The Tyranny of Nicespeak (2001) | Hacker News Reader

The Tyranny of Nicespeak (2001)

web.archive.org

102 pointsrobtherobber103 comments

Hi all, I'm the person who wrote this. Thanks for this unexpected trip down memory lane, which is also an insight into how things have changed. Remember I wrote this more than 20 years ago when scripted service of any kind was new in the UK, and we really didn't interact with websites much or chatbots at all. Mission statements and suchlike were also fairly new, especially in public institutions.Evidently familiarity has made us more accepting of some things but even less so of others, as you'd expect. Anyway,it was fun reading the comments,so thanks and have a nice day

Now I'm wondering if the study of insincerity has become a recognized academic field. It would seem to be inherently cross-disciplinary, with elements of psychology, sociology and politics, in addition to the linguistic aspect.

Ah yes, so that we can have graduates get B.S. in BS

What has changed? I would have guessed this article was written in 2017 at the earliest.

> thanks and have a nice day

I’m choosing to read this as a wry nod to the present-day pervasiveness of nicespeak.

If you were asked to provide guidance for companies who wished to avoid using nicespeak, what recommendations would you provide? And do you have advice for situations where a company might want to emphasise/de-emphasise aspects of the truth to market itself?

Hi Debbie,

Amazing to read a response from you. As someone who's been working in marketing & Tech, I have to say that many things have indeed changed, except for the worse. Whereas before we've had an incipient Nicespeak phenomenon, I've noticed it grow larger and larger in various respects.

For what it is worth, I've learned about your article from Madeleine Bunting's "Willing Slaves" book [0], which I'm reading now and felt the need to read it in its entirety (edit: the article, that is); luckily Archive.org had it preserved for us.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/793071

Hi Debbie, given you were at New Statesman, I am wondering if you had a chance to meet and interact with Christopher Hitchens? And if so, if you have an idea of what he would think about this subject?

It seems to me that nicespeak is nothing more than our culture's embodiment of courtesy, or etiquette. Our society self-consciously strives to be egalitarian, so formality and honorifics sit poorly with us. However, unscripted social interactions are fraught with danger. They can easily become awkward or lead to misunderstandings. Etiquette provides a framework a person can operate within wherein you don't have to worry about what the other person will think or feel. This is particularly valuable in a business context, so our institutions strive to fabricate this framework.

There's nothing wrong with this, as long as everyone recognizes it for what it is. We harmlessly exchange stock phrases, like "how are you", to which the proper responses include "fine, and you?", or "not too bad, yourself?" or the like. The person who says "oh, terrible" and proceeds to tell you about it has violated the social contract and imposed a burden on the other party. The person behind the counter at the fast food restaurant doesn't want to have to think to say "I hope you enjoy that milk", or find some other way to close the conversation, so they're just as happy to say that stock phrase "enjoy your meal" and be done with you.

Interesting perspective! I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm glad I read it.

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.

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.

> 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.

<< But it seemed strange that instructions had been issued at all, and stranger still that they were generally obeyed.

It is, but when it is mandated it ceases to be courtesy ( it may still remain etiquette as that is mandated and enforced by society depending on definition used ); it becomes a forced behavior.

That said, I still prefer the example you gave. I used to cringe internally over forced small talk in US ( "how are you", "fine/great/would complain, but -- no one listens" response ), but I kinda argue it is better than the weird 'everyone is out to get me; don't talk to me' approach from the old country.

As always, but.. just because I prefer it now, does it mean I can reasonably "expect" it?

> when it is mandated it ceases to be courtesy

I don't think there's anything contradictory about mandated courtesy, unless you mean it in the sense of "consideration". I think the primary meaning is closer to etiquette than consideration though. The etymology of the term is derived from courtliness, i.e. behavior in a King's court.

I think the point is that we can distinguish ordinary civility from nicespeak. The latter is insincere, existing primarily as a means to reinforce a (usually corporate) power structure.

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.

I 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.

Fair 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.

I 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.

I think the author's chosen name for the phenomenon "Nicespeak" creates a cognitive distortion that muddies what I think her point is. She is not talking about being nice rather than being rude. Rather she is talking about being authentic and human rather than becoming an automaton channeling the will of the powers that are compelling your speech.

Her example of the fast food worker is they're channeling the brand of the franchise "whether or not they made sense in a given context". "The idea was to subordinate the personality of the individual speaker to a centrally designed corporate voice."

Her example of the workers in the public-private partnership of academia describes having to conform to the rules of the corporate information-hiding language game in order to compete with others for funding. "If they do not claim to be 'excellent', they will inevitably come out losers."

In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power. This network of symbols comprises brands, mission statements, corporate personalities, metrics that yield to Goodhart's law, empty buzzwords and hype, etc, etc, etc.

I think that's what she's criticizing.

> In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power

My point is, we have always done this, but with different vocabulary and different institutions. When has human relations at any scale been properly characterized as frank or authentic? I suppose you could say that the Mongols butchering their way across Europe and Asia were being frank and authentic in their relations with others, but I doubt they were so in their internal relations.

