"Speech I don't like is violence. Violence I like is speech"
Shove it, lefty.
My friend once spit in someones face and he got arrested for assault
as i catch up on my youtubes, this episode dovetails nicely with ollie's two part race series that i just saw yesterday
So protesters stopping someone from going to hear a speaker is violence.
so if you sneak up on a loved one and give them a hug then clearly a violent act. dumb ass
So is boxing or rugby not violent then? since no choice is removed?
Violence = Removal of Choice
Violence = Marriage?
In BDSM, Zizek argues, you are still in control. You have control over the fact that you voluntarily give away your control . However, it is still your fantasy and in a certain way you control the uncontrollable way of having that fantasy.
I feel like what most people see as violent is actually just visceral
It sounds like you're arguing against the pigeon holing of the term "violence" into meaning aggressive physical violence – and you in fact did mention how language pigeon holes expression of reality in a violent way.
"Help, help, I'm being repressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!" — Dennis the peasant
You didn't actually talk about what violence is in this video. You just kind of explained that its definition could be expanded, which would reduce its meaning. You didn't even explain that the "form" of violence you explained is extremely important, even necessary.
If my mom told me u can't have a cookie, do I scream "VIOLENCE!"
Izaya Orihara from Durarara sprang to mind as an interesting counter point one might take a warped perspective that he is humanizing his victims by forcing them to confront choices.
I try to confound most socially constructed images. I really think people have choice here.
Systemic violence is reminding me of structural violence as a term I was introduced to by Peter Joseph's videos.
Violence is the State.
Sounds like a SJW argument
No doubt, one of my favorite Youtube videos. Thanks Mike.
Would that make the somebody like Gandhi who hated violence used passive force to get the freedom of India as violent? That is used his own starvation as a force to hurt England and therefore refusing to eat as protest a violent act. Is non violence such as a peaceful protest an act of violence against to whom they are protesting?
Interesting, but this broadens the definition of violence to literally everything. Especially with the art example. The first letter I typed in this comment was an i. This removes my choice to type any other letter on the keyboard for that first letter. I've forever removed the choice of which key I could have hit at that moment in time, therefore, I committed an act of violence on myself. Literally everything I will ever do is committing violence to at least myself, and more than likely several other people. I know that's an extreme application of this definition, but it's not wrong. If the definition is so broad, then the word violence has essentially no meaning. Every action removes possibility and choice. No matter what, whether that be murdering someone or observing the spin of an electron.
By this definition, taxes are violent and PBS is funded by violence.
Something interesting to think about is that according to this video Rust is the most violent video game ever created, because of the power struggles it creates. In the game for survival you take resources and items from rivals by force, stealing the other players hard work and hours of grinding.
Many players in the game only play to try and protect their stuff and keep what they have, were the most violent players take these resources by force for themselves.
If violence is just the removal of choice, and choice can be removed through language (like hate speech) making a mere partial removal of choice a violent act, then PBS is committing violence against me. By making this video my thoughts on the definition of violence have been pigeon-holed and coerced away from a potentially unlimited number of other possible ideas.
With this definition, "violence" is meaningless, often a good thing, and we need to come up with a new word for "attacking with force intended to cause harm".
7:33 had me dyin
Peaceful protest, is also a form of violence. And therefor not truly peaceful
1. the use of the word "violence" I'm not a huge fan of because it turns a word with a specific meaning and common parlance and stretches it to include way more than its common usage allows.
2. as many commenters make the statement, the negation of choice may not inherently be a bad thing.
3. This would probably be a cardinal sin to those who follow a deontological morality or may in fact be a diehard existentialist, (with the exception being that an existentialist would say that someone else having agency over your ability to choose is absurd).
4. Life is suffering according to Buddha. And according to Hobbes, "nasty, brutish and short". Perhaps violence is inherent to the human condition and, as many writers have mused through their fiction, perhaps violence is a force to drive us forward. A force of evolution and change. (looking at you Dune..)
5. Also, by the simple act of choosing, (or even not choosing) you negate choices, making the ability to act in "violence" relatively impossible. Self harm? Just a musing.
Worst video ever.
"Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do" – chillingly relevant in the recent context of Republican refusal to enact stricter gun legislation
This doesn't make sense to me. If someone made a violent act towards me I have many choices. I can accept the violence and do nothing or can react to it in many ways. What would you call fighting back? How is that not agency, I have the choice and the ability to fight back, run away, yell, ect…..
