What?! I mean 'oppressive language' as that phrase is used in various systems of communications modeling, such as NVC and Active Listening. Why are you saying that I mean something else?
> he's as shady as he claims Billy to be
This is, at best, a tu quoque fallacy. Why are you doing damage control?
At the end of the day, this isn't even about Bobby and Billy, but about all the Bobbies and Billies you meet in the tech scene generally.
@jMyles, sadly, "oppressive language" is probably as jargony as "NVC" and "Active listening" are for most people. If you aren't aware that a cultural clique has changed a few characters in a common phrase to coin a phrase that means something only slightly different, it just looks like a typo. I will have to google "tu quoque"...
"NVC" and "Active Listening" are jargon, and not terribly impressive jargon - I'll warrant that.
But "oppressive language?" That just seems like a good descriptor of a communications style that we all encounter from time to time. That's the reason these "systems" have picked it up.
What?! I mean 'oppressive language' as that phrase is used in various systems of communications modeling, such as NVC and Active Listening. Why are you saying that I mean something else?
> he's as shady as he claims Billy to be
This is, at best, a tu quoque fallacy. Why are you doing damage control?
At the end of the day, this isn't even about Bobby and Billy, but about all the Bobbies and Billies you meet in the tech scene generally.