The bias in this story towards equating property damage and physical violence is most terrifying in that the authors seem to legitimately not even notice it.
But I guess that's probably next on the list of definitions to be "re-written" by a certain political ideology. Within a few years I bet the current definition will be memory-holed and dictionaries will list a new definition, like so many other words/terms that have had their meanings changed in the last decade.
I can tell you that this kind of "violence," when unaddressed, can easily escalate to the other kind of violence:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/ceo-beaten-to-death-by-...
Pretty much every single dictionary managed to get all their definitions of "violence" to point to the same meaning, which includes destruction of property.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence
One of these words that (to some) no longer means what it has always meant is "censorship," and now "violence" is getting the same treatment.
Look up "violence" in any legitimate dictionary and you will see that it is not limited to personal injury. You will see definitions such as:
"the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy"
or
"intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force"
TFA describes employees "who were exiting the facility after completing their night-shift, went on a rampage destroying the company's furniture, assembly units and even attempted to set fire to vehicles."
To describe these actions done in this manner as "property damage" mischaracterizes the reality of what happened and suggests that an agenda is being pushed on the reader.
Some people were probably scared. That sucks. It also sucks that stuff got busted. I'm sure some people will get arrested and charged with things. But these are things solved with money.
No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt. I was reading with horror to see how many had died. That was why it stuck out to me when there were not even injuries.
It is as simple as that. Using a word that does not imply something that didn't happen -- it is just good writing, it's not pushing an agenda. Replace "violence" with "riots" and it has a much more generic implication. Simple.
It doesn't.
You're describing acts of violence.
> No one was injured. My point is that saying it was "violent" implies that there were people hurt.
You're trying to play the humpty dumpty game of just making up meanings of words to fit your whim of the moment.
Riots are acts of violence. Destroying entire car lots in rage is an act of violence. Destroying buildings in protest is violence. There is no way around it.
Enough with the doublespeak. People got screwed out of their paycheck, they felt enraged, thus sparking a violent protested. Understandingly so. There's no need to pretend things were different.
It is a departure from colloquial use to describe property damage as violent and it is counterintuitive to describe a "violent protest in which no one was hurt."
Maybe with your colloquialisms, but as someone in their mid 40s, I've never thought of violence in the narrow way you are describing it, and it does seem to me like this is a relatively recent redefinition of the term.
I've always thought the primary characteristic of "violence" is rageful, wild, physical destruction, regardless of whether it was directed at a human or property. For example, graffiti and a riot that burns down a building are both forms of property destruction, but only one is violent. Similarly, killing someone with a chainsaw and killing someone by poison are both forms of murder, but only one is violent.
I don't believe your assertion is remotely true. The term "vandalism" has its origins on how the Vandals tribe attacked, invaded and sacked Rome, and it refers to violence which results in widespread property damage.
You'd be hard pressed to describe 5th century barbarian invasion with words other than violence.
And by the way, car crashes are also described as violent even when no harm comes to anyone involved.
If it’s not violence it’s something equally bad not a prosaic term like “property damage” or “vandalism” which would imply you still have the property and only need to clean it up a bit.
The good old euphemism.
The word 'violence' used without context would often be understood to mean 'violence against a person'. Here it is used to mean 'violence against property'.
It's "literally" correct, but unclear and risks misunderstanding.
The headline writer is taking advantage of this disconnect to exaggerate their point. Other words such as 'riot' fit better, but are less sensational.
Also, in judicial systems where the distinction exists, vandalism is generally considered a non-violent crime.
Take this scenario, for example. Would hacking a factory to damage some sensors be violent? Of course not. If you think that some cases of property damage are indeed violence, you'd have to find a reason to draw the line, and I'm not sure you can without referring to human harm.
In summation, the protests and property destruction indeed had psychological effects, even if you want to believe they did not.
And even then, trying to equate the discomfort caused by such property destruction and the violence of brutalizing and killing people is completely unjustifiable.
Maybe I'm being overly legalistic, but I think if no one is in the hospital and no one's life was put under direct threat the crime was not violent. I am definitely not saying there shouldn't be a civil suit involved, or that it is okay. If said right wingers were rioting over unpaid wages and abuse over many months and years well, I would likely have a different opinion right? These are people acting in a way that causes financial injury in protest over financial injury, not out of racial bias or desire to cause physical harm.
It is not about violence to me at all; calling breaking a machine violence really dilutes the meaning and clearly is intended to make the reader think the the people doing this are hurting people.
That said, in general, I think it can be frightening and traumatic to some people to see angry people destroying things. I know it would be for a kid seeing an angry drunk parent destroy their tablet they play games on, even if it's just a machine. This isn't the same as that, but just trying to say, we should try to understand that certain violent (or whatever you'd like to call destructive) actions will frighten some people.
There is no spin. It was a violent riot. There is no way around it.
Oddly enough, you're the one trying to spin the news to somehow hide the violent nature of the protest, and instead pretend it was just a few people mildly annoyed for having half they paycheck stolen by their employer.
I get it, you feel that the focus on the violent protests shifts the attention away from the salaries being stolen by the employer. Yet, are you really doing any favours by trying to spin away the resulting violence and brush it under the rug? Think about it. Do you believe that the kind of people who feels empowered to steal half the paycheck from all their employees is the kind of people who get bothered by the resulting mild annoyance? Or do you believe that having to face direct consequences in the form of.violent actions directed at them is a more effective way of ensuring this abuse is dissuaded?
There is no way to deny the existence of point 5 on the list, but all of 1-4 offered excellent occasions to prevent point 5.
People who overestimate their power risk having their tea vilently thrown into the sea, and that's violence and illegal.
The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
> late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-French and Old French violence (13c.), from Latin violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violation). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.
If I tell someone "there was violence downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of physical injury. If I tell someone "there are riots downtown" to me it carries extremely strong tones of chaotic potential for violence, but not violence in and of itself.
I appreciate how you are attempting to use linguistic arguments for your case, which is laudable, but I am talking about how I think it would be read by people without a deeply technical reading of the language.
What about anyone that would constantly belittle or insult someone else, make fun of him and so on. Isn't that a form a violence ? Even if never comes to anything physical ? You can really do damage that way.
Given the replies above, it looks like your understanding of the word "violence" is narrowed down and only considers "physical harm made to people". It really encompass more than that. It is a powerful word that express the idea of harm being made, regardless of the target or the form.
Tbh though I think destruction of property reasonably counts as violence; the more important question is whether that violence is justified. In this case it seems justified.
I haven't yet read into the details of this case, and I may end up siding with the protestors once I have. But I do not abide the corruption of language for whatever political ends.
I have never understood violence to mean property damage, rather than physical harm to someone. It may be that the dictionaries define it differently, but that is certainly not the colloquial usage.