Nonviolent Communication? Words are not violent. There are better ways and worse ways to say things. You can be more empathetic and use words that result in less "triggering", but calling words violence is dangerous. It erodes the distinction between thoughts and opinions and real physical action.
I'm just guessing, but probably it was downvoted for being a shallow dismissal (also in the guidelines). Had you made your argument a little less strident and a little more informative, it could have been a fine comment, but as it was it sounds more like a shallow reaction to the name "Non-Violent Communication" that doesn't consider what they might have meant by it. Therefore this guideline is also probably relevant: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
I accept that my second response was not of the highest standard, but came from frustration that i felt a down-vote needed explanation (which your comment provided unlike other anon person). My original dismissal was not shallow. The article makes some valid points on how best to approach some interpersonal communication. However, the equivocation of words to violence is part of the postmodern attack on science. This article may not have written from that perspective and just using that as a pithy title, but I maintain it's wrong. I felt the need to point out the title's hyperbole.
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.
Yes 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.
