disconcertingly:
I thought thug might be better but modern usage seems to not fit.
According to '~dictionaries' bully still seems to best describe a coercionist.
The problem with the word bully is it seems to focus on verbal intimidation.
The reality of coercionist would be a spectrum from real physical threats to violence.
The whole leftwing/rightwing distinction is now worse the useless, pseudo-tribal nonsense.
What’s a better term for anti-coercionist? Libertarian? Voluntarian?
voluntaryist, non-aggressor, passive-resistor.
This illustrates a gaping hole in human language.
We have no word for someone who violates beings.
We have no word for someone who respects consent, and its absence.
Well found.
For now, I choose
VIOLATOR - who Harms, acting upon someone without their consent.
NON-VIOLATOR - who acts according to consent of those they influence.
from Latin vis ≈ force
