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.
Comment on do you use non violent communication at the workplace?
CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world 11 hours agoIt 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…
CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
narr1@lemmy.ml 7 hours ago
what i really wonder is why you gotta bring out your bigotry if you just disagree with the concept of non-violent communication?
CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
How is this bigoted? And who said I disagree with non-violent communication?
You might want to re-read what I wrote.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
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?
Grimy@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
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.