Comment by palmotea

> That falls cleanly in the realm of a violent act, unless you disagree with that definition of violence, or my interpretation of the quote. I suppose you could interpret it as only applying to physical violence, but I don’t think anyone would agree that psychological or emotional violence simply don’t exist.

Your interpretation seems like it's overbroad and contradicting typical usage. I don't think "refusing to cooperate" (except in some very narrow circumstances) should ever be considered violence, because that definition is in itself coercive. For instance, if quitting my job will cause my boss's business to fail (causing him "psychological harm... or deprivation", because he won't be able to make payments on his boat anymore), am I committing violence against him? Should I be force to work for him to avoid that "violence"? I don't think so.

My guess is you're interpreting "deprivation" very broadly and literally, when it's probably being used in a narrower technical sense. Either that or the definition you quote is nonsense [1].

[1] Which is entirely possible. Nowadays it seems to be a pretty common manipulative tactic to collapse a spectrum of meaning onto the most extreme term, as if words used to describe something controls what it is.