicated ideas for slower but long lasting change.
PBS Idea Channel Thanks for the reply and the video on the topic. It's definitely an interesting topic to process and think about, as well as hear other people's perspective on.
I think the definition is problematic because it muddies up what violence is by making the definition too broad, and losing some of the inherent I guess distaste (not sure that's the right word for it) we feel towards violence. I think you need a clear distinction between violent and non-violent actions, for example, protest. Most of the protests in Chicago are, what I consider from a traditional definition, non-violent. However, they do block traffic and remove the choice from the commuters like me in choosing how we move about the city. Under your definition, that makes these people violent protesters, which carries this whole extra layer of baggage in the wording. Same holds true for violent and non-violent drug offenders and a bunch of other I suppose "categories of people".
I really think these counterexamples ring true. Others in this comment section are pointing out that this definition of "violence" essentially necessitates a more nuanced ethical assessment than "violence is bad". And I think that this definition would confuse. Because violence would no longer equate to the obviously bad stuff. Added subtlty may actually prove ineffective by getting people up in arms over whether systemic violence like racism should be considered on a level with physical assault. I could see such debate and semantics detracting from a go-get-'em attitude toward combating the obvious violence. It may create apathy to present such a powerful and ubiquitous matter as "the way things are" under the moniker of violence to be stopped. This may seem insurmountable, intractable, or at least very difficult and costly.
Agreed, this feels like overloading the word "violence" to use it beyond its more traditional meaning not only devalues the word, but will confuse most English speakers. Wouldn't a discussion of "power" and "conflict" be more appropriate, as words for this episode? I am curious about equivalent words to "violence" in other languages, and if they make such distinctions or not. Beyond the word choice, however, I think all the concepts are on point.
+ZimmervisionCZ I believe that this definition of violence is useful precisely _because_ it it requires a more nuanced understanding of the ethical ramifications of violence. Many people have a knee-jerk opposition to physical violence, which I believe is unhelpful. There are certain groups (E.g. fascists, neo-Nazis, white nationalists) whose existence is defined by militarism, nationalism, and disdain for people of different social groups. These fascist groups pose such a threat to the well-being of everyone else that it may sometimes be preferable to take violent measures to put a stop to their public influence rather than letting them spread fear, hate, and suffering. Thinking of violence in more simplistic terms (namely, that it's almost always a bad thing) is something that only enables more long-term suffering.
+Jared Vargas Agreed, the definition set forth is over-broad, and if we take the analogy of Newton's Law to its full extent, it would mean that all action is violence, and inaction is illusory. By this definition of violence should we try to live as non-violently as we can? If that means we are to preserve the choice of others as much as possible, what kind of excessively narrow life, absent of achievement, does that leave for us? Alternatively, should we accept that violence is the way of all things, and take from this world what we desire, however cruel the action required? There is nothing to be gained from expanding the definition of violence, because when the aversion and abhorrence to needless violence is applied to everything, it doesn't give us some revelation to live by. Even if we all were to agree to take-up this new definition, it would render the word functionally useless -- and that is perhaps the clearest indication that you are doing more harm than good with your expanded definition.
+SpathaMagna I disagree with your conclusion based on your argument. Being aware of the choices of others and being forced to choose which of those are going to get trampled might just make us more sensitive to the suffering of others. An understanding that violence IS a part of life might help destigmatize the term; to develop a nuanced appreciation between ethical violence and violent crime. I don't think expanding the definition will render it useless, it will require a more thorough understanding of its connotations to not get blasted in youtube comments. Principles like "morality" and "justice" come to mind: simple enough terms to define in a dictionary, but Brobdingnagian (my word of the day) in their depth.
I've felt for some time now that emotional violence also exists. When people scream at you, cross your boundaries (especially if they're doing it after the boundary has been stated), the process of breaking-up with a partner, when people tell you who to be and refuse to accept the present reality of who you are, when people dont communicate effectively, the silent treatment in response to conflict, etc. Theres a lot of interpersonal emotional violence going on
To the people who argue that "violence" is somehow the wrong word; If I shoot an average 40-year old, and kill him; I'm pretty sure that'd be called an act of violence. I just deprived someone of roughly 30 years of living. Now, if I'm responsible for the safety of a nuclear powerplant, and through my actions or inaction, several employees get sick, depriving them of at least 30 years of healthy life... What would you call that, if not violence?
+Mahj To be violent, there needs to be intent. Is a parent that tells their child to do the dishes using violence? The child likely can't defy their parent, so judging by the definition of violence presented in this video, the parent must be committing an act of violence on their child. I personally disagree that every time a parent tells a child to do their chores that is inherently abusive. If the video is to be believed however, it is a form of "systemic violence". To answer your question directly, if you intentionally kill a man with a gun, then it is violence. It is violence because you intentionally brought physical harm to another through your direct actions. It is because you killed or destroyed something that it is considered a violent act. Not because you "stole" or "deprived" anyone of anything. Your action, combined with the intent, is the violent act. In your second example however it can be a wide variety of things. If it is through your inaction and irresponsibility, then it is negligence. If it is you taking actions that are meant to harm, like locking them in a irradiated room intentionally, then it can be considered violence. If you took actions to prevent them harm, but they still got hurt anyway, then you are simply not to blame. It could be their own negligence, or a complete accident. By labeling all of those things under one umbrella, by calling all of those things violent, you actually lose the nuances that would make a case like that clear. Which is what people are objecting to when they argue that the word usage is wrong. Violence has a lot of connotations to it, therefore it shouldn't be used for nebulous concepts that can be described with other, better, words.
+Mahj The argument has to be true in every example, but must be revised if there is even one valid counterexample. That being said, consider the following: Assume I am a black male living under a system which coerces me to behave in a stereotypical manner. Under Mike's construal, the language/attitudes in the system are violent. Now consider a counterfactual situation where I do not succumb to the influence of the language/attitudes commonly held by the system. In this counterfactual situation, I have demonstrated agency. If agency must be restricted for language to be violent (and in this counterfactual case agency was not restricted), then the counterfactual case demonstrates an example of how what Mike calls "systematic violence" does not result in violence at all.
+Mahj This is silly, the actions are completely different even if the outcomes are similar. A doctor prescribing a drug that results in an incredibly rare but lethal condition, is that violence? Or is it the pharmacist that did the violence, because they provided the drug? Or is it the pharmaceutical company because they manufactured it? Or is it the patient because they made the physical action to take the dose? Someone has lost 30 years of their life, and that is the same as someone getting shot, therefore it must be violence?
Here's why your definition is overly broad to the point of absurdity: it makes literally EVERYTHING a violent act. Every single action by anyone limits choices. If I interact with you at all, I am denying you the choice to not be interacting with me. But each change in the state of things, while eliminating some options, opens up others. Fortunately, there is a way to clarify the definition: a violent action is one which changes the state of affairs such that one's best option prior was subjectively preferable to one's best option after. Given this definition though, one must ask whether violence is necessarily "wrong". I'll give you a basic example to demonstrate the principle: suppose I am walking down the sidewalk and spot a ten dollar bill on the ground. I bend down and grab it at the exact same instant someone else does. Their doing so, by this definition, is a violent act. But, at this point, most of us would agree that what would be "right" or "fair" would be for me to pull a five out of my wallet so that we would split the bill. So, fairness implies subjective violence. The other individual was not "wrong" to do what they did, even though it was subjectively violent toward me. Given scarce resources, the only way for individuals to experience no subjective violence is for other individuals to experience more subjective violence. In this way, there is justifiable and unjustifiable violence. Justifiable violence is that which reduces the total violence, unjustifiable violence is that which increases the total violence. We have a legal system that is by nature violent and coercive. But it is largely preferable to the violence and coercion that would arise without it (obviously there is some debate on the particulars of legal systems). So what's my point? It is useful to define violence as something other than physical harm, but it is important to not obfuscate the fact that some violence is justified thereby discouraging debate as to what violence is and is not justified.
+Owen Wall I'm glad I read this one. I'd had the same thought myself. While I applaud the expansion of 'violence' beyond just considering physical damage (and I think this is a very important point that this video raises) and the comparison between prejudice and physical violence as actions that 'remove choice' I think if we apply this absolutely then we run into the problem where we are left separating 'good violence' and 'bad violence' and really we're back where we started.Violence as defined only this way is a useless word because, as you've said, it makes everything violent so it adds no new information.That said I would like to think about how we think about choice in these sort of stories. Going back to the art comparison we tend to assume that you can either make a stroke or not and then you cannot go back. This isn't true, even not making a stroke has taken away the choice to make a painting since choices are set in time, conversely nothing can stop me from just starting again or burning the painting. So is then nothing violent because nothing 'removes my choice' or am I constantly doing violence to myself because everything limits it (did the ancient Greeks commit violence because they took away my choice to invent Pythagoras' method). Maybe a better definition would be that violence 'is anything committed by another person that limits my choice removing choices that I otherwise intended to take'. Because I do think this is an important debate (it really helps examine the relationship between different forms of abuse of power) but I think the conclusion is overly general.
+Owen Wall this is such a great point. Every choice made limits. By this simply existing is violence because it's limits other bodies from inhabiting the same space.
+Owen Wall Yes, by this definition, anything that is not a choice would be violence. Nature would be entirely violent. A birth would be a violent act towards the baby. I think that "limiting choice" better describes injustice than violence. Violence has to be defined as active, or the word becomes too broad to use sensibly.
The trouble I have with this definition (and FWIW, it's perfectly fine for a word to have different definitions in different contexts), is that it while it would be perfectly useful to have a term for this concept of the removal of choice, equating it with the word "violence" without a logical justification, feels inappropriate, loaded, and overly broad. This, to me is a case of assignment of a new broader definition to the term, and not a more precise restatement of the original intended original concept. I'm fine with hate speech, language constraints, and threats all falling within the existing concept of violence, but again, the definition given in this video ends up extending beyond to things I wouldn't agree as being considered violent. If you really want to test an idea, shouldn't that be what's explored? The reasons why the definition might not apply, instead of ways that the definition does apply? For example: If violence is the abstract concept of the removal of choice, that would mean that the act of parenting, through much of a child's life, is inescapably not merely violent, but in these terms, is both chronically subjectively violent, and also condoned and even honored as objective systemic violence not merely throughout humanity, but extended potentially throughout the majority of the animal kingdom. Removing aspects of a child's choice is the very essence of child-rearing. For that matter, (regardless of one's personal beliefs) this definition of violence would make the concept of the God of Abraham to be the very embodiment of violence. Every act of creation, every issued commandment, every interference on God's part becomes some form of violence. Even if you, Bogart, Tanner and Zizek are all comfortable with this idea, it would likely cause conflict within a great many followers of abrahamic religions. So I would argue, what one would really need to demonstrate is: why is it beneficial and appropriate to assign this concept to the word "violence", when it goes contrary to the words etymological origins, it's denotation, and its connotation? And how would you respond to the argument that using this definition would result in reducing most discussions about violence into arbitrary semantic arguments? Further, I wonder, does this alternative definition you present extend to other words? In particular, is the actor against whom some form of violence is directed considered to be a "victim" of that violence? And does not the broader definition of violence take away the ability to make qualitative moral judgements about the abstract concept of violence?
+KTSamurai1 According to the dictionary, "Agency is the capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in any given environment." the definition given in the video is effectively congruent with hits. Therefore, agency according to this definition exists upon childbirth, if not sooner (specifically when "life" begins is an off-topic question).
+KTSamurai1 I think you're vastly underestimating the intelligence of children. They'll lie, trick and steal their way through Kindergarten if given the chance. Not to mention, many parents continue to "parent" well into their child's adulthood. From obvious things like planned marriages, to more subtle ones like how you "must" clean up extra well before they visit.
+Allyn Ashton I considered bringing up the concept of Free Will in my original comment. However, that philosophical debate remains at an impasse. A number of potential solutions exist, and none are fully able to defeat the other solutions (if they were, then those solutions would fall away). For example, if you break out, "it doesn't matter, because there's no free will, in that your actions are a result of the sum of the chemical and physical reactions that brought you to where you are today, and your mind is merely a very complicated state-machine generated by the chemical reactions we refer to as biology, and influenced by input in the form of sensory data and chemical ingestion" that can kinda shut down a whole mess of things; so it's generally avoided whenever possible. But yes, (and I'm sure I'm not the first commenter to effectively say this), but Mike et al. are committing an act of violence in trying to impose their preferred definition of violence into modern parlance.
BDSM, and maybe sports, seem to me like the careful control of violence to actually give MORE choice. Not just physical, but the set of rules and constraints that allow you to do actions that you'd normally never do, like take someone, bite or slap someone or place your safety and pleasure entirely on someone else's hands.
Maybe, but literally no one cares about RadFems except RadFems and Republicans who want to pass bathroom bills. We are talking about the same people right? I sometimes see people say radfems when they clearly mean "Mainstream feminist I don't agree with".
+Devotedpupa I think that BDSM and sports can actually be a little more like acting as a controlled violence, because the rules that are created are limiting choices by their whole nature. Because they both have goals in mind, and it can be argued that whatever choices are given to a person in these new scenarios, there would be a slew of others to be taken away.
+Devotedpupa I would almost have to argue that the situation of BDSM in that respect wouldn't necessarily be violence as much as it would be simply be a passionate act of expression. When you look at the dynamics within most BDSM relationship, there is a typical Top or Bottom (within the respective aspects of the relationship), the idea is still that althought there is still restraint, or hitting, the idea is still that the end result is your partners pleasure or fulfilment of desires. Ultimately we have to look at this more in the direction of either intent or if it is done impulsively.
+BlackenSerpent BDSM could be seen as a perversion of inherently violent acts into non-violent, simply because a choice is being made instead of prevented. i don't know about sport though. on one hand, you'd think the same would apply - participants agree on rules, which makes it a non-violence. on the other, the rules are such that physical (or psychological) violence is partly permitted for the sake of the physicality of the medium (game). for example: there are NHL player's whose sole responsibility in-game is to provoke opposing team's star players into breaking the rules by breaking the rules. hockey rules, which are agreed upon and are not violent, somehow permit themselves to be broken in a meta sort of way. i don't know if that can be applied to BDSM or other things, but it seems to me that sport rules as a form of perversion of violence are, in a way, inconsistent.
I'm fine with using a term like "structural violence" as an allusion to true violence, but violence has a very clear and concise definition. If I accept that violence is the removal of agency wouldn't that expand the definition so much that it would barely be useful any longer? Literally everything that exists has the potential to remove SOME of your ability to make choices. Gravity is inhibiting my ability to fly right now. Can you imagine the looks I would get if I tried to take the moon to court for making the tide go in when I wanted to keep my chair lower down on the beach? If you want to argue that a new law is harming someone, or a cultural more is harming some group, why not just call it what it actually is: injustice? That word suits the situation just fine and doesn't bring to mind a whole lot of baggage and undeserved emotional weight to poison the well that would normally be associated with the actual, physical (and always worse) violent crime.
You’d actually be surprised how useful this definition of violence is both in gauging your own potential to be subject to violence and how technically violent you can be to others without being physically forceful. I’m in the neurodivergent spectrum and I’ve always had the concept of “micro aggressions” referred to in daily interactions, without it being something I was necessarily aware of. When I visualize social interactions as a sort of chess game where you can limit someone else’s agency or they can limit yours, then that concept not only becomes extremely clear to me, it also becomes easier to avoid (as a victim or a perpetrator). It also makes me realize that violence in general, if we remove extreme situations (like a public random shootout) are situations which you can build to and crawl out of.
@@Ebvardh Problem here is that you're using the word in the definition. If you were to re-write the first paragraph of your post without using the word violent or violence, could you do it? If so, why aren't the replacement words more accurate and useful, given that your definition of violent is already jockeying for position with the traditional one that people more readily understand and think of? Also, to see social interactions as a series of chances to "push" or be "pushed" in a certain direction adds a level of antagonism to the concept of conversation that is more often than not, not present. It seems even more muddled I think when you add in the concept of microaggressions, which are usually characterized as being unintentional, where violence is intentional. If I accept a definition of "violence" where we're only talking about intentionally antagonistic exchanges, I have to look at the fact that I've now created a word that is functionally the same in use as a word that describes something that is worse: actual violence. It creates almost limitless opportunities for hyperbole, equivocation, and emotional blackmail, at the least. To say nothing of the potential for a cheapening of the word and the anesthetizing of people to the seriousness of the real thing that can occur when the two are thrown around together. At the end of the day I think it's going to be a personal interpretation for each person as to how bad it is to have the word have different definitions in this way, but I've seen a lot of people online work very hard to get attention by using the most dramatic word they can grab, and I know it has a deadening effect on me.
This is the absolute best episode done so far. I feel like as this comment section expands a lot of people will claim to think though, ideas, and speech cannot be violence because they don't prevent you from doing anything, and I think this is due in large part by the backlash against anything they seems to resemble in some form Tumblr's particular brand of social justice. When saying words can be a form of violence, they can oppress people that opens up the possibility that micro aggressions actually affect people. What to me seems ironic is everyone to some capacity has felt the words and opinions of other people oppress them. For every person who has felt they needed to justify their love of video games to people because they didn't want the label of being brain dead or violent being a part of them. For everyone who had a group of, "friends," who made fun of that thing you liked so you stopped liking it and joined them in making fun of it. For every person who had right wing or leftist political views in an area that had the opposite and got branded as an idiot for daring to think differently than you peers. For everyone who has experienced anything like this, you have had the words and opinions of others oppress you in some manner or fashion. You've had systematic violence done to you whether you recognized it or not. What I think is hard for people in a position like me(white straight male and cisgendered) to understand is how people with even more unaccepted traits receive this kind of violence just by the nature of their very being. If I was black the only place I could be is my own home in order to avoid to the pressure of this kind of force, and even then thus dictates where I can live, and how I can live. Who will rent to me, where I can work, how I can work, how much I will be payed etc. All of these things determined by the nature of their existence. They gender, sex, race, social class or religion. Things that are permanently attached to their very being and can never be changed. Not to mentioned the depression I imagine can go along with this. The tendency for self harm or mutilation. Having to remove entire aspects of yourself in order to avoid systematic violence, if you can.
Disagree it's is your choice to feel oppressed or to justify yourself to to other people or to give up that thing you love. Those are all your choices. You could always chose not to let it affect you. While I agree that words can be a form of violence it's really down to how you chose to relate those words to your own life. You could chose to feel oppressed if someone berates your choice of music or political ideas but your could also chose to feel pity for that person that they had to berate you to feel better about themselves. It's hard for me to accept a person's words are violent if I don't feel oppressed or belittled but I feel pity for them and feel better about myself because I chose to live my life another way.
+Aaron Smith If those words didn't have a real world impact I would be inclined to believe you, but every time any person chooses to go out and puts down another person they inspire a whole group of people to want to be in with them. Especially if they have a great deal of influence. For example Trump's stance on Mexicans has inspired a whole group of people to come out and actively join in verbally assaulting people. Sure you could try and not let it affect you but it will anyways because the actions of others and to some extent how you react are out of your control. If someone insults your intelligence you can't choose not to be hurt if they hit you in a spot that hurts. It's an involuntary reaction, and when compounded by other people continuing to express this point it will make you start to believe it yourself and internalize their abuse. It's not that people could disagree with you on something, but that they go out and say, "you're and idiot for believing X" that causes all of this. They dehumanize you and put you down. Just because perhaps you can shake it off doesn't mean another person can especially when it hits some one in their insecurities. A lot of our culture actively tries to prevent people from sharing their feelings even with themselves. So when we say, "hey that hurts," people basically tell you that your feelings don't matter and you shouldn't feel this way, and it silences people, and with everyone silenced it makes people feel even more isolated because it's taboo to express your emotional pain. Especially, but not limited to, men. I feeling just chalking it up to, "just choose not to feel hurt," is dehumanizing the situation.
