dream_weasel

Not sure how you get yours, but I’ve always been a coffee drinker. I cut my caffeine way down by slowly mixing more decaf into the grind when I make the pot. Instead of drinking half a pot or a pot of regular, now I get the equivalent of about a cup or cup and a half if that and it was easy to do.

If it’s soda you could experiment with drinking it from a big cup and doing the same trick mixing in decaf maybe?

I will also say I like the part where I gave you the win in a cordial thread of the no stupid questions community wherein I admitted I understand the historical value of the term now even though I don’t like it, but you couldnt accept. When you can’t convince me to like it you just gotta tell me what my problem is, downvote every comment, and go home.

The problem here may well be opinion vs expertise, but every time someone brings up skilled and unskilled labor (for example) I do it. As do all of us experts who have an important message, and we should be doing it patiently and without judgement.

So let me, at the close, suggest to you that you go back to the very top and see how your attempt at direct, nonviolent communication came up way short. I think there is value in the approach and there’s value in expertise, but for an “expert” in the field, I find this exchange to be equal parts tone deaf, insightful, and ultimately officious/petulant/immature. This sure felt like some undergraduate level dick measuring bullshit to me 🤷.

Next time I hope you try to destigmatize mental health issues broadly not specifically, and someone calls you out in the same way every time you short circuit a discussion by suggesting that’s why whoever you’re addressing “doesn’t get it”.

Have a great day!

Instead of totally effectively not doing anything at all, including vote or show up.

Let it be a lesson when you write your book to choose a better name, then. You won’t have to work against the grain. It will also go easier if you don’t suggest that anyone who disagrees with you has some form of mental health disorder, but that would be nit picking.

It’s possible to like one from that list or for one to be your favorite. I have a friend who says his favorite is great Gatsby.

It usually means we should ask more questions, because people who read who choose books from school are I think a minority. Most of those books are good for discussion and generally likeable but not “holy shit this it the book for me” kinds of books.

Hatchet is the plane crash. The other is “my side of the mountain”.

Lots of gut cherry references in hatchet, and one instance of profanity as I recall.

Some people are hiding in this category as well. I don’t trust people who, when you ask their favorite book, tell you it’s hatchet, to kill a mockingbird, Atlas shrugged, etc etc. If it was a school read, chances are it’s one of like 5 books they ever actually read.

The dictionary definition reflects common usage, and we are only having this discussion because I backed up someone else who had the same thought based on, you know, common usage. I’m happy to hear the trivialization for the scenario I described doesnt happen based on your experience. I still don’t like the wording, but then, I don’t have to.

I was not considering violence as a spectrum. Since your last comment, I did some background research and saw that “nonviolent communication” has its roots in a book that came out at the same time that non-violent protest was being put to effective use. In that context it does make sense.

To make sure I wasn’t crazy, I did just google the definition of violence and the top definition is here:

violence
/vī′ə-ləns/
noun
Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.

So I appreciate the idea, I don’t prefer the terminology, but I suppose I shouldn’t be hung up about it.

I do take issue with this though:

You are, indeed, conflating all of violence and reducing it to just assault. Which is hurtful and trivializes the suffering of victims of harassment, rape, and many more. Yours is the same logic by which rapists argue that it was not “actual” rape.

My point is the opposite. I think the trivialization goes the other way. Suppose we have a group session for victims of violence. This gradient point now means that a rape survivor, the domestic abuse survivor, and the victim of some race related beat down sit with someone who gets called names on XBox Chat. Are they all victims? Absolutely. Can they be reasonably lumped into the same group? I would think no, but then this is not my area of expertise.

Interestingly I don’t find the nasal vowels hard at all. In Écureuil (and other words that give me problems) it’s the “u” that is the hard part. It’s projected to a funny place in the mouth for me.

If I don’t pay attention it naturally wants to sound like the “ou” in 12 which my wife gives me shit for :).

Renault Peugeot Rumplestiltzkin

You got any friends with a similar example name in French? Unless your name is Écureuil, I’m thinking it can’t be that bad.

