this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
26 points (79.5% liked)
Asklemmy
49073 readers
510 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm opposed to violence, however I define it differently to how the state does. One example of violence that wouldn't be considered by the state to be violence is calling the cops.
Violence is a hierarchy and as soon as you understand that, the more you understand it as a meaningless term.
I think that violence can be adequately defined as "the instigation of aggression/harm against peaceful beings." Hierarchy is not strictly required for this.
That assumes that it is a neutral act and an act based souly on who hit first. It leads to some serious moral consequences to work based on the schoolyard politics of, "But miiiissss, he hit me first"