3 ms·

The very acronym itself redefines violence to something it isn't which is always a red flag. This all sounds like the worst parts of working in a lot of modern

The very acronym itself redefines violence to something it isn't which is always a red flag. This all sounds like the worst parts of working in a lot of modern offices where people don't speak frankly and instead everything is done through this sort of political office speak which is lets be honest here all about politics and not about solving problems. When I read things like this. I find it very insidious.

will_pseudonym 7y ago
Absolutely. Newspeak is an abominable practice, and I can't stand its inevitable progression. Even "Non-Aggressive Communication" would be too "aggressive" of a phrase to describe the framework.
wintermutestwin 7y ago
The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication"
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  > The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence And? They have also redefined violence to mean something else. It doesn't mean they are correct in doing so and in no way does this address my complaint. In the link you posted the very first line: > Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy." That is the definition and that is what most people think when they hear the term violence. Your link itself says it is a unconventional definition. One that I do not care for. So both the WHO and this acronym as far as I am concerned is redefining violence. > That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication" Again. This is more newspeak. It just being empathetic. I absolutely abhor people inventing their own terms when there is already suitable word.
- invalidOrTaken 7y ago
  The WHO can jump in a lake.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    When I see someone earnestly citing the WHO to make a point I'm usually a bit nonplussed. This site has a culture of expectation that we make substantial responses, but how you respond substantially to irrelevancies like this? The best response is "So?" I understand that the WHO does a decent job of regurgitating data or facts derived from elsewhere, but otherwise they are not an authority worthy of respect.
llamataboot 7y ago
It sounds like you are worried that using communication frameworks like this will inhibit being able to communicate freely and honestly and that instead of solving problems and working together (and even having some sharp disagreements), those disagreements will just be avoided through some sort of unclear speech in the name of not offending someone or hurting someone's feelings, and that as a result honesty and quality of collaboration will suffer...Does that sound right?
- uk_programmer 7y ago
  It is more simple than that. I think it is snake oil. I believe in anti-fragile and being objective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile I don't particularly like speech codes, I don't like "communication frameworks" and I am enough of an arsehole (because I don't care if people like me, and ironically that is why a lot of people like me) to call it out. Obviously you can't go around being generally abusive, but this is another insidious thing that we really don't need in an office.

will_pseudonym 7y ago

Absolutely. Newspeak is an abominable practice, and I can't stand its inevitable progression. Even "Non-Aggressive Communication" would be too "aggressive" of a phrase to describe the framework.

wintermutestwin 7y ago

The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication"

uk_programmer 7y ago
> The WHO includes emotional and psychological in the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence And? They have also redefined violence to mean something else. It doesn't mean they are correct in doing so and in no way does this address my complaint. In the link you posted the very first line: > Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy." That is the definition and that is what most people think when they hear the term violence. Your link itself says it is a unconventional definition. One that I do not care for. So both the WHO and this acronym as far as I am concerned is redefining violence. > That said, I do prefer the AKA of "Compassionate Communication" Again. This is more newspeak. It just being empathetic. I absolutely abhor people inventing their own terms when there is already suitable word.
invalidOrTaken 7y ago
The WHO can jump in a lake.
- jshevek 7y ago
  When I see someone earnestly citing the WHO to make a point I'm usually a bit nonplussed. This site has a culture of expectation that we make substantial responses, but how you respond substantially to irrelevancies like this? The best response is "So?" I understand that the WHO does a decent job of regurgitating data or facts derived from elsewhere, but otherwise they are not an authority worthy of respect.

llamataboot 7y ago

It sounds like you are worried that using communication frameworks like this will inhibit being able to communicate freely and honestly and that instead of solving problems and working together (and even having some sharp disagreements), those disagreements will just be avoided through some sort of unclear speech in the name of not offending someone or hurting someone's feelings, and that as a result honesty and quality of collaboration will suffer...Does that sound right?

uk_programmer 7y ago
It is more simple than that. I think it is snake oil. I believe in anti-fragile and being objective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile I don't particularly like speech codes, I don't like "communication frameworks" and I am enough of an arsehole (because I don't care if people like me, and ironically that is why a lot of people like me) to call it out. Obviously you can't go around being generally abusive, but this is another insidious thing that we really don't need in an office.