There are efforts in sections of the political Left (especially the sections that dominate the less rigorous of the social “sciences” in academia) to redefine the word “violence” to include speech. Here is an example I came across today.
I wouldn’t necessarily be hugely bothered about the redefinition of the word “violence”, as long as I could invent another word to take on its current meaning. Say, “kinetivism”, for example.
But first, as a minimum, I’d want to see statements from many of the key people trying to redefine “violence” to include speech, that they would not support the same thing happening to my new word, “kinetivism”.
I am not at all confident that any such undertakings would be forthcoming. I fear that these are the kinds of people who, upon reading Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, didn’t recoil in horror – but actually quite liked aspects of the political system described. I fear they approve of the tactic of manipulating the language available to the people in a society, in order to limit the range of ideas that can be expressed. And I fear that they would actually enjoy a situation where it is not linguistically possible to distinguish between violence, and speech they disapprove of. What, after all, is the point of their current tactic – if not exactly that? (That’s not a rhetorical question. I can think of the beginnings of a few possible answers, but won’t attempt to go into them now. I do welcome comments down below.)