3 ms·

I think this is part of the super annoying to me trend of double speaking to avoid using overtly negative words. “Banned” is a negative word so we don’t want t

I think this is part of the super annoying to me trend of double speaking to avoid using overtly negative words. “Banned” is a negative word so we don’t want to use that. But we still want to ban you, thus “permanently suspended.” It’s not a new trend as “made redundant” (ie, fired) and “focusing on value” (ie, cancelled your project) are all over press releases and public communication. I think it makes me feel worse than just using plain language as it takes me more effort to figure out the meaning so I’m also frustrated by the fakery in addition to whatever the negative message is. Makes the speaker and organization seem stupid.

themitigating 4y ago
Isn't suspended a negative word too? Maybe banned is too vague in that it could mean you had access now you don't OR you were never allowed access in the first place. What I'm saying is "permanently suspended" isn't sugar coating what happened
- TheCapn 4y ago
  You're right, they are the same, but they sound different, and kinda invoke different feelings when heard without a conscious effort to think about the meaning. This is entirely subjective, but to me saying "Banned" is terse, rough, and firm. It spits out like a slap. Being "suspended" is temporary. It sounds more gentle, less gruff. (Almost) all kids have been "suspended" from a sport or activity because of something that they did, but they were allowed to play again after a short period. The catch is the qualifier being "Permanently" changes it to being a Ban, but it doesn't sound that way at first. Language is silly. You can say the same thing in very different ways that come across more or less negative, and I think that's the same as what's happening in the corporate veiled speech.
viridian 4y ago
There's something I find literally evil about describing firing people as reducing the workforce, or rendering a position redundant, but I can't quite put why to words. It downplays human suffering to a degree that's almost unbelievable.

themitigating 4y ago

Isn't suspended a negative word too? Maybe banned is too vague in that it could mean you had access now you don't OR you were never allowed access in the first place. What I'm saying is "permanently suspended" isn't sugar coating what happened

TheCapn 4y ago
You're right, they are the same, but they sound different, and kinda invoke different feelings when heard without a conscious effort to think about the meaning. This is entirely subjective, but to me saying "Banned" is terse, rough, and firm. It spits out like a slap. Being "suspended" is temporary. It sounds more gentle, less gruff. (Almost) all kids have been "suspended" from a sport or activity because of something that they did, but they were allowed to play again after a short period. The catch is the qualifier being "Permanently" changes it to being a Ban, but it doesn't sound that way at first. Language is silly. You can say the same thing in very different ways that come across more or less negative, and I think that's the same as what's happening in the corporate veiled speech.

viridian 4y ago

There's something I find literally evil about describing firing people as reducing the workforce, or rendering a position redundant, but I can't quite put why to words. It downplays human suffering to a degree that's almost unbelievable.