[chomskyole]

I agree with your overall assessment.

The narrative is that we decide on rational reasons (which doesn't excludes violence as such) mixed with a moral superiority (which excludes violence).

I think saying that we don't like violence is just sharing the moral common sentiment and hoping that it leads to some understanding/highlighting of the contradictions. The reality is that people will fight for life when you push them. What is "violent" is generally defined by those who are more powerful I'd say.

[sangnoir]

> What is "violent" is generally defined by those who are more powerful I'd say.

I think the hidden war of words is over the definition of "illegitimate violence" (like premeditated murder) and "legitimate violence" (like getting tazed, kettled at a protest, or shot dead by police at a traffic stop). The latter is generally not defined as "violence" at all by those with power.

There was an interesting article that analyzed usage if the word "violent"/"violence" in mass media reporting on college campus protests in the US. Going by the reporting, when police were bashing heads, the protests were not violent, but became "violent" when protestors were fighting back against counter-protestors who got physical. Violence meted out by the government is not called that.

[vouaobrasil]

That is true, I'd agree. It's exactly the reason that the most successful news organizations are precisely the ones that push the prevailing narrative and focus on the immediate, physical violence and equate it to terror, whereas providing large missiles to fund wars is called "aid".