4 ms·
I disagree. First, insincere polite speech greatly predates the existence of corporations, and second, it exists between parties who are on equal terms as often
by seti0Cha 4y ago
I disagree. First, insincere polite speech greatly predates the existence of corporations, and second, it exists between parties who are on equal terms as often as between superior and subordinate. Consider the niceties of diplomats, for example. As I pointed out in my previous post, it actually serves a purpose for both parties.
- omginternets 4y agoI don't disagree with you, but none of this contradicts the thesis. I am happy to accept that "nicespeak" predates the early 00's and that diplomats routinely engage in it. I am also happy to accept that it has evolved into a new form, via corporate influence.
- seti0Cha 4y agoFair enough. I was mostly reacting to the 2nd sentence. I guess I'm not sure what your primary thesis was. I agree that you can distinguish between civility and nicespeak, but mostly because I see nicespeak as a form of civility. I don't see civility as requiring sincerity. When we ask someone to keep things civil, we aren't asking them to be more sincere. However, I can understand having different connotations for the word and I wouldn't really want to quibble about it.
- omginternets 4y agoI think the issue has less to do with sincerity (in the sense you’re referring to) and more to do with the reasons for it. The troubling aspect of “nicespeak”, as we’ve defined it, is that it serves to reinforce a corporate power structure. _That_ is why I mind it while appreciating garden-variety civility.