• SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Peaceful and non-violent are synonyms….

    You also contradict yourself as well. You say to be non-violent, then you say you can’t be peacefully disruptive… those contradict each other.

        • BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          Hmm I see what the dictionaries are saying but (using an example from above) I think argument exists that:

          If me and my fellow protestors block a road, we are being non-violent, but we are not being peaceful.

          But it’s Friday and no time for argument!

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Peaceful: freedom from disturbance; tranquility.

              It is a disturbance to the system, and it isn’t tranquil. They are not synonyms. Non-violent means you aren’t hurting anyone, peaceful means you aren’t disturbing anything. You can’t be violent and peaceful but you can be non-violent and non-peaceful. Peace is sufficient but not necessary for non-violence.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Literally the next definition after that one….

                not involving war or violence.

                SYNONYMS…

                Peaceful literally means non-violent…. Literally defines the bloody term lmfao.

                • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  One definition of peaceful is synonymous, and one isn’t. This is exactly why language has so many synonyms, each one is sliiiightly different. Choosing one intentionally instead of another is important.

                  In this instance, “peace” is being defined (not directly, but through context) as status quo, going about your day unhindered. “Violence” is being defined as causing direct physical harm to a person, and possibly property depending on who you ask.

                  With these definitions laid out, it’s easy enough to see a situation that is not violent (no one got hurt at all) and also not peaceful (some people’s days were interrupted) - one person mentioned blocking a road. This is a FANTASTIC example of non-peaceful non-violent protest. No one likes a pedant.

                  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    No one likes a pedant.

                    Goes on a bloviated pedantic rant…

                    Yep, just like the people trying to say blocking a road isn’t peaceful. They are trying to pedantically choose a definition to make a point. Blocking a road is absolutely peaceful, trying to explain it any other way would be to be pendantic. Lmfao.

            • BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              I see a lot of other people have responded with examples and argument.

              So I’ll disagree and say the argument falls apart when I don’t argue. (Cause it’s Friday. You ain’t got no job. You ain’t got shit to do. I’m gonna get you high today.)

    • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Non-violent in the context of political action does not exclude property damage and looting. A non violent protest is still disruptive, it’s the entire point