9 ms·
The author literally writes "Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is an awful name for one of the most powerful communication courses I’ve ever taken." So clearly th
by tomhoward 8y ago
The author literally writes "Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is an awful name for one of the most powerful communication courses I’ve ever taken."
So clearly the author/article is not endorsing the term, but using it for the purpose of familiarity and conciseness.
> the equivocation of words to violence is part of the postmodern attack on science
I've been a sympathiser with the culture-wars faction that makes claims like this, and whilst I've not exactly switched to an opposing faction, I've come around to a more moderate view of things, after personal experiences gave me a deep understanding of the way words and their style of delivery can be subconsciously perceived as physical threats.
We can accept this whilst still resisting such fears being exaggerated and misused by those with destructive culture-wars agendas.
It's clear to anyone committed to civility and empathy, that the way we express our communications can make a big difference to the way they are perceived and to the outcomes that are achieved.
- mgamache 8y agoYes words can convey threats and still not be non-violent. For example, if I say. "You are lazy" that's not violent, but it is a threat that I might not want to work with you in the future. Does this feel like a physical threat? Maybe, but only to the extent that our social standing has been correlated with survival. It's a social threat, not a physical one. Only in a society where true violence is rare would we ever confuse the two.