Now this last chapter absolutely had me sitting up in my seat because I am SO glad this topic of what constitutes violence received attention in this book, and from so many different angles. If I had a physical copy you better believe practically the entire chapter would be highlighted yellow. Really, the chapter should be printed into pamphlets and handed around. Since I can't do that, I consolidated the parts that had me snapping and that I wish every single person would read and reflect on.

p. 141:

Popular definitions of violence tend to include property destruction. But under these definitions, the destruction of property is usually viewed as violent only if it disrupts profit or the maintenance of wealth. If food is destroyed because it cannot be sold while people go hungry, that is not considered violent under the norms of capitalism. If a person's belongings are tossed on a sidewalk during an eviction and consequently destroyed, that is likewise not considered violent according to the norms of this society. Those destructive acts are part of the "order of things."

p. 144:

Conditions that the state characterizes as "peaceful" are, in reality, quite violent. ... When state actors refer to "peace," they are really talking about order. And when they refer to "peaceful protest," they are talking about cooperative protest that obediently stays within the lines drawn by the state. The more uncooperative you are, the more you will be accused of aggression and violence. It is therefore imperative that the state not be the arbiter of what violence means among people seeking justice.

p. 145:

The violence of the state and response to protest is rarely scrutinized to the degree that protesters are scrutinized. ... Protesters are expected to remain "nonviolent" at all times, regardless of the circumstances, while the state is assumed to be justified, at least sometimes, in inflicting violence to quell "unrest."

p. 147:

By forwarding these [antiprotest] bills, Republicans are telling white people who are angry at Black protesters that even if it isn't legal to hit them with cars, it should be, and that people who commit these acts have the backing of some government officials. ... There's always been a reciprocal relationship between racist elected officials and white vigilante violence, and we are witnessing a moment of intensification of both sides. This kind of order making, through the state sanctioning of outright racist violence, is deeply embedded in the United States as a political project.

p. 149:

The elasticity of violence as a concept allows vigilante violence to be legitimized by the state or even attributed to its victims, if they are protesting the white supremacist order. The conceptual elasticity of violence also allows police to commit casual acts of brutality and gender violence and kill three people per day in the US, while robbing countless others of life and dignity, without being viewed as inordinately violent.

p. 150:

Under capitalism, "peace" is the maintenance of violence on the state's terms. Organized efforts to disrupt those harms will always be characterized, by any necessary stretch of the imagination, as violent.

p. 152:

For decades, oil executives have knowingly contributed to catastrophic climate change while suppressing knowledge about the severity and trajectory of the problem, endangering all of humanity and many other species. These executives' actions have already contributed to the death and displacement of millions of people. Meanwhile, activists who challenge those executives' acts are designated "violent" terrorists deserving of lengthy prison sentences.

p. 160:

State violence around the world is routinely dealt out in such a manner: the state reserves the right to overstep its own laws, and even when it subsequently acknowledges it's mistakes, it has already subjected people to the indignity of arrest, deprived them of their liberty, or subjected them to other violence. Such abuse is intentionally crafted to discourage others from expressing themselves or taking action, because it sends a message: even if the government is in the wrong and is ultimately forced to acknowledge as much, it can make you suffer and ruin your life in the meantime.

p. 162:

The maintenance of global capitalism necessitates mass death, just as the maintenance of capitalism in the United States requires the violence of the carceral system. If these systems function without interruption, you will be told you are experiencing "peace." ... If you choose to disrupt the systems, passively, destructively, or by way of extending mutual aid, the concept of violence may be stretched and manipulated by the powerful to encompass your work. That is why we must not allow the frameworks of the powerful to define the bounds of morality in our politics and our action. The elastic concepts of criminality and violence, as controlled by the powerful, will always be bent against us.

I took a look through several of the books in this quest and noticed that most of them seem to have a pretty wide disparity in ratings among people I follow, with a lot of ratings loving or hating them but fewer middle of the road. That honestly makes sense to me based on my own experiences, because either a thriller thrills me or it doesn't, and there's not a lot in between. Do you feel the same way, and do you think that by nature thrillers are more divisive (among fans of the genre) than other books are among their respective genre's fans?

Even tho I read many thriller I only finished 3 of this list. Just curious… which one would be everyone’s first pick out of this 10?