Recent Stories
- Analysis
How Vermont shut down ICE
By targeting tech infrastructure critical to ICE’s new surge of arrests, Vermont residents are showing what it looks like to go on the offensive.
- Analysis
Why we need to think outside the box this election
Defending the upcoming election from authoritarian capture will require massive turnout, and we all have roles to play.
- Feature
Inside the successful campaign against illegal Chinese mining in Africa
Across rural Southeast Africa, a small but loud grassroots movement has emerged to resist destructive Chinese mining companies — and they are winning.
WNV Top Reads
If there were no chance of direct, violent harm to actual people, I don’t think that damage to things (e.g. fences) should be considered violent.
But, then, for people who accept that definition –
if there is a marginal chance of that sort of harm to people, is the damage to things violent? Maybe the damage is just potentially violent?
…
I suppose attacks on animals (or potential attacks on animals) also should be taken into account here. But I’m not going to try to come up with a definition that takes animals into account, so I’ll just say that my other remarks, above, are inadequate.
I think you’re right, Toban. The term property damage may be a bit too general of a term for me to oppose across the board. I think there are some instances where it is not violent or even all that destructive. The work of graffiti artist Banksy comes to mind as well.