@DasGegenmittel

I don't believe the differentiation between forced violence and coercive violence matters to the ultimate disagreement, as I dont think either is justifed in this instance and so I find such a distinction is irrelevant.

From our conversation, I find that you clearly aren't willing to argue in good-faith, focusing on flairing your moral view rather than focusing on the philosophy at hand. The sheer amount of it is quite surprisingly, considering I've not responded to it directly until now.

If you spent some time simply asking me to expand on my view of violence, rather than falsely presuming, you might have found we agree that its a spectrum, and I could have explained why I didnt find the distinction at all neccesary to my argument, which you've seemingly taken my statement out of context from.

However, it's clear you're not actually interested in taking my position into consideration, especially from your non-response to my previous comment simply dismissing me, which frankly was pretting insulting to the time I put into it. Either way, I have enjoyed spending the time to put my ideas into words, so thank you for the discussion. Although I dont think any further discussion between us would be productive.

I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? — Ourora Aureis

Do you mean "your" definition? For the vast, vast majority of people violence is harmful force. That seems the definition too. For that reason, its possible similar things are being said in different terms. I would never call the enforcement, through proper channels, of a law, "violence" without some discussion about (for instance) resisting arrest leading to violent police behaviour. So seem to agree, but then claim:

It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws. — Ourora Aureis

Like... what the fuck lol. They are not, in any way, equivalent.

I personally dont have a reason for disliking certain genres, I just dont resonate with them. — Ourora Aureis

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. Which is totally fine.

Arbitrary Intolerances don't seem to be that inappropriate at all, because they're simply expressions of ones emotions rather than beliefs. — Ourora Aureis

I don't thikn you're adequately hearing the word 'intolerance' which is a visceral, "absolutley not" type of feeling. Not just a preference.

Clearly we believe expressions of sexual preference to be okay, so I fail to see why this should be different on non-sexual grounds. — Ourora Aureis

Well, it is fine. Discriminating, even in bad-taste ways (eg preferring one's own ethnic group) is fine and generally allowed in law and socially. It eventually gets to a point of being arbitrary (like requiring a Dcotor to be of a certain ethnicity for instance) and that's where people don't get on with it, and the law tends to step in. This has changed slightly recently, in a way I disagree with. Some claims of this kind are now allowed in law, but only for certain groups and often to the detriment of others.

wrong to dismiss certain intolerant expressions outright as it presumes they have no requisite reasons. — Ourora Aureis

I agree. Discussion is required. That's how you figure out if something is arbitrary. I am not an absolutist, but I am far more toward absolutism than some of the censorious forms advocated in this thread.

The important factor there being that empirical arguments can be argued for and against with evidence, rather than being entirely normative claims like DasGegenmittel suggested. — Ourora Aureis

This is definitely true, and perhaps people like that simply don't want to have that conversation. Too fucking bad imo. You live in the world. Have the conversation. Grow up.

Do you mean "your" definition? — AmadeusD

Yes, I should of wrote "I think people are not understanding my definition of violence?" to be more clear. Perhaps I am using a unique definition but I do think its a singular coherent idea I'm trying to get across.

I percieve violence as being loosely defined as the causing of harm toward another. As such, I extend the term to the intentional creation of circumstances that themselves lead to harm. For example, if you were to lock someone in a room and let them starve.

I also believe the term applies even if no harm was to be created, but the threat of harm is present. For example: If someone loads a single bullet into a revolver, spins it, points it at you, and shoots, then even if no bullet exits the gun, I'd still see the action as being violent. In the same light, I see the creation of a governmental threat against something to be inherently "violent", although I'm sure theres a more precise term for what I'm attempting to get at.

I should be clear that I recognise the term I use extends to much more than harmful force, and that I dont think all forms of violence are unjustifed or always particularly extreme in nature.

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. — AmadeusD

How would you define intolerance? Personally, I think of it as equivalent to discrimination, although I understand I could be missing some nuance as I dont particularly use the word often. Is it directly related to an extreme emotional response toward something?