went to my first protest today :33

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/9386106

went to my first protest today :33 - Blåhaj Lemmy

sadly, masking yourself when protesting is forbidden here in my country :c
It kinda makes sense, protests are supposed to be peaceful, why bring a mask if your intent is a peaceful protest?
Protest is never peaceful, if it is you’re doing it wrong. It should be non-violent and as respectful as possible but it needs to be disruptive and you can’t be peacefully disruptive
Peaceful and non-violent are synonyms….
No, they aren’t. You must be disruptive, which isn’t peaceful.
How can you be non-violent and not peaceful at the same time lmfao. They mean the exact same thing.

Hmm I see what the dictionaries are saying but (using an example from above) I think argument exists that:

If me and my fellow protestors block a road, we are being non-violent, but we are not being peaceful.

But it’s Friday and no time for argument!

What’s not peaceful about blocking a road?

The argument falls apart when you ask for the difference lol.

I see a lot of other people have responded with examples and argument.

So I’ll disagree and say the argument falls apart when I don’t argue. (Cause it’s Friday. You ain’t got no job. You ain’t got shit to do. I’m gonna get you high today.)

Peaceful: freedom from disturbance; tranquility.

It is a disturbance to the system, and it isn’t tranquil. They are not synonyms. Non-violent means you aren’t hurting anyone, peaceful means you aren’t disturbing anything. You can’t be violent and peaceful but you can be non-violent and non-peaceful. Peace is sufficient but not necessary for non-violence.

Literally the next definition after that one….

not involving war or violence.

SYNONYMS…

the next definition

So, overlapping meanings, not synonyms

They are both, one is defined by other, AND they are synonyms.

Isn’t language fucked up?

One definition of peaceful is synonymous, and one isn’t. This is exactly why language has so many synonyms, each one is sliiiightly different. Choosing one intentionally instead of another is important.

In this instance, “peace” is being defined (not directly, but through context) as status quo, going about your day unhindered. “Violence” is being defined as causing direct physical harm to a person, and possibly property depending on who you ask.

With these definitions laid out, it’s easy enough to see a situation that is not violent (no one got hurt at all) and also not peaceful (some people’s days were interrupted) - one person mentioned blocking a road. This is a FANTASTIC example of non-peaceful non-violent protest. No one likes a pedant.

No one likes a pedant.

Yep, just like the people trying to say blocking a road isn’t peaceful. They are trying to pedantically choose a definition to make a point. Blocking a road is absolutely peaceful, trying to explain it any other way would be to be pendantic. Lmfao.