/lit/ - Literature

Exertion of force is not necessarily violence.

Nevertheless, the very act of violence is not statement out of acquisition of sense-data, say whether sensation of color red or smell of blood, it is from understanding of violation OF order, person, law, subject, object or status. So what you identify as violence is completely based upon culture and convention, quite often hidden behind taboo. (Taboo functions in a way that even questioning taboo is immoral, therefore ignorance is the ultimate moral act towards taboo)
Further, I would argue that need for 'violence' is not actually need for breaking of conventional norms or exertion of harm. Violence itself is identified within the act or intent of a child, while child might not be aware of it. Say accidentally strangling a pet while trying to lift it up.
So, being accidental in some cases, violent behaviour is not necessary, it is an exertion of one's will over the other, need for subject to establish itself. If subject has no problem in his being altering the world outside of him, there is no violence, nor any is needed. Also, that's why kids are quick to start crying and pulling tantrums, precisely because it is a violence (in a way) to protest the other not complying.

Let's discuss autobiographies of our time.

Are they a thing of the past or are they still okay? Is it really anything else than praise-seeking or money? What about the content, how much of them do you think are lies? Why should one write/not write an autobiography? Anything relevant to autobiographies.

What do you think /lit/?