+Dayle Armstrong (Silky Goodness) "What to me seems ironic is everyone to some capacity has felt the words and opinions of other people oppress them." Aren't you equivocating oppression here? The first definition i found on a google search said "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" and the second said "mental pressure or distress." I have a hard time believing that you think that every single person on earth has experienced mental pressure that rises to the level of prolonged cruelty. "So when we say, "hey that hurts," people basically tell you that your feelings don't matter and you shouldn't feel this way, and it silences people" Same thing here. Silencing someone is different than that person falling silent of their own accord. If the two were the same, the world wouldn't know the name Martin Luther King. "I feeling just chalking it up to, "just choose not to feel hurt," is dehumanizing the situation." It is admittedly harder for some people to deal with hard situations (or mental distress) than it is for others. But I would ask you, is there a practical solution in telling people that they should avoid ever upsetting anyone, no matter how subjective the offense might be? Isn't it more sensible to confront injustice when it is clear and there is an objective goal that can be achieved rather than simply aiming to make everyone feel better? And most importantly, given that you have rightly pointed out that people can not simply be made to feel better just by telling them to, how can we then argue that they can be made to *NOT* feel worse just because we tell them to? What about the people who are fundamentally opposed to feeling better because of one of a myriad of psychological issues that prevent people from thinking rationally?
+Boil Derrik It's more I feel that in conversation we should just take special care to talk to people respectfully and be mindful. We can't prevent accidentally hurting another person either. I'm not implying we police people's action but rather promote a better social awareness of the issues people face that seem to be largely ignored. Not calling a trans person a, "tranny," for example is just good manners, but for some reason or another people don't understand just how dehumanizing that can be. Especially since transphobia is something they are faced with everyday all day. Which is what I think the point of acknowledging that some words can be an act of violence in the way the video describes. If we recognize the actual impact of what we say that can go a long way in creating a social system that is more equal, or just. Depending on the word you prefer.
Dayle Armstrong I suppose that's why I advocate getting to know people before treating them with a level of familiarity that you would your closest friends. I only call my best friend an idiot sometimes because i know she knows how smart i think she is. You could certainly make the argument that I would do well to not call her that regardless, on the off chance that it was having a persistent effect on her underneath the surface, but if she doesn't confront me with any concerns to that effect, how could i ever really know? It would get to the point where i would try as hard as i could to control my own words down to the tiniest detail, only uttering the conversational equivalent of white bread without butter, but it would make my interactions with her very dull wouldn't it?
What an interesting concept! I've often been concerned with violence when it applies to martial sports, where the physical actions are pursued through choice. Both people in a boxing ring are being paid to be there, and are fighting to win. Does it really count as violence when both consent to the possibility of physical injury? The same goes for ancient duels where two people would face off, decide the terms of the fight in question and then pursue it. By one strain of logic, both are narrowing down their options and choices by entering into rules of combat and combat itself, but by your definition violence is the removal of agency through force or the threat of force. If we follow that logic, neither fighter is being removed of agency, they both chose to be there. The force then is merely a means to an end, and rather than seeing your opponent as an object professional fighters HAVE to see the humanity in others to see their next move. So by that logic, if violence isn't directly tied to physical conflict, it calls into question if violent competitive games are even violent? After all, both players chose to be there. Anyway, interesting stuff, thanks for the upload!
+MH3Raiser Don't you think seeing just an opponent or enemy means seeing less than a whole human being? - Also: You could question how much freedom of choice there really is for professional fighter, who is just a worker in the entertainment industry.
+Schönling G. Wunderbar A "worker for the entertainment industry" could easily just go get another Job, and then there are people who do martial arts as a hobby where it is definitely a choice.
Exactly. The real question I was asking was, if someone submits to the 'violents' and willing chooses it, be they a martial artist or... a SnM lover, is it still violence?
Christopher McKee So professionals aren't free, but people who fight because "they like it" are? Also there are other forms of violence, like societal norms for example. Is somebody free who wants to show how virtuous (disciplined, fit, fair, maybe even in spiritual) he is by fighting as a hobby?
Schönling G. Wunderbar That isn't what I meant. Both the professional and the amateur choose to engage in the violence. They both have the option to do something else with their time. The only difference is whether or not they get paid for their time. I personally don't see sport based violence as fitting Mike's definition of violence unless serious injury occurs.
This idea of violence reminds me of the way that women in online and even in face-to-face forums are barraged by hate speech. Many women don't express opinions or experiences because they know that this will make them the target of hate speech, effectively silencing women and removing their voices from public view. There are so many comment sections I avoid. There are so many political discussions I don't speak up to disagree even though I very much disagree, and my opinion should matter as much as anyone else's opinion. I don't even put bumper stickers on my car. I'm sure other people and groups face worse hostility in public spaces, but it's so exhausting to know that a woman simply saying she dislikes violence against women is enough to incite violence against her (if we count hate speech as violence - and certainly hate speech online encompasses many threats of physical violence).
+crazykenna You are self-censoring. It is ok if many people disagree with you and express their disagreement. They have a right to express themselves, just as you do. You should be brave enough to speak your opinion anyway ( *especially* on the internet).
+crazykenna Completely agree. Symbolic violence (approx 6:30) against women is a huge factor in everyday life. It keeps us out of social situations, silent on the internet, and at it's worst, causes us to gaslight ourselves. If you are self-censoring for reasons of safety, as many women are, it is not as simple as self-censorship. There is a violence acted against you that forces you to think about safety first and voicing your opinion second. That is exactly Zizek's point.
Amy Hayes Call me naive, but I can't image most women are encountering hate speech on a regular basis. More so, I can't image women in the West frequently face the threat of physical violence. The only type of "violence" I imagine is common is simply disagreement by most people in the environment which makes you feel as though you cannot speak up. And in this case, your agency would not be removed. And even if I agreed that the threat of physical violence is frequent and therefore necessitates censoring in real life, that still doesn't explain why you self-censor on the internet.
+Amy Hayes I've known many women and have yet to witness any one of them being subjected to anything that would approach the legal definition of hate speech (outside of the internet). Admittedly, this is partly luck, but the fact that it has yet to happen even once means that your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by mine. Do we have any hard data to suggest that one of us is right and the other is wrong? On the other hand, if you are simply suggesting that hate speech can be used as a term to describe hostility, aggression, or even simple rudeness, then doesn't that reduce the level of seriousness with which i should consider the issue? Everyone, man woman and child has to deal with some level of these things, often without even any malice of intent involved (any social gaff or misinterpreted situation comes to mind). It's a part of being alive and not being able to read the minds of others. Though i could imagine that would bring its own set of problems...
The problem with this definition of violence is not that it removes action or intent, but rather that it replaces "causing harm" with "removing choice." Removing choice or diminishing agency is not always harmful; in fact, it is often helpful. Following this definition, banning guns would be a violent act. Hell, by this definition, treating someone to Baskin-Robbins would be inflicting violence upon them, because it restricts their choice of dessert to one of 31 flavors of ice cream. I can appreciate his point, and in a broad context it does make sense, but broadening the definition to such a degree is not useful. There are already so many unique words that describe the issues he presents: injustice, indifference, abuse, and so forth. When you begin to define every action as violent, you trivialize true acts of violence.
I'd say that removing choice is always harmful to people. While it is true that banning guns may result in less injuries later on, the act of banning guns is damaging your ability to protect yourself, its damaging your ability to hurt others.. It damages your proper potential. Restricting the amount of choices one can make with their current potential is damaging their possibilites. Treating someone to baskin robbins but telling them they can only get 1 flavor doesn't count as harm to me, since your giving them the option to have 1 flavor of ice cream more than they could get. If they want more ice cream they'll have to pay extra of pocket to get. your giving them possibilities, its up to them if there dessert is limited to ice cream I'll agree that broadening the definition of violence is not useful to everyday society. But why are you controlling the definition of something based on whether or not its useful? We should observe and analyze everything around you for what it is, or what you can interpret it as, not as what's convenient to you. If the lesser acts of violence get trivialized, its still violence. The difference between flicking someone in the head and stabbing them with a knife is only in degree. It up to us humans to decide what is trivial and what is not based on further analysis. If you want to make up your own term for non-trivial acts of violence, thats fine. But remember you are breaking apart the whole term of violence and putting it into the categories of trivial and non-trivial.
If coercion falls under the umbrella of violence (~7:25), then violence cannot be inherently bad. One of the core responsibilities of governments is to coercively solve collective action problems, such as offering tax incentives for those who buy electric cars, or by instituting high taxes on harmful goods like tobacco. Then again, maybe a definition of violence that is not inherently good or bad is appropriate. After all, physical force is often used to protect people from others or themselves. Two examples: a police officer may physically subdue someone who is trying to kill themself, or someone may shove a pedestrian out of the path of a speeding car.
From the opening premise to the end of the video I couldn't help but think of government. As defined, government itself is, by its very nature, systemic violent. Not just extreme edge cases like North Korea. By having laws with the threat of punishment, a government is removing agency. As you put it, this is something we feel is "normal". Where do we draw the line? At what point does it transition from governing to violence? Is there such a point? In prison, you are further restricted in many ways, and it is a way to govern those deemed unruly. Is such a thing different from the general government and agencies that most commonly rule over the rest of us? I'm not sure. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time now. I would like to hear thoughts on this.
+Houdini111 It's also worth considering that lawlessness is also systemically violent. If a person/group can do whatever they want to you than your agency is severely restricted. For example, there was letter to faculty in texas campuses that instructed teachers to avoid "divisive" subjects for fear of provoking gun violence.
+Rosalind Chapman I don't think that that's the case. The only restrictions in a lawless zone/society/etc. would be self imposed, at which point I don't think that that is violence. Of course, that's up to you to define. But, for example, I choose not to smoke, does that mean that I am violent towards myself because I don't smoke because (among other things) it can cause physical harm that will restrict me. It's almost as if the cigarettes are being violent with the damage they cause.
How self imposed is restricting your actions because you're afraid other people will murder you over it? By that logic obeying the law is self imposed violence.
Rosalind Chapman That's a good point. With that in mind, the only way i can see there being a system without violence would be if there wasn't a system; there was only one person (neglective the violent nature of nature), right? But that would also mean that you are restricted because there are no other people with which you can interact. Can violence be defined as a lack of options? If there are no options in the first place, I wouldn't think so. But what if the thing that removed your options didn't have a choice? For example, a force of nature. If it restricts your options, and it is done by force (which it inherently must, to be a FORCE of nature), is it violent? Or does the violence stem from the intent? If that's the case, where does it leave violence of which we do not consciously think?
***** Which is why I believe we need science, research and skepticism to be a much larger part of our government process than they are. That and a lot of empathy for people who aren't exactly like you, that would go a long way.
So, "violence" takes the meaning of "aggression/aggressive" and we loose a word descrobomg "use or threat of use of force against someone/something". Seems like a fair deal
+Killer.exe Violence have already been known to take on the meaning of "aggression" from time to time. Even dictionaries have more than one meaning for violence. This isn't really news at all, and quite frankly is how the English language has generally been.
+Killer.exe I think he's trying to change the idea of what 'forces' can be applied in the situation regarding 'violence'. By seeing it as a way to restrict choices, it implies that there can be pressures outside of the physical that can be used against someone - like those of social or economic pressures or the straight out refusal of such choices being available. A force doesn't need to be direct and visible in order to make an impact.
Must the existence of free will be accepted in order for this definition to be useful? It seems like it to me, sense saying that violence is the removal of agency implies that we have agency to begin with. If so, does that mean that things without free will (animals perhaps?) cannot be acted upon violently?
@Juan Delgado interesting point but what about violence that occurs slowly. Isn't the frog in the slowly boiling water being subjected to violence? There was no sudden change.
Based on this perspective, government can be defined a consolidation of violence into the hands of a few. Also on somewhat of a tangent, I have observed that violence is not explicitly good or bad. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary.
And this definition is basically the foundation of anarcho-libertarianism. Like, the whole foundation. From this, taxation is theft, because you have no choice: if you didn't pay, you'd face physical punishment, which is coercion; even if you don't mind paying, the "choice" is kind of an illusion. Assuming you take the stance that violence is bad, this definition makes government's innately and inescapably bad- because one piece at a time, it unravels every aspect of every form of government... into tyranny. Not sure I agree with that, but it is the logical end point. Source: entirely too many libertarian friends...
+Onuma ~ I discuss this in more detail in my comment for the video, but removal of choice is the foundation for morality (kinda). Only Society is allowed to enact violence on others, and only when the social contract is broken (those others are removing a person's choice). In a theoretical perfect society, the only choice an individual looses is that which he/she gives up for the social contact and is limited to by nature. ~ Of course I could be completely wrong. I know nothing of this, only think.
Here's an idea: We already have a definition of violence: The use of physical force to intentionally inflict harm. That's why involuntary manslaughter isn't a violent crime, but punching someone is.
I disagree with any interpretation of a word which reduces it's usefulness. Like this one. . . (I'm going to copy-paste some of my response-responses below because I didn't expect this much attention): I didn't mean to say that non-physical, uh, violence it less "serious," than physical violence. Many people believe just the opposite, and I respect their opinions. I'm trying to say that when we make a word less specific, it becomes less useful. Under Mike's usage of the word violent, we would often have to specify which kind of violence was being talked about, thus making the language that much less efficient. I do admit, however, that English currently lacks a good word for 'non-physical violence'. It would also reduce the word's effectiveness as a descriptor of motion. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that language can or should be controlled. But I think it's wrong to say that ALL organic changes in language are good. Unlike natural selection, sometimes language changes for silly reasons. We see this every decade: people take a word meaning 'significant' and bring it down to describe a 15% sale at Target (huge, awesome, etc.) Likewise this broadening of the word violent, while meaningful, would make the word less distinct from words like force, and thus would make the word less useful.
Yale Benson Yeah: this. Actually I didn't mean to say that non-physical, uh, _violence_ it less "serious," than physical violence. Many people believe just the opposite, and I respect their opinions. I'm trying to say that when we make a word less specific, it becomes less useful. Under Mike's usage of the word _violent_, we would often have to specify which kind of violence was being talked about, thus making the language that much less efficient. I do admit, however, that English currently lacks a good word for 'non-physical violence'. It would also reduce the word's effectiveness as a descriptor of motion.
+Yale Benson I would say that this use of the term reveals things to be worse than they are. And as far as language goes, I disagree entirely. Language by necessity must evolve to accommodate new ideas and ways of thinking and it is natural for it to do so. There would be no language at all if our pre-verbal ancestors had decided their grunts were enough and they didn't want to complicate things further. Language is a tool we use to communicate but it is not immutable or unchanging. Codified language helps us to communicate if we are having trouble expressing ourselves by showing us a common ground but once you have that common ground to start from there is no reason your communications or ideas should be restricted by the "rules" of language. Language serves us, we do not serve language.
Joseph Carradine Of course. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that language can or should be controlled. But I think it's wrong to say that ALL organic changes in language are good. Unlike natural selection, sometimes language changes for silly reasons. We see this every decade: people take a word meaning 'significant' and bring it down to describe a 15% sale at Target (huge, awesome, etc.) Likewise this broadening of the word violent, while meaningful, would make the word less distinct from words like _force_, and thus would make the word less useful.
+AidanofVT I don't think there's anything wrong with those trends and I wonder how any language (that isn't violent) could objectively be called "bad." Morally? How? Can you expand on this?
YES! I love how you make the connections among social sciences, physical sciences, and other areas from math to ethics to humanities. I envy the clarity here. "Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do." I desperately wish to convey this idea to my privileged 14-year-old students, and over and over, to myself. Bravo.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but it expands the meaning of violence waaay over what most people would think. For instance, any civilized society, no matter how open or how modern it is, still relies in a set of social norms, unspoken rules, cultural roles among others to define itself, plus an official law, constitution, principles and whatnot. And then, ethics, morals, among other definitions. Those essencially diminish or limit choices overall, so with an open definition like that, it's also violence. Now, we may argue a lot on what laws we personally find valid or not, what governmental systems are better, what economic system is best, etc etc, but that's not the point here. With that, then comes the question: is it even possible to live in society without violence as defined like that? You'd need pure anarchy, and people born like robots designed to willingly fill roles and make choices that wouldn't clash with others. Borg without the assimilation part.
+Chairman Meow I'm a left-leaning libertarian. I would say that the law, government, and taxation are all forms of 'violence', but there has to be an understanding that while it is often used pejoratively, violence is not always bad. In the instances where Mike is talking about a mugger, if the victim were to kick the mugger in the shin it would not generally be considered an unethical as an act of retaliatory violence. It does get a bit murky if the victim tackles the mugger to the ground and beats the face to a bloody pulp, and the scales start to tip towards unjustification with every subsequent blow, but for most people there is a consensus that there is a justifiable amount of violence you may use to retaliate against a mugger. In the scope of libertarianism (the principle on the bottom half of the political compass, not the right wing political party run by sociopathic plutocrats), the general definition of something like violence is something similar to "any instance in which a person intentionally makes a threat or act against the autonomous well-being of the life, liberty, or property of another person". At least in a colloquial sense. In this kind of definition the law, government, and taxation are all forms of violence. Ultimately the distinguishing factor between the left and right, on both the authoritarian and libertarian ends of the political compass, is whether or not a government should provide opportunity (authoritarian left believes the state gives all opportunity, auth right believes the government does not play a role in opportunity and that some other entity such as a class system or church determines opportunity for people, libertarian right holds that opportunity is for individuals to take and not to be meddled in by government, lib left generally holds that people must make their own decisions but the government must protect opportunity).Essentially this question comes down to whether or not the violence of government is appeasing to your morality. The libertarian right would contend that the violence is bad. The libertarian left generally holds that it can be good in many cases. For example, the law and its enforcement are programs to attempt (keyword ATTEMPT) to prescribe a means of appropriate retaliatory violence to be available for constituents. While taxation is an act of violence against a person's property, it isn't necessarily bad because while property sees a decrease, your liberty sees a seriously significant increase in the form of infrastructure such as roads to travel at minimal cost and social programs that allow you to live life with a higher baseline opportunity to fall back on if your endeavors fail, as well as an increase to the well being of your life in the form of hospitals, fire departments, and healthcare. Basically, violence against property is the least form of violence, and, at least if you're a libertarian leftist, the peculiar algebra of violence would be less if you decrease property for increase of liberty and life, than if you were to subsequently take away that gain of liberty and life to restore the property to original value. So sure, in libertarian circles taxation is violence, but as aforementioned with the shin kicking, violence is not explicitly evil or malicious when deployed appropriately. While I may find the libertarian right more generally reconcilable to my inclinations than the authoritarian left or *shudder* the authoritarian right, I find them to be generally sociopathic, they often already have incredibly secure opportunity by the time they become lib right, and they tend to overrate their own roles in acquiring their opportunity (which is to say they tend to be people who are unable to appreciate how much of their success is attributable to other people and randomness).
