Submitted by doubtstack t3_10jdsyc in philosophy
some_code t1_j5lwqqg wrote
Reply to comment by XiphosAletheria in Argument for a more narrow understanding of the Paradox of Tolerance by doubtstack
Good point. I do think the word violence needs to be interpreted potentially more broadly. Someone holding views that they then use to make biased decisions that impact other people materially should count. Example is bias in hiring, promotion, compensation, etc. These material actions I think are part of the concept that should be applied to the word violence. Or we need a broader word like maybe “harm”?
XiphosAletheria t1_j5lyllt wrote
I mean, none of the examples you gave are violent, under any reasonable definition of the term. That's just not what the word means. "Harm" works, as long as you realize that "harm" is a much more subjective word, and that attempts to address "harm" are usually trade offs. For instance, anti-discrimination laws in hiring are deliberate infringements of an employer's right to freedom of association, justified on the grounds of the social harm they ostensibly prevent.
some_code t1_j5lzpaf wrote
I’d argue they are structurally violent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
I suppose that’s a different term from violence alone, but this concept was defined to handle the expansion in just this kind of discussion.
some_code t1_j5lztmc wrote
Also I agree with your point overall I’m trying to add to it not disagree with you.
XiphosAletheria t1_j5m2nhf wrote
But I vehemently disagree with the notion of "structural violence". It's an attempt to harness our emotional reactions to violence and to apply our tendency to desire to restrict it to things that absolutely are not violence. It's similar to what progressives have done with the term "racism", which they started applying to a lot things that weren't, in fact, racism, in the hopes of using the emotion associated with the term to win support for their positions. And instead basically succeeded only in discrediting the term.
[deleted] t1_j5mcew0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j5mdlao wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5p2cpm wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
1stStreetY t1_j5mzkad wrote
“harm” is the right word here. Negative impacts (most) do not qualify as violence. IMO “violence”has been overused and abused in our current discourse and often results in more harm and likely alienates people who may otherwise be amenable to the conversation.
bildramer t1_j5oasol wrote
If so, then affirmative action is violence.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments