Okay but the thing about torture is, in order to be torture you must be prevented from leaving the situation. Are they literally trapping people in their homes? No. You just really really don't like them and so are trying to delegitimize their protest with use of loaded language. Torture means things like having your skin pealed off or your fingernails removed. Torture means things like being imprisoned and repeatedly being made to feel as though you are drowning. Constant honking must certainly be annoying! But as far as I'm aware, protests are supposed to be uncomfortable and annoying. This is not torture. It's like terrorist. The word terrorist now means somebody did a thing that the government doesn't like. Are we going to do this same thing with torture? Because I'm not here for it.

Oh, it's fine, because everyone can afford to go to a hotel for a few weeks, then, right?

Me pointing out that this is not torture, that torture means specific things and that this doesn't meet the commonly-accepted definition of torture, followed by you glibly inserting the phrase "its fine" is a perfect microcosm of why online discussion is doomed. Torture means you are in pain and you cannot stop it. Not by getting on the bus and riding across town, not by wearing earmuffs, it means that you, the person being tortured, cannot stop the torture. This is clearly not the case when there is noise outside your house that you dislike. Words have meanings, let's please stick to using them.

You want to be absolutely pedantic about torture "meaning specific things", and where "commonly-accepted definitions" happen, conveniently, to mean what's more convenient to you.

Dictionaries, on the other hand, define torture as "inflicting pain and suffering on".

The UN Conventions on Torture in no way specify that imprisonment, formal or otherwise, is a required component for something to be defined as torture.

So my opinion is that your vision of torture in this instance is far more narrow, because it fits your worldview more.