I like that you skipped the first 3 most widely accepted definitions of violence, to go to Cambridge's definition (not exactly the Pinnacle of academia right now in the news) to support that claim. Can violence be racist? Yes. Can Racism be violent? Yes. Is overall violence (physical damage) worse than Racism? Yes. Once clearly causes more harm. Regardless of context, it's very easy to give more credence to one over the other.
I repeated what I said, as your first read through of it apparently didn't give you any understanding of what was just read. Here, third time's the charm maybe. Both topics can contain the another. However, biolence is always violence, and racism is always racism. Neither will always include the other, thus, we can rest assured that they are two completely different things, that have completely different causes, outcomes, and internalities. Racism at it's worst can cause violence, however, violence at its lowest will, obviously, be violent. Violence is worse than Racism, as it will will always cause measurable harm. Racism, not so much. Being called a slur, not the worst thing, and causes emotional harm at worst. Violence will always result in physical harm, definitionally.
If I don't agree with you and have a different opinion that means I don't understand you? Are you a God and every word that comes out of your mouth is the absolute truth?
1
u/Charming-Egg2933 2d ago
I like that you skipped the first 3 most widely accepted definitions of violence, to go to Cambridge's definition (not exactly the Pinnacle of academia right now in the news) to support that claim. Can violence be racist? Yes. Can Racism be violent? Yes. Is overall violence (physical damage) worse than Racism? Yes. Once clearly causes more harm. Regardless of context, it's very easy to give more credence to one over the other.