Comment on do you use non violent communication at the workplace?

• narr1@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Nobody is “dunking” on LGBT folks. The presented scenario is literally of a completely straight person invading those spaces.

    source

    • narr1@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      ah damn, it seems i am in the wrong here. sorry about that, i tend to get like blind and delusional and shit with strong emotions and everything, been through therapy for that shit and all. but yeah, uh nevermind me.

      source
• WoodScientist@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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?

  source

  • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The problem with the term “non-violent communication”, is that we don’t preface things that we describe based on their lack of something.

    You might as well call it “non-love communication”…get it?

    We don’t call driving to work “non-violent driving”, we just call it driving.

    We don’t call our jobs “non-slavery labor”. You’re practicing absurdity in order to proclaim some higher order of thinking, but you’re just being silly.

    source