One of the most curious rhetorical tricks these days is that when the woke refer to violence, it’s limited to acts done to the person, not a thing. Words can be violence. A Molotov cocktail thrown into an empty store is not violence, but property damage. Property can be replaced. Lives cannot. The law values life above property, which is certainly correct, and so there can never be a justification for use of force against the person when the person’s only offense is burning buildings or looting stores, property damage.
Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral.
As a laundry list of words have been untethered from any cognizable meaning over the last ten years, from rape to racism, so that they can be accused at random, it’s interesting that this one word, “violence,” has been tightened up in such facile fashion. Then again, there is a somewhat consistent rationale here, as all are defined by outcome rather than conduct. If a “victim” feels that she’s been raped, then it’s rape. If arson destroyed a business that somebody sunk their life into, but no one dies, then it’s just property damage. Continue reading

