3 ms·
I think you're misunderstanding the point they were making. The given example for nice > nice would be to let the person working for you continue to perform p
by ffsm8 2y ago
I think you're misunderstanding the point they were making.
The given example for nice
> nice would be to let the person working for you continue to perform poorly without feedback, being "nice" to them, but privately considering them incompetent.
Is actually being hypocritical, not nice. The nice person would still tell the under performing person what's what, they'd just not be rude about it.
You can also create a scenario in which being kind becomes detrimental if taken to the extreme. However, the author of that book decided that being nice was bad, and being kind was good. This understandably continues to annoy people when this frankly dumb definition is brought up.
- mgh2 2y agoMost people are nice (convention, norm, culture, etc.) to conform to a set of rules, being kind is the exception to the rule.
- BeetleB 2y agoYet another faulty categorization and coopting - this time of both words. Kind is only the exception to the norm if you're in a crappy culture. In some places the ethic is such that kindness is the norm.
- dingnuts 2y agothere's already a word for using a specific type of soft language regardless as to intent, and it's "polite" don't know why we need to quibble about the meaning of "nice" or invent a new word when polite will do politeness, unlike kindness or niceness, has no implication of intent, only tone, which is what's trying to be conveyed