This whole idea ties in well with the german word for violence, "Gewalt". It is semantically linked to the verb "walten" which means something like "to exert force/control over something", and is mostly used metaphorically nowadays, as in "jemanden schalten und walten lassen", meaning more or less "letting someone act however he pleases without concern for the objects he acts upon". Or take "die Gewalt der Natur" as an example: it doesn't mean nature is mean and hitting you with a stick, it means nature is a force, a constant influence which you cannot change and must adjust to. Just an addendum I thought was pretty interesting.
Would that mean that an emotionally abusive relationship would be violent?
i dont find this definition of violence to be helpful (in that a definition should help us seperate what is x from what isnt) by that definition all of reality is violent because my choices are always limited to what is possible. gravity is violent because it removes the option to fly
I'm about to go watch the comment response but I was excited to see the progression of this videos definition of violence in relation to power structures, especially Paul Farmers Pathlogies of Power, which discusses how structural violence influences the right to human health, with examples of illness being spread due in large part to failures of the state that perpetuated the spread of disease and in turn acted as an oppressive and violent force against the bodily health of its people.
A surprisingly great video! I guess I don't usually expect such cogent and well thought out arguments on youtube. If you're feeling REALLY brave, I think you should take on "self-defense".
Also, you skipped Zizek's "divine violence", my personal favorite of his concept of violence, haha.
EDIT: after reading thorugh the comment section, this is largely redundant.
This is an amazing concept and thought experiment, but its realistic application is still limited.
By the logic you explore in the video, everything is is violent if we apply it consitently and consequently: Is my blanket violent because it removes the possibility of my body losing warmth? Is my mother violent because she makes sure I don't catch a cold?
As you see, after a certain point, "violence" is not the apropriate term anymore. Sure, this is partly because of the limiting (violent) qualities of language itself, but pur concept of violence is a fundamentally negative one. So while I agree with the degree of violence you speak of in your video, think about this:
Violence is the removal of choice menas my mother is violent for -keeping me alive as a baby. It is certainly a valid argument to call keeping a child unable to live on its own alive violent, but as I was a helthy child, the removal of the possibility of my sickness or death could be called violent as well. There isn't just a negative side to this, but a positive one as well. Drunk driving is a choice, is preventing it violent because takes away the choice even though it possibly saves lives?
As soon as we get into the territory of positive end result thorugh removal of choice, the term "violence" starts to be a problem. Because, in the end, while states and government keep us alive, it is also violent.
And just a qestion on choice vs possibility: Does this concept only go so far as conscious removal of choice or conscious experiencing of it, or does it extend to chance, and possibility?
While I don't think I completely agree with the definition, it does seem to have interesting consequences. This would mean that nonviolence and violence would not be mutually exclusive and overlap quiet a bit actually. And quiet possibly, this would make Gandhi one of the most violent figures in history. Now that's something we only see in video games!
I had to start over due to shirt shift over load, and… your're loosing your hair!
No matter how much I watch this video this video I still struggle to understand it.
Question: According to this theory, is nature itself constantly perpetrating violence upon humans (and for that matter, all life)? Considering that nature imposes certain restrictions on our choices, everything from needing to eat to not having enough Earth-bound resources to satisfy everyone's wants, wouldn't ending violence require a civilization to be basically post-scarcity?
Also, if violence is any restraint on the spontaneity we would otherwise have, can't a perfect lack of violence only be enjoyed by at most one being at a time in any given affect-able area, given that the wants & needs of two must eventually become mutually exclusive (by their taking up of physical space the other may want to occupy concurrently if nothing else)?
Interesting talk. Perhaps I missed economic violence, or economic war. I think that is an extremely common vehicle of violence, especially in international relations, and would warrant a mention in such a talk.
Something else I didn’t hear is the idea of violence as a part of nature. In other words, it seems to me that an observation of nature will determine that, over time, wherever one looks there will always be violence. At least death will always occur. So, provided death and destruction are included in violence, it’s present everywhere in nature.
Another item is the existence of non-violent social models. Religions like Quakers, Jains, and Buddhists focus on non-violence as do Gandhi and MLK. My view is that such examples of non-violent ideologies have only been effective within a greater violent environment, which supports them.
Essentially I posit that violence is an absolute part of nature.
