Comment on do you use non violent communication at the workplace?
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks agoThank you for a thoughtful comment, unfortunately I don’t have time right now to read it as carefully as I would like, but I have two short points:
-
I think you misread the first guy (or one of us did). I understand the statement is not “nonviolent communication is violent” but rather calling distasteful communication “violent communication” both increases the threat posed by words alone and decreases the value of the word “violence” in a physical context. Basically it is better for me to call you an asshole than to punch you in the face, so let’s not equate them with terminology.
-
It may also be possible that your time in psych and corrections makes you more likely to see sociopathy when you’ve potentially misread or misunderstood which is, itself, potentially harmful to getting a message across.
I will basically never tell someone “seek help for XXX” unless I’m being wildly sarcastic or intentionally combative in either case.
Gotta get my kids but I’ll be around later.
dustyData@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Hey, sorry. I actually work and had no time to follow up. Thanks for the insightful response. Even though I still don’t agree with most of your point. You are, indeed, conflating all of violence and reducing it to just assault. Which is hurtful and trivializes the suffering of victims of harassment, rape, and many more. Yours is the same logic by which rapists argue that it was not “actual” rape.
The confusion seems to derive from a desire of making violence be a binary flip. Violence or not violence. And that is just not how any professional working with victims and aggressors ever think about violence. Violence is a gradient.
Of course that hitting a child in the face is not equivalent with calling them a racist slur. But, the point is, that although they are of different degrees, they are both acts of violence. Is it better being called an asshole than being punched? absolutely. But this doesn’t make it a good thing to do. It was still psychological violence.
It’s an atrociously disingenuous strawman to pretend like I, or anyone here, equates verbal violence with life threatening physical violence. Because it is just not what I have suggested, anywhere, ever. But only mentally ill people think it is alright to verbally abuse people as a normal and appropriate response to any situation. Again, I’m not using metal illness like a binary flip concept. Mental illness is also a (multidimensional) gradient. I’ve met very nice and well adjusted sociopaths in my practice. With family and a thriving social circle. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t need help and support from professional to get there, or that they occasionally struggled and needed help to point out morally dubious or potentially dangerous behaviors.
I agree, nuance is much needed. But your position is not one that provide as much. As it relies on Manichean, all or nothing, good vs evil, logic. Reality is much more complex than that. I’m offering nuance, you are just arguing about where the line lies, I’m telling it’s not a line.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
I was not considering violence as a spectrum. Since your last comment, I did some background research and saw that “nonviolent communication” has its roots in a book that came out at the same time that non-violent protest was being put to effective use. In that context it does make sense.
To make sure I wasn’t crazy, I did just google the definition of violence and the top definition is here:
So I appreciate the idea, I don’t prefer the terminology, but I suppose I shouldn’t be hung up about it.
I do take issue with this though:
My point is the opposite. I think the trivialization goes the other way. Suppose we have a group session for victims of violence. This gradient point now means that a rape survivor, the domestic abuse survivor, and the victim of some race related beat down sit with someone who gets called names on XBox Chat. Are they all victims? Absolutely. Can they be reasonably lumped into the same group? I would think no, but then this is not my area of expertise.
dustyData@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Not to nitpick, but a dictionary definition has no bearing. When I have more time I could share part of the scientific literature on violence that has a more integral and exhaustive definition.
On this point.
And they are not. No one is proposing that. Again, it is a strawman of your own creation.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
The dictionary definition reflects common usage, and we are only having this discussion because I backed up someone else who had the same thought based on, you know, common usage. I’m happy to hear the trivialization for the scenario I described doesnt happen based on your experience. I still don’t like the wording, but then, I don’t have to.