I confess: I’ve been getting sucked into the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. Last week devolved into a blur of articles, Twitter threads, and subreddits, culminating in the testimony of the two protagonists themselves.
Do you view physical violence and psychological abuse as being totally distinct?
In my view they're absolutely on a spectrum. That's why post-separation violence is so common: the breakup is often when psychological stops working, and so the only remaining option for abusers is violence.
No I mean I would adopt a legal standard of what is physical violence--I am unaware if the law admits of edge cases here--that something meets the legal standard of physical violence has a psychological reality esp. considering how someone's technical ability to charge someone may in some cases give real leverage in the game theory.
Are you arguing the law should make psychological abuse a crime? When it comes to physical abuse, the law does distinguish between different types of violence, but I could see an argument that that should be more fine-grained.
No I'm saying whatever the contingent legal reality is necessarily a psychological reality when the punishments are meaningful -- the law's structure induces a sharp boundary whether you believe in it at a lower metaphysical level or not.
But since you ask, coercive control should be illegal:
The series Bad Vegan and The Puppetmaster (not to mention all the cult stuff that is coming out right now) definitely tend towards it being a good idea to make coercive control illegal. 'Consent' is such a problematic concept - in both those cases the victim is 'consenting' to the abuse because they are so coercively controlled that they have apparently lost their own will.
It's a difficult question. Threats and intimidation should probably be illegal but I'm not convinced manipulation/pressure should be (when it involves adults, anyway). I tend to think people grow by learning to navigate people who act like that - I know I've learned a lot from the manipulative people I've known as an adult, and it's made me a stronger person with better boundaries.
I agree that laws create and assert a psychological reality, but I don't believe that's the only psychological reality. Subtle social effects also guide/shape psychology.
Being the only reality is not relevant -- it's just a big enough difference that you will need to make at least the legal distinction for most purposes.
"6. Severe violence is a worse form of abuse than minor violence or psychological abuse."
disagree--this is like saying "Large odd numbers are bigger than small odd numbers or even numbers"
Do you view physical violence and psychological abuse as being totally distinct?
In my view they're absolutely on a spectrum. That's why post-separation violence is so common: the breakup is often when psychological stops working, and so the only remaining option for abusers is violence.
No I mean I would adopt a legal standard of what is physical violence--I am unaware if the law admits of edge cases here--that something meets the legal standard of physical violence has a psychological reality esp. considering how someone's technical ability to charge someone may in some cases give real leverage in the game theory.
Are you arguing the law should make psychological abuse a crime? When it comes to physical abuse, the law does distinguish between different types of violence, but I could see an argument that that should be more fine-grained.
No I'm saying whatever the contingent legal reality is necessarily a psychological reality when the punishments are meaningful -- the law's structure induces a sharp boundary whether you believe in it at a lower metaphysical level or not.
But since you ask, coercive control should be illegal:
https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=%22coercive%20control%22%20%22adam%20golding%22
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_-Kd_WSmEAHZB-jaxNCsSAscbqrUJNZC
The series Bad Vegan and The Puppetmaster (not to mention all the cult stuff that is coming out right now) definitely tend towards it being a good idea to make coercive control illegal. 'Consent' is such a problematic concept - in both those cases the victim is 'consenting' to the abuse because they are so coercively controlled that they have apparently lost their own will.
It's a difficult question. Threats and intimidation should probably be illegal but I'm not convinced manipulation/pressure should be (when it involves adults, anyway). I tend to think people grow by learning to navigate people who act like that - I know I've learned a lot from the manipulative people I've known as an adult, and it's made me a stronger person with better boundaries.
I agree that laws create and assert a psychological reality, but I don't believe that's the only psychological reality. Subtle social effects also guide/shape psychology.
Agreed about coercion.
Being the only reality is not relevant -- it's just a big enough difference that you will need to make at least the legal distinction for most purposes.