Site icon A (or One) Skeptic

Can’t Do Non-Violent Communication when it come to today’s conservatives.

There is a thing called non-violent communication, a technique developed by Marshall Rosenberg, and there is now even a Center for Nonviolent Communication, and it is really a nice set of techniques for how to communicate with someone in a compassionate and responsible way. So for example, the techniques involve:

I learned about this technique from my former partner (let’s call her Isabella for the purposes of this post). The irony is that Isabella could not engage in nonviolent communication when it mattered most. When it mattered most, she was mostly capable of engaging in violent communication.

Isabella would say outrageous things, or just scream and yell, and after a period of trying to reason with her I would just scream and yell back. Yes, there were profanities involved. Eventually, the storm would subside and we could try to reason through the argument, and sometimes that took many hours.[1] But whenever I caved in to the urge to yell back at Isabella, I always felt disappointed in myself. Really, I should have done better.

And so it is with the rhetoric that has been showing up in this blog. Consider that just this week:

Not that some of this name-calling isn’t deserved; some of it most certainly is. But I’m always disappointed in myself when I can’t find a more constructive way to express myself.


[1] I learned with time to stay in an argument for many hours, which is not a natural thing for a man to do. As some of you who know psychology can attest to, men as a group tend to get more easily “flooded” than women in an argument. That’s why men like to keep it short, and sometimes just end up walking out. Women – although this is not universally true, of course – tend to be able to hang in an argument much longer.

Exit mobile version