I've extensively watched NVC training yesterday. And about a somewhat hot topic on meta, Marshall Rosenberg, father of NVC, said very clearly "If you want to stop hurting other with your words simply wait until you are flat and dead". He believes "nobody is responsible for your feelings" which IMHO make a lot of sense but that can be harsh to defend against someone arguing moderation against -isms and other hate speech.
Even if people do, you're still the one responsible for your feelings, but I think it makes it a lot harder to claim you were allowed circumstances where you could have full control.
@Tinkeringbell But how can you evaluate intent though. There have been for example historians working on revisionnist theories. This is afaik somewhat illegal now in France for the reason it's hate speech. How could you separate someone awkward and with ancient values for example, say a fine 1920 buddy, with someone being actively trolling
You can't. That's why I'm not responsible for people's feelings, but just for enforcing a set of rules/guidelines. Moderators in other places will have other guidelines to follow.
If the set of rules is being so arbitrary there is probably no wonder it's so debated, because then it's about political power about who sets them and who's views it is going to win. Then you would have different churches with their advocates... everything i love (not) about politics
I have a book on the Trolley Problem... it makes an interesting argument: The court of public opinion is the highest court there can be. Without public opinion, there wouldn't be any laws or politics.
There are still bands of hunter-gatherers deep in the Amazon, that are very unlikely to be arranged around money ;) Are they not societies then? :P
I listened to an interesting podcast yesterday, about protests.
It mentioned counter-culture (from the 60s) as well: How people wanted all that they already had, but also more focus on individual self-determination, more of a 'right' to personal happiness and not just doing what your parents did, how they didn't want authoritarian teaching...
It's funny to see most protests of today in that light: how people are basically demanding rules forbidding this or that XD
It drew some good parallels, and the point I was making is kinda getting lost but to get back to it: societies are weird :P
Well, I would say they certainly help, but these days it's becoming more and more like those American warning labels you sometimes read about :D
It's no use having rules if there's no enforcement... but similarly, it's no use lobbying for rules that are basically not enforcable.
That last bit is getting close to "thought crimes" and autoritarian regimes where you can settle disputes by just calling in your neighbor for not screaming loud enough that he loves the government.
Most of the laws are quite nonsensical. They are meant to preserve things stale and powerful people in powerful positions.
that's a bit controversial view, but imagine that
I've never had to face a policeman in my life except to control my vehicle papers that just happened to be outdated and he didn't care
yet most of the time i act reasonably and never killed anyone
even though i'm mentally unstable
I don't see any reason the law would prevent you from actually killing your neighbor. For one, they don't really, they just punish you afterwards. And for second if you come to want to kill your neighbor there is something really wrong that is to be searched outside of the scope of law and order
now anarchy have a large problem with money and ensuring their stability and value
@ArthurHv On the one hand, yes. On the other... if there are no rules governing 'revenge', who's to say the people that do find it an essential need don't go rampaging?
Nothing, and I don't believe a piece of law prevents that. We saw rampages happen in the US. We know quite well what's the problem...
OTOH I'm not saying an anarchy would be less violent. It could be more violent. But I'm questioning the power people give to law that it doesn't have IMHO.
Laws do only work as long as people believe they do ;) If you have a society that (mostly) agrees to abide to certain laws, those laws will work and hold power. Much like religion, actually, or anything else humans come up with.
As long as people believe a piece of cloth with a 10 printed on it is worth 10 euros, and that those cloths are the only way to get groceries from a supermarket... we're willing to work to have those pieces of cloth, and not steal from the supermarket.
On anarchies, there was this guy that compiled the list of the 100 worst disasters in history, caused by humans.
He concluded that anarchies are worse than the most suppressive form of government.
AFAIK the historians agreed with his analyses.
So I'm just saying, don't underestimate what chaos can do
@Tinkeringbell two generations later, the teaching is still pretty authoritarian and the only change the 60's brought as far as I can see is more entitlement
That's why even the salvageable messages of the counterculture don't make me hate that era any less.
I guess I'm a commie shrug
I'm thinking, it must be pretty smelly and damp beneath the Mandalorian's helmet. Ew.
@M.A.R. I don't see a relationship between a disaster and a law system if you take for ex. Tchernobyl. That being said if you have source so I can understand better I would be glad.
Note that I'm not a convinced anarchist either, I think it's an inspiring ideal and so is democracy. We can only live with imperfect implementations anyway.
