[redbar0n]

I am not arguing that terms cannot be used in broader or more expansive or even metaphorical meaning. But I am arguing that the accuracy/essence of the term «violence» ought to be respected. Especially because diluting it (i.e. washing out the border of it) can have such disastrous consequences.

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?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force.

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.