+Chairman Meow Taxation as violence isn't so much rhetorical as it is based in the fact that it is typically done under threat to life, liberty, or property. People go to prison or face fines if they do not pay their share, which is what separates taxes from a common collection plate. It's a shakedown, albeit one that is incredibly popular. Like I said, violence is not always a bad thing, especially if it is not incited unjustifiably and is prescribed in a manner to either retaliate against or prevent other violence. If the government is operating correctly, taxes should provide a greater return in improving the well being of the life and liberty of the people (via infrastructures, military, policy, etc) than the violence of collecting taxes, which many would consider justifiable expenditure of violence. Ultimately the "any instance in which a party intentionally makes a threat or act against the autonomous well-being of the life, liberty, or property of another party" type of definition is almost explicitly rooted in material violence in some way or form. Say I were to go on vacation. If someone were to burn my home to the ground and everything in it while I'm out, that would be an act of violence against property. If someone were to abduct me poolside and hold me hostage, that is violence against liberty. If someone were to drag me into the pool and drown me, that would be violence against my life. To pretty much anyone with conventional ethics, there is a clear escalation in the previous paragraph, with a stratification that makes crimes against property tend to be less egregious than liberty and life. People tend to put a higher value on life and liberty than on their property. Liberty can be restored and property can be outright replaced, but when you're dead (worm food dead, not dead for a few minutes on an operating table), there is no way to replace or restore a life. This is why it is possible to obtain a greater return in life and liberty on a loss of property: relative to property, one's own life is ordinarily considered priceless and liberty is a limited commodity. But where I think you and I may see a bit of a disagreement, and this is just a guess, is in regards to whether racism/sexism/capitalism/homophobia/transphobia in and of itself is violence. This is obviously not to deny that racism etc has begotten a large volume of violence over the years, but that the concepts can exist without being violent. Before I go any further, I feel it necessary to point out that I am not an apologetic trying to condone racism and the like (well, I'm ok with capitalism), it's still incredibly ignorant even when it isn't violence. What I'm saying is that if someone has racist ideas in their head without ever intentionally committing an act against the autonomous well being of another person's life, liberty, or property, then it is not an act of violence for that person to be a racist. It's just benign ignorance *at best*. Of course, that's also contingent on whether you use the conventional definition of racism. Ultimately it's pretty close to what is found in most dictionaries (Merriam Webster definition for violent: "using or involving the use of physical force to cause harm or damage to someone or something") just with the added specific case of harm to someone's liberty, which I suppose can be considered part of harming someone, as well as the inclusion of threats, which could be considered an element of "involving the use of". The intentional part is also included in other definitions, namely the first result that rolls up when you google the definition of violence. I think the definition of violence in the video starts with a good base, but snowballs into this mass of reductive sophistry to the point at the end where apparently we're just expected to accept that Newton's third law is as deterministic in its social application as it is in physics. There was what appeared to be a beeline made to reach a confirmation of the "silence is violence" narrative, which is inherently totalitarian as it portrays non-activists as being in direct opposition to activism (totalitarianism ironically being a form of violence after it is past the latent stage [quick plug that if anyone disagrees with being called violent I'd begrudgingly concede that earlier I mentioned that violence is not always a bad thing]). There also appears to be an underlying assumption in the video that all violence is bad (ironically again, if the social movements in the video graphics were to become hegemonic, they would be an act of violence by the definition in the video). In the end, there really are very few instances in which choice is truly removed, the exceptions being when you are entirely devoid of agency by either being killed or incapacitated through means such as binding, drugging, loss of consciousness, etc. In any situation where you still have agency to make decisions, there are always n+1 choices. Even if it is a unary choice like a command, it is really a Hobson choice in which you may simply choose not to choose. On the SAT, if there are 4 answers given you also have the 5th choice of abstaining from answering. If someone puts a knife to your throat and demands your wallet, you have the choice to decline and bleed out on the sidewalk (I never said that the last choice doesn't suck sometimes). Even in the presidential election, if you want no part in choosing, a large portion of Americans just don't vote. To be relevant, the expectations of a society can be considered an implicit command to conform, and as such, there is always the choice to not conform and to transcend conformity. As a consequence you won't be as popular per se, I'm certainly not, but at the cost of friends and family you'll be able to live on your own terms with your own beliefs, ideas, and endeavors.
I think it's useful to refer to social violence, or social coercion. I'm personally in favor of social violence in some cases, so as to reduce other's uses of hate speech, which is worse violence.
It seems to me that BDSM is a simulation of violence in order to empower individuals with more agency than they would normally have in a society that's seemingly terrified of intimacy. Having the ability to negotiate acting out violent desires (by definition: mitigation of agency) in a consensual and purely non-forced way gives all involved a huge freedom of sexual, sensual, and emotional agency that they could not get otherwise. The desires themselves could stem from a variety of life experiences, but perhaps the violence (removal of agency) society commits towards intimacy and sexuality amplifies these desires.
+Ella Jameson One could then argue that BDSM isn't actually violent at all. While force and aggression are being applied to the dominated, the dominated person's ability to end the practice with a single "safe" word provides agency.
+Sticky Bear Some time ago I thought BDSM rather strange. A friend helped me understand how it's not so inherently abusive as it might seem from the outside by pointing out that the real power dynamic of the relationship is with the "bottom." The one who actually holds the true ability to say "no" to something ultimately has the most power. (I don't think I'm doing his description justice. I just don't know how to put it better without taking a long time to come up with better wording.) I've noticed this in many other areas as well. Over the past several years, I noticed the US Congress has had a similar power balance, especially in regards to the President. Their ability to say "no" has shown to be a very powerful ability.
cant help but think that circumcision would be a good example considering that not only does the child have a choice on the matter, but also happens to be the first instance of violence in acted on in his life.
+Humpiest Ranger I don't want to be a buzzkill, but by the logic of action and objectification every action that happens to an infant can be defined as violent.
Russell Trakhtenberg Still has no right to dictate anything permanent happening to a person who can't yet make their own decisions. Tradition be damned, it's abuse and mutilation. There's a tribe that requires young boys perform fellatio on the village elders as part of becoming a man, I don't think you'd be defending pedophilia as hard as you're defending genital mutilation.
From this, I take that our current "system" is wrong. By system, I mean our government, our police force and all from the education system to healthcare. I'm consistently stripped from my choices and forces to take the one the system allow me. I cannot attend university to follow no particular class and get a degree. I must register the way the school allows me to. If I want to meditate in a park for two days, I can't as parks close at 11 pm, and if I'm within one, I will be arrested. If injured in a hospital, never I'm asked if I want to receive the treatment I need. Nor I'm I asked if I would prefer another form of therapy. If violence is the removal of choice; Isn't the limitation of choice a form of violence as well?
+ReM4rk Therein lies what I would disagree with about Mike's defintion, the assumption that a limitation of agency is a bad thing. Because, it really isn't a bad thing for there to be laws and healthcare and education, but they all apply limitations to us.
+Mark McArthur But all those limitations prevent me from living the life I want. It forces me to live a life that is a pale copy of so many before mine. The choice I make define who I am and yet cannot be who I am. I can only be what society allows me to be. It is a passive & violent removal of my freedom. I don't make the choices I want. I make those I can.
+ReM4rk It's violence to prevent violence. Most laws are there to prevent you from reducing the choices of other people. This isn't true for all cases, but for things like assault and murder, it's clearly the case.
+Ben Sherson I understand that violence, in those cases, must be used to prevent violence. Although, there are so many laws, regulation or rules that do not prevent any. All they do is violently take away your choice. Like my "meditation in a park" exemple. This isn't violent toward anyone and still I'm not allowed to do it for an extensive amount of time. (sorry for bad english if it is the case)
Taking up space that other may also want access to might be considered violence under this model. However, I will admit that there are laws that are stupid and don't have a violence excuse.
+iNezumi I do! And in that Tanner book... I actually felt really bad underlining it in pen. Somehow after re-reading Bogart it felt *too* decisive, I guess? So I did all my underlining in that one using pencil... as if that's somehow better? IDK.
PBS Idea Channel My parents taught me to respect books and never purposely damage them in any way, so seeing scribbles in books, especially made with non-erasable ink makes me uncomfortable lol.
+iNezumi if they're your books, then you shouldn't worry about marking them up. If they belong to others, then of course you should treat them with respect to their owners (a la library books, academic materials, etc.). I recommend reading "How To Mark A Book". Whether you ultimately decide to use this practice is a different story, but it may dissolve some of that sacrosanctity.
Frankly I believe this definition of violence is too broad, to what extent I am not quite sure, but with this interpretation I believe there to be too many unwarranted side effects. One issue that I take with Mike's argument is that hate speech specifically is violent, that some how other people's perceptions is limiting ones freedom is a violent act. With this logic any judgement on an individuals character can be perceived as violence, calling a corrupt politician a liar would be violent, calling someone a firefighter and honorable man would be violent. In this system opinions and speech become violent. With this implication speech and the very freedom to draw conclusions about one's character becomes a violent crime. Simple put this is the beginning of thought crime. Under this interpretation of violence the censors of the world become vindicated in their quest to silence the speech and opinions of those that would oppose deeming their criticisms of the status quo to be violent acts. This is just one qualm I have with Mike's interpretation of violence, though I haven't quit exactly organized my thoughts.
+Matthew Brooks He isn't saying that all speech is violent, but speech that results in a lack of agency for the target of that speech. Calling a firefighter honorable doesn't prevent him/her from doing anything. But I agree that it is vague. Some people are hurt by words that others aren't affected by. I think if there's anything to take away from this it's that one should be more aware of their own speech and how it might affect others.
+Ryan Durel "Calling a firefighter honorable doesn't prevent him/her from doing anything." What if the firefighter wants to come out as gay, but the more attention and praise he gets, the harder the backlash would be when he does? I know I'm just playing games here, but the point is: speech of any kind can limit people somehow in some conceivable way, it doesn't mean that all speech is bad or harmful.
+Boil Derrik But under this broad definition on violence, it would be violent. Any limitations on choice would be violent. No matter how trivial or small it would be a violent act.
The question isn't "what words should we use to describe the world?", but "what is the world like?". It seems approaches such as this confuse the two: it doesn't matter what we call violence (, racism, sexism, etc.) it matters what is actually going on and whether what is going on is good or bad. If we are concerned about the world then we are concerned about what our words denote not our particular choice of them. It's the oldest rhetorical trick in the book to duck out of answering a question by taking issue with how it is phrased: the question pertains to the *world*, it can be stated in vary many ways and in vary many languages. The question "is the table green?" does not ask, "should we, of this table, call it green?" but does this table scatter light in a particular way. When we ask, "is something violent?" and whatever else, we mean "does it possess some particular properties". Changing the question in order to answer it, isn't answering it. Here you are relying on a metaphorical use of "force" to arrive at a metaphorical violence so that you can rhetorically restate issues without moving anywhere on these issues. By merely defining a "system" as violent, you haven't answered the key ethical questions: what is "choice" *without* a system? What is a human being *without* cultural conditioning ("violence")? I don't think there is such a thing as asystemtic choice, values without culture, desire without "violence". So what have we added by calling it violent? The aim you have is clear: you want to call glass ceilings violent because that's a rhetorically satisfying thing to do, without also claiming that the very desire to work in a management position at all is a result of cultural violence on your own terms. I think we should be careful about trying to examine what words denote by looking at how we use words. The former is philosophy and the latter is English literature and you cannot accomplish one by doing the other.
i consider it completely different from violence, i personally consider violence as an act of dehumanization, but i think abuse is more about causing harm without the dehumanize aspect
+Yule Averdean My thoughts exactly. It's fine in literary metaphor, but insistence that the correlations be factual, subsequently redefining the word as we know it, is wholly unnecessary and a bit disruptive given its legal associations. If there are passive, negative forces that require attention, call them for exactly what they are and don't try to stretch more alarming words to include them like some sensationalist tabloid.
As someone who identifies both as a pacifist and a sadist I found this line of questioning very interesting. I struggle trying to find where my own line is, as in the past I have eagerly flogged people despite refusing to punch an attacker on a previous occasion. I try to make a distinction between violence and destruction. For me the mantra that helps me continue to identify as both is ‘consent is key’. It has a nice little ring to it and it’s something I cling to. I find myself more invested in my partner's pleasure, and I actively seek positive feedback, which leads me to a question that is mostly discussed internally within the bdsm community--consensual non-consent. Consensual non-consent (or cnc) is when a person gives COMPLETE consent ahead of time for an allotted amount of time or a specific event. During this agreed time, no matter what the submissive says the dominant person does not have to stop… there is no safe word. I find this a scary prospect--but to many it is arousing. Recently (thanks to your video) I have drawn a parallel between cnc and horror. If we think of violence as lack of consent and then also use bdsm’s idea of cnc, horror might be considered an entertainment version of cnc. After all, when you play a horror game or watch a horror film, you consent to the lack of choice. The film will scare you (or at least try), and this is a forceful act. When you are being forced to see something that disgusts you then this, by your definition, is a violent act. However, consent was given before hand. One might even ask if this type of cnc might include violent acts like the “no russian” scene, the torture scene in GTAV, or Masochisia… these acts were not only violent within the game but also to the players, forcing them to perform acts they didn’t want to. I think that, while I’ll never be completely comfortable with cnc, your video has helped me draw a parallel between cnc and horror that has helped me understand it better.
One thing I'd really love discussed is how in the modern world, when we so intrinsically associate "value" to "things', we often see the concept of violence being applied to acts against the objects themselves. Spray painting a wall, setting a car on fire, throwing a brick at a window, those are considered violent acts. You may make the argument that ultimately someone is forced to pay for the repair, but this can be quite diluted in some cases, for instance, when it's public property. There's also the sense of scale. For instance, why isn't littering considered a form of violence then? Where's the dividing line?
Thomas R. Jackson The violence, traditionally speaking (destructive power), is a property of time emphasised in certain philosophies though. My original comment was made without much thought, but after posting I remembered the part of the bhagavad gita when Vishnu assumes his destroyer form: "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds". This now famous translation quoted by Oppenheimer is apparently inaccurate, and the Sanskrit word "kalah" is better translated as "all powerful time".
This is great! The Finnish word for violence, "Väkivalta", roughly translates as "forced power" or "power forced". I think its a great word to describe the concept of violence in general. It is not just a metaphor for things that bring blood, but tells that the essence is the removal of choice as you greatly put it. This is why i dont really consider fight sports as violence, as the physical contact is only the medium for competition, not a way to force anyone to act in the way you want, or break them as individuals or remove their of self control. I often wonder to my self that do english speaking people associate violence more with acts of blood etc. instead of removal of control because of this. Also the term for verbal abuse in Finnish, verbaalinen väkivalta, translates as verbal violence, which in this case is nicely consistent with what you said about violence as a physical act. Great episode! PS. This is why violence as a concept is super anti democratic.
why did a video with the word violence need a trigger warning... i mean really are so immature that we cant talk about complex issues without warning people.
+cubesinanutshell What's wrong with warming people who are sensitive to violent images that they are about to watch them? It didn't harm you in any way, did it (ok it took maybe three seconds of your day, but other than that)?
+cubesinanutshell Some people are genuinely bothered by it because of bad experiences. Why not warn them so they can make a better decision about whether they actually want to watch the video/have a discussion about it? It's just common courtesy.
I am Venezuelan. Two years ago I was one day going to the subway from work when I was chocked from the back by two men who tried to take my backpack and cellphone. Fortunately I was blocking them from getting to my pockets while holding to my backpack for what appeared to be forever while I couldn't breath, until someone screamed and I was able to run to the subway. This was in Caracas. Months later my bf and I were returning from a movie at 6pm and a boy no older than 12 started to hit me trying to take my cellphone. I couldn't defend myself of course because there was a cop watching everything so he could arrest me for hitting a minor,, which is typical of them to do. I just kept receiving punches and kicks until more people appeared and the boy ran. Of course the policeman then disappeared as well. This was also in Caracas. A year later I was in the airport with my family who were there to say goodbye as I came to the USA looking for better opportunities and on the airport entrance we were robbed of my suitcases at gunpoint. I was able to fight to keep my briefcase with my documents (I was real angry and couldn't stand the idea of losing my passport and my bachelor degree) but in doing so the robber hit me three times in the head with the back of the gun. My mother's husband had another suitcase and he didn't fight back. (Ever since my husband and I call him "the useless one"). My now husband also tried to hold to the suitcase but was cut in his hand. Of course the airport security was there but they get paid to turn the blind eye. I received 15 stitches right there in the airport and had to go into the aircraft still bleeding and patched together. I came here with only one briefcase and the clothes I had on. Literally everything else was stolen, including my college medal, family mementos, my books, even my toothbrush and many things with sentimental value were taken from me. My health has suffered and I don't know if the head blows will even have a long term effect.
I know this is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the way your argument comes across is that you are saying that if someone gives you a head's up that they will punch you, and then they punch you, that is not violence because you still had choice. You had the choice to run away, you had the choice to fight back, you had the choice to scream and ask for help, or you had the choice to do whatever else you wanted to do. It is an interaction that might lead to bodily harm, but because you still had agency and were able to choose what to do, it was not violence. However, all schools and universities where traditional lectures take place are by nature violence because students are expected to sit and listen and only answer when the instructor calls on them. Because the instructor controls the student, the instructor is being violent.
Mike, you're better off coming up with another word entirely. Violence is causing physical harm and nothing else. Your definition can be used to take advantage of people.
By your definition someone who is verbally and emotionally abusive, like my ex, would not be considered as having engaged in violence merely because she never actually hit me. I would argue the opposite, that even though there was no physical harm, it was still a form of violence. Saying "language can never be violent" completely negates the ideas of hate speech or verbal abuse.
So you want to redefine the word to expand its definition, so that you can make things that are not violent, violent? Sounds like a bad idea, that leads to people calling things like "speech" violence. That has already happened, speech is not violent, I cannot agree that it ever can be violent, unless maybe somehow you damaged the persons ear drums by screaming into them in a certain way. Where do you draw the line? Would violent text be a thing? I can send you a violent tweet, committing an act of violence against you? This is an absurd way to go, the lawyers, because they are paid to do so to win cases, always try and expand laws to include things that were not part of the original intent of the law, it is our job to stop that creep. This sets precedence and expands laws.
+Evirthewarrior "Sounds like a bad idea, that leads to people calling things like "speech" violence. " How? This seems like a slippery slope- you've asserted that this will occur given the definition used, but not demonstrated it. "I can send you a violent tweet, committing an act of violence against you?" How? How could you do that within his definition? Can you give an example that demonstrates any of what you're arguing? So far I've seen you making claims, and asserting 'absurdity' but not actually validating a counter-argument.
+Evirthewarrior Mike Rugnetta is taking inspiration for his definition of violence from the legal definition of violence, but that doesn't mean he or anyone else using this kind of broad definition supports their definition being the legal definition of violence. I think Mike Rugnetta is just trying to make us associate these things with violence so we can see how destructive and cruel they can be, but whether or not violence should really be outlawed and what types of violence should be outlawed is a question for ourselves to think about.
+Evirthewarrior But if you refuse to consider the use of restrictive or derogatory language outside of the frame of physical harm, then you've missed the entire point of the redefinition of violence as the restriction or negation of agency. The legal world obviously needs to place a restriction upon the definition of violence because keepers of the law need parameters to abide by. To enact legal repercussions upon a person whose act of violence has a somehow "lesser degree" may seem ludicrous simply because that is the result of the systematic[, or objective,] violence to which we've been acclimated.
Mitchell Davis "How? This seems like a slippery slope" It is already happening I have already seen many examples, I am sure you can do an easy google search and find sources you would view as valid.
Terroristic Melons "then you've missed the entire point of the redefinition of violence as the restriction or negation of agency. " No, I understood his point, I just disagree. He is wrong.
I went back to my ancestral home of Ethiopia many years ago to see my uncle get remarried to the friend of the richest man in the country. In addition, to the wedding ceremony itself, there were no less than 10 wedding receptions (as family, I attended seven of them), including some driving around Addis Abeba to show off the happy couple's recent nuptials. Family members were getting their hair done every day, new clothes were being purchased, food and drink everywhere. I turned to my brother and said "This seems like one of the most violent things I've been a part of in a long time". I called it internal violence, where there is nothing physical, but the act of excessive or gross use of wealth for nothing particularly productive around a sea of poverty. This was opposed to what I called "external violence" which was the ordinary mugging that you described. I'm happy that there are terms with more clarity around these issues.
100 years ago 18 year olds fought and died in foreign fields to keep the world safe. Today 18 year olds need a safe place in case someone says something that might hurt their feelings. This idea is the produce of one of those societies; a society that could never have existed without the sacrifice of the other.
+Philip James And those 18 year olds who fought and came back suffered from mental problems like PTSD, something they were denied help for by the same kind of people who hate the idea of safe spaces, because they're anti-intellectual fuckwits that, apparently, don't think mental health is as important as physical health.
+Korgull interesting you should mention PTSD. They used to call it shell shock, a much harsher but appropriate name for that time. There's a really good video on RUclips about the softening of language to make it more palatable and they use that very example. I recommend it. This generation is reactionary and offended by every tiny perceived slight. Privilege and affluents have only served to weaken each successive generation. There will be an aggressor at some point who exploits this. This is the lesson history has taught time and time again.
As a martial arts instructor with an interest in the ethical development of my students, I've thought about this. I knew I didn't want the kind of students to stand passive, but I didn't want students who would be harmful. For me, the life of my developmentally delayed son was instructional. So much of our life together is struggle: getting ready for school he'd rather watch cartoons, but later he laments missing his friends at school if he doesn't go; he hates the taste of his antiseizure meds but seizures aren't good; kids at the playground tease and exclude him, sometimes even encouraged by parents; almost monthly (if you're looking for it) there's another news story about a teacher locking special needs kids in a closet or helping other students harras them or a special needs student tortured to death. I realized, the worst violence is standing silent while people stand helpless and hurt. I think the best definition of violence is failure to associate yourself and the other into a mutually beneficial collective and fair unit. Anyone you do not associate with yourself in a mutually beneficial collective and fair way is someone you are violent toward.
I think it might help for to define "agency" as well. You do go into the differences between what we (as Western society) consider violence and what matches up more with Bogart's conception of violent activity, but agency has extremely different meanings in different contexts - and different degrees, for that matter. The exercising of that agency is also a big deal because some people "have" agency in theory but may not use it or be able to use it, and some don't have it and they will take the agency of others as punishment, or whatever combination is the case. But is agency about the ability to act for oneself, or is it the ability to make specific choices?