@ArthurHv Well, if we take the corona pandemic and 'law system' (okay, more politics but still): I have read that a lot of this crap could've been prevented if local Chinese authorities hadn't tried so hard to suppress the seriousness of this pandemic just so the national government wouldn't hold them accountable.
I'm not sure how that proves the fact that most of the worst disasters were by absence of law though XD
But well, Chernobyl was kinda caused by humans just doing what they wanted, and not following safety protocols, if I understood the mini-series correctly :D
@Tinkeringbell To me this echoes a lot of NVC teachings that accountability and duty are poor motivations when it comes to making individuals do responsible choices.
I haven't really studied NVC much, but if you mean that shouting at people that they are irresponsible isn't going the help them be more responsible, sure XD
Like I said, I can agree with the philosophical principle, and I hold myself to at most times. But who knows what I'll ever do if I'm put in a position where I have to choose between my own life, or the life of someone I don't know?
@ArthurHv And I think that holds well, if both people are willing to eliminate. But as soon as you're dealing with someone that does not share that goal, that's when things will turn violent anyways.
I can choose to ignore someone on the internet because they've been nasty, and ignoring them is the kindest thing left to do that will avoid the most violence. But as long as that person doesn't choose to grant me the same favor, they'll see my ignoring as a slight and use it to try and get under my skin anyways.
@Tinkeringbell, are you saying you want a break from here at the moment? If not, i have something to add to your last paragraph.
Someone being nasty is their problem, you know. as do they, as i on regretful occasion.
If we understand as much, as probably has been said here more than enough, we can continue somehow.
Now that we're contributing to the name of this site, please allow me to work through repeated brain injury as if that were an excuse.
The injuries are diagnostic, including one just a month ago, but somehow my typing persists.
Yet, knowing my relatives, the basic diagnosis is genetic.
And you would've enjoyed the follow-up comas as much is i up to those points.
, , ,
please, sorry to interrupt with a datum, please continue
(oooooo, no need to worry, persons who care and know about me more than present have left me to free range for half a century. Just tell me how to contribute, please.)
(okay, it's not technically dress uniform, it's the one that you wear when out of base or during a ceremony. Unfortunately, it happened to be raining when I left base.)
Yess I'm back! Some people/meetings XD. So, if I understand correctly, if we're talking NVC, I could tell people I chose a certain thing, and those people I'm talking with would be expected to not judge me for it?
Yet if I tell them I had to do a certain thing, I'll be judged a liar?
@Mithical You need a C uniform for rainy weather ;)
@Tinkeringbell That's not exactly it. NVC identifies communication mode and not people using that. So you can judge people and still use the NVC to communicate. But if you express something then it's NVC if you do so without evaluation and judgement.
In a world of fluent nvc users, you could tell you had to do something, and NVC listeners would hmm hmm not believe you and just not point out you are a liar :D
But does that mean NVC leaves no room for 'interpretative listening', where a statement like "I had to" is automatically interpreted as 'I felt there was no better option to choose'?
@Tinkeringbell I know what you mean and i especially struggle with "improvements" and "we have to" in corporate setting but I think it's ok to hear them and use them as long as the frame is understood by interlocutors.
Yep. It's different. It takes less time. There are measures like that. Improvement is just not objective, it's the same as saying "the product is good".
but on what scale, on what value ? For corp, for users, for devs ?
Let's take the following conversation:
John - Hey Mike, I am John how are you?
Mike - Hi John, I am good. Thanks for asking.
John - Let me introduce myself. I am John and I am working in ...
Now here, John has said his name twice in the introduction. How can we avoid this or this is ok?
TL;DR: The SRE Team at Stack Overflow is announcing 3 maintenance windows. No downtime is planned but the work is classified as “risky” therefore this announcement. The maintenance is expected to take 10-20 minutes and will happen sometime during the 2-hour window beginning at 8:30PM ET (01:30 U...
As a "whatever" person, this was critical for me to learn. I thought I was being nice, if I had no preference, allowing the other person to choose what they liked. Having it explained that no, this was actually pushing more work on them, I now take the question and put some work into it. Frequently, it's still "This sounds good, but I don't have a strong preference" to compare against "I want to go here", and I hope that works better. However, another thing: as a true "whatever" person (and not a controller), if I do "whatever", I don't get to gripe about the choice - "whatever" was fine. — Mycroft58 secs ago
Let's take the following conversation:
John - Hey Mike, I am John how are you?
Mike - Hi John, I am good. Thanks for asking.
John - Let me introduce myself. I am John and I am working in ...
Now here, John has said his name twice in the introduction. How can we avoid this or this is ok?