I think the reason that we do what you and the post you're replying to describe is because it massively lowers "transaction costs" of social interactions. It's a simplifying abstraction, and obviously all abstractions will hide information or result in things being lost

what is the benefit here? it's too costly to talk to a human, so instead, you would rather speak to a corporate automaton?

So, there is this cup of coffee that is given to you by a waiter who gave out 30 cups of coffee since morning and will give out 40 more. The waiter has to say something while giving it out. Effectively, you are demanding that waiter personalizes the message to each customer instead of just saying stock "enjoy your meal". That is genuinely demanding too much.

No. It's too costly to speak to 200 humans, so instead, you would rather turn in to a corporate automaton. The stock phrases are so I, the employee who has to interact with customers, can turn off.

> We harmlessly exchange stock phrases, like "how are you", to which the proper responses include "fine, and you?",...

Q. How do you confuse an anglophone?

A. Answer, when they ask how you are.

I'm not convinced that this works with smaller communities, they seem to want to help solve your down.

> as a friend of mine observed when asked to speak at a conference on "pursuing excellence in facilities management": "Who the hell would pursue second-rateness?"

Most people, actually – though few are so bold as to announce it. That said, I agree with the point: although individuals may not pursue greatness, public institutions always should.

“So how do you hire more B players?”[1]

[1] https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

> "A players hire A players," he said. "B players hire C players. Do you get it?"

> Apparently not. Somebody in the back of the room raised his hand and asked, "so how do you hire more B players?"

I think that guy did get it, but he worded it wrong, he meant to say, "so, who hired those B players?"

Right. He's spotted that the "rule" may have a little truth to it, but is also kinda just bullshit.

Better B players who are insecure enough to specifically hire worse than themselves, but still B-players. If going by lower as better it would technically be B subscript N players hire B subscript N+1 players. But that is unwieldy and worryingly niche of a reference for a society which relies so much upon mathematics.

Public institutions need to pursue competence. If they could effectively do the things they are supposed to, we'd be mostly pretty good.

Excellence is overrated for anything you don’t really really care about. The price to get to the next level of noticeable quality goes up really fast after a bit above average.

The alternative to pursuing excellence is not usually pursuing second-rateness, but simply not pursuing excellence. It's a lack of effort, rather than misdirected effort.

My rule is that whenever something has “excellence” in the title it’s 100% BS. Works like a charm.

Reminds me of that old Simpsons episode, where Homer is given a fake award for "Outstanding Achievements in the field of Excellence"

> in a world where a notice can announce in all seriousness: "In order to better serve you, we are closed this afternoon."

This is so spot-on. I am not sure this qualifies as "nicespeak" but if you pay attention you will hear this type of messaging everywhere. As we hear it we seem to just nod along and miss the fundamental irony of it.

"Please listen closely, as our menu options have changed. Did you know you can check your account balance, order checks, apply for a loan, or get a new debit card online? Visit w w w dot your bank name dot com forward slash banking for more information." ---> Please hang up before we actually have to make somebody pick up the phone

"Due to the ongoing pandemic, for the safety of guests and staff we will not make up your room unless requested" ---> Thank god, we can cut our cleaning staff

"Due to the ongoing drought conditions, water will only be served for customers who request it" ---> We wash half as many glasses this way

COVID in general was a great excuse for a lot of companies to do something they've wanted to do for years (reduce business hours, cancel contracts, cut staff, reduce stock on hand, etc.) while acting like they're doing the world a favor.

I love these. Another one I've seen recently is large Manhattan office buildings asking people to use revolving doors "to help save the environment".

(i.e. help us save on electricity costs for heating and A/C)

I saw this on the doors of my local shopping mall:

    MALL HOURS
    ==========
    For your convenience, The Galleria's operating
    hours are available online

Followed by a huge QR code. Um, no. It's really inconvenient to have to grab a phone, scan a code, wait for the slow site to load, give apologies to others who want to walk in the door, etc.

Oh, and let's say I get there before they open. Before I could just drive by and see the hours on the door. Now I have to stop, get out, scan the code, ...

It's a small gripe for sure, but those are my favorite types.

Oh of course that reminds me of the explosion of QR code menus we saw during the pandemic! A laminated code, the lamination bubbling up, covered in peeling tape, damn near impossible to scan depending on the lighting conditions. Much better than a sheet of paper!

And this directs you to a PDF that was designed for print. :(

Or a menu developed with react that takes a full minute to load.

and loads tracking/analytics from 100 different places, and sends an XHR every time you move the mouse.

I have toyed with the idea of carrying a sharpie with me, and adding ironic graffiti to such messages. This article might just push me over the edge.

I like how self-checkouts or ordering kiosks are framed as automation, but are actually just making your customers do work your paid workers used to do. There's no automation involved, just a shift in who does the work.

Maybe the 'y' was a typo.

Quite a few shopping centres where I live (Norway) have the opening hours in half metre, or more, high type high up on the wall outside.

