3 ms·

I don’t think that’s the main point of the article (though it is addressed). The problem with Nicespeak is it becomes a mandatory form of expression. See, for

I don’t think that’s the main point of the article (though it is addressed). The problem with Nicespeak is it becomes a mandatory form of expression. See, for example, mission statements at universities (TFA). Without these obligatory technocrat documents, universities will be stripped of funding and accreditation. To provide a slightly more contemporary take, see the censorship/moderation debate in public discourse today. I think a direct line can be drawn between societal Nicespeak and our almost compulsive need to scrub social media et al. of anything sufficiently nonconformist.

pdonis 4y ago
I don't think the author's problem with things like mission statements is primarily that they are mandatory. I think her primary problem with them is that they misrepresent what the organization actually does and how well (or poorly) it actually does it. It is true, though, that a key reason why they have to misrepresent is, so to speak, grade inflation: any organization that doesn't portray itself (however unjustifiably) as perfect at its nominal mission in all public statements loses funding to those that do.
seti0Cha 4y ago
> see the censorship/moderation debate in public discourse today. I think a direct line can be drawn between societal Nicespeak and our almost compulsive need to scrub social media et al. of anything sufficiently nonconformist. I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I think these are somewhat different phenomena. I am arguing that nicespeak is not actually something new, but rather the contemporary form of something that people have always engaged in. I would say a more direct line exists between current discourse policing and prior periods' "corruption of public morals" concerns, such as they Hollywood code imposed to restrict what sorts of behavior could be depicted on screen, the prohibition on swearing or nudity on television, or the banning of "immoral" books in libraries.

pdonis 4y ago

I don't think the author's problem with things like mission statements is primarily that they are mandatory. I think her primary problem with them is that they misrepresent what the organization actually does and how well (or poorly) it actually does it. It is true, though, that a key reason why they have to misrepresent is, so to speak, grade inflation: any organization that doesn't portray itself (however unjustifiably) as perfect at its nominal mission in all public statements loses funding to those that do.

seti0Cha 4y ago

> see the censorship/moderation debate in public discourse today. I think a direct line can be drawn between societal Nicespeak and our almost compulsive need to scrub social media et al. of anything sufficiently nonconformist. I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I think these are somewhat different phenomena. I am arguing that nicespeak is not actually something new, but rather the contemporary form of something that people have always engaged in. I would say a more direct line exists between current discourse policing and prior periods' "corruption of public morals" concerns, such as they Hollywood code imposed to restrict what sorts of behavior could be depicted on screen, the prohibition on swearing or nudity on television, or the banning of "immoral" books in libraries.