I really wish people would stop trying to redefine the word "violence" to mean anything they don't like. In almost every instance it's a strong signal that you're dealing with an emotional person who is incapable of having a rational conversation.

It seems pretty reasonable to call a punitive action that is intended to cause bodily harm violence.

It really doesn’t, for me.

Violence usually implies direct physical force. I find this to be a core aspect of the word.

It’s punitive action, sure, but it isn’t violence because *nobody got hit/shoved/shot/etc. I don’t think any unfair, bad, or evil thing that indirectly affects another persons bodily health is violence. You’d start seeing violence everywhere, it seems.

Bit of a stagnant, but is a tax increase violence because it affects an individuals ability to afford medicine?

Just writing this comment makes me realize the main issue I have with this sort of reasoning is that it distracts from what’s actually happening. It’s playing games with semantics for pizazz, as opposed to critiquing with clarity.

I mean, is a blockade that stops delivery of food & medicine violence if they never fire a shot?

No. I wouldn't call it peaceful, but it isn't violence either. Plenty of things that don't involve the application of physical force are nonetheless bad, and there are plenty of negative descriptors that don't derive their oomph from the implication of physical force. "Despicable" and "heinous" are good ones.

No, I don’t think that’s violence. You could call it violence only by analogy, in my opinion.

Violence is never a good response as long as there are other avenues open.

I absolutely agree that Temple's actions here are loathsome, but even reciprocal violence should be avoided if possible.

Given that some are arguing that we open the definition of violence to include things beyond what society has traditionally thought of it to be (punching people in the face) to society's detriment imo, how do you feel about the statement "removing healthcare is violence?"

Can you think of other forms of similar violence that may sit well with you? Some might argue that a strike itself is a form of violence against profits.

Imo once healthcare is touched, which I do agree is a form of violence to remove, the strikers should absolutely respond in kind, by escalating the strike to slow some other part of the operation, perhaps by disrupting deliveries, switching off power to things, whatever else.

> Imo once healthcare is touched, which I do agree is a form of violence to remove, the strikers should absolutely respond in kind, by escalating the strike to slow some other part of the operation, perhaps by disrupting deliveries, switching off power to things, whatever else.

Exactly. Punching faces is probably not stategic, and the strikers likely have other ways to respond in the course of this strike. But we should not mince words about what they're responding to, and we should bear the university's violence in mind when examining and discussing whatever the strikers decide to do next.