“Moi, je déteste l’écureuil.” was my practice sentence to master that one and sometimes I’m still nervous to use it in the wild lol.

“So we are going to take our chicken and add a big pinch of MoOoOtZAdeLL” - Giada DeLaurentis

Idk

Half of everyone is dumber than the average person

I’m part of everyone.

I wonder which half of me is the dumb half…

Smart tube also looks like it’s working this morning.

The more I write about it in this thread the more I agree that “nonviolent communication” implies “violent communication” which feels like an equivalence between words and physical assault.

I’m all for people communicating in a way that is civil, unambiguous, and direct, but this lexical appropriation sure sounds like manufactured fragility at best, or—as you say—a trivialization of physical violence.

(And I sure hope — shows as an em-dash)

Thank you for a thoughtful comment, unfortunately I don’t have time right now to read it as carefully as I would like, but I have two short points:

1. I think you misread the first guy (or one of us did). I understand the statement is not “nonviolent communication is violent” but rather calling distasteful communication “violent communication” both increases the threat posed by words alone and decreases the value of the word “violence” in a physical context. Basically it is better for me to call you an asshole than to punch you in the face, so let’s not equate them with terminology.

2. It may also be possible that your time in psych and corrections makes you more likely to see sociopathy when you’ve potentially misread or misunderstood which is, itself, potentially harmful to getting a message across.

I will basically never tell someone “seek help for XXX” unless I’m being wildly sarcastic or intentionally combative in either case.

Gotta get my kids but I’ll be around later.

Edit:

Basically speech and violence are inherently different things, and I agree with the original poster that I would prefer not to equate them.

Sure, lots of people here on Lemmy may say “obviously words are violence”, but I’m not inclined to trust commentary here to be a representative sample. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, flipping this around, would you expect to get tased and sent to jail for calling a cop a pig, just like if you punched him in the face? If no, then it seems to me there’s an opportunity for nuance. Sure, this is conflating violence and assault, but if we aren’t going to specifically define violence, then it seems to me that’s as good a definition as any other. Otherwise what? Any form of meanness is violence? I don’t buy it.

There is every reason to communicate directly and succinctly to actually make a point, which precludes tone or particular wording that is offensive, no complaints there. But I would say that by giving a common platform to words and actions we are putting a fair amount of weight behind what I will call “manufactured fragility”. It would be great to have the entire world adopt fair and equitable discourse, but that just isn’t going to happen with a fingersnap. And in the meantime we are going to ascribe the same verbiage to both mean posters on the Internet and people who batter their children? I see that as an insulting trivialization of “actual” (physical) violence.

This discussion HAS to start with a recognition and definition of terms, and assimilating terminology tastes bad in this case.

Were this the tone of your first comment I wouldn’t have written mine. This could have been the case even still alluding to alleged “sociopathy” from dissatisfaction with a neologism or turn of phrase.

I do still appreciate a gracious and cool headed response.

To the point of stigma, if I were on the receiving end, it’s less about the mental health suggestion and more about being dismissive of a perspective and writing it off as sociopathy. In your broken leg example, it would not be offensive to suggest a person gets help for a broken leg (you can see it’s broken), but it WOULD be offensive if you said “you wouldn’t have that broken leg if you lost some weight. You should go get some help” especially if that has nothing to do with why their leg is broken. People don’t usually respond positively to public speculations on medical conditions, and that’s double extra true when it’s derisive and offered up as a dismissal to a question, perspective, or circumstance.

Edit: I could have initially made a less pointed reply as well and I didn’t, so apologies for that. Some related $5 vocab words might include “vociferous reply” and “knee-jerk polemic”.

So you choose violence eh? I invite you to practice what you are preaching so you don’t communicate like a violent sociopath.

… or an insufferable and supercilious lemming.

I don’t care who is “right” in a discussion about communication style, the last guy made some points in good faith and gave an opportunity for discussion, and instead of engaging you start suggesting this other person has mental problems?

Stop being this way.

Nice! This comment brings your total of my up votes and down votes back to exactly zero. Very Thanos. Very cool.