141–144 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I hear people trying to use "Nonviolent Communication" it only makes me more angry. It is manipulation and so transparent and condescending. Sometimes communication needs to be violent.
I'm reminded of this supposedly ancient proverb I was taught in school: He who raises his voice first, loses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I feel that you desire agency on both parties. That is such an artificial way of talking and it is making me not want to talk to you. You are actively cutting of communicating with me if you keep talking to me this way. Now you will blame me, and not yourself. I have lived all my life, cooperated with people of all kinds. Never used NVC.
>That is such an artificial way of talking and it is making me not want to talk to you. You are actively cutting of communicating with me if you keep talking to me this way cool, communication for the win and I can modulate to hopefully better understand you. how would you like to be acknowledged or how would you like me to check understanding? NVC is a framework to do that and you don't want artificial sounding exch…
Sure came off as trying to dismiss or deflect from criticisms in your earlier comments. Sounded almost like you'd drunk too deeply of the Kool-Aid. (From all I've read and heard about "Non-Violent Communication" -- mostly from the pro side! -- it sounds rather like a cult.)
> I want to know these because if I am giving bad advice by recommending NVC I want to stop.
Yeah, please do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That is such an artificial way of talking and it is making me not want to talk to you. You are actively cutting of communicating with me if you keep talking to me this way cool, communication for the win and I can modulate to hopefully better understand you. how would you like to be acknowledged or how would you like me to check understanding? NVC is a framework to do that and you don't want artificial sounding exch…
> I am trying to understand and evaluate criticisms against NVC and I am not convinced by what those posts said. Sure came off as trying to dismiss or deflect from criticisms in your earlier comments. Sounded almost like you'd drunk too deeply of the Kool-Aid. (From all I've read and heard about "Non-Violent Communication" -- mostly from the pro side! -- it sounds rather like a cult.) > I want to know these because i…
yeah, because I am saying they are not convincing and I believe I stated why. Next in the exchange would be to say why my reasons against it are folly or why I misunderstood.
It sounds like you think I'm too deep in. So help me out: what, specifically, do I need to change my perspective on? By definition, if I'm too deep, I can't see it.
> yeah, please do
I will, when someone can help me understand _why_.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is often considered to fall more heavily on women. Citation needed.
Here you go: https://www.simplypsychology.org/emotional-labor.html > Hochschild (1983) suggested that jobs requiring more emotional labor are performed primarily by women. These jobs typically involve creating feelings of well-being or affirmation in others – responsibilities usually assigned to women. Hochschild, A. (1983). 1983 The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.