Nonviolent Communication (NVC) culture facilitates abuse in part because NVC culture has very little regard for consent. They call it nonviolent, but it is often a coercive and emotional violent kind of interaction.
NVC has very different boundaries than are typical in…
Chilling is right, another response I’ve noticed that seems to be standard to any critique of NVC is the whole “oh well that was a misapplication of NVC, if you’d been doing it correctly that never would have happened”.
It’s been incredibly refreshing to see these posts and then reading the comments even though it’s sad to see how many people have been hurt by it, just being able to know I’m not the only person in the universe who rejects NVC has been so helpful, it’s just like my god, finally.
NVC advocates say that to me a lot. Every single one of them who has ever said that has also quickly done the exact things I say are pervasive and awful in NVC culture.
They also often do a thing where, no matter what you say, they interpret it as though you have said something they agree with. NVC people can make it impossible to express disagreement with them and be heard. That is also an act of emotional violence.
The "oh, you're objecting to the misuse of this thing I'm in favor of" is endemic to privileged groups. I'm reminded of a sexual abuse survivor that I have a lot of respect for, who has been pointing out how little mainstream Christian culture accommodates the idea of consent being important or necessary, and is sick to death of hearing "the Christians who abused you were not real Christians" as a justification for why the culture doesn't need to reevaluate anything or change.
"The NVC users who silenced you were misusing it" is exactly the same willfully oblivious derail. It's a knee-jerk refusal to engage with the subtance of what you're saying because people don't want to confront the fact that their communications tool is abusive. When used as directed, it's exploitable. ( Read more )