4 ms·

One can couch their words in the language of nonviolence and still be manipulative, cruel or discriminatory. It can and does act as a form of social camouflage,

One can couch their words in the language of nonviolence and still be manipulative, cruel or discriminatory. It can and does act as a form of social camouflage, because humans are shitty and a method of communication will not safeguard against predators. You can’t make people harmless, but you can force them to innovate different ways to harm others.

codr7 2y ago
Yeah, but that isn't it at all, I'm afraid. It's much darker. The fact is that exactly the same people who are pushing the idea, are the ones who we would need protection from. And they're not innovating much, it's the same bs over and over and over again.
- comfysocks 2y ago
  I don’t think the dynamic you are talking about has much to do with Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication. Perhaps a slightly reductive view, but I see “NVC” as basically saying that when people argue, emotions can sometimes overrule logic. When people get emotional, they sometimes plug their ears and start screaming into the void. NVC is then basically a bunch of tactics to circumvent the emotional aspect so that the discussion can get back to logical facts. It also tries to create a framework where the people arguing have to hear the other side’s arguments before making a counter argument. I think the book has some very useful ideas mixed in with some amount of self-promotion. I think the name “Nonviolent Communication” (which might throw some people off) is part of that self-promotion. Don’t let the name fool you.
  - codr7 2y ago
    I don't think eliminating emotions from human interaction is a very smart thing to do, and certainly not the only alternative to screaming into the void. We're already at the point where we're almost not supposed to have emotions anymore, turning more into robots every day. Every single aspect of being human is emotional, every single decision you make is emotional, no matter how hard you work to justify it mentally. The idea is nice in theory, if it wasn't for all the humans involved it might actually work.

codr7 2y ago

Yeah, but that isn't it at all, I'm afraid. It's much darker. The fact is that exactly the same people who are pushing the idea, are the ones who we would need protection from. And they're not innovating much, it's the same bs over and over and over again.

comfysocks 2y ago
I don’t think the dynamic you are talking about has much to do with Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication. Perhaps a slightly reductive view, but I see “NVC” as basically saying that when people argue, emotions can sometimes overrule logic. When people get emotional, they sometimes plug their ears and start screaming into the void. NVC is then basically a bunch of tactics to circumvent the emotional aspect so that the discussion can get back to logical facts. It also tries to create a framework where the people arguing have to hear the other side’s arguments before making a counter argument. I think the book has some very useful ideas mixed in with some amount of self-promotion. I think the name “Nonviolent Communication” (which might throw some people off) is part of that self-promotion. Don’t let the name fool you.
- codr7 2y ago
  I don't think eliminating emotions from human interaction is a very smart thing to do, and certainly not the only alternative to screaming into the void. We're already at the point where we're almost not supposed to have emotions anymore, turning more into robots every day. Every single aspect of being human is emotional, every single decision you make is emotional, no matter how hard you work to justify it mentally. The idea is nice in theory, if it wasn't for all the humans involved it might actually work.