Moreover, to present that violence removes the actor’s choice, as you’ve done, implies that nature, being violent, as I’ve said, takes away our free will. Based on that notion a question arises whether nature then causes predetermination or anarchy in our lives.
In his view, the government does nothing BUT violence to us.
Also hate speech would be LESS violent than what government does. If the key to violence is the removal of choice, hate speech at best gives a perception, but disobeying the government is very directly and very force-ably the removal of other choices. Namely jail or death.
Violence can only be justified or universalized in a given society as a response to initiatory violence.
I buy it
Reading Jiddu Krishnamurti, when it comes to navigating in a violent world, is a good place to start, if you want to understand your own violence.
Interesting thoughts, but I don't really like the idea of applying the word violence and all of its implications as a catch all.
The complexity of the subjects you are proposing deserve their own words and set of definitions.
This is co-opting a word along with its embedded connotations for a political means, and its very clear that its intention is creating a larger sense of victimhood. The masses do not perceive the word violence as a positive thing generally. Social engineering.
My bullshit alarm is going off.
I also think you are distorting the context of the Zizek quote, as I believe it is in reference to inaction in the face of terrible things and allowing them to happen. Something along the lines of the bystander effect or the famous quote from Martin Niemoller "First They Came"
Great reads about the extended violence concept are. Taleb's Antifragile, Robert Frank's Darwin Economy & Dawkins' Extended phenotype. PS. don't forget Newton's books, which questioned the violence the gravity performs on us.. Joke.. some constrains are good to have, when we don't know what's good for us.
An idea for a new show: what is the advantage to expanding the definition of words that the public understands as something clear and somewhat simple? Why not just invent a new word or at least add something to the word that indicates that this is a modified definition/meaning?
The Past-Me is violent against Present-Me
You should reach out to historic peace churches in speaking to this. Not that you're wrong just that there are people who have thought on this for centuries.
Im honestly amazed that people still take you seriously.
All i saw here was 10 minuts of bullshit word salad meant only to support your own world view.
Funny how a channel called "Idea Channel" only talks about ideas that stroke your own ideological ego.
we learn violence is when people use or physical Action to harm people and animals
So, in the eyes of determinism, violence does not exist?
You are part of the Authoriarian Fascist left, by dictating behavior
by this definition, developing AI would be VIOLENT. as would a google car, all laws preventing anything to do with personal choice.not to say I disagree, but it seems important to note.
There is a big difference with hate speech as far as it taking away choice. A person could choose not to let it bother them or to influence their view of themselves. They could decide that they don't accord the speaker's words any weight. But if someone breaks my arm deciding I just don't care isn't going to unbreak it.
I'm having difficulty with how force can remove agency. Isn't agency the ability for a person to act? By it's nature, action of the individual, as well as the ability to act is controlled by the individual. Given that, isn't the only person who can remove my agency, ergo be violent to me, myself?
As an example, I could have someone point a gun at me and tell me not to move or I'll be shot. This doesn't remove my ability to move, it just makes it an extremely undesirable action given its expected outcome.
That's not to say that there is absolutely no way to flat-out remove agency from someone. An example that comes to mind is breaking someone's knees, thus removing their ability to walk. I would, however, argue that cases where agency is actually removed/limited, instead of particular actions made unappealing, are somewhat rare.
I'm hoping to get some thought on cases where agency can actually be removed and/or limited in more nuanced ways that support the ideas presented here. Any takers?
The Newton's law metaphor makes no sense. If an actor pushes against a systemic structure and the structure pushes back passively, the actor is basically committing violence on himself. But surely he has the choice to stop acting. It's like saying that if you run into a wall, the wall commits violence by stopping you.
Women know better what violence is and all it's shapes and forms: anti-abortion laws, for one example.
are you all right? you look sick
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.
While the West struggles to understand the metaphysics of violence, this video does little to illuminate the subject. More than anything, this video illustrates why most non-STEM college students can only find work at Starbucks.
