A little further down on that page:

But sure, I guess you can insist on a specific definition from that particular definition if you feel the need to make that distinction to the exclusion of certain types of violence you personally don't think are as severe. I'll say it again: that distinction is without a meaningful difference. Might be meaningful to you, but not to victims of abuse.

Nah man, I don't think that matters.

In the context of domestic abuse, it doesn't matter if your spouse leaves a mark or physically injures you, it still creates an environment of fear for your physical safety. Displaying any willingness to cross that boundary with your spouse creates fear that they could cross it again, or go further. That's what makes 'beat your spouse' such an evocative description to begin with. It isn't supposed to be a precise classification of the type of violence you committed against them, just that you violated that physical barrier that shouldn't be crossed. You can play semantic games and try finding a less objectionable term for it if you want, the truth is that even a slap or a shove is a severe betrayal of marital trust, and undermines the feeling of security that every person has a right to in their domestic environment. I think "beat" is a perfectly fine word to describe someone who willing to do that to their spouse.

A distinction without a meaningful difference. Throwing a punch at your spouse but missing is still you throwing a punch at your spouse.

Just because you didn't make contact doesn't mean you aren't a danger

Fuck that, Israel should be carved out of Texas, not Palestine.

It will be much more cost effective to deliver our lethal aid within our own borders rather than across the Atlantic.

physical violence.

actually inflicting physical harm

What am I missing here? You don't think 'physical violence' implies 'physical harm'?

For those in here that take offense to this distinction:

2 party political systems function to collapse diverse political perspectives into one of two camps and normalize an 'average' view for both parties. Leftists take issue with this collapse because it erases dissenting views within each party in service of defeating an 'other' at the expense of pursuing our real political goals.

The label matters to those of us who want to make the point that the US democratic party does not really represent our interests; at-best they represent a less-objectionable flavor of the same ideological framework, but one that needs to be dismantled all the same.

"Stop trying to divide us!" is a refrain spoken by those who are better served by the party than we are.

Put another way: "We are not the same"

I will always point to mlk as a response to this question:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Words cannot express how much I hate phone apps being normalized for every goddamn thing.

I'll personally donate $100 to the DNC (i'm poor leave me alone) if Hilary goes to every campaign stop chanting 'lock him up'

Fair point, Margot Robbie

A point of caution:

A large company absolutely could come in and absorb the majority of lemmy traffic and build proprietary code and features on top of the main protocol, eventually making the open source protocol obsolete and supplanting it as a paid/closed-source service. It has been done repeatedly by tech companies, and it is the main reason many people distrust Meta's interest in joining the fediverse.

For all the reasons you just mentioned, we should fight tooth and nail against that from happening, but we should at least be aware of the threat.