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

<- View Parent
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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:

violence
/vī′ə-ləns/
noun
Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.

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:

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.

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.

source
Sort:hotnewtop