This is why the left is losing numbers. You keep stretching the definition of serious charges that carry a lot of weight.
hahah good zizek impression
I watch all your videos at 0.5 speed not only because I'm a bit slow but also it makes you sound like a drunk person mumbling
What about the civil Rights movement. It's adherence to non violent action to bring about change is a large part of what gave it the power to effect that change. Faced with the threat and application if violence these people chose to do nothing. To sit (literally in some cases) and do nothing. So in their choice of this form of non violent protests. The participants in the movement chosing to do nothing were actually choosing "the most violent" course if action. or inaction as it were. I don't think I can agree with if in a given situation I could choose anything from verbal engagement to grabbing the nearest thing that would would do the most damage to a physical body and go to town. That if I choose to sit quietly and do nothing. I would be choosing the most violent course of action. Ever see someone repeatedly struck with a baton? Or the person who rolled into a ball after the first few strikes from a baton? Hey argue points about whos choice was the most violent all you want and you may redefine the word violence if you convince the right people. HowWeber one of those people will spend months years or may never fully heal and be able to live the same again. while the other will probably brag once like minded people are around. Who literally made the more violent choice is only a matter of how you and /or a majority have agreed to define violence. Might as well start some other semanyic remodelling, Assault: A vigorous I introduction to a lesser known more physical aspect of ones personality. Battery: The result of one or more Introductions by way of assaultInjury: The chilli reaction of a victims physical body when Traumatized through methods such as vigoroyse introduction. Torture: Multiple, constant and consistent implimentation of the above not limited to the above redifined terms to expedite accomplishment of ones goals in the most effecientvhh
What about the civil Rights movement. It's adherence to non violent action to bring about change is a large part of what gave it the power to effect that change. Faced with the threat and application if violence these people chose to do nothing. To sit (literally in some cases) and do nothing. So in their choice of this form of non violent protests. The participants in the movement chosing to do nothing were actually choosing "the most violent" course if action. or inaction as it were. I don't think I can agree with if in a given situation I could choose anything from verbal engagement to grabbing the nearest thing that would would do the most damage to a physical body and go to town. That if I choose to sit quietly and do nothing. I would be choosing the most violent course of action. Ever see someone repeatedly struck with a baton? Or the person who rolled into a ball after the first few strikes from a baton? Hey argue points about whos choice was the most violent all you want and you may redefine the word violence if you convince the right people. HowWeber one of those people will spend months years or may never fully heal and be able to live the same again. while the other will probably brag once like minded people are around. Who literally made the more violent choice is only a matter of how you and /or a majority have agreed to define violence. Might as well start some other semanyic remodelling, Assault: A vigorous I introduction to a lesser known more physical aspect of ones personality. Battery: The result of one or more Introductions by way of assaultInjury: The chilli reaction of a victims physical body when Traumatized through methods such as vigoroyse introduction. Torture: Multiple, constant and consistent implimentation of the above not limited to the above redifined terms to expedite accomplishment of ones goals in the most effeciently
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.
This is the most mind blowing episode of idea channel ever
does the act of defining violence so expansively get a pass in such a paradigm? is not such an act also violent? yes, it is. it is exerting a force offensively. now what?
Defining 'violence' so broadly, if you ask me, just sounds like you're creating an impossibly-hard, uphill battle for yourself and similarly-minded folks who wish to argue this definition with others. Do you honestly think *most people will, one day, all of a sudden agree that, "Violence is all of this other stuff, too"*? It'd probably take DECADES, if not centuries, to get even HALF of humanity to have such a broad, new definition!
Then it makes you wonder if redefining "violence" in this manner is really just to, "clarify" or… a conveniently-loaded term for a certain political agenda or ideology?
Also, redefining the term "violence", as many people on the "far left" tend to do, in this manner seems to make it sound like they only think *stuff defined as violence is terrible*, or that you can't "properly describe or connote" the "EVILNESS" of certain acts without including mention of how they were "violent."
By the way, what's the deal w/ your channel name? Are you at all affiliated with PBS, or is that an entirely-different meaning of the initialism? Somehow I'm not sure Public Broadcasting Station in the US would dare touch stuff that's so ambiguous and debatable. and politically charged, to some extent
I like this definition. As someone who practices BDSM; I don't view BDSM as violent.
(Sorry – I haven't read the comment section and I also haven't watched the reaction video to the comments) This comment relates to what I see as a fundamental flaw in PBS Idea Channels definition of violence talking about it as the removal of spontaneaty, that can and does lead to devastating practical outcomes – yep sorry LOL. I am not an expert on this, so I can't counter with a complete coherent argument – this is just something that felt glaringly wrong to me, so I'll explain that as best I can.
So violence – as PBS Idea states – uses structure or rules or codes of repitition to remove someone's agency to act with spontaneaty. I'm going to flip that on it's head by giving a real type of example of how ableism perverts that definition of violence to mean the exact opposite – the controversy though is in who is right or wrong? (which is probably a debate on the grounds of ethics of care versus ethics of justice… which I am going to read about soon for this very reason).