One can know all about violence without having experienced it, to understand violence you must experience but that fundamental knowledge is the same. There also degrees of violence, bitching about small degrees of it is immature and the larger degrees like you've mentioned are very serious. I for one am glad that I've seen such incidence through video games and not experienced much of it personally.
Funny you like marxism so much when the communist state will show u what real violence is by execution for petty crimes and torture for speaking against the marxist state. I suggest you move to north korea and enjoy the death culture that is marxism.
(If I may use a version of your words) Warning: Discussion of sexism/ sexual violence/ for-lack-of-better-description-i-will-describe-this-as-more-toxic-portion-of-internet-culture (please excuse the hyphen usage) Although I believe these ideas I will discuss may fall under the umbrella of "Systemic Violence" and "Scopophilia", I can't help but wonder if the examples I will share possibly fall or correlate with other "categories of violence" entirely. In my past experience, I would often hear certain people voice their belief "sex is the point of life" as a means to justify how they felt entitled to sex with others or, in far more grim cases, to sexually objectify or even hurt others. This is by no means my attempt to debate the point of life, or suggest that people who personally believe that sex is the purpose of life in one way or another exorcise entitlement or antagonistic attitudes. However, for me, this experience personally raised this question: In some cases, could one's perceived "purpose of life" become a catalyst of systemic violence, in that for each individual it may determine not only the purpose or place of others, but by extension their own? I certainly don't believe that this is universal if so (highly dependent on both the case and individual), and though I do believe that this may be a form of systemic violence ( As many factors such as political stance, social class, practice of religion/"belief system" to name a few could influence one's perceived "purpose in life" ), could this potentially be its own category of violence entirely? 2. A friend and I were discussing a brief while ago how there seems to be an overall "fear-of-middle-ground/mutual-disagreement" (again, sorry about the hyphens) when it comes to debates between individuals (not exclusively political figures, and whether the topic at hand is presidentially political or otherwise). Often when it comes to conflict, whether it's the debate of the portrayal of a fictional character is "accurate" in media to, well, politics, there seems to be a much greater need for opposing sides to try to "win" and "dominate the other", rather than mutually disagreeing on a topic, let alone trying to find a compromise. This isn't by any means invalidate anyone's emotions in any debate, as, particularly when it comes to presidential politics , there is often the threat of some form of systemic violence tied to the ideals of certain candidates (regardless of whether or not anyone is objectively "right" or "wrong" in these debates). However (though this is by an extensive stretch), this video reminded me of the discussion of violence in video games in an episode of PBS Game Show; If the act of Violence (please note that this is not a verbatim citing) is to eliminate something from existence, could the urge to change or "eliminate" the opinion of someone else be a separate act of violence in of itself? This also is not to say that competition or debating or trying to change the ideals of another person is wrong whatsoever (as, without change, there's naturally no progress), but rather, due to the prominence of the need to be objective and avoid meeting middle ground, violence if excessive or used in the wrong/ less ideal place and time? I speculate personally that the internet (though not primarily) may be a prominent factor in this phenomenon today, as with anonymity provided by certain places on the internet, people are not only removed from comments or ideas that they share online, but simultaneously (and paradoxically) are often reduced to those comments, and by extension a set of objective ideals, rather than a person with their own consciousness and experience that lead them to said ideals (for better or worse). If I may use your words, "What do you Guys Think?"
You are a very articulate and thought-provoking man, and its clear you know how to construct an argument. Please never forget that there are people out there who think in the ways you do, or that people like you are appreciated by people like us.
I think I have to disagree if your hypothesis is that violence is the removal of choice or agency i would posit that nothing at least no human force can force you to act or be with out agency except yourself. When confronted with hate speech it is my choice to let that act affect me that removes my agency. To use one of your examples If I lived in a societal structure that prevented me from advancing into the middle class. It is my choice to desire that thing in the first place no one but myself chose that goal and nothing prevents me from choosing a different goal at anytime. Even when confronted with physical violence say if the mugger demands that I hand over my money or he will stab me I could chose to be stabbed. The decision to hand over my money would be the rational choice but again it is my choice to act rationally I could chose to act otherwise. Even in the most physically violent and constraining situation I could always choose to opt out.
I think it's a Buddhist saying that goes "expect nothing and you will never be disappointed" or something to that effect but the point is if the world doesn't meet your expectations or you feel that your agency is being limited change your expectations. I guess my point is that there is always a choice and if you feel that you have no choice well... That's your choice.
+Aaron Smith Very well said. This is the problem I have with this definition. It just depends on what side you're looking from. To me, the only thing that determines what is violence, is if someone feels violated.
+Aaron Smith I disagree. There are plenty of actions that remove agency outside of the self, in fact, I'd say that the self is the only thing that can't remove agency since those are choices coming from the self and therefore an act of agency. To go back to the mugger: I want to go buy some ice cream, that is a choice I am making. On my way, a man steps out in front of me, pulls a knife/gun/weapon and demands my money/wallet. By his actions, I no longer have the choice to continue walking forward freely. It is the threat of his force against me that has taken away that choice. The rational action of giving in to his demand is removing the choice of continuing my walk and buying ice cream. It is removing the choice of 'keep my money and not be attacked', which is the choice I generally make every day. As for the upward mobility, yes, it is your choice whether or not to desire moving up into the middle class, but it is the social structure that removes that ability to chose the option to move up. If you think that it is a choice to ignore hate speech, look into priming, self-fulfilling prophecy, and stereotype threat. Just being aware of certain words or thoughts can negatively impact you.
Andrew Edwards "By his actions, I no longer have the choice to continue walking forward freely." You're simply describing a situation where the circumstances changed. The same definition can apply to a man who eats all the vanilla ice cream in his fridge so that he no longer has any. A man confronted by a mugger still has choices, they are simply different ones.
no violence is when you harm someone PHYSICALLY, with the intention of doing so. when you harm someone PSYCHOLOGICALLY, such as the removal of choice that the speaker details as violence, it is no longer violence. create a new word, dont devalue one that does not fit
Any possibility that you could post either transcripts of these videos or the scripts you worked off of? I ask because as much as I love your videos and the ideas presented in them, get easily lost and would love to go over what you're saying at my own pace, being able to easily re-read sentences (or sections) I found confusing.
I am going to have to respectfully disagree. This attempt to change the definition of violence while holding on to its connotation is wrong, especially because this new definition you are proposing allows for "thought crimes" and the interpretation that everything is violent. This would utterly kill the word and only allow certain people to abuse this definition until everyone relearns. To be honest, I even disagree with, to an extent, the FBI's consideration of the threat of violence during a crime as a violent crime, but I can understand the reasoning for them to consider this, in contrast with your view which I does not allow me to see any positive effects from its interpretation. But here is, what I think, a bigger, better question. Why do you feel the need to change the definition of violence? Why is the current definition not sufficient for you?
+PajamaMan I think his reason for including this is to be able to describe systematic oppression as violent. That "doing nothing can be me most violent act"
+PajamaMan Because the word carries impact due to it's common usage. It is much easier to get attention and market a "cause" if you can use single words to encompass complex ideas and have your "cause" be seen as the default state by claiming a new definition of an already significant word. It seems to be a trend to redefine a word so as to have its meaning support your perspective by default so that everybody else would have to make more effort to support opposing views. In short, it is a form of propaganda.
+PajamaMan Especially given that image as he calls it is not created by one lone person. Image in public life is cultivated with you in relation to everyone else. The forces of which govern that state of affairs is not done so utterly at your own discretion, but also in relation to the discretion exercised by others. Other people have perceptions of you and those perceptions are themselves controlled by third parties that are not necessarily privy to your personal whims. They control what they believe and you control your own thoughts. They do so, even if the perception runs contrary to what you think of yourself. If what Mike is saying were correct, all interpersonal social exchange would be inherently violent, whether that is found in parental exercise of guardianship, other familial relations, friendships, acquaintances or other social groupings and acts. We're not merely talking about the possibility of violence. All social exchange would be violent. Does that make any sense? What he is proposing comes off like an anarcho-syndicalist definition of violence.
You’re being too general in your definition of violence. If violence is merely “the removal of choice” then we’re constantly being assaulted by violence. We must breathe. Our choice on the matter has been removed. If we refuse to breathe then nature threatens us with death. To consider everyday breathing “violence” is absurd but by your broad definition it would be.
I had trouble with this idea from a fairly simple perspective. Violence in the more classic sense of even just hitting people may limit choices, everything one does to another limits choices for good or ill. But if someone is to hit another, the second person, body, whichever can choose to lie down, hit back, run, shout. It is a severe limit of things one can do. However if someone approaches me with a clipboard on the street to supposedly raise money for an ecological issue, my options aren't much different, but the tone of the situation is.
Monpanacheable so what? Violence= "The use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc." With his definition a rude comment can be considered an act of violence. But it's true because words are made up???
+Monpanacheable Noone is claiming this term is "made up". It's way diffrent to change a well defined word and intentionally using the negative associations that follows to forward your agenda.
The word violence evokes horror in people because of the vicious, direct harm involved. Even verbal abuse is terrifying because of the direct threat in front of you. Victims of violence are people who have had their bodies beaten, bruised, cut, violated or even killed by another person. Violence redefined as "removal of choice" may make people take your cause seriously because of the visceral reaction they have to that word, but taking advantage of associated meaning shows a remarkable lack of empathy. Don't water down the definition because you have been lucky enough not to have experienced the real thing.
I have to admit, I don't think that this is one of your best videos. I think that one of the biggest problems with it is that everyone seems to have slightly different ideas of what violence exactly means. However, violence does seem to be quite the heavy term to use, and that the use of it indicates an issue of high priority. This is why I think that it is mostly applied to physical acts. Physical acts of violence are an immediate issue that is clear to everyone who is aware of it. Almost no one is going to debate that someone stabbing another person is wrong and is an act of violence. However, issues like people being "oppressed" can be debated depending on who the people are and the location of where these people live. A believe that a term like violence is used to describe situations that are a clear issue, and not ones that can be debated. I think it's not a good idea to have all these situations described as violence, because that almost indicates that they are on the same level of importance as on another. If someone said something that hurt your feelings, I'm sorry, but your problem is far far away from an issue of someone getting physically hurt. These are just some of my initial thoughts from this video. I could probably come up with a more in-depth and more well thought out comment than this if I spent a bit more time thinking about this and researching this, but I wanted to give at least my initial thoughts. Also, I'll admit that I cringed at your use of a trigger warning. The stuff you talked about wasn't even that bad.
Staying home so people can't interact with me is now violence as I have removed everyone's choice to interact with me. And now everyone knows why this definition is absurd.
This is exactly the same conclusion I came to myself and came already prepared to write a comment. As the video began playing I typed "Violence is the removal of agenc..." Choice! Yes, choice! He gets it! Ohhh!12:30 mins of pure validation to go! I love you PBS Ideas Channel...why did I neglect you for a while?
What actions/thoughts aren't violent then? If I am going on a road trip with my friends and I get in the car first I remove their agency as they can no longer sit where I have. If I do nothing and wait for them to sit first then I remove their ability to be nonviolent by forcing them to commit the violent act of sitting in a car.
> "Violence is removing choice" > Time passing removes choices from everyone. Time has to stop since it is being super violent to everyone. Good job PBS...
This is a very interesting thought exercise, but I'm concerned that such a broad definition of "violence" would render the word effectively meaningless. Like, at the far end, you could get into some fairly absurd territory. If someone wakes up and goes to use the bathroom, they've taken their housemate's choice to use said bathroom, and under a broad enough definition that could be considered violence.
Your logic would lead to the conclusion that parenting toddlers in general is an almost completely violent interaction since the child doesn't have any real meaningful choices. Or dealing with handicap people who cannot speak or communicate.
The word you're looking for is manipulation. Violence has nothing to do with denying a person of their ability to choose, but suggests turbulent, or tumultuous experience. Physical violence has physical ramifications of such turbulence, i.e. scars, bruises, etc., while non-physical violence leaves deeper ramifications, such as emotional scars, unreasonable fear, etc.
10:06 - 10:15 A great example of this idea would be Season 2 Episode 12 of Breaking Bad when Walter White watched Jane asphyxiate knowing he could save her, but knowing had he saved her, Jessie Pickman would have been out of the meth business. Walter's decision to do nothing resulted in the worst moment of his partner's life: walking up next to the corpse of the first girl he ever loved.
Jesus often spoke in parables, and he states in a verse that it is better for a man to cut out his own eye rather than look at a woman lustfully/ sin. Another verse he states that when you look at someone lustfully you literally commit adultery in your heart...very similar to the idea that the male gaze is a form objectification and violence. Scriptures Matthew 5:28-29
I like the way you are handling your episodes lately. They seem to be much more... mature. It's slightly slower than I would prefer, but other than that, very well done!
"There's no such thing as structural violence; because I follow *ALL* my own walls ---- But you know what I can't stand? People who complain about ANY other walls, EVER..."
4 года назад+1
Violence has been with the world for a very very long time. It can be traced to as long as the first predator on earth. As long as you are living, as long as violence. It is 'us'
I find this very interesting because Jesus basically said the exact same thing. He said lusting after a woman is basically the same thing as commuting adultery, and hating someone is basically the same thing as murdering them.
Here is an idea ;) Limiting choices can help us. It can be a canvas for action, leading and drawing a map in which we can choose the path we want to follow. When you have absolute choice, there is no incentive to do anything, your experiencing angst and absurdity. An injustice is an invitation to correct it, an order is an opportunity to follow it in your own way, or to rebel and express yourself. We limit choices of everyone everytime. When I talk to someone and I talk about a subject, I prevent my interlocutor from talking about a random subject. So if we take your defintion of violence, then violence is what protect us from angst and intellectual void. I feel kinda strange about it.
If you're a super-determinist and you don't believe in free will, then there are no violent acts because never is agency is being removed. If you're a super-determinist...
I'm curious about what violence done to ourselves under this framework implies about our identity. Can I choose to remove my own agency? Or am I perhaps more than one agent, one who is doing violence and one who is being violated?
I always feel you are just 3 words away from pausing mid-sentence and going "and I have no idea what I am ever talking about! I just bullshit 90% of these scripts, and you fools just take it as science!"
I survived a 9 and a half year long abusive marriage. People who were aware of the details of my partner's behavior referred to me as a "battered spouse." I had a tremendous amount of trouble accepting that label, not because of gender stereotypes, but because my spouse almost never initiated physical violence. 80% of the abuse was limiting my food intake, preventing me from sleeping, denying me the ability to communicate with others and breaking sentimental items in order to dehumanize me. My spouse, on several occasions, spent hours commanding me to use a sharp object on myself to end my own life. Other acts which constitute the type of violence you discussed include telling me that she will file paperwork that paints me as an abusive monster and puts me in jail. That paperwork was used as a threat for three years before she filed it, making me homeless in the deep south, an area where we moved shortly before she chose to follow through on her manipulative threat. She once stood in front of me, holding a hammer in her hand, and calmly said, "you better not fall asleep tonight, because as soon as you fall asleep, I am going to murder you with this hammer." Violence in the non-physical sense is very real, and it is all around us. Thank you for composing and delivering this monologue. This is something that people need to understand.
This is awesome, I love it! Love the new format and all of it, great work!
I think with sports and BDSM maybe the key thing is that people ideally do them voluntarily? So they've chosen to give up their choices temporarily and abide by some rules in exchange for pleasure or excitement, but with safewords or walking off the field they can take that power back. So it's like play violence.
On a different note, in "Toward a Political Philosophy of Race" Falguni Sheth talks about how we usually think of the state as an entity that is supposed to limit violence tout court, but she argues that its real function is to limit violence by maintaining a monopoly on it. So it disapproves of vigilantism and of aggressive action by other nations but will use physical violence when it suits its own ends.
I think it's really cool that you referenced this in your latest video! I'm in uni and currently writing a short paper on violence within student protests, and your video actually reminded me to look through this for sources! The social discourse ecosystem on RUclips can, every once in a rare while, be splendid
@athekeeper7234 how did that paper go? I'm a student as well writing about the narrative of violence surrounding social movements. Going to be focusing on the bom movement in 2020. Would love to compare notes/sources I'd you end up seeing this.
Also Kristen & I both agree that we would love to live on the Idea Channel set. That just looks like a really nice house to be in.
For anyone who thinks his definition of violence is too broad, remember that neglecting a child is definitively violent behavior (child abuse), yet by definition, requires you to take no action, whatsoever.
+futurestoryteller I think those on the "Too broad" side would say that not all child abuse is violent (i.e. neglect), but all child abuse is wrong nonetheless.
Timothy Milligan
Starving to death sounds to me like a pretty violent way to go. I don't think your body goes quietly or peacefully
Assuming that "violence" can be applied to situations that don't involve physical force or the threat thereof, of course.
Timothy Milligan
Ask a doctor if starving to death is a violent way to go - ask a doctor if drowning is a violent way to go. I'm betting the odds are extremely high they're not going to say "of course not."
+futurestoryteller Your argument is tautological. *Why* is child abuse definitely violent behavior?
"Ask a doctor if starving to death is a violent way to go"
That is how bodies work. The same result could occur if that child's parents died in a car crash on the way home to feed it. Would the child then be violently killing itself by starving to death?
"Sometimes nothing is the most violent thing to do."
One of my favorite quotes echoes that idea: came from Martin Luther King:
"Our generation will have to repent not only for the acts and words of the children of darkness but also for the fears and apathy of the children of light."
If doing nothing can be violent, King showed us how doing something can inversely be the most peaceful thing to do.
If violence is the removal of choice, is some violence good, and some bad?
What if someone raise a hammer to hit someone else on the head, but I grab the hammer before they can bring it down, thus removing ability to complete their choice to hit the other person; in this situation, I would be the only person who completed a violate act?
+btdtpro This is a great question and something I meant to add to the list of things we'll talk about next week - is violence always bad? I think the short answer is "no". See Bogart, for one, on creative violence, but also lots of other people who've written about Violence Proper over the years being necessary (to an extent) to maintain the largely peaceful rule of law, to challenge harmful regimes of all shapes and sizes, change economic, cultural or political status quo, improve the state of education, etc, etc, etc.
Would love others' perspective on this question, too.
+btdtpro To cause harm for the sake of harm is an act of evil. To cause harm for the sake of embetterment is an act of good. Intent is important, and not overriding. One may have good intentions but still FUBAR a situation; there is no redeeming quality, instead perhaps a lessening of a sentence, or at least a modification of it to instead deal with ignorance.
Violence, as described in this video, is simply another act in the human equation. Of itself it is neither good nor bad, but another variable bringing influence to the equation. To attempt to quantify violence under a morality code assumes a higher power to the human psyche than it may possess. In other words, is a sense of right and wrong, in any regard, a purely human concept, or a universal constant?
Thus we arrive back at intent. In your example provided, it would seem, at face value, that you stopping some one else from being hit in the head by another person as a "good" thing. However, your reaction to this action was based on a face value assessment as well. While your example good include the possibly of you knowing the background story of the person about to be hit, and the person about to hit, nevertheless your comment doesn't specify. As such, to impose your violence in an unknown situation where you are unaware of the context is perhaps "more violent". Herein is demonstrated the importance of context as well, 'good intent' be damned.
Lastly, to presume the capacity to remove some one's choice is to take personal responsibility not only for your self, but also of the other person.
+PBS Idea Channel Could "bad" violence be when it "transforms a person into a thing," and "good" violence be when it transforms a thing back into a person? From btdtpro's example, the first person transformed the second person into a "thing to be hit," and perhaps you could argue that btdtpro transforms the first person into a "thing to be stopped," but really he is revealing the "person-ness" of the one being hit. And in another sense he is not removing choice from the first person, but allowing the first person to make the same choice again, except to a person instead of a thing. The same can be said about challenging harmful regimes, changing the political status quo, and improving the state of education. Are you really removing their choice, or are you just revealing the humanity of the ones they just turned into things, and allowing them to make the same choice?
Micah Hunsberger I would say this is why I like words , or what might be called "violent speech", over actions. If I stop someone from hitting another person with a hammer, I won't be "allowing the first person to make the same choice again, except to a person instead of a thing.", becuase they won't automatically change from seeing the person they once saw as a thing to hit, now as a person they're about to hit; unless I also impact their thinking with words.
