Academic

NEW DEFINITIONS of violence and civilization. ?Violence. A word Ms Gopal uses no fewer than nine ti?

By Glenn Reynolds

NEW DEFINITIONS of violence and civilization. “Violence. A word Ms Gopal uses no fewer than nine times. Fiscal responsibility, albeit belated, is violence, see? Reducing the national debt is violence. Extending credit for tuition fees is violence. Attempting to contain the growth of the state ? enlarged by around 30% under New Labour ? that?s violence too. Audacious, isn?t it? Ms Gopal, who ‘teaches in the Faculty of English at the University of Cambridge,’ has casually redefined violence to include practically anything to which she takes political exception.” Well, if that’s the definition, put me down as pro-violence. A lot of other people may feel the same way, but beware of definitional creep, which is already showing up in the comments. . . .

UPDATE: I like this from the comments:

Georg’s Law: As any Liberal drifts closer to idiocy, their language drifts closer to a Monty Python skit.

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. ARTHUR: Shut up!

Heh. Though Ms. Gopal seems more a fascist apologist than a traditional liberal. Plus, on a more serious note:

There is a very dangerous subtext to defining budget cuts as “violence.”

In almost all moral systems, it is permissible to use violence in response to violence. Therefore, if you define non-violent action as violence, then you create a moral justification for using violence in response to non-violent actions. By equating non-violent budgeting disagreements with overt acts of violence, [Gopal] is creating a rationale for killing people just because they disagree with her on minor political issues.

This is the primary rationale used by violently oppressive and mass murdering regimes. They justify police states and mass killings by equating non-violent opposition or even failure to overtly and publicly disagree with a physical attack on the whole of society.

Of course, her belief that disagreeing with her is a transgression deserving of a violent response, is really just a statement of her own narcissism and hubris. She thinks herself so fantastically intelligent, moral and infallible that her word alone defines the greater good to such an extent that frustrating her will is a crime punishable by death.

She should hope that such an attitude does not spread too far.

Full post as published by Instapundit.com on November 15, 2010 (boomark / email).