No, that's a total fallacy. Theft is violence, there is no physical harm. Discrimination is violence, there is no physical harm. Demeaning and bullying is violence even through words and insults. Still no physical harm.
And you can respond to violence with non-violent methods.
You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition.
Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».
Interestingly, some of those also agree that it does not require the use of force. That some descriptions say physical force does not mean other descriptions are wrong. Here are some cherry-picked descriptions of what the word violence is used to mean:
> Extreme or powerful emotion or expression.
> Highly excited feeling or action; impetuosity; vehemence; eagerness.
> Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
> Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.
> an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists)
Each of these can pertain to speech. If one says that speech can't be violence, then they must be ignoring these definitions.
Which stands in contrast to «speech».
Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force).
I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.
Speech can be forceful, it can constitute assault, it's obviously an action, and it can be aggressive as well as defensive. (I suppose I was a little wrong with my initial use of the word "force". Words can be funny like that. My point is that it is not strictly physical force.) This argument would be as if to say that "abuse" cannot be verbal because most people think of it as being physical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse (Also, I wasn't aware until I was linking it for this comment, that page uses terms like "verbal violence", "verbal assault", "verbal attack", "verbal aggression". For what it's worth.)
> what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force
Right. I've not refuted this. I've said that violence is not strictly physical. your position is that violence can only refer to something which could cause physical harm or pain and I say that is too narrow a definition even for common use; violence can be verbal.
There are other words from those definitions which you did not include in your comment like "feeling", "vehemence", "infringement", "outrage", "pain", "suffering". These things are not strictly physical.
> I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech».
On the contrary, I would hope that we can agree how dangerous it is to minimize and dismiss when violence is perpetrated with speech by claiming that speech cannot be violence.
> Redefining words in service of authoritarian political ideology.
This isn't a description of doublespeak. An example of doublespeak could be someone using their speech to call for violence against others and then saying speech can't be violence.
In U.S. law we have the "imminent lawless action" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio as one of the main tests for whether speech can be regulated because of its likelihood of successfully encouraging others to break the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Even when speech fails the Brandenburg test, it is still not literally considered a form of violence, but something else like incitement (or sometimes part of a conspiracy or criminal enterprise or something).
All of those legal discussions are pretty much expressly about not conflating speech with violence, even if speech sometimes has a role in encouraging people to commit violence.
Edit:
Law uses language in a way that is different from how laypeople use it. I am not concerned that I would be unable to convince a judge that it's violence because I know it's the judge's job to think of violence as having a specific, narrow, unchanging (except under certain circumstances) meaning. Outside that context, violence can take the form of speech.
This distinction could be something that has to be actively learned (like, maybe most people in human history would have instinctively resorted to physical violence over an insult). But if so, actively learning it is a great thing.
I see it as a great sign of maturity and civilization that we can understand the dangers of speech without minimizing and dismissing them.
This is an example of how the violence of speech is often minimized and dismissed. Causing hurt feelings is violence, particularly doing so intentionally.
I've used an example in this thread: "physical violence". That shit ain't hard, just stop saying speech can't be violence when it obviously can be.
No one is opposing the fact that speech can be used to call for violence, but that doesn’t make the speech itself violence. The speech part of it is the «call for» or «incitement to» or even «lead to». But we must not mix up cause and effect.
Because violence can take forms other than speech.
> that doesn’t make the speech itself violence
This is not something I agree with. If I say something and hearing what I say makes you reasonably feel afraid or hurt, I have said something violent. If I say something about physically harming another person, I have said something violent. The speech itself is violence.
There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. So if you think the term «violence» isn’t a part of defining that line (or even the terms «attack», «aggression», «force», «assault» etc. which you seem willing to use to describe speech), then I am eager to hear what term(s) you propose to uphold that distinction?
Sure, I agree, and can see that this is possible. You made this exact distinction between "saying something" and "physical force" without even using the word violence. This is clearly not a problem.
The word violence implies your physical safety is under threat. By using this terminology you have escalated the situation from a debate into one where a party could justifiably violently suppress the other until they stop speaking.
And your own replies here acknowledge this as a valid response. You think yourself too good to use it, but someone else won’t.