I am simply offended by the Non-violent Communications adherents who will pout in tearful defensiveness at the abruptness of a verbal confrontation. How dare they, really? Theirs is an attack, literally itself, a violence upon integrity. It is a classic fallacy of logic, the ad hominem attack, which criticizes the person making the argument as opposed to the argument itself.
It’s been my personal experience that NVC practitioners show themselves to be passive-aggressive enthusiasts, probably to end-run confrontations, which, while end-running, is inherently duplicitous. Do these methods not qualify as violent? I may speak in anger, but it is in earnest. And if I am able to make my point, the rationale for my anger may prove to be justified.
Here I am faced with three ignoble affronts against my person, where I’m accused of bandying only one.
No matter, how about we call it a draw, and get on with what we’re trying to say?
