Comment on do you use non violent communication at the workplace?
db2@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Notable concepts include rejecting coercive forms of discourse, gathering facts through observing without evaluating, genuinely and concretely expressing feelings and needs, and formulating effective and empathetic requests.
Why the fucking fuck does that need a name? People incapable of such basic communication aren’t really going to be fixed by slapping a weird label on it.
It reminds me of people on LGBT forums going: “I’m a man, and I like women, but I don’t feel sexual attraction towards all of them, only the ones I feel a connection with; what are my labels?”…and needing to tell them “NORMAL! NORMAL IS YOUR LABEL!”.
Meanwhile everyone is like “Oh, you’re ace+/romantic”…/sigh…
We really need to bring back the “it’s complicated” panel but for sexuality instead of relationships. We can just dump 90% of people in there and call it a day.
Tribalism has run rampant. Stuff like this is fairly innocuous if a bit much. When people get militant about it then it becomes a problem.
what i really wonder is why you gotta bring out your bigotry if you just disagree with the concept of non-violent communication?
How is this bigoted? And who said I disagree with non-violent communication?
You might want to re-read what I wrote.
You’re making an argument of absurd literalism. You argue that the name “non violent communication” is inappropriate because all language is non-violent by definition.
But obviously any description of language will be in the context of language. Words can be fearful, as in they display clear fear by their speaker, even though obviously words themselves cannot experience emotion. Language could be called “confusing,” even though language has no will, can take no action, and cannot confuse anyone.
Obviously words themselves are not physical things. That doesn’t mean language cannot be violent. Language can be violent in the exact same way language can be proud, boastful, joyful, and a thousand other things that words themselves are incapable of directly being or doing.
You’re performing an exercise in literalist absurdity. Is your name Amelia Bedelia by any chance?
Wait till you learn about how language works …
masterspace@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
Because once it has a name, it makes it easier to describe and reference in research literature, and thus makes it easier to draw conclusions on.
Everything has some super specific name that professionals in some field use for it because they regularly need to distinguish it from other similar things.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 12 hours ago
We don’t call people non-golfers either.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Well. Except that one. Which lacks zazz
narr1@lemmy.ml 9 hours ago
how about “non-golfers” you fucking muppet
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Smart. That’s enough.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
Great
Use a different name as this has nothing to do with violence and it is unhelpful. Violence is physical and as soon as you make any inconvenience in communication “violence” then you just get lost in pedantic semantics.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 hours ago
So coercion and other completely verbal applications of power are violence.
It’s not really semantics, it’s just the whole definition is more encompassing than the most basic/ ubiquitous case of the thing.
makeitwonderful@lemmy.today 7 hours ago
The creator of Nonviolent Communication didn’t like the name either. He said he used it because it connected him with people around the world to share his ideas.
Do all demands have an assumption of violence attached? (do this or I will force something to happen) I am failing to think of ways that demands don’t have implied physical violence if they are genuine.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
So they fucked up. Hey, words are hard. I get it.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
You realize that by asking to use your specific definition of a word, you’re the one getting lost in pedantic semantics, right?