3 ms·
No I think that 'corporate-speak' is the term for that. And it clearly doesn't get the point across since there are any number of people posting that this in an
by pixelgeek 5y ago
No I think that 'corporate-speak' is the term for that. And it clearly doesn't get the point across since there are any number of people posting that this in an incorrect use of the word.
I think what is happening is that some people want to imply malice by misusing a word.
- the_gipsy 5y agoSo you agree that there is a different nuance when using “newspeak”.
- pixelgeek 5y agoNo. I think people are deliberately misusing a word to imply totalitarian control.
- mindslight 5y agoCompanies use twisted non-straightforward language because they have the power to not suffer significant repercussions from doing so, just like a bona fide government. Some customers may see through the bullshit and leave, but on the whole most won't. Impotent totalitarianism is still totalitarianism. Furthermore, newspeak in 1984 wasn't simply the language the government used to make pronouncements, but rather the language that people were expected to use to communicate (moreso for politically connected people IIRC). I'd say corporate speech with its baked in responsibility-dodging passive-aggression definitively qualifies, as the people making these statements seemingly believe they're communicating in earnest. It's only when they're taken out of the corporate context that their vacuousness becomes apparent.