I learned what non violent communication is a day ago and I’m using it to mend a friendship.
Have you however used it at the workplace?
I find it unpractical: there are so many things to do at the workplace and the last thing stressed people with deadlines need is to have a conversation about feelings, but maybe I’m wrong?
A question for nurses working bedside: do you actually use non violent communication at your ward with your patients and actually have time to do your other duties, like charting, preparing infusions and meds, dealing with providers, insurance, the alcoholic who fights you, the demented one who constantly tries to leave the unit, the one who wants to leave ama (against medical advice)?
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.
Well clearly it’s making OP think twice about it. I think it’s completely possible for people to lack some component of these communication skills simply because they haven’t had anything that brought them to their attention before.
And to be fair, berating people who don’t understand these concepts doesn’t “fix” them either.
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 thing that the broader public does not care about.
We don’t have a name for non-golfers either.
We do, actually. We call ourselves ateeists.
Fair enough, but just because a term exists doesn’t mean it’s sensible.
Well. Except that one. Which lacks zazz
Removed by mod
Smart. That’s enough.
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.
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.
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.
So they fucked up. Hey, words are hard. I get it.
You realize that when you speak up just to ask other people to use your specific definition of a word, you’re the one getting lost in pedantic semantics, and that can also be addressed by you not doing that, right?
It reminds me of people on LGBT forums and seeing shit like: “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 wanting to scream “NORMAL! NORMAL IS YOUR LABEL! WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?!”.
Meanwhile everyone is like “Oh, you’re ace+/romantic”…/sigh…
We really need to bring back the “it’s complicated” label 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.
deleted by creator
How is this bigoted? And who said I disagree with non-violent communication? You know what we call that? – Just communication.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. You either seem to have missed a key portion of it, or because you saw the letters “LGBT” you’ve somehow immediately primed yourself for confrontation…
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nobody is “dunking” on LGBT folks. The presented scenario is literally of a completely straight person invading those spaces. You really have a problem with reading comprehension, you know that? I’m even, quite literally, presenting them in a positive, helpful light in this scenario, as they’re being inclusive and presenting labels for this completely straight person to present with. So what’s your damn problem?
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 and the whole concept of NVC is tied to my own sexuality and personality and the therapy for the personality disorder and the and the… but yeah, uh nevermind me.
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?
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.
Wait till you learn about how language works …