Ableism often characterizes an able person pushing around a disabled person – firstly, how do they do this? Does the able bodied person impose a structure that removes spontaneaty? Not necessiraly so… I mean they could use structures of language or codes of conduct to oppress and that would be the kind of violence that PBS talks about. But let's be more flexible about what a disabled person is – it could be someone doing physiotherapy, for example doing stretches and exercises to strengthen their muscles and control symptoms of pain through pain management process, and removing themselves from activities or social occassions that would over-exert them and cause a relapse of their ailments…
…It could very well be that in order for the disabled person doing physio therapy to function that they have a morning routine and a set programe of physio during each day – in short that they have to self-impose order and remove a lot of spontaneaty form their lives…
…The challenge of PBS idea's take on violence is when the structure of this disabled person doing physio routines comes up against an able bodied person who has to do no such routines – the able bodied person is free of such routines to be spontaneous. So what is going to happen when the disabled person and abled person interact when the abled person says "do you fancy taking a vacation with me?" – they could even propose this activity spontaneously with warning… the disabled person is obviously going to have to reply with "no" or "ok – but with certain restrictions because of what I have to do to managed my disability".
The disabled person is imposing structure on the abled person – so in PBS Idea's defintion – the disabled person is being the violent one in this case.
There are two options here using PBS Ideas logic that ends in devastating conceqeunces: either the the abled bodied person ignores the disabled person's request and the basis for it (in effect ignoring their disablity) and activiley challenges the disabled person on what right they have to impose order onto their spontaneity. Or, the disabled person rejects their own self-imposed order and structure and basically destroys themselves for the sake of being spontaneous – for example attempting things only an able bodied person could do…
Not only does this happen between people in daily life – a disabled person could feel like abled bodied people "are trying to kill them" with their spontaneity. But It should be pointed out that both those outcomes result from practices of the UK's current social security practices – or more accurately philosophy. This is not to say that the social security system doesn't use it's own strucure to impose violence as well, because it does.
This is why I brought up "Ethics or Justice vs Ethics of Care" – PBS Idea talks about violence in terms of Justice without taking Care to see the practical outcomes.
I am sorry if I have missed characterized the issue and definitions, but hopefully I have made a point. Thanks
I had this same idea, "Is violence the removal of agency?" and realized I could not be the first person with this idea.
hahahaha best moment 7:34 cheers!
7:34 I felt that burn!
The law takes away my choice to murder people. The law has commited violence against me.
Does that mean that handcuffing someone is violent
Subjective Violence is to the Unstoppable ForceasObjective Violence is to the Immovable Object
I find your attempts to redefine violence so you could be outraged about even more things quite pathetic. So I'm gonna do the most violent thing and do nothing.
Well, if I teach a kid to read, I am committing an act of violence, because I am coercing the kids experience of the world into some pre-existing restrictive symbology. Violence – what a useful concept!When there is no clear justification for adding complexity to our semantic models is a fantastic way to completely ruin them. If you want to talk about "restricting agency" THEN USE THOSE WORDS. If you want to talk about violence, boy, do I have a word for you! Finally, the mere expression of words an beliefs, can never be an act of violence. Period. Hate speech is not a violent act, nor is calling someone a name, nor is signing a document.
So by changing its definition to include other things you can react to them and consider them as you would regular violence and you suddenly have the moral high ground towards anything that you personally define as violence. Nice
Just, Mike, get out of you head, this reasoning makes no sense:removal of agency through force or the promise of force is violence => so any removal of agency is violence. The removal of choice can be called fascist, overbearing or oppressive but not violence, imo.
I really don't like this line of reasoning and I hate to disagree, even partially, with Žižek, but let's not oversimplify things. Let's keep things complicated and interconnected and let's not try to name half the things in the world "violence" because that term is better to work with and allows us to be and think more radically. It's easier to hate or try to destroy something completely if you label it violence instead of trying to change it. It's similar to how politicians use terrorist attacks as an excuse for radical policies.