It's like the old, teach a person to fish saying,
"Force a person to not hit another person with a hammer, and they'll not hit the other person as long as you're there to enforce it, but help that person understand why they shouldn't hit someone with a hammer, and they'll not only stop trying to hit the person, but they might also teach others the same important information;
or maybe shorter put,
actions are important for fast but temporary change, but should be fallowed up, or even accompanied by, well thought and communicated ideas for slower but long lasting change.
PBS Idea Channel Thanks for the reply and the video on the topic. It's definitely an interesting topic to process and think about, as well as hear other people's perspective on.
I think the definition is problematic because it muddies up what violence is by making the definition too broad, and losing some of the inherent I guess distaste (not sure that's the right word for it) we feel towards violence. I think you need a clear distinction between violent and non-violent actions, for example, protest. Most of the protests in Chicago are, what I consider from a traditional definition, non-violent. However, they do block traffic and remove the choice from the commuters like me in choosing how we move about the city. Under your definition, that makes these people violent protesters, which carries this whole extra layer of baggage in the wording. Same holds true for violent and non-violent drug offenders and a bunch of other I suppose "categories of people".
I really think these counterexamples ring true. Others in this comment section are pointing out that this definition of "violence" essentially necessitates a more nuanced ethical assessment than "violence is bad". And I think that this definition would confuse. Because violence would no longer equate to the obviously bad stuff. Added subtlty may actually prove ineffective by getting people up in arms over whether systemic violence like racism should be considered on a level with physical assault. I could see such debate and semantics detracting from a go-get-'em attitude toward combating the obvious violence. It may create apathy to present such a powerful and ubiquitous matter as "the way things are" under the moniker of violence to be stopped. This may seem insurmountable, intractable, or at least very difficult and costly.
Agreed, this feels like overloading the word "violence" to use it beyond its more traditional meaning not only devalues the word, but will confuse most English speakers. Wouldn't a discussion of "power" and "conflict" be more appropriate, as words for this episode?
I am curious about equivalent words to "violence" in other languages, and if they make such distinctions or not.
Beyond the word choice, however, I think all the concepts are on point.
+ZimmervisionCZ I believe that this definition of violence is useful precisely _because_ it it requires a more nuanced understanding of the ethical ramifications of violence. Many people have a knee-jerk opposition to physical violence, which I believe is unhelpful. There are certain groups (E.g. fascists, neo-Nazis, white nationalists) whose existence is defined by militarism, nationalism, and disdain for people of different social groups. These fascist groups pose such a threat to the well-being of everyone else that it may sometimes be preferable to take violent measures to put a stop to their public influence rather than letting them spread fear, hate, and suffering.
Thinking of violence in more simplistic terms (namely, that it's almost always a bad thing) is something that only enables more long-term suffering.
+Jared Vargas
Agreed, the definition set forth is over-broad, and if we take the analogy of Newton's Law to its full extent, it would mean that all action is violence, and inaction is illusory. By this definition of violence should we try to live as non-violently as we can? If that means we are to preserve the choice of others as much as possible, what kind of excessively narrow life, absent of achievement, does that leave for us? Alternatively, should we accept that violence is the way of all things, and take from this world what we desire, however cruel the action required?
There is nothing to be gained from expanding the definition of violence, because when the aversion and abhorrence to needless violence is applied to everything, it doesn't give us some revelation to live by. Even if we all were to agree to take-up this new definition, it would render the word functionally useless -- and that is perhaps the clearest indication that you are doing more harm than good with your expanded definition.
+SpathaMagna I disagree with your conclusion based on your argument. Being aware of the choices of others and being forced to choose which of those are going to get trampled might just make us more sensitive to the suffering of others. An understanding that violence IS a part of life might help destigmatize the term; to develop a nuanced appreciation between ethical violence and violent crime.
I don't think expanding the definition will render it useless, it will require a more thorough understanding of its connotations to not get blasted in youtube comments. Principles like "morality" and "justice" come to mind: simple enough terms to define in a dictionary, but Brobdingnagian (my word of the day) in their depth.
I've felt for some time now that emotional violence also exists. When people scream at you, cross your boundaries (especially if they're doing it after the boundary has been stated), the process of breaking-up with a partner, when people tell you who to be and refuse to accept the present reality of who you are, when people dont communicate effectively, the silent treatment in response to conflict, etc. Theres a lot of interpersonal emotional violence going on
Come see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!
I love that movie and I have no idea why that reference didn't come to my mind.
+LibertyLikes Bloody peasants!
+LibertyLikes You're the king? Well I didn't vote for you!
I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
+LibertyLikes Get On With It!
To the people who argue that "violence" is somehow the wrong word;
If I shoot an average 40-year old, and kill him; I'm pretty sure that'd be called an act of violence. I just deprived someone of roughly 30 years of living.
Now, if I'm responsible for the safety of a nuclear powerplant, and through my actions or inaction, several employees get sick, depriving them of at least 30 years of healthy life...
What would you call that, if not violence?
+Mahj To be violent, there needs to be intent. Is a parent that tells their child to do the dishes using violence? The child likely can't defy their parent, so judging by the definition of violence presented in this video, the parent must be committing an act of violence on their child.
I personally disagree that every time a parent tells a child to do their chores that is inherently abusive. If the video is to be believed however, it is a form of "systemic violence".
To answer your question directly, if you intentionally kill a man with a gun, then it is violence. It is violence because you intentionally brought physical harm to another through your direct actions. It is because you killed or destroyed something that it is considered a violent act. Not because you "stole" or "deprived" anyone of anything. Your action, combined with the intent, is the violent act.
In your second example however it can be a wide variety of things. If it is through your inaction and irresponsibility, then it is negligence. If it is you taking actions that are meant to harm, like locking them in a irradiated room intentionally, then it can be considered violence. If you took actions to prevent them harm, but they still got hurt anyway, then you are simply not to blame. It could be their own negligence, or a complete accident.
By labeling all of those things under one umbrella, by calling all of those things violent, you actually lose the nuances that would make a case like that clear. Which is what people are objecting to when they argue that the word usage is wrong.
Violence has a lot of connotations to it, therefore it shouldn't be used for nebulous concepts that can be described with other, better, words.
+Mahj The argument has to be true in every example, but must be revised if there is even one valid counterexample. That being said, consider the following:
Assume I am a black male living under a system which coerces me to behave in a stereotypical manner. Under Mike's construal, the language/attitudes in the system are violent. Now consider a counterfactual situation where I do not succumb to the influence of the language/attitudes commonly held by the system. In this counterfactual situation, I have demonstrated agency. If agency must be restricted for language to be violent (and in this counterfactual case agency was not restricted), then the counterfactual case demonstrates an example of how what Mike calls "systematic violence" does not result in violence at all.
I don't know what I'd call it but "violent" definitely wouldn't be it. That's simply not what the word means.
LeonardRodriquez The parent example is a good counterexample to the argument, well done.
+Mahj This is silly, the actions are completely different even if the outcomes are similar. A doctor prescribing a drug that results in an incredibly rare but lethal condition, is that violence? Or is it the pharmacist that did the violence, because they provided the drug? Or is it the pharmaceutical company because they manufactured it? Or is it the patient because they made the physical action to take the dose?
Someone has lost 30 years of their life, and that is the same as someone getting shot, therefore it must be violence?
Here's why your definition is overly broad to the point of absurdity: it makes literally EVERYTHING a violent act. Every single action by anyone limits choices. If I interact with you at all, I am denying you the choice to not be interacting with me. But each change in the state of things, while eliminating some options, opens up others. Fortunately, there is a way to clarify the definition: a violent action is one which changes the state of affairs such that one's best option prior was subjectively preferable to one's best option after.
Given this definition though, one must ask whether violence is necessarily "wrong". I'll give you a basic example to demonstrate the principle: suppose I am walking down the sidewalk and spot a ten dollar bill on the ground. I bend down and grab it at the exact same instant someone else does. Their doing so, by this definition, is a violent act. But, at this point, most of us would agree that what would be "right" or "fair" would be for me to pull a five out of my wallet so that we would split the bill. So, fairness implies subjective violence. The other individual was not "wrong" to do what they did, even though it was subjectively violent toward me.
Given scarce resources, the only way for individuals to experience no subjective violence is for other individuals to experience more subjective violence. In this way, there is justifiable and unjustifiable violence. Justifiable violence is that which reduces the total violence, unjustifiable violence is that which increases the total violence. We have a legal system that is by nature violent and coercive. But it is largely preferable to the violence and coercion that would arise without it (obviously there is some debate on the particulars of legal systems).
So what's my point? It is useful to define violence as something other than physical harm, but it is important to not obfuscate the fact that some violence is justified thereby discouraging debate as to what violence is and is not justified.
+Owen Wall He needs to comment on this in the comment response vid.
+Owen Wall I'm glad I read this one. I'd had the same thought myself. While I applaud the expansion of 'violence' beyond just considering physical damage (and I think this is a very important point that this video raises) and the comparison between prejudice and physical violence as actions that 'remove choice' I think if we apply this absolutely then we run into the problem where we are left separating 'good violence' and 'bad violence' and really we're back where we started.Violence as defined only this way is a useless word because, as you've said, it makes everything violent so it adds no new information.That said I would like to think about how we think about choice in these sort of stories. Going back to the art comparison we tend to assume that you can either make a stroke or not and then you cannot go back. This isn't true, even not making a stroke has taken away the choice to make a painting since choices are set in time, conversely nothing can stop me from just starting again or burning the painting. So is then nothing violent because nothing 'removes my choice' or am I constantly doing violence to myself because everything limits it (did the ancient Greeks commit violence because they took away my choice to invent Pythagoras' method).
Maybe a better definition would be that violence 'is anything committed by another person that limits my choice removing choices that I otherwise intended to take'. Because I do think this is an important debate (it really helps examine the relationship between different forms of abuse of power) but I think the conclusion is overly general.
+Owen Wall this is such a great point. Every choice made limits. By this simply existing is violence because it's limits other bodies from inhabiting the same space.
violence begets violence begets violence
+Owen Wall Yes, by this definition, anything that is not a choice would be violence. Nature would be entirely violent. A birth would be a violent act towards the baby. I think that "limiting choice" better describes injustice than violence. Violence has to be defined as active, or the word becomes too broad to use sensibly.
The trouble I have with this definition (and FWIW, it's perfectly fine for a word to have different definitions in different contexts), is that it while it would be perfectly useful to have a term for this concept of the removal of choice, equating it with the word "violence" without a logical justification, feels inappropriate, loaded, and overly broad. This, to me is a case of assignment of a new broader definition to the term, and not a more precise restatement of the original intended original concept. I'm fine with hate speech, language constraints, and threats all falling within the existing concept of violence, but again, the definition given in this video ends up extending beyond to things I wouldn't agree as being considered violent. If you really want to test an idea, shouldn't that be what's explored? The reasons why the definition might not apply, instead of ways that the definition does apply?
For example: If violence is the abstract concept of the removal of choice, that would mean that the act of parenting, through much of a child's life, is inescapably not merely violent, but in these terms, is both chronically subjectively violent, and also condoned and even honored as objective systemic violence not merely throughout humanity, but extended potentially throughout the majority of the animal kingdom. Removing aspects of a child's choice is the very essence of child-rearing.
For that matter, (regardless of one's personal beliefs) this definition of violence would make the concept of the God of Abraham to be the very embodiment of violence. Every act of creation, every issued commandment, every interference on God's part becomes some form of violence. Even if you, Bogart, Tanner and Zizek are all comfortable with this idea, it would likely cause conflict within a great many followers of abrahamic religions.
So I would argue, what one would really need to demonstrate is: why is it beneficial and appropriate to assign this concept to the word "violence", when it goes contrary to the words etymological origins, it's denotation, and its connotation? And how would you respond to the argument that using this definition would result in reducing most discussions about violence into arbitrary semantic arguments?
Further, I wonder, does this alternative definition you present extend to other words? In particular, is the actor against whom some form of violence is directed considered to be a "victim" of that violence? And does not the broader definition of violence take away the ability to make qualitative moral judgements about the abstract concept of violence?
+verdatum How much agency does a child have, though? One might suggest that children are in the process of developing said agency.
+KTSamurai1 According to the dictionary, "Agency is the capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in any given environment." the definition given in the video is effectively congruent with hits. Therefore, agency according to this definition exists upon childbirth, if not sooner (specifically when "life" begins is an off-topic question).
+KTSamurai1 I think you're vastly underestimating the intelligence of children. They'll lie, trick and steal their way through Kindergarten if given the chance.
Not to mention, many parents continue to "parent" well into their child's adulthood. From obvious things like planned marriages, to more subtle ones like how you "must" clean up extra well before they visit.
+Allyn Ashton I considered bringing up the concept of Free Will in my original comment. However, that philosophical debate remains at an impasse. A number of potential solutions exist, and none are fully able to defeat the other solutions (if they were, then those solutions would fall away). For example, if you break out, "it doesn't matter, because there's no free will, in that your actions are a result of the sum of the chemical and physical reactions that brought you to where you are today, and your mind is merely a very complicated state-machine generated by the chemical reactions we refer to as biology, and influenced by input in the form of sensory data and chemical ingestion" that can kinda shut down a whole mess of things; so it's generally avoided whenever possible.
But yes, (and I'm sure I'm not the first commenter to effectively say this), but Mike et al. are committing an act of violence in trying to impose their preferred definition of violence into modern parlance.
+verdatum Omg reading your comment was the most satisfying thing ever. It perfectly mirrors the way this video made me feel
BDSM, and maybe sports, seem to me like the careful control of violence to actually give MORE choice. Not just physical, but the set of rules and constraints that allow you to do actions that you'd normally never do, like take someone, bite or slap someone or place your safety and pleasure entirely on someone else's hands.
Maybe, but literally no one cares about RadFems except RadFems and Republicans who want to pass bathroom bills.
We are talking about the same people right? I sometimes see people say radfems when they clearly mean "Mainstream feminist I don't agree with".
+Devotedpupa That makes me wonder, is it a restriction of agency if that agency is willingly given up for the kinds of things you're describing?
+Devotedpupa
I think that BDSM and sports can actually be a little more like acting as a controlled violence, because the rules that are created are limiting choices by their whole nature. Because they both have goals in mind, and it can be argued that whatever choices are given to a person in these new scenarios, there would be a slew of others to be taken away.
+Devotedpupa I would almost have to argue that the situation of BDSM in that respect wouldn't necessarily be violence as much as it would be simply be a passionate act of expression. When you look at the dynamics within most BDSM relationship, there is a typical Top or Bottom (within the respective aspects of the relationship), the idea is still that althought there is still restraint, or hitting, the idea is still that the end result is your partners pleasure or fulfilment of desires. Ultimately we have to look at this more in the direction of either intent or if it is done impulsively.
+BlackenSerpent
BDSM could be seen as a perversion of inherently violent acts into non-violent, simply because a choice is being made instead of prevented.
i don't know about sport though. on one hand, you'd think the same would apply - participants agree on rules, which makes it a non-violence. on the other, the rules are such that physical (or psychological) violence is partly permitted for the sake of the physicality of the medium (game). for example: there are NHL player's whose sole responsibility in-game is to provoke opposing team's star players into breaking the rules by breaking the rules. hockey rules, which are agreed upon and are not violent, somehow permit themselves to be broken in a meta sort of way.
i don't know if that can be applied to BDSM or other things, but it seems to me that sport rules as a form of perversion of violence are, in a way, inconsistent.
I'm fine with using a term like "structural violence" as an allusion to true violence, but violence has a very clear and concise definition. If I accept that violence is the removal of agency wouldn't that expand the definition so much that it would barely be useful any longer? Literally everything that exists has the potential to remove SOME of your ability to make choices. Gravity is inhibiting my ability to fly right now. Can you imagine the looks I would get if I tried to take the moon to court for making the tide go in when I wanted to keep my chair lower down on the beach? If you want to argue that a new law is harming someone, or a cultural more is harming some group, why not just call it what it actually is: injustice? That word suits the situation just fine and doesn't bring to mind a whole lot of baggage and undeserved emotional weight to poison the well that would normally be associated with the actual, physical (and always worse) violent crime.
You’d actually be surprised how useful this definition of violence is both in gauging your own potential to be subject to violence and how technically violent you can be to others without being physically forceful.
I’m in the neurodivergent spectrum and I’ve always had the concept of “micro aggressions” referred to in daily interactions, without it being something I was necessarily aware of.
When I visualize social interactions as a sort of chess game where you can limit someone else’s agency or they can limit yours, then that concept not only becomes extremely clear to me, it also becomes easier to avoid (as a victim or a perpetrator).
It also makes me realize that violence in general, if we remove extreme situations (like a public random shootout) are situations which you can build to and crawl out of.
@@Ebvardh Problem here is that you're using the word in the definition. If you were to re-write the first paragraph of your post without using the word violent or violence, could you do it? If so, why aren't the replacement words more accurate and useful, given that your definition of violent is already jockeying for position with the traditional one that people more readily understand and think of?
Also, to see social interactions as a series of chances to "push" or be "pushed" in a certain direction adds a level of antagonism to the concept of conversation that is more often than not, not present. It seems even more muddled I think when you add in the concept of microaggressions, which are usually characterized as being unintentional, where violence is intentional.
If I accept a definition of "violence" where we're only talking about intentionally antagonistic exchanges, I have to look at the fact that I've now created a word that is functionally the same in use as a word that describes something that is worse: actual violence. It creates almost limitless opportunities for hyperbole, equivocation, and emotional blackmail, at the least. To say nothing of the potential for a cheapening of the word and the anesthetizing of people to the seriousness of the real thing that can occur when the two are thrown around together.
At the end of the day I think it's going to be a personal interpretation for each person as to how bad it is to have the word have different definitions in this way, but I've seen a lot of people online work very hard to get attention by using the most dramatic word they can grab, and I know it has a deadening effect on me.
This is the absolute best episode done so far.
I feel like as this comment section expands a lot of people will claim to think though, ideas, and speech cannot be violence because they don't prevent you from doing anything, and I think this is due in large part by the backlash against anything they seems to resemble in some form Tumblr's particular brand of social justice. When saying words can be a form of violence, they can oppress people that opens up the possibility that micro aggressions actually affect people. What to me seems ironic is everyone to some capacity has felt the words and opinions of other people oppress them. For every person who has felt they needed to justify their love of video games to people because they didn't want the label of being brain dead or violent being a part of them. For everyone who had a group of, "friends," who made fun of that thing you liked so you stopped liking it and joined them in making fun of it. For every person who had right wing or leftist political views in an area that had the opposite and got branded as an idiot for daring to think differently than you peers. For everyone who has experienced anything like this, you have had the words and opinions of others oppress you in some manner or fashion. You've had systematic violence done to you whether you recognized it or not.
What I think is hard for people in a position like me(white straight male and cisgendered) to understand is how people with even more unaccepted traits receive this kind of violence just by the nature of their very being. If I was black the only place I could be is my own home in order to avoid to the pressure of this kind of force, and even then thus dictates where I can live, and how I can live. Who will rent to me, where I can work, how I can work, how much I will be payed etc. All of these things determined by the nature of their existence. They gender, sex, race, social class or religion. Things that are permanently attached to their very being and can never be changed. Not to mentioned the depression I imagine can go along with this. The tendency for self harm or mutilation. Having to remove entire aspects of yourself in order to avoid systematic violence, if you can.
Disagree it's is your choice to feel oppressed or to justify yourself to to other people or to give up that thing you love. Those are all your choices. You could always chose not to let it affect you. While I agree that words can be a form of violence it's really down to how you chose to relate those words to your own life. You could chose to feel oppressed if someone berates your choice of music or political ideas but your could also chose to feel pity for that person that they had to berate you to feel better about themselves. It's hard for me to accept a person's words are violent if I don't feel oppressed or belittled but I feel pity for them and feel better about myself because I chose to live my life another way.
+Aaron Smith If those words didn't have a real world impact I would be inclined to believe you, but every time any person chooses to go out and puts down another person they inspire a whole group of people to want to be in with them. Especially if they have a great deal of influence. For example Trump's stance on Mexicans has inspired a whole group of people to come out and actively join in verbally assaulting people. Sure you could try and not let it affect you but it will anyways because the actions of others and to some extent how you react are out of your control. If someone insults your intelligence you can't choose not to be hurt if they hit you in a spot that hurts. It's an involuntary reaction, and when compounded by other people continuing to express this point it will make you start to believe it yourself and internalize their abuse.
