Reddit mentions of Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach to Nonviolent Communication

I definitely recommend you read Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach to Nonviolent Communication

https://www.amazon.com/dp/161180583X?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

It sounds like this the perfect book for you. It teaches communication skills and implements mindfulness with it.

For example, while listening, it teaches you to notice the present moment and to not only focus on what someone is saying, but focus on the pitch of their voice, their body language, the feeling of gravity, ect. And it also teaches you how to communicate by alway remember where you are coming from and how it will impact the person.

I have been reading this and have been really enjoying it. It's one of my favorite mindfulness books.

I know that the author Oren Jay Sofer did some interviews on some podcasts you could listen to.

>If, by expressing myself in this way, you decide not to listen to what I said, and instead to accuse me of communicating violently, is that not itself an act of violence?

From your perspective/worldview, it could be. And I am deeply sorry if lack of my listening+writing skills came off as "violent" to you. But believe me, it is not due to lack of effort. It is because I believe that: Written-only listening+writing about issues that matter most to people - worldview issues - is extremely challenging. In fact, this could be the most challenging task I have ever engaged in my life so far, and that is exactly why I am doing it, because it expands my worldview the most, and that demonstrably benefits all human beings the most (Berghof Foundation, Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task):

>Box 8: Transforming the Transformers – Smiling as a Method:
>
>One of the world‘s most notable transformers of conflict uses a method that does not usually appear in books about conflict and is completely absent from conflict theories. It is, however, a method that works. The method is to smile. „Breathing in, I calm my mind and body. Breathing out, I smile. This is the present moment. This is the only moment.“ Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, poet and peace activist. He is not the only exponent of the smiling approach to conflict transformation. The Dalai Lama, Adam Curle and Nelson Mandela are all instinctive smilers. [...]
>
>Transforming collective conflicts requires a deep awareness of ourselves and our interbeing with others.

​

>I don't see banning and removing as violent acts. Is it an act of violence to prevent a child from touching a red, glowing burner on a stove?

I think we could achieve more clarity, if we changed the term "violent" to "use of unilateral force" (Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach to Nonviolent Communication, Chapter 5. where are you coming from?):

>Using Force to Protect
>
>There are situations in life where an immediate result is more important than collaboration and dialogue — mostly when safety is involved. When our primary objective is to protect our own or another’s well-being, we employ what Rosenberg calls the protective use of force. If a child is running into the street, we shout or grab them, doing whatever it takes to keep them safe.
>
>This is complicated terrain philosophically. Does the end ever justify the means, and if so, when? Who has the authority to determine that? As soon as we decide it’s okay to use unilateral force “for their own good” or “for the greater good,” we run the risk of abusing power and causing harm. For the sake of our exploration, I want to point out a few key differences between Rosenberg’s protective use of force and relying on our default habits. First, in Rosenberg’s definition, we use force consciously rather than fall back on it unconsciously out of desperation or habit. Second, we use force without any malice, with the wish to protect rather than to harm. Third, it is a temporary, time-limited strategy. Last, we remain connected to the other person’s humanity instead of seeing them as a problem or enemy.
>
>Once all are safe, we can return to a more relational approach. Systems of restorative justice (as opposed to retributive criminal justice) are based on these principles. Once the immediate danger is removed, we can work to build understanding, creating the conditions for repair and more safety in the future.

​

I can smile when reading any words directed at me - including threats to end my biological life in the most torturous way imaginable - and take my time to consciously respond to best of my "ongoing conflict tansformation dialogue"-skills, but I can not smile away a ban - I am excommunicated, cut off, separated, silenced - can you see the categorical difference between "words" and "use of unilateral force"?

​

I wrote earlier "and without knowledge of better alternatives". Maybe you missed that. I am saying that in addition to taking the demonstrably effective not-easy steps of personal change (TED-talk "Reformed Criminals Reforming Criminals", highly recommed watching at least 61 seconds from timestamp), there are collective-level possibilities, which I have been trying to share with you, but you have not listened, because I have not been able to listen to you well enough. So how can I better listen to you? What am I not hearing?

PS. I will soon host friends/family, so it can take some time before I can formulate a reply to your next reply. But rest assured, I am reading your replies at least 3 times each. I just can not respond to all your concerns at once, just like you can not to mine. But if we want to change something at deep level, we have to invest the time to listen, that is how deep change works - in personal, inter-personal, and collective levels.