"Political violence" is a term that exists to suggest a moral distinction between "violence against politicians" and "violence by politicians" - so that one can be condemned while the other can be normalized. Obviously, no such distinction exists in reality: violence is violence.
That is not to suggest all violence is equal. Violence comes in many forms, and should be judged on its necessity, the power dynamics at play, and the precision of it: not by the influence or wealth or fame or political reach of the person or persons it is committed against.
There's so much handwringing about whether violence is acceptable that ignores the fact that violence is utterly normalized - normalized one way only. If violence was unacceptable, Palestine would be free, almost all guns would be outlawed, and Trump wouldn't be president. Violence is daily.
Ultimately, when people with power say "violence is unacceptable" - they mean "violence against us is unacceptable", nothing more, nothing less. It foregoes that violence for those with power tends to come from greed, and violence against them tends to come from need.
@ramiismail.com
While I agree with the central point, that people in power can use the phrase in deceptive ways, I think the claim this is _always_ true overstate things in an unhelpful way.