It's not that people could disagree with you on something, but that they go out and say, "you're and idiot for believing X" that causes all of this. They dehumanize you and put you down. Just because perhaps you can shake it off doesn't mean another person can especially when it hits some one in their insecurities. A lot of our culture actively tries to prevent people from sharing their feelings even with themselves. So when we say, "hey that hurts," people basically tell you that your feelings don't matter and you shouldn't feel this way, and it silences people, and with everyone silenced it makes people feel even more isolated because it's taboo to express your emotional pain. Especially, but not limited to, men.
I feeling just chalking it up to, "just choose not to feel hurt," is dehumanizing the situation.
+Dayle Armstrong (Silky Goodness) "What to me seems ironic is everyone to some capacity has felt the words and opinions of other people oppress them."
Aren't you equivocating oppression here? The first definition i found on a google search said "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control" and the second said "mental pressure or distress." I have a hard time believing that you think that every single person on earth has experienced mental pressure that rises to the level of prolonged cruelty.
"So when we say, "hey that hurts," people basically tell you that your feelings don't matter and you shouldn't feel this way, and it silences people"
Same thing here. Silencing someone is different than that person falling silent of their own accord. If the two were the same, the world wouldn't know the name Martin Luther King.
"I feeling just chalking it up to, "just choose not to feel hurt," is dehumanizing the situation."
It is admittedly harder for some people to deal with hard situations (or mental distress) than it is for others. But I would ask you, is there a practical solution in telling people that they should avoid ever upsetting anyone, no matter how subjective the offense might be? Isn't it more sensible to confront injustice when it is clear and there is an objective goal that can be achieved rather than simply aiming to make everyone feel better?
And most importantly, given that you have rightly pointed out that people can not simply be made to feel better just by telling them to, how can we then argue that they can be made to *NOT* feel worse just because we tell them to? What about the people who are fundamentally opposed to feeling better because of one of a myriad of psychological issues that prevent people from thinking rationally?
+Boil Derrik It's more I feel that in conversation we should just take special care to talk to people respectfully and be mindful. We can't prevent accidentally hurting another person either. I'm not implying we police people's action but rather promote a better social awareness of the issues people face that seem to be largely ignored.
Not calling a trans person a, "tranny," for example is just good manners, but for some reason or another people don't understand just how dehumanizing that can be. Especially since transphobia is something they are faced with everyday all day. Which is what I think the point of acknowledging that some words can be an act of violence in the way the video describes. If we recognize the actual impact of what we say that can go a long way in creating a social system that is more equal, or just. Depending on the word you prefer.
Dayle Armstrong I suppose that's why I advocate getting to know people before treating them with a level of familiarity that you would your closest friends. I only call my best friend an idiot sometimes because i know she knows how smart i think she is. You could certainly make the argument that I would do well to not call her that regardless, on the off chance that it was having a persistent effect on her underneath the surface, but if she doesn't confront me with any concerns to that effect, how could i ever really know? It would get to the point where i would try as hard as i could to control my own words down to the tiniest detail, only uttering the conversational equivalent of white bread without butter, but it would make my interactions with her very dull wouldn't it?
What an interesting concept! I've often been concerned with violence when it applies to martial sports, where the physical actions are pursued through choice. Both people in a boxing ring are being paid to be there, and are fighting to win. Does it really count as violence when both consent to the possibility of physical injury? The same goes for ancient duels where two people would face off, decide the terms of the fight in question and then pursue it. By one strain of logic, both are narrowing down their options and choices by entering into rules of combat and combat itself, but by your definition violence is the removal of agency through force or the threat of force. If we follow that logic, neither fighter is being removed of agency, they both chose to be there. The force then is merely a means to an end, and rather than seeing your opponent as an object professional fighters HAVE to see the humanity in others to see their next move.
So by that logic, if violence isn't directly tied to physical conflict, it calls into question if violent competitive games are even violent? After all, both players chose to be there. Anyway, interesting stuff, thanks for the upload!
+MH3Raiser Don't you think seeing just an opponent or enemy means seeing less than a whole human being? - Also: You could question how much freedom of choice there really is for professional fighter, who is just a worker in the entertainment industry.
+Schönling G. Wunderbar A "worker for the entertainment industry" could easily just go get another Job, and then there are people who do martial arts as a hobby where it is definitely a choice.
Exactly. The real question I was asking was, if someone submits to the 'violents' and willing chooses it, be they a martial artist or... a SnM lover, is it still violence?
Christopher McKee So professionals aren't free, but people who fight because "they like it" are? Also there are other forms of violence, like societal norms for example. Is somebody free who wants to show how virtuous (disciplined, fit, fair, maybe even in spiritual) he is by fighting as a hobby?
Schönling G. Wunderbar
That isn't what I meant. Both the professional and the amateur choose to engage in the violence. They both have the option to do something else with their time. The only difference is whether or not they get paid for their time. I personally don't see sport based violence as fitting Mike's definition of violence unless serious injury occurs.
This idea of violence reminds me of the way that women in online and even in face-to-face forums are barraged by hate speech. Many women don't express opinions or experiences because they know that this will make them the target of hate speech, effectively silencing women and removing their voices from public view. There are so many comment sections I avoid. There are so many political discussions I don't speak up to disagree even though I very much disagree, and my opinion should matter as much as anyone else's opinion. I don't even put bumper stickers on my car. I'm sure other people and groups face worse hostility in public spaces, but it's so exhausting to know that a woman simply saying she dislikes violence against women is enough to incite violence against her (if we count hate speech as violence - and certainly hate speech online encompasses many threats of physical violence).
+crazykenna You are self-censoring. It is ok if many people disagree with you and express their disagreement. They have a right to express themselves, just as you do. You should be brave enough to speak your opinion anyway ( *especially* on the internet).
+crazykenna Men get more hate online.
+crazykenna Completely agree. Symbolic violence (approx 6:30) against women is a huge factor in everyday life. It keeps us out of social situations, silent on the internet, and at it's worst, causes us to gaslight ourselves. If you are self-censoring for reasons of safety, as many women are, it is not as simple as self-censorship. There is a violence acted against you that forces you to think about safety first and voicing your opinion second. That is exactly Zizek's point.
Amy Hayes Call me naive, but I can't image most women are encountering hate speech on a regular basis. More so, I can't image women in the West frequently face the threat of physical violence.
The only type of "violence" I imagine is common is simply disagreement by most people in the environment which makes you feel as though you cannot speak up. And in this case, your agency would not be removed.
And even if I agreed that the threat of physical violence is frequent and therefore necessitates censoring in real life, that still doesn't explain why you self-censor on the internet.
+Amy Hayes I've known many women and have yet to witness any one of them being subjected to anything that would approach the legal definition of hate speech (outside of the internet). Admittedly, this is partly luck, but the fact that it has yet to happen even once means that your anecdotal evidence is contradicted by mine. Do we have any hard data to suggest that one of us is right and the other is wrong?
On the other hand, if you are simply suggesting that hate speech can be used as a term to describe hostility, aggression, or even simple rudeness, then doesn't that reduce the level of seriousness with which i should consider the issue? Everyone, man woman and child has to deal with some level of these things, often without even any malice of intent involved (any social gaff or misinterpreted situation comes to mind). It's a part of being alive and not being able to read the minds of others. Though i could imagine that would bring its own set of problems...
The problem with this definition of violence is not that it removes action or intent, but rather that it replaces "causing harm" with "removing choice." Removing choice or diminishing agency is not always harmful; in fact, it is often helpful.
Following this definition, banning guns would be a violent act. Hell, by this definition, treating someone to Baskin-Robbins would be inflicting violence upon them, because it restricts their choice of dessert to one of 31 flavors of ice cream.
I can appreciate his point, and in a broad context it does make sense, but broadening the definition to such a degree is not useful. There are already so many unique words that describe the issues he presents: injustice, indifference, abuse, and so forth.
When you begin to define every action as violent, you trivialize true acts of violence.
+Red Sparrow Really good point!
I'd say that removing choice is always harmful to people. While it is true that banning guns may result in less injuries later on, the act of banning guns is damaging your ability to protect yourself, its damaging your ability to hurt others.. It damages your proper potential. Restricting the amount of choices one can make with their current potential is damaging their possibilites.
Treating someone to baskin robbins but telling them they can only get 1 flavor doesn't count as harm to me, since your giving them the option to have 1 flavor of ice cream more than they could get. If they want more ice cream they'll have to pay extra of pocket to get. your giving them possibilities, its up to them if there dessert is limited to ice cream
I'll agree that broadening the definition of violence is not useful to everyday society. But why are you controlling the definition of something based on whether or not its useful? We should observe and analyze everything around you for what it is, or what you can interpret it as, not as what's convenient to you. If the lesser acts of violence get trivialized, its still violence. The difference between flicking someone in the head and stabbing them with a knife is only in degree. It up to us humans to decide what is trivial and what is not based on further analysis.
If you want to make up your own term for non-trivial acts of violence, thats fine. But remember you are breaking apart the whole term of violence and putting it into the categories of trivial and non-trivial.
If coercion falls under the umbrella of violence (~7:25), then violence cannot be inherently bad. One of the core responsibilities of governments is to coercively solve collective action problems, such as offering tax incentives for those who buy electric cars, or by instituting high taxes on harmful goods like tobacco. Then again, maybe a definition of violence that is not inherently good or bad is appropriate. After all, physical force is often used to protect people from others or themselves. Two examples: a police officer may physically subdue someone who is trying to kill themself, or someone may shove a pedestrian out of the path of a speeding car.
From the opening premise to the end of the video I couldn't help but think of government.
As defined, government itself is, by its very nature, systemic violent. Not just extreme edge cases like North Korea. By having laws with the threat of punishment, a government is removing agency.
As you put it, this is something we feel is "normal".
Where do we draw the line? At what point does it transition from governing to violence? Is there such a point?
In prison, you are further restricted in many ways, and it is a way to govern those deemed unruly. Is such a thing different from the general government and agencies that most commonly rule over the rest of us?
I'm not sure. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time now. I would like to hear thoughts on this.
+Houdini111 It's also worth considering that lawlessness is also systemically violent. If a person/group can do whatever they want to you than your agency is severely restricted. For example, there was letter to faculty in texas campuses that instructed teachers to avoid "divisive" subjects for fear of provoking gun violence.
+Rosalind Chapman I don't think that that's the case. The only restrictions in a lawless zone/society/etc. would be self imposed, at which point I don't think that that is violence.
Of course, that's up to you to define. But, for example, I choose not to smoke, does that mean that I am violent towards myself because I don't smoke because (among other things) it can cause physical harm that will restrict me. It's almost as if the cigarettes are being violent with the damage they cause.
How self imposed is restricting your actions because you're afraid other people will murder you over it? By that logic obeying the law is self imposed violence.
Rosalind Chapman That's a good point. With that in mind, the only way i can see there being a system without violence would be if there wasn't a system; there was only one person (neglective the violent nature of nature), right?
But that would also mean that you are restricted because there are no other people with which you can interact. Can violence be defined as a lack of options? If there are no options in the first place, I wouldn't think so.
But what if the thing that removed your options didn't have a choice? For example, a force of nature. If it restricts your options, and it is done by force (which it inherently must, to be a FORCE of nature), is it violent?
Or does the violence stem from the intent? If that's the case, where does it leave violence of which we do not consciously think?
***** Which is why I believe we need science, research and skepticism to be a much larger part of our government process than they are.
That and a lot of empathy for people who aren't exactly like you, that would go a long way.
So, "violence" takes the meaning of "aggression/aggressive" and we loose a word descrobomg "use or threat of use of force against someone/something". Seems like a fair deal
+Killer.exe Violence have already been known to take on the meaning of "aggression" from time to time. Even dictionaries have more than one meaning for violence. This isn't really news at all, and quite frankly is how the English language has generally been.
+Killer.exe I think he's trying to change the idea of what 'forces' can be applied in the situation regarding 'violence'. By seeing it as a way to restrict choices, it implies that there can be pressures outside of the physical that can be used against someone - like those of social or economic pressures or the straight out refusal of such choices being available. A force doesn't need to be direct and visible in order to make an impact.
Must the existence of free will be accepted in order for this definition to be useful? It seems like it to me, sense saying that violence is the removal of agency implies that we have agency to begin with. If so, does that mean that things without free will (animals perhaps?) cannot be acted upon violently?
Animals likely have free will though if we do
@Juan Delgado interesting point but what about violence that occurs slowly. Isn't the frog in the slowly boiling water being subjected to violence? There was no sudden change.
I think that freewill is an illusion but agency still exists. So I don't see them as being the same.
Based on this perspective, government can be defined a consolidation of violence into the hands of a few.
Also on somewhat of a tangent, I have observed that violence is not explicitly good or bad. Sometimes it is absolutely necessary.
And this definition is basically the foundation of anarcho-libertarianism. Like, the whole foundation.
From this, taxation is theft, because you have no choice: if you didn't pay, you'd face physical punishment, which is coercion; even if you don't mind paying, the "choice" is kind of an illusion.
Assuming you take the stance that violence is bad, this definition makes government's innately and inescapably bad- because one piece at a time, it unravels every aspect of every form of government... into tyranny.
Not sure I agree with that, but it is the logical end point.
Source: entirely too many libertarian friends...
+Onuma ~ I discuss this in more detail in my comment for the video, but removal of choice is the foundation for morality (kinda). Only Society is allowed to enact violence on others, and only when the social contract is broken (those others are removing a person's choice). In a theoretical perfect society, the only choice an individual looses is that which he/she gives up for the social contact and is limited to by nature. ~
Of course I could be completely wrong. I know nothing of this, only think.
+Onuma this is exactly Hobbes' Leviathan described in one sentence
+Elliot Robison If that's what you think a perfect society is...I sure don't.
+Onuma "A state is an entity that claims a monopoly on violence in a geographic area" is a pretty general definition of what a state is.
Here's an idea: We already have a definition of violence: The use of physical force to intentionally inflict harm. That's why involuntary manslaughter isn't a violent crime, but punching someone is.
I disagree with any interpretation of a word which reduces it's usefulness. Like this one.
.
.
(I'm going to copy-paste some of my response-responses below because I didn't expect this much attention):
I didn't mean to say that non-physical, uh, violence it less "serious," than physical violence. Many people believe just the opposite, and I respect their opinions. I'm trying to say that when we make a word less specific, it becomes less useful. Under Mike's usage of the word violent, we would often have to specify which kind of violence was being talked about, thus making the language that much less efficient. I do admit, however, that English currently lacks a good word for 'non-physical violence'. It would also reduce the word's effectiveness as a descriptor of motion.
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that language can or should be controlled. But I think it's wrong to say that ALL organic changes in language are good. Unlike natural selection, sometimes language changes for silly reasons. We see this every decade: people take a word meaning 'significant' and bring it down to describe a 15% sale at Target (huge, awesome, etc.) Likewise this broadening of the word violent, while meaningful, would make the word less distinct from words like force, and thus would make the word less useful.
I suspect a lot of people would find this one useful and you just don't like what they'd be using it for.
Yale Benson Yeah: this. Actually I didn't mean to say that non-physical, uh, _violence_ it less "serious," than physical violence. Many people believe just the opposite, and I respect their opinions. I'm trying to say that when we make a word less specific, it becomes less useful. Under Mike's usage of the word _violent_, we would often have to specify which kind of violence was being talked about, thus making the language that much less efficient. I do admit, however, that English currently lacks a good word for 'non-physical violence'. It would also reduce the word's effectiveness as a descriptor of motion.
+Yale Benson I would say that this use of the term reveals things to be worse than they are.
And as far as language goes, I disagree entirely. Language by necessity must evolve to accommodate new ideas and ways of thinking and it is natural for it to do so. There would be no language at all if our pre-verbal ancestors had decided their grunts were enough and they didn't want to complicate things further.
Language is a tool we use to communicate but it is not immutable or unchanging. Codified language helps us to communicate if we are having trouble expressing ourselves by showing us a common ground but once you have that common ground to start from there is no reason your communications or ideas should be restricted by the "rules" of language.
Language serves us, we do not serve language.
Joseph Carradine Of course. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that language can or should be controlled. But I think it's wrong to say that ALL organic changes in language are good. Unlike natural selection, sometimes language changes for silly reasons. We see this every decade: people take a word meaning 'significant' and bring it down to describe a 15% sale at Target (huge, awesome, etc.) Likewise this broadening of the word violent, while meaningful, would make the word less distinct from words like _force_, and thus would make the word less useful.
+AidanofVT I don't think there's anything wrong with those trends and I wonder how any language (that isn't violent) could objectively be called "bad."
Morally? How? Can you expand on this?
YES! I love how you make the connections among social sciences, physical sciences, and other areas from math to ethics to humanities. I envy the clarity here. "Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do." I desperately wish to convey this idea to my privileged 14-year-old students, and over and over, to myself. Bravo.
"Those that make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable." - John F. Kennedy.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but it expands the meaning of violence waaay over what most people would think.
For instance, any civilized society, no matter how open or how modern it is, still relies in a set of social norms, unspoken rules, cultural roles among others to define itself, plus an official law, constitution, principles and whatnot. And then, ethics, morals, among other definitions.
Those essencially diminish or limit choices overall, so with an open definition like that, it's also violence.
Now, we may argue a lot on what laws we personally find valid or not, what governmental systems are better, what economic system is best, etc etc, but that's not the point here.
With that, then comes the question: is it even possible to live in society without violence as defined like that? You'd need pure anarchy, and people born like robots designed to willingly fill roles and make choices that wouldn't clash with others. Borg without the assimilation part.
+Chairman Meow In that vein, wouldn't enforcing vaccination be looked on as a violent act against those people?
+Chairman Meow I'm a left-leaning libertarian. I would say that the law, government, and taxation are all forms of 'violence', but there has to be an understanding that while it is often used pejoratively, violence is not always bad. In the instances where Mike is talking about a mugger, if the victim were to kick the mugger in the shin it would not generally be considered an unethical as an act of retaliatory violence.
It does get a bit murky if the victim tackles the mugger to the ground and beats the face to a bloody pulp, and the scales start to tip towards unjustification with every subsequent blow, but for most people there is a consensus that there is a justifiable amount of violence you may use to retaliate against a mugger.
In the scope of libertarianism (the principle on the bottom half of the political compass, not the right wing political party run by sociopathic plutocrats), the general definition of something like violence is something similar to "any instance in which a person intentionally makes a threat or act against the autonomous well-being of the life, liberty, or property of another person". At least in a colloquial sense.
In this kind of definition the law, government, and taxation are all forms of violence.
Ultimately the distinguishing factor between the left and right, on both the authoritarian and libertarian ends of the political compass, is whether or not a government should provide opportunity (authoritarian left believes the state gives all opportunity, auth right believes the government does not play a role in opportunity and that some other entity such as a class system or church determines opportunity for people, libertarian right holds that opportunity is for individuals to take and not to be meddled in by government, lib left generally holds that people must make their own decisions but the government must protect opportunity).Essentially this question comes down to whether or not the violence of government is appeasing to your morality. The libertarian right would contend that the violence is bad. The libertarian left generally holds that it can be good in many cases.
For example, the law and its enforcement are programs to attempt (keyword ATTEMPT) to prescribe a means of appropriate retaliatory violence to be available for constituents. While taxation is an act of violence against a person's property, it isn't necessarily bad because while property sees a decrease, your liberty sees a seriously significant increase in the form of infrastructure such as roads to travel at minimal cost and social programs that allow you to live life with a higher baseline opportunity to fall back on if your endeavors fail, as well as an increase to the well being of your life in the form of hospitals, fire departments, and healthcare.
Basically, violence against property is the least form of violence, and, at least if you're a libertarian leftist, the peculiar algebra of violence would be less if you decrease property for increase of liberty and life, than if you were to subsequently take away that gain of liberty and life to restore the property to original value.
So sure, in libertarian circles taxation is violence, but as aforementioned with the shin kicking, violence is not explicitly evil or malicious when deployed appropriately.
While I may find the libertarian right more generally reconcilable to my inclinations than the authoritarian left or *shudder* the authoritarian right, I find them to be generally sociopathic, they often already have incredibly secure opportunity by the time they become lib right, and they tend to overrate their own roles in acquiring their opportunity (which is to say they tend to be people who are unable to appreciate how much of their success is attributable to other people and randomness).
