Physical violence, brutal honesty and implications for groups

Physical violence is a serious issue. There are many different levels of physical violence, but i share the opinion, that a line is crossed, as soon as someone tries to use his or her body to dominate or harm another one's. It does not matter if it results in serious injuries or not, it is all about the intention and willingness or simply acceptance that the other one could be physically hurt. Yes, emotional or psychological violence can not kill anybody, especially if the potential victim lives following the insights of non-violent communication stating that noone is responsible for your feelings but you yourself.

Having that said, i find it of utmost importance to point out, that not everybody is able to do that. We are not all trained buddhist monks who have found their inner balance and are able to control their emotions accordingly. To behave as if it was the case is not realistic. There are two logical conclusions to this if I live a brutally honest non-violent communications approach:

1. I know that i am confrontative and therefore am fully aware of the fact that people not sharing my way of handling emotions will get angry at me. Therefore, i try to find out who is willing to exert physical violence when in an emotionally charged discussion to then avoid those people.
2.  I know that i am confrontative and therefore am fully aware of the fact that people not sharing my way of handling emotions will get angry at me. So i look out especially carefully for other people's reactions and try to deescalate by being perfectly calm, tactful and considerate myself while still transporting my point. I know and accept that this takes some time and don't try to push my opinions on people who are not able or willing to get them at that moment.

Implications for groups:

Approach 1 is exclusive but clear. Also it requires a high degree of clarity and honesty. If someone is classified as willing to use violence, that person gets avoided, alienated and excluded. Changes in personal behaviors of the avoided one are not taken into account. A person once classified as dangerous will not be reintegrated into the social circle of the individual following this approach, therefore the excluding person is perfectly safe. It will be hard building a group following this approach, because most people are not able to behave in such a controlled manner and would therefore be avoided. But if a group of people was to be built it would almost certainly succeed.

Approach 2 is inclusive but vague. Also it requires a high degree of empathy and great language skills. Noone gets actually classified, because escalations of communicative situations are avoided. Therefore there could be bad surprises of violent outbreaks if someone gets triggered by something unexpected. But changes in the personal way of people dealing with violence can also be achieved through collaborative work and will be recognized. A group could be built much faster and would consist of people with issues, who are willing to figure them out together. This group would have a higher chance to fail.