> But I was referring to meaning 3...
To the extent that you addressed state violence (the wrongful imprisonment of some) sure, but 3 does not fit your hypothetical of "being violent to me without moving away from your keyboard." That would be 5, firmly. I am not going to say anything more than this about it though, I have better things to do now that I have called attention to how the term has been diluted in meaning, adulterated in definition - by haphazard usage among other things.
> Anyway, you can't just impose meanings on words, that's not how language
> works.
Well no, but we can enforce meanings - and resist corruptions of meaning. "Violence" is hardly a neologism that is still being defined. What is the point of having a large vocabulary if all the definitions are squishy and the words themselves are interchangeable? You are not secretly or unintentionally advocating Marklarism are you?
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/south-park-south-park-marvin-on-marklar/1999091525
Percy