+Chairman Meow Taxation as violence isn't so much rhetorical as it is based in the fact that it is typically done under threat to life, liberty, or property. People go to prison or face fines if they do not pay their share, which is what separates taxes from a common collection plate. It's a shakedown, albeit one that is incredibly popular. Like I said, violence is not always a bad thing, especially if it is not incited unjustifiably and is prescribed in a manner to either retaliate against or prevent other violence. If the government is operating correctly, taxes should provide a greater return in improving the well being of the life and liberty of the people (via infrastructures, military, policy, etc) than the violence of collecting taxes, which many would consider justifiable expenditure of violence.
Ultimately the "any instance in which a party intentionally makes a threat or act against the autonomous well-being of the life, liberty, or property of another party" type of definition is almost explicitly rooted in material violence in some way or form.
Say I were to go on vacation. If someone were to burn my home to the ground and everything in it while I'm out, that would be an act of violence against property. If someone were to abduct me poolside and hold me hostage, that is violence against liberty. If someone were to drag me into the pool and drown me, that would be violence against my life.
To pretty much anyone with conventional ethics, there is a clear escalation in the previous paragraph, with a stratification that makes crimes against property tend to be less egregious than liberty and life. People tend to put a higher value on life and liberty than on their property. Liberty can be restored and property can be outright replaced, but when you're dead (worm food dead, not dead for a few minutes on an operating table), there is no way to replace or restore a life. This is why it is possible to obtain a greater return in life and liberty on a loss of property: relative to property, one's own life is ordinarily considered priceless and liberty is a limited commodity.
But where I think you and I may see a bit of a disagreement, and this is just a guess, is in regards to whether racism/sexism/capitalism/homophobia/transphobia in and of itself is violence. This is obviously not to deny that racism etc has begotten a large volume of violence over the years, but that the concepts can exist without being violent. Before I go any further, I feel it necessary to point out that I am not an apologetic trying to condone racism and the like (well, I'm ok with capitalism), it's still incredibly ignorant even when it isn't violence. What I'm saying is that if someone has racist ideas in their head without ever intentionally committing an act against the autonomous well being of another person's life, liberty, or property, then it is not an act of violence for that person to be a racist. It's just benign ignorance *at best*. Of course, that's also contingent on whether you use the conventional definition of racism.
Ultimately it's pretty close to what is found in most dictionaries (Merriam Webster definition for violent: "using or involving the use of physical force to cause harm or damage to someone or something") just with the added specific case of harm to someone's liberty, which I suppose can be considered part of harming someone, as well as the inclusion of threats, which could be considered an element of "involving the use of". The intentional part is also included in other definitions, namely the first result that rolls up when you google the definition of violence.
I think the definition of violence in the video starts with a good base, but snowballs into this mass of reductive sophistry to the point at the end where apparently we're just expected to accept that Newton's third law is as deterministic in its social application as it is in physics. There was what appeared to be a beeline made to reach a confirmation of the "silence is violence" narrative, which is inherently totalitarian as it portrays non-activists as being in direct opposition to activism (totalitarianism ironically being a form of violence after it is past the latent stage [quick plug that if anyone disagrees with being called violent I'd begrudgingly concede that earlier I mentioned that violence is not always a bad thing]). There also appears to be an underlying assumption in the video that all violence is bad (ironically again, if the social movements in the video graphics were to become hegemonic, they would be an act of violence by the definition in the video).
In the end, there really are very few instances in which choice is truly removed, the exceptions being when you are entirely devoid of agency by either being killed or incapacitated through means such as binding, drugging, loss of consciousness, etc. In any situation where you still have agency to make decisions, there are always n+1 choices. Even if it is a unary choice like a command, it is really a Hobson choice in which you may simply choose not to choose. On the SAT, if there are 4 answers given you also have the 5th choice of abstaining from answering. If someone puts a knife to your throat and demands your wallet, you have the choice to decline and bleed out on the sidewalk (I never said that the last choice doesn't suck sometimes). Even in the presidential election, if you want no part in choosing, a large portion of Americans just don't vote. To be relevant, the expectations of a society can be considered an implicit command to conform, and as such, there is always the choice to not conform and to transcend conformity. As a consequence you won't be as popular per se, I'm certainly not, but at the cost of friends and family you'll be able to live on your own terms with your own beliefs, ideas, and endeavors.
I think it's useful to refer to social violence, or social coercion. I'm personally in favor of social violence in some cases, so as to reduce other's uses of hate speech, which is worse violence.
It is not possible to live in the violent society also.
It seems to me that BDSM is a simulation of violence in order to empower individuals with more agency than they would normally have in a society that's seemingly terrified of intimacy. Having the ability to negotiate acting out violent desires (by definition: mitigation of agency) in a consensual and purely non-forced way gives all involved a huge freedom of sexual, sensual, and emotional agency that they could not get otherwise.
The desires themselves could stem from a variety of life experiences, but perhaps the violence (removal of agency) society commits towards intimacy and sexuality amplifies these desires.
+Ella Jameson Exactly - there are situations where rules and authority relationships do provide more freedom. BDSM is sexual liberation.
+Ella Jameson One could then argue that BDSM isn't actually violent at all. While force and aggression are being applied to the dominated, the dominated person's ability to end the practice with a single "safe" word provides agency.
+Sticky Bear Exactly. It's simulated violence that actually results in a respite from tge actual violence of society.
+Sticky Bear Some time ago I thought BDSM rather strange. A friend helped me understand how it's not so inherently abusive as it might seem from the outside by pointing out that the real power dynamic of the relationship is with the "bottom." The one who actually holds the true ability to say "no" to something ultimately has the most power. (I don't think I'm doing his description justice. I just don't know how to put it better without taking a long time to come up with better wording.)
I've noticed this in many other areas as well. Over the past several years, I noticed the US Congress has had a similar power balance, especially in regards to the President. Their ability to say "no" has shown to be a very powerful ability.
From a determinsitc perspective, life is violent.
cant help but think that circumcision would be a good example considering that not only does the child have a choice on the matter, but also happens to be the first instance of violence in acted on in his life.
+Humpiest Ranger I don't want to be a buzzkill, but by the logic of action and objectification every action that happens to an infant can be defined as violent.
+Schönling G. Wunderbar We live in a violent world, do we not?
+Humpiest Ranger circumcision requires physical harm. Circumcision is violence even without this postmodernist garbage.
+therealquade so is taking away a persons right of tradition and 4000 + years of beliefs and structure. but hey...
Russell Trakhtenberg Still has no right to dictate anything permanent happening to a person who can't yet make their own decisions. Tradition be damned, it's abuse and mutilation. There's a tribe that requires young boys perform fellatio on the village elders as part of becoming a man, I don't think you'd be defending pedophilia as hard as you're defending genital mutilation.
From this, I take that our current "system" is wrong. By system, I mean our government, our police force and all from the education system to healthcare. I'm consistently stripped from my choices and forces to take the one the system allow me. I cannot attend university to follow no particular class and get a degree. I must register the way the school allows me to. If I want to meditate in a park for two days, I can't as parks close at 11 pm, and if I'm within one, I will be arrested. If injured in a hospital, never I'm asked if I want to receive the treatment I need. Nor I'm I asked if I would prefer another form of therapy. If violence is the removal of choice; Isn't the limitation of choice a form of violence as well?
+ReM4rk Therein lies what I would disagree with about Mike's defintion, the assumption that a limitation of agency is a bad thing. Because, it really isn't a bad thing for there to be laws and healthcare and education, but they all apply limitations to us.
+Mark McArthur But all those limitations prevent me from living the life I want. It forces me to live a life that is a pale copy of so many before mine. The choice I make define who I am and yet cannot be who I am. I can only be what society allows me to be. It is a passive & violent removal of my freedom. I don't make the choices I want. I make those I can.
+ReM4rk It's violence to prevent violence. Most laws are there to prevent you from reducing the choices of other people. This isn't true for all cases, but for things like assault and murder, it's clearly the case.
+Ben Sherson I understand that violence, in those cases, must be used to prevent violence. Although, there are so many laws, regulation or rules that do not prevent any. All they do is violently take away your choice. Like my "meditation in a park" exemple. This isn't violent toward anyone and still I'm not allowed to do it for an extensive amount of time. (sorry for bad english if it is the case)
Taking up space that other may also want access to might be considered violence under this model. However, I will admit that there are laws that are stupid and don't have a violence excuse.
Wait do you underline things in your books? With non-erasable pen? That is the act of real violence.
+iNezumi I do! And in that Tanner book... I actually felt really bad underlining it in pen. Somehow after re-reading Bogart it felt *too* decisive, I guess? So I did all my underlining in that one using pencil... as if that's somehow better? IDK.
PBS Idea Channel My parents taught me to respect books and never purposely damage them in any way, so seeing scribbles in books, especially made with non-erasable ink makes me uncomfortable lol.
+iNezumi if they're your books, then you shouldn't worry about marking them up. If they belong to others, then of course you should treat them with respect to their owners (a la library books, academic materials, etc.).
I recommend reading "How To Mark A Book". Whether you ultimately decide to use this practice is a different story, but it may dissolve some of that sacrosanctity.
+iNezumi Marking a book and damaging a book are not necessarily the same thing! Sometimes, they can add to the text.
Frankly I believe this definition of violence is too broad, to what extent I am not quite sure, but with this interpretation I believe there to be too many unwarranted side effects. One issue that I take with Mike's argument is that hate speech specifically is violent, that some how other people's perceptions is limiting ones freedom is a violent act. With this logic any judgement on an individuals character can be perceived as violence, calling a corrupt politician a liar would be violent, calling someone a firefighter and honorable man would be violent. In this system opinions and speech become violent. With this implication speech and the very freedom to draw conclusions about one's character becomes a violent crime. Simple put this is the beginning of thought crime. Under this interpretation of violence the censors of the world become vindicated in their quest to silence the speech and opinions of those that would oppose deeming their criticisms of the status quo to be violent acts.
This is just one qualm I have with Mike's interpretation of violence, though I haven't quit exactly organized my thoughts.
+Matthew Brooks Thought crime. How Orwellian.
+Matthew Brooks Yeah, lets not limit free speech under the guise of limiting violence.
+Matthew Brooks He isn't saying that all speech is violent, but speech that results in a lack of agency for the target of that speech. Calling a firefighter honorable doesn't prevent him/her from doing anything.
But I agree that it is vague. Some people are hurt by words that others aren't affected by. I think if there's anything to take away from this it's that one should be more aware of their own speech and how it might affect others.
+Ryan Durel "Calling a firefighter honorable doesn't prevent him/her from doing anything."
What if the firefighter wants to come out as gay, but the more attention and praise he gets, the harder the backlash would be when he does? I know I'm just playing games here, but the point is: speech of any kind can limit people somehow in some conceivable way, it doesn't mean that all speech is bad or harmful.
+Boil Derrik
But under this broad definition on violence, it would be violent. Any limitations on choice would be violent. No matter how trivial or small it would be a violent act.
The question isn't "what words should we use to describe the world?", but "what is the world like?". It seems approaches such as this confuse the two: it doesn't matter what we call violence (, racism, sexism, etc.) it matters what is actually going on and whether what is going on is good or bad.
If we are concerned about the world then we are concerned about what our words denote not our particular choice of them. It's the oldest rhetorical trick in the book to duck out of answering a question by taking issue with how it is phrased: the question pertains to the *world*, it can be stated in vary many ways and in vary many languages.
The question "is the table green?" does not ask, "should we, of this table, call it green?" but does this table scatter light in a particular way. When we ask, "is something violent?" and whatever else, we mean "does it possess some particular properties". Changing the question in order to answer it, isn't answering it.
Here you are relying on a metaphorical use of "force" to arrive at a metaphorical violence so that you can rhetorically restate issues without moving anywhere on these issues. By merely defining a "system" as violent, you haven't answered the key ethical questions: what is "choice" *without* a system? What is a human being *without* cultural conditioning ("violence")?
I don't think there is such a thing as asystemtic choice, values without culture, desire without "violence". So what have we added by calling it violent? The aim you have is clear: you want to call glass ceilings violent because that's a rhetorically satisfying thing to do, without also claiming that the very desire to work in a management position at all is a result of cultural violence on your own terms.
I think we should be careful about trying to examine what words denote by looking at how we use words. The former is philosophy and the latter is English literature and you cannot accomplish one by doing the other.
Then how do you define "abuse"?
+LibertyLikes Use- to utilize.
Ab- abdominal muscles.
Ab-use is to utilize your abdominal muscles.
i consider it completely different from violence, i personally consider violence as an act of dehumanization, but i think abuse is more about causing harm without the dehumanize aspect
oppression, coercion, threat, intimidation, duress, etc...so many words and ideas that are better fit the concept of "removal of choice."
+Yule Averdean My thoughts exactly. It's fine in literary metaphor, but insistence that the correlations be factual, subsequently redefining the word as we know it, is wholly unnecessary and a bit disruptive given its legal associations. If there are passive, negative forces that require attention, call them for exactly what they are and don't try to stretch more alarming words to include them like some sensationalist tabloid.
7:33 Nice Zizek impression!
As someone who identifies both as a pacifist and a sadist I found this line of questioning very interesting. I struggle trying to find where my own line is, as in the past I have eagerly flogged people despite refusing to punch an attacker on a previous occasion. I try to make a distinction between violence and destruction. For me the mantra that helps me continue to identify as both is ‘consent is key’. It has a nice little ring to it and it’s something I cling to. I find myself more invested in my partner's pleasure, and I actively seek positive feedback, which leads me to a question that is mostly discussed internally within the bdsm community--consensual non-consent. Consensual non-consent (or cnc) is when a person gives COMPLETE consent ahead of time for an allotted amount of time or a specific event. During this agreed time, no matter what the submissive says the dominant person does not have to stop… there is no safe word. I find this a scary prospect--but to many it is arousing. Recently (thanks to your video) I have drawn a parallel between cnc and horror. If we think of violence as lack of consent and then also use bdsm’s idea of cnc, horror might be considered an entertainment version of cnc. After all, when you play a horror game or watch a horror film, you consent to the lack of choice. The film will scare you (or at least try), and this is a forceful act. When you are being forced to see something that disgusts you then this, by your definition, is a violent act. However, consent was given before hand. One might even ask if this type of cnc might include violent acts like the “no russian” scene, the torture scene in GTAV, or Masochisia… these acts were not only violent within the game but also to the players, forcing them to perform acts they didn’t want to. I think that, while I’ll never be completely comfortable with cnc, your video has helped me draw a parallel between cnc and horror that has helped me understand it better.
One thing I'd really love discussed is how in the modern world, when we so intrinsically associate "value" to "things', we often see the concept of violence being applied to acts against the objects themselves. Spray painting a wall, setting a car on fire, throwing a brick at a window, those are considered violent acts.
You may make the argument that ultimately someone is forced to pay for the repair, but this can be quite diluted in some cases, for instance, when it's public property. There's also the sense of scale. For instance, why isn't littering considered a form of violence then? Where's the dividing line?
Does that mean Time is violent?
So it would seem. An abstract concept generalized to the point of being useless.
Thomas R. Jackson The violence, traditionally speaking (destructive power), is a property of time emphasised in certain philosophies though.
My original comment was made without much thought, but after posting I remembered the part of the bhagavad gita when Vishnu assumes his destroyer form:
"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".
This now famous translation quoted by Oppenheimer is apparently inaccurate, and the Sanskrit word "kalah" is better translated as "all powerful time".
This is great!
The Finnish word for violence, "Väkivalta", roughly translates as "forced power" or "power forced". I think its a great word to describe the concept of violence in general.
It is not just a metaphor for things that bring blood, but tells that the essence is the removal of choice as you greatly put it. This is why i dont really consider fight sports as violence, as the physical contact is only the medium for competition, not a way to force anyone to act in the way you want, or break them as individuals or remove their of self control. I often wonder to my self that do english speaking people associate violence more with acts of blood etc. instead of removal of control because of this.
Also the term for verbal abuse in Finnish, verbaalinen väkivalta, translates as verbal violence, which in this case is nicely consistent with what you said about violence as a physical act.
Great episode!
PS. This is why violence as a concept is super anti democratic.
why did a video with the word violence need a trigger warning... i mean really are so immature that we cant talk about complex issues without warning people.
+cubesinanutshell This trigger warning triggered me...
+cubesinanutshell What's wrong with warming people who are sensitive to violent images that they are about to watch them? It didn't harm you in any way, did it (ok it took maybe three seconds of your day, but other than that)?
+cubesinanutshell What is the harm in giving a warning?
+cubesinanutshell Some people are genuinely bothered by it because of bad experiences. Why not warn them so they can make a better decision about whether they actually want to watch the video/have a discussion about it? It's just common courtesy.
+cubesinanutshell maybe you need a trigger warning for trigger warnings seeing as it bothered you so...
I am Venezuelan. Two years ago I was one day going to the subway from work when I was chocked from the back by two men who tried to take my backpack and cellphone. Fortunately I was blocking them from getting to my pockets while holding to my backpack for what appeared to be forever while I couldn't breath, until someone screamed and I was able to run to the subway. This was in Caracas. Months later my bf and I were returning from a movie at 6pm and a boy no older than 12 started to hit me trying to take my cellphone. I couldn't defend myself of course because there was a cop watching everything so he could arrest me for hitting a minor,, which is typical of them to do. I just kept receiving punches and kicks until more people appeared and the boy ran. Of course the policeman then disappeared as well. This was also in Caracas. A year later I was in the airport with my family who were there to say goodbye as I came to the USA looking for better opportunities and on the airport entrance we were robbed of my suitcases at gunpoint. I was able to fight to keep my briefcase with my documents (I was real angry and couldn't stand the idea of losing my passport and my bachelor degree) but in doing so the robber hit me three times in the head with the back of the gun. My mother's husband had another suitcase and he didn't fight back. (Ever since my husband and I call him "the useless one"). My now husband also tried to hold to the suitcase but was cut in his hand. Of course the airport security was there but they get paid to turn the blind eye. I received 15 stitches right there in the airport and had to go into the aircraft still bleeding and patched together. I came here with only one briefcase and the clothes I had on. Literally everything else was stolen, including my college medal, family mementos, my books, even my toothbrush and many things with sentimental value were taken from me. My health has suffered and I don't know if the head blows will even have a long term effect.
I know this is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the way your argument comes across is that you are saying that if someone gives you a head's up that they will punch you, and then they punch you, that is not violence because you still had choice. You had the choice to run away, you had the choice to fight back, you had the choice to scream and ask for help, or you had the choice to do whatever else you wanted to do. It is an interaction that might lead to bodily harm, but because you still had agency and were able to choose what to do, it was not violence. However, all schools and universities where traditional lectures take place are by nature violence because students are expected to sit and listen and only answer when the instructor calls on them. Because the instructor controls the student, the instructor is being violent.
Mike, you're better off coming up with another word entirely. Violence is causing physical harm and nothing else. Your definition can be used to take advantage of people.
By your definition someone who is verbally and emotionally abusive, like my ex, would not be considered as having engaged in violence merely because she never actually hit me. I would argue the opposite, that even though there was no physical harm, it was still a form of violence. Saying "language can never be violent" completely negates the ideas of hate speech or verbal abuse.
Hate speech and verbal abuse are not violence, but they are often times compatible with it.
+Ben Toth There is no such thing as hate speech, and verbal abuse is not violence in and of itself. There you go, language can never be violent.
+KromePlatedMegafone This comment is violent.
psychedelicfruit Gonna assume you have a sense of humor.
I love the nose sniffle reference! You talked about zizek who is the best! thank you so much for spreading him and his knowledge!
So you want to redefine the word to expand its definition, so that you can make things that are not violent, violent? Sounds like a bad idea, that leads to people calling things like "speech" violence. That has already happened, speech is not violent, I cannot agree that it ever can be violent, unless maybe somehow you damaged the persons ear drums by screaming into them in a certain way.
Where do you draw the line? Would violent text be a thing? I can send you a violent tweet, committing an act of violence against you? This is an absurd way to go, the lawyers, because they are paid to do so to win cases, always try and expand laws to include things that were not part of the original intent of the law, it is our job to stop that creep. This sets precedence and expands laws.
+Evirthewarrior
"Sounds like a bad idea, that leads to people calling things like "speech" violence. "
How? This seems like a slippery slope- you've asserted that this will occur given the definition used, but not demonstrated it.
