In the example offered: ”Me: Ugh, the kitchen is dirty again. Why didn’t you do the dishes yesterday?” What about the “Ugh” verbal expression of frustration and or disdain, as well as “Why didn’t YOU do the dishes” which implies blame and or authority / superiority that ‘you’ have some right which another does not possess? (You have the right to dictate another person do dishes that you are apparently unwilling to do or take responsibility towards)
From my perspective of the information presented, this sounds more like spinning or twisting words around than resolving a root or core element of the problem. It is not that I disagree with the overall points you made in general about minding our emotions or the words we may choose to use, I do agree with that, however the part I don’t agree with is the fixation on adjectives with exclusivity.
“2. But the adjective I chose conveys something specific that I can’t otherwise convey by just stating my feelings. Saying “I didn’t like your presentation” is just not the same as “Your presentation was too dry”.”
The difference is subjective, quire minor semantics of degree in which is stated that ‘the presentation was not liked’. saying ‘the presentation was too dry’ is still an insult and arguably even worse if you knew it was very much not a compliment.
Communication is not about “winning”, it should be about collaboration, not competition. Communication is not “violence”. Violence is self-defined as an act of violation. Truth cannot be a violator. What you’d most likely mean is that untruth, lies, psychological abuse, censorship, dishonest communication tactics, those are technically real manifestations of words being used to stifle and prevent true communication and embolden injustices in some manner. But they are not acts of communication turned violent, but acts of violence upon and through the concept of “communication” as a proxy.
In the example offered:
”Me: Ugh, the kitchen is dirty again. Why didn’t you do the dishes yesterday?”
What about the “Ugh” verbal expression of frustration and or disdain, as well as “Why didn’t YOU do the dishes” which implies blame and or authority / superiority that ‘you’ have some right which another does not possess? (You have the right to dictate another person do dishes that you are apparently unwilling to do or take responsibility towards)
From my perspective of the information presented, this sounds more like spinning or twisting words around than resolving a root or core element of the problem. It is not that I disagree with the overall points you made in general about minding our emotions or the words we may choose to use, I do agree with that, however the part I don’t agree with is the fixation on adjectives with exclusivity.
“2. But the adjective I chose conveys something specific that I can’t otherwise convey by just stating my feelings. Saying “I didn’t like your presentation” is just not the same as “Your presentation was too dry”.”
The difference is subjective, quire minor semantics of degree in which is stated that ‘the presentation was not liked’. saying ‘the presentation was too dry’ is still an insult and arguably even worse if you knew it was very much not a compliment.
Communication is not about “winning”, it should be about collaboration, not competition.
Communication is not “violence”. Violence is self-defined as an act of violation. Truth cannot be a violator. What you’d most likely mean is that untruth, lies, psychological abuse, censorship, dishonest communication tactics, those are technically real manifestations of words being used to stifle and prevent true communication and embolden injustices in some manner. But they are not acts of communication turned violent, but acts of violence upon and through the concept of “communication” as a proxy.