Comment by throwawaylinux
4 years ago
> causing harm
> do substantial violence to the "truth"
I don't think this kind of wild escalatory rhetoric is at all helpful to the (presumably) good cause intended. Probably the opposite actually.
Most of the time people are not in fact having substantial harm inflicted upon them by others out to do violence. That mindset seems incredibly fragile, paranoid, and divisive.
The reality is people are just working away to improve things and sometimes they make mistakes or don't have perfect information ahead of time, and other times making things better simply necessitates that not everybody's last whim can always be accommodated. The healthy mindset to have is that not every real or perceived slight against you is done because you are being persecuted by violent hatemongers, and that people should be more accommodating and accepting of the reality that systems and procedures designed for the benefit of everybody may just not be able to accommodate every unique request they have.
The first (harm) is about as mild as it gets, and the second is a common usage.
Webster's 1913:
> 2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
> We can not, without offering violence to all records, divine and human, deny an universal deluge. - T. Burnet.
It's a bit more poetic a use, but it's not escalatory in the way you suggest.
[EDIT] Further, my point is (and I think that was clear?) that computerization necessarily does these things if you treat the computer as correct and humans as suspect, not that anyone's doing this on purpose.
I'm not sure why you're quoting the dictionary, I didn't say you are incorrect, I said the rhetoric is escalatory, and it is.
"I'm going to shoot you" is escalatory. It doesn't matter that I could have been talking about photographing you.