"I can send you a violent tweet, committing an act of violence against you?"
How? How could you do that within his definition? Can you give an example that demonstrates any of what you're arguing? So far I've seen you making claims, and asserting 'absurdity' but not actually validating a counter-argument.
+Evirthewarrior Mike Rugnetta is taking inspiration for his definition of violence from the legal definition of violence, but that doesn't mean he or anyone else using this kind of broad definition supports their definition being the legal definition of violence. I think Mike Rugnetta is just trying to make us associate these things with violence so we can see how destructive and cruel they can be, but whether or not violence should really be outlawed and what types of violence should be outlawed is a question for ourselves to think about.
+Evirthewarrior But if you refuse to consider the use of restrictive or derogatory language outside of the frame of physical harm, then you've missed the entire point of the redefinition of violence as the restriction or negation of agency. The legal world obviously needs to place a restriction upon the definition of violence because keepers of the law need parameters to abide by. To enact legal repercussions upon a person whose act of violence has a somehow "lesser degree" may seem ludicrous simply because that is the result of the systematic[, or objective,] violence to which we've been acclimated.
Mitchell Davis "How? This seems like a slippery slope" It is already happening I have already seen many examples, I am sure you can do an easy google search and find sources you would view as valid.
Terroristic Melons "then you've missed the entire point of the redefinition of violence as the restriction or negation of agency. "
No, I understood his point, I just disagree. He is wrong.
I went back to my ancestral home of Ethiopia many years ago to see my uncle get remarried to the friend of the richest man in the country. In addition, to the wedding ceremony itself, there were no less than 10 wedding receptions (as family, I attended seven of them), including some driving around Addis Abeba to show off the happy couple's recent nuptials. Family members were getting their hair done every day, new clothes were being purchased, food and drink everywhere. I turned to my brother and said "This seems like one of the most violent things I've been a part of in a long time". I called it internal violence, where there is nothing physical, but the act of excessive or gross use of wealth for nothing particularly productive around a sea of poverty. This was opposed to what I called "external violence" which was the ordinary mugging that you described. I'm happy that there are terms with more clarity around these issues.
100 years ago 18 year olds fought and died in foreign fields to keep the world safe.
Today 18 year olds need a safe place in case someone says something that might hurt their feelings.
This idea is the produce of one of those societies; a society that could never have existed without the sacrifice of the other.
+Philip James And those 18 year olds who fought and came back suffered from mental problems like PTSD, something they were denied help for by the same kind of people who hate the idea of safe spaces, because they're anti-intellectual fuckwits that, apparently, don't think mental health is as important as physical health.
+Korgull interesting you should mention PTSD. They used to call it shell shock, a much harsher but appropriate name for that time. There's a really good video on RUclips about the softening of language to make it more palatable and they use that very example. I recommend it.
This generation is reactionary and offended by every tiny perceived slight. Privilege and affluents have only served to weaken each successive generation. There will be an aggressor at some point who exploits this. This is the lesson history has taught time and time again.
so i was assaulted when my parants told me i cannot go out tonight?
I will stick with the legal definition.
7:33 had me dyin
Ok, staring unstoppably to someone is violent, but isn't denying the freedom of stare violence, too? Therefore being itself is violence.
As a martial arts instructor with an interest in the ethical development of my students, I've thought about this. I knew I didn't want the kind of students to stand passive, but I didn't want students who would be harmful. For me, the life of my developmentally delayed son was instructional. So much of our life together is struggle: getting ready for school he'd rather watch cartoons, but later he laments missing his friends at school if he doesn't go; he hates the taste of his antiseizure meds but seizures aren't good; kids at the playground tease and exclude him, sometimes even encouraged by parents; almost monthly (if you're looking for it) there's another news story about a teacher locking special needs kids in a closet or helping other students harras them or a special needs student tortured to death. I realized, the worst violence is standing silent while people stand helpless and hurt. I think the best definition of violence is failure to associate yourself and the other into a mutually beneficial collective and fair unit. Anyone you do not associate with yourself in a mutually beneficial collective and fair way is someone you are violent toward.
I think it might help for to define "agency" as well. You do go into the differences between what we (as Western society) consider violence and what matches up more with Bogart's conception of violent activity, but agency has extremely different meanings in different contexts - and different degrees, for that matter. The exercising of that agency is also a big deal because some people "have" agency in theory but may not use it or be able to use it, and some don't have it and they will take the agency of others as punishment, or whatever combination is the case. But is agency about the ability to act for oneself, or is it the ability to make specific choices?
pencil hands man, tell me about violence.
I hope you learn it at school and not a prison, or a war zone.
+airsculler what?
+airsculler Dumbass.
+airsculler What are you even trying to say?
airsculler Where did you get these stats from?
One can know all about violence without having experienced it, to understand violence you must experience but that fundamental knowledge is the same. There also degrees of violence, bitching about small degrees of it is immature and the larger degrees like you've mentioned are very serious. I for one am glad that I've seen such incidence through video games and not experienced much of it personally.
HAhAHhahaha !!!! You made my day with the Slavoj Žižek impersonation. Thanks !
Funny you like marxism so much when the communist state will show u what real violence is by execution for petty crimes and torture for speaking against the marxist state. I suggest you move to north korea and enjoy the death culture that is marxism.
(If I may use a version of your words) Warning: Discussion of sexism/ sexual violence/ for-lack-of-better-description-i-will-describe-this-as-more-toxic-portion-of-internet-culture (please excuse the hyphen usage)
Although I believe these ideas I will discuss may fall under the umbrella of "Systemic Violence" and "Scopophilia", I can't help but wonder if the examples I will share possibly fall or correlate with other "categories of violence" entirely.
In my past experience, I would often hear certain people voice their belief "sex is the point of life" as a means to justify how they felt entitled to sex with others or, in far more grim cases, to sexually objectify or even hurt others.
This is by no means my attempt to debate the point of life, or suggest that people who personally believe that sex is the purpose of life in one way or another exorcise entitlement or antagonistic attitudes. However, for me, this experience personally raised this question: In some cases, could one's perceived "purpose of life" become a catalyst of systemic violence, in that for each individual it may determine not only the purpose or place of others, but by extension their own? I certainly don't believe that this is universal if so (highly dependent on both the case and individual), and though I do believe that this may be a form of systemic violence ( As many factors such as political stance, social class, practice of religion/"belief system" to name a few could influence one's perceived "purpose in life" ), could this potentially be its own category of violence entirely?
2. A friend and I were discussing a brief while ago how there seems to be an overall "fear-of-middle-ground/mutual-disagreement" (again, sorry about the hyphens) when it comes to debates between individuals (not exclusively political figures, and whether the topic at hand is presidentially political or otherwise). Often when it comes to conflict, whether it's the debate of the portrayal of a fictional character is "accurate" in media to, well, politics, there seems to be a much greater need for opposing sides to try to "win" and "dominate the other", rather than mutually disagreeing on a topic, let alone trying to find a compromise.
This isn't by any means invalidate anyone's emotions in any debate, as, particularly when it comes to presidential politics , there is often the threat of some form of systemic violence tied to the ideals of certain candidates (regardless of whether or not anyone is objectively "right" or "wrong" in these debates).
However (though this is by an extensive stretch), this video reminded me of the discussion of violence in video games in an episode of PBS Game Show;
If the act of Violence (please note that this is not a verbatim citing) is to eliminate something from existence, could the urge to change or "eliminate" the opinion of someone else be a separate act of violence in of itself?
This also is not to say that competition or debating or trying to change the ideals of another person is wrong whatsoever (as, without change, there's naturally no progress), but rather, due to the prominence of the need to be objective and avoid meeting middle ground, violence if excessive or used in the wrong/ less ideal place and time?
I speculate personally that the internet (though not primarily) may be a prominent factor in this phenomenon today, as with anonymity provided by certain places on the internet, people are not only removed from comments or ideas that they share online, but simultaneously (and paradoxically) are often reduced to those comments, and by extension a set of objective ideals, rather than a person with their own consciousness and experience that lead them to said ideals (for better or worse).
If I may use your words, "What do you Guys Think?"
You are a very articulate and thought-provoking man, and its clear you know how to construct an argument. Please never forget that there are people out there who think in the ways you do, or that people like you are appreciated by people like us.
I think I have to disagree if your hypothesis is that violence is the removal of choice or agency i would posit that nothing at least no human force can force you to act or be with out agency except yourself. When confronted with hate speech it is my choice to let that act affect me that removes my agency. To use one of your examples If I lived in a societal structure that prevented me from advancing into the middle class. It is my choice to desire that thing in the first place no one but myself chose that goal and nothing prevents me from choosing a different goal at anytime. Even when confronted with physical violence say if the mugger demands that I hand over my money or he will stab me I could chose to be stabbed. The decision to hand over my money would be the rational choice but again it is my choice to act rationally I could chose to act otherwise. Even in the most physically violent and constraining situation I could always choose to opt out.
I think it's a Buddhist saying that goes "expect nothing and you will never be disappointed" or something to that effect but the point is if the world doesn't meet your expectations or you feel that your agency is being limited change your expectations. I guess my point is that there is always a choice and if you feel that you have no choice well... That's your choice.
+Aaron Smith A very good point. The ability to choose can only be stolen if you carve out pieces of a person's brain and/or soul.
+Aaron Smith Very well said. This is the problem I have with this definition. It just depends on what side you're looking from. To me, the only thing that determines what is violence, is if someone feels violated.
+Aaron Smith I disagree. There are plenty of actions that remove agency outside of the self, in fact, I'd say that the self is the only thing that can't remove agency since those are choices coming from the self and therefore an act of agency. To go back to the mugger: I want to go buy some ice cream, that is a choice I am making. On my way, a man steps out in front of me, pulls a knife/gun/weapon and demands my money/wallet. By his actions, I no longer have the choice to continue walking forward freely. It is the threat of his force against me that has taken away that choice. The rational action of giving in to his demand is removing the choice of continuing my walk and buying ice cream. It is removing the choice of 'keep my money and not be attacked', which is the choice I generally make every day.
As for the upward mobility, yes, it is your choice whether or not to desire moving up into the middle class, but it is the social structure that removes that ability to chose the option to move up. If you think that it is a choice to ignore hate speech, look into priming, self-fulfilling prophecy, and stereotype threat. Just being aware of certain words or thoughts can negatively impact you.
Andrew Edwards "By his actions, I no longer have the choice to continue walking forward freely." You're simply describing a situation where the circumstances changed. The same definition can apply to a man who eats all the vanilla ice cream in his fridge so that he no longer has any. A man confronted by a mugger still has choices, they are simply different ones.
This is an interesting idea and all, but I disagree. This far too broadly extends the definition of violence.
Huh?
no violence is when you harm someone PHYSICALLY, with the intention of doing so. when you harm someone PSYCHOLOGICALLY, such as the removal of choice that the speaker details as violence, it is no longer violence. create a new word, dont devalue one that does not fit
Whoever got Mjolnir onto that table certainly needed the force
Any possibility that you could post either transcripts of these videos or the scripts you worked off of? I ask because as much as I love your videos and the ideas presented in them, get easily lost and would love to go over what you're saying at my own pace, being able to easily re-read sentences (or sections) I found confusing.
I am going to have to respectfully disagree. This attempt to change the definition of violence while holding on to its connotation is wrong, especially because this new definition you are proposing allows for "thought crimes" and the interpretation that everything is violent. This would utterly kill the word and only allow certain people to abuse this definition until everyone relearns. To be honest, I even disagree with, to an extent, the FBI's consideration of the threat of violence during a crime as a violent crime, but I can understand the reasoning for them to consider this, in contrast with your view which I does not allow me to see any positive effects from its interpretation.
But here is, what I think, a bigger, better question. Why do you feel the need to change the definition of violence? Why is the current definition not sufficient for you?
+PajamaMan I think his reason for including this is to be able to describe systematic oppression as violent. That "doing nothing can be me most violent act"
+PajamaMan Because the word carries impact due to it's common usage. It is much easier to get attention and market a "cause" if you can use single words to encompass complex ideas and have your "cause" be seen as the default state by claiming a new definition of an already significant word. It seems to be a trend to redefine a word so as to have its meaning support your perspective by default so that everybody else would have to make more effort to support opposing views.
In short, it is a form of propaganda.
+PajamaMan
Especially given that image as he calls it is not created by one lone person. Image in public life is cultivated with you in relation to everyone else. The forces of which govern that state of affairs is not done so utterly at your own discretion, but also in relation to the discretion exercised by others. Other people have perceptions of you and those perceptions are themselves controlled by third parties that are not necessarily privy to your personal whims. They control what they believe and you control your own thoughts. They do so, even if the perception runs contrary to what you think of yourself. If what Mike is saying were correct, all interpersonal social exchange would be inherently violent, whether that is found in parental exercise of guardianship, other familial relations, friendships, acquaintances or other social groupings and acts. We're not merely talking about the possibility of violence. All social exchange would be violent.
Does that make any sense? What he is proposing comes off like an anarcho-syndicalist definition of violence.
You’re being too general in your definition of violence. If violence is merely “the removal of choice” then we’re constantly being assaulted by violence.
We must breathe. Our choice on the matter has been removed. If we refuse to breathe then nature threatens us with death. To consider everyday breathing “violence” is absurd but by your broad definition it would be.
Absurd? Maybe, but so is everything. It doesn't make it any less true. Whole world consists of violence.
Sorry, I can't agree with you on this one Mike.
Still respect your opinion, but I can't agree with you.
I had trouble with this idea from a fairly simple perspective. Violence in the more classic sense of even just hitting people may limit choices, everything one does to another limits choices for good or ill. But if someone is to hit another, the second person, body, whichever can choose to lie down, hit back, run, shout. It is a severe limit of things one can do. However if someone approaches me with a clipboard on the street to supposedly raise money for an ecological issue, my options aren't much different, but the tone of the situation is.
Violence is people saying things on the internet that I disagree with.
#triggerwarning!
sheeeit. Wite boi..u makin me think...naw nigguh...naw...
stop changing definitions of words to suit your reality and/or ideology.
This channel is literally about philosophy, if that's not what you're here for please leave
+Isak Vidfelt twitter.com/jaythenerdkid/status/695793584344162308
Monpanacheable so what? Violence= "The use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc." With his definition a rude comment can be considered an act of violence. But it's true because words are made up???
+Monpanacheable Noone is claiming this term is "made up". It's way diffrent to change a well defined word and intentionally using the negative associations that follows to forward your agenda.
+BigPikachu1 debate is essential to philosophy.
why should I leave?
Beautifully done video. Aesthetically simple, profound but not the point of losing its concrete relevance. Thank you again Idea Channel!
The word violence evokes horror in people because of the vicious, direct harm involved. Even verbal abuse is terrifying because of the direct threat in front of you.
Victims of violence are people who have had their bodies beaten, bruised, cut, violated or even killed by another person.
Violence redefined as "removal of choice" may make people take your cause seriously because of the visceral reaction they have to that word, but taking advantage of associated meaning shows a remarkable lack of empathy.
Don't water down the definition because you have been lucky enough not to have experienced the real thing.
I have to admit, I don't think that this is one of your best videos. I think that one of the biggest problems with it is that everyone seems to have slightly different ideas of what violence exactly means. However, violence does seem to be quite the heavy term to use, and that the use of it indicates an issue of high priority. This is why I think that it is mostly applied to physical acts. Physical acts of violence are an immediate issue that is clear to everyone who is aware of it. Almost no one is going to debate that someone stabbing another person is wrong and is an act of violence. However, issues like people being "oppressed" can be debated depending on who the people are and the location of where these people live. A believe that a term like violence is used to describe situations that are a clear issue, and not ones that can be debated. I think it's not a good idea to have all these situations described as violence, because that almost indicates that they are on the same level of importance as on another. If someone said something that hurt your feelings, I'm sorry, but your problem is far far away from an issue of someone getting physically hurt. These are just some of my initial thoughts from this video. I could probably come up with a more in-depth and more well thought out comment than this if I spent a bit more time thinking about this and researching this, but I wanted to give at least my initial thoughts. Also, I'll admit that I cringed at your use of a trigger warning. The stuff you talked about wasn't even that bad.
Staying home so people can't interact with me is now violence as I have removed everyone's choice to interact with me.
And now everyone knows why this definition is absurd.
This is exactly the same conclusion I came to myself and came already prepared to write a comment. As the video began playing I typed "Violence is the removal of agenc..." Choice! Yes, choice! He gets it! Ohhh!12:30 mins of pure validation to go! I love you PBS Ideas Channel...why did I neglect you for a while?
What actions/thoughts aren't violent then?
If I am going on a road trip with my friends and I get in the car first I remove their agency as they can no longer sit where I have. If I do nothing and wait for them to sit first then I remove their ability to be nonviolent by forcing them to commit the violent act of sitting in a car.
> "Violence is removing choice"
> Time passing removes choices from everyone.
Time has to stop since it is being super violent to everyone.
Good job PBS...
This is a very interesting thought exercise, but I'm concerned that such a broad definition of "violence" would render the word effectively meaningless. Like, at the far end, you could get into some fairly absurd territory. If someone wakes up and goes to use the bathroom, they've taken their housemate's choice to use said bathroom, and under a broad enough definition that could be considered violence.
Your logic would lead to the conclusion that parenting toddlers in general is an almost completely violent interaction since the child doesn't have any real meaningful choices.
Or dealing with handicap people who cannot speak or communicate.
The word you're looking for is manipulation. Violence has nothing to do with denying a person of their ability to choose, but suggests turbulent, or tumultuous experience. Physical violence has physical ramifications of such turbulence, i.e. scars, bruises, etc., while non-physical violence leaves deeper ramifications, such as emotional scars, unreasonable fear, etc.
10:06 - 10:15 A great example of this idea would be Season 2 Episode 12 of Breaking Bad when Walter White watched Jane asphyxiate knowing he could save her, but knowing had he saved her, Jessie Pickman would have been out of the meth business. Walter's decision to do nothing resulted in the worst moment of his partner's life: walking up next to the corpse of the first girl he ever loved.
Jesus often spoke in parables, and he states in a verse that it is better for a man to cut out his own eye rather than look at a woman lustfully/ sin. Another verse he states that when you look at someone lustfully you literally commit adultery in your heart...very similar to the idea that the male gaze is a form objectification and violence. Scriptures Matthew 5:28-29
I like the way you are handling your episodes lately. They seem to be much more... mature. It's slightly slower than I would prefer, but other than that, very well done!
Yay!
I had this same idea, "Is violence the removal of agency?" and realized I could not be the first person with this idea.
"There's no such thing as structural violence; because I follow *ALL* my own walls ---- But you know what I can't stand? People who complain about ANY other walls, EVER..."
Violence has been with the world for a very very long time. It can be traced to as long as the first predator on earth. As long as you are living, as long as violence. It is 'us'
I find this very interesting because Jesus basically said the exact same thing. He said lusting after a woman is basically the same thing as commuting adultery, and hating someone is basically the same thing as murdering them.
Here is an idea ;)
Limiting choices can help us. It can be a canvas for action, leading and drawing a map in which we can choose the path we want to follow. When you have absolute choice, there is no incentive to do anything, your experiencing angst and absurdity. An injustice is an invitation to correct it, an order is an opportunity to follow it in your own way, or to rebel and express yourself.
We limit choices of everyone everytime. When I talk to someone and I talk about a subject, I prevent my interlocutor from talking about a random subject.
So if we take your defintion of violence, then violence is what protect us from angst and intellectual void.
I feel kinda strange about it.
If you're a super-determinist and you don't believe in free will, then there are no violent acts because never is agency is being removed.
If you're a super-determinist...
I'm curious about what violence done to ourselves under this framework implies about our identity. Can I choose to remove my own agency? Or am I perhaps more than one agent, one who is doing violence and one who is being violated?
That brief reference to Slavoj Zizek made me so happy
How much does a organism potential enough to b violent to a already slaughtered another object or subject,or dead
And its geometric line
So, under this definition is there any action that is not violent? Is there any action that does not remove agency from any single party?
I always feel you are just 3 words away from pausing mid-sentence and going "and I have no idea what I am ever talking about! I just bullshit 90% of these scripts, and you fools just take it as science!"
what if I got mugged but then I fight back and I win? is the mugging still categorised as violent ?
Obviously, yes.
Words has explicit, concrete meaning. I'm sticking with the legal definition of violence, thank you very much.