Sidenote:I've been binging Idea Channel and I can see a pattern of how instead of examining the other side of things Mike has been acting more and more as an authority, maybe because of his obfuscating manner of speaking or maybe because of the fact he's grown more certain of his own opinions because he's read more things by now or he has sources/authority figures to back him up, but more and more Idea Channel has been less about "Ideas" and more about Mike's opinions and how he tries to convince you citing random radical philosophers and obfuscating the things he says, a great example of which is how by trying to explain the book quote he read, in his own words, he made it more confusing and less understandable than it was originally. And I am very sceptical of anyone who tries to confuse me or convince me their way of thinking is right by citing authority sources and not facts or science. The thing is, the way of thinking he is describing can be very dangerous in practise and simply because a radical like Žižek said it doesn't make it true.
You blur the meaning of a word till it means nothing where people are allowed to use the word wrong and still get the power of its actual definition.
Are the laws which restrict the agency of would-be violent criminals then violent? Their spontaneity is no doubt being limited by the oppressive force of the government. Like most people in this forum are saying, broadening the definition of the word only serves to diminish it's usefulness, and I suspect the only reason people are trying so hard to justify this modification of is to push a narrative. There are signs posted at my college campus (created and distributed by the university) that define sexual violence as sexual coercion. Isn't sexual coercion inherent in any potentially sexual interaction? Even a consensual one? Not to mention, argumentation is by definition coercion, or an attempt at such. This channel is using the force of it's authority, production value, and intellectual prowess to persuade us viewers to adopt a new definition of the word 'violence'. I don't think this is violent or an affront on my freedom to choose at all. Serves me right if I make a bad choice. Now, if I'm a woman who is physically threatened with violence by some man who wants to have sex with me, then that is an affront on my freedom and safety. That's terrifying and malevolent. But if a guy walks up to me at a bar and uses the force of his appearance and personality to get me in bed with him and I go for it, then I see no malevolence there, just a normal human social interaction.
God I miss this channel
I agree, basically, with this. Although I would say that a more accurate representation would be to say that violence is the assertion of control. I delved deep into this topic recently. Being a teacher of Non-Violent Communication, I get a lot of 'flack' for the concept of "violence" within the context of communication; people prefer to call it Compassionate Communication in order to circumvent the stigma of the V word. But I feel that we need to call out the subtler forms of violence in order to better understand how to cut it off at the roots.
I get much more thorough in my article: https://www.magicofauthenticity.com/feed/more-to-violence . Let me know what you think?
No matter what difinition you give but something is true I found out 79 x 100 of the human race they prefer violence instead try to calm down and walk away I ready make experiment sample give a bad look to certain people right away they will respond you with bad actitude I bet you I can give you a lot examples and I'll win
Violence or abuse? I think perhaps we are making definitions more complicated then they need to be.
I agree with many of the critiques of the definition of “violence” as overly broad to the point of absurd. Besides we already have a word that fits the definition: coercion. Coercion is exactly the act of limiting a person’s choice; furthermore, it can encompass the more typical understanding of violence.Sorry I’m two years late to the party, this video just popped up from the almighty Algorithm.
Isn't this definition a bit unpractical?If art is a violent act because it restricts options as it goes, doesn't that apply to any choice you make in general?
changing your diet is violence you kill off so many of your gut bacteria to raise different ones that influences your diet in a healthier way
So me locking my door, is violence? I’m removing someone’s option of walking through it.
Me running away from a murder is violence? Because I’m removing someone’s option of killing me.
So me telling someone to have a nice day is violence? I’m removing someone’s option of not hearing that phrase.
Great guys. This is helpful. Obscuring categories always helps us understand the world better.
Why call a chair a chair and a table a table when you could call both a chair. Just makes everything simpler. Especially when a playwright finds in his plays that chairs are the same as tablesForget all the times you have to distinguish between the two, this is more profound.
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE ALSO HAS ANOTHER EFFECT NORMALIZING IT TO THAT SOCIETY PLACE AND TIME TO ITS DUE CULTURE
What i am going to argue is you are an extremely dangerous person. This video is commiting violence against me and you should be charged by the authorities. You damage peoples ability to express themselves and it limits choice. You must be charged with commiting violence, regardless of the fact your cognative ability is violently low, which also limits your choice. Since you have commited sooo much violence it is only fair others commit violence against you.
The amount of SOY in this dudes voice is amazing
Thumbs up. Our society needs to look at and think about this subject MORE. The solutions to violence are not obvious. The bible also and especially Jesus said sins (of action) begin first in the heart (or mind). This means violence lies dormant or hidden in all human instincts. Notice Jeremiah 17:9. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? ESV
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.