>Unless someone shouts into the ears of other person to induce hearing damage, it's clearly redefining the language to suit ones agenda and should be condemned.
I believe you are misunderstanding the parent's comment. The authors do not equate conversational violence with physical violence. Nor are they suggesting dictionaries amend their definition of violence. They are merely categorizing types of verbal communication, and providing names for them. It's no worse than calling someone's language as "soft" or "hard" - both are ridiculous if you go with the literal definitions. I could easily go and look up theorems/terminologies in science and engineering and make the same arguments about overloading common English terms. I'd rather not attribute negative intentions to the people who coined those terms for industry use.
>it's clearly redefining the language to suit ones agenda and should be condemned.
You are attributing intention to someone else, and this is a common way conversations go downhill. The books teach you how not to do that. They also suggest that using words like "should" in an unqualified manner is likely to derail the conversation.
>You can not be violent with words, you can use them for verbal abuse, incite violence, etc but the words themselves can't be violent.
I find it amusing you insist that you cannot be violent with words, but you are OK with using the word "abuse" for words.
(Apologies for not practicing NVC skills in this post).
I believe you are misunderstanding the parent's comment. The authors do not equate conversational violence with physical violence. Nor are they suggesting dictionaries amend their definition of violence. They are merely categorizing types of verbal communication, and providing names for them. It's no worse than calling someone's language as "soft" or "hard" - both are ridiculous if you go with the literal definitions. I could easily go and look up theorems/terminologies in science and engineering and make the same arguments about overloading common English terms. I'd rather not attribute negative intentions to the people who coined those terms for industry use.
>it's clearly redefining the language to suit ones agenda and should be condemned.
You are attributing intention to someone else, and this is a common way conversations go downhill. The books teach you how not to do that. They also suggest that using words like "should" in an unqualified manner is likely to derail the conversation.
>You can not be violent with words, you can use them for verbal abuse, incite violence, etc but the words themselves can't be violent.
I find it amusing you insist that you cannot be violent with words, but you are OK with using the word "abuse" for words.
(Apologies for not practicing NVC skills in this post).