I have a couple of questions and comments. First, what are your thoughts on Tony Robbins and the way he communicates?
Second, why do you get to set the rules of communications? I am particularly perturbed when I read statements like:
There is no reason why anarchists should reject compassionate communication. There is no reason why they should use hateful language.
Really, no reason? To me that is being passive aggressive. Just like when people say "there is no reason to hit a woman" or " no reason to confront a cop". To say that there is no reason, is being passive aggressive and is a popular technique to control the dialog and narrative. There are reasons, some good, some bad, some positive, and some negative. You may not believe that there are good or positive reasons to enjoin in certain styles of communications, but to say that there is no reason is a lie and manipulative. Also, why do you get to determine what language is hateful and what language is not? Do you know what my intent is when I use certain words?
Finally, I would try to steer clear of NVC and Mr. Rosenburg. From what I have read on both sides, NVC at best is passive aggressive at worst it is a moralizing, aggressive and manipulative use of language that tends toward psychic terror.
While it claims to encourage "active listening" it more often encourages repetitive attempts to diagnose the feelings and needs of the speaker, which I and others like to call "apparent listening". This was glaringly obvious to me in your first rebuttal to an article written by kyriacos. Instead of "actively listening" to what kyriacos was saying you kept trying to bully him into speaking in your "giraffe" language instead of his "wolf" language, wondering where all the "wolf" language comes from and gloating to others in your prediction that he would use "wolf" language when he did. I figured out where the misunderstanding was in the first few comments because I was actually listening to what he said and not how he said it.
In my opinion, NVC is nothing more than feminism language, a passive aggressive way to bully the narrative. It uses guilt, shame, fear, and manipulation to steer the argument instead of actual critical thinking and listening. NVC is reductionism and a rejection of the wholeness of human beings.
Before you reply to this comment just take a moment and ask yourself, "Would you rather be right , than happy?"
I do appreciate what you are trying to accomplish, I just disagree with certain aspects of how you are doing it.
Hey there, friend. I appreciate your perspective, but I also disagree. Thanks for having the courage to post your disagreements. I will try to address a few of your concerns here.
I did not continue to continue engage in Kyriacos, because I am not personally interested in being insulted and attacked in a conversation. I never denied that he may have good points, but I won't communicate with someone who believes that being hostile and insulting others represents the truth. All it actually does is turn off any potential receiver, which is exactly what happened to me. Sometimes people just have to realize that their communication strategies may not be working to persuade anyone of their ideas, which is why I educate people on the above techniques.
Needless to say, I didn't "bully" him. But I did draw a line in the sand by saying that I will not subject myself to his attacks in lieu of a civil discussion. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. By virtue of advocating the methods above, I am not also mandating that people must wade through abusive language with every online person they meet. They can if they so choose, but that is certainly not a requirement.
I slightly agree with your position on nonviolent communication, which is why I have modified it in the form of compassionate communication and have applied it to my conception of relational anarchism. And I certainly do not suggest that people should be passive-aggressive with their use of these techniques. If that is the case, they likely need to look at their motivations for wanting to use this material in the first place. Furthermore, in NVC and other forms of compassionate communication, there is no need to "diagnose" needs. But it is good ascertain the needs of the other person and try to meet them if possible. It is through that conduit that mutual understanding can be achieved.
Thanks for the time you took to write out your critique. I hope I was able to respond in a straightforward way that makes sense.