- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
I like this because it seems to "get down to brass tacks" for want of a better word. Instead of talking about high-level abstractions like "your ideology is evil", you talk about what is underneath, "you are hurting me" (maybe Marshall Rosenberg wouldn't approve of this example because it presents the other party as an enemy, but you get what I mean).
For instance instead of saying "you are oppressive tyrants", you can say "we have a need for freedom". Instead of saying "you are violent murderers", you can say "we have a need for safety".
It would probably be better to ask the other party what their needs are first though.
I want to try this.
For instance instead of saying "you are oppressive tyrants", you can say "we have a need for freedom". Instead of saying "you are violent murderers", you can say "we have a need for safety".
It would probably be better to ask the other party what their needs are first though.
I want to try this.