The sort of thing you describe has a lot to do with the culture of the place. In Norway being cooperative and helpful is highly prized, in the US individuality and getting ahead are. I don't mean that both countries don't appreciate both things, just that the emphasis differs.

At least that's my biased opinion, :-)

Ticketmaster: "We've switched to app-based digital tickets for a safe, contactless experience" -------> The pandemic provides the cover we need to corner the resale market and collect the personal data of every customer.

How about the bald absurdity of tacking on a "convenience fee" for purchasing things online instead of in person? The theater near me will add a couple bucks if you buy tickets online, but that fee is not present if you buy in person at the theater! There's never more than one person behind the counter, so I have no doubt they're saving money by leaving registers unstaffed, yet they still have the gall to charge us extra for using the online reservation system--they want to have their cake and eat it too! Of course, complaining about the ethics and pricing practices of theaters and the entertainment industry in general is like shooting fish in a (very expensive) barrel.

I always wondered if this cut into what could potentially be made as a profit by the company producing the movie. If a $10 matinee ticket has a defined percentage split between movie theaters and producers, then a $3 convenience fee for an online purchase might go only to the theater, allowing them to take in a higher effective percentage.

I always thought there must be big money to be made as a call volume forecaster, given how many major companies are stumped when its "unexpectedly high".

A few years ago I got a letter from my bank which said something along the lines of "At [bank], we understand that your banking needs evolve over time. That's why from [date], we will be moving you from a graduate account to a regular account".

The graduate account and the regular count are exactly the same except that the regular account has extra fees. Apparently over the years I had evolved a need to pay fees. Good thing my bank were looking out for me.

When you receive a letter from a bank that starts out with "Here at [Big Bank] we value your privacy," you can assume that the rest of the letter is a just a detailed account of all the ways that they plan to violate it.

When you receive a letter from anyone that starts out with

FTFY

The bank is not lying. It values your privacy at $X/year and even itemizes it to categories.

Just like shaking hands was a tradition to show that you hold no weapons, speaking nicely is a social signal that you mean no harm.

Both peace signals can be ruses, but if you approach with a closed fist or a sharp tongue, it makes a peaceful interaction more challenging.

Verbal battles are not like physical battles. The later lead to harm and death, the former - to some form of truth.

That's a lot of dumbing things down there. If you think verbal battles have never caused harm, then I would love to live in your bubble. As much as I'm ashamed of it now, I was verbally abusive in my younger days. You can speak to anyone of the people on the receiving end on just how not non-harmful it was. I still blame that behavior a lot on how I was treated by a parent. Once I recognized that I was just behaving the same way was when I finally consciously tried changing. I was close to 30, so there was a long wake of damage.

People tend to confuse cognitive dissonance with damage.

If you speak of speech consisting of only personal attacks rather than a heated debate, you are right. But I think this discussion is not about simple slanging matches.

"Cognitive dissonance is a term for the state of discomfort felt when two or more modes of thought contradict each other."

If you think that's all verbal abuse is about, then my friend, you really should look into this more before posting things in an all knowing sounding manner on a public forum. I'm happy you've never been exposed to true verbal abuse.

Did you grok the second part of the comment?

Great read, until the conclusion that Irony and Sarcasm are better weapons against Nicespeak than George Orwell's plain English is.

Getting people to speak in vitriolic Opposites is no better than making them speak empty Compliments...

I agree. The correction to "fake sincerity" isn't "ironic sincerity" - it's just regularly sincerity and old-fashioned earnestness. The article really dates itself with that assertion, because this was written right before the internet saturated every exchange with holier-than-thou sarcasm and multiple layers of irony. Now that we've lived through phenomena like the Wendy's Twitter account and cutesy 404 pages, this just seems terribly off-base.

Earnestness is so underrated.

You put that better than anyone else could have!

;)

I agree. Both irony and sarcasm are purely emotion based "arguments" and often just socially acceptable lies. Ok, so now you made some service worker feel bad for no reason. They are kind of paid for that, but still.

And with that, I find the language author complains about better. If it achieves nothing I just ignore that.

"We should try", "may be ... effective"; propositions are not hard conclusions.

The biggest whiff for me in this essay is the idea that people aren't acutely aware of the fakeness. It would be like her acknowledging no irony in holding the Rupert Murdoch Professorship in Language and Communication.

Irony indeed.

This pretty much provides the final proof of the corporate takeover of academia.

If you're planning on being faculty in modern higher education, you very well better have some rich person's name in your title!

Your alternative? You can always be an underpaid, un-insured, temporary adjunct!

This 20 year old article certainly calls out the complete insincerity of the modern corporation's interface to it's customers. Especially when those customers are the retail masses.

The really scariest part to me, is that many modern consumers seem to think this is all OK.

"As long as the bot keeps kissing my ass I feel so taken care of" <-- This is the ultimate irony...

> Getting people to speak in vitriolic Opposites is no better than making them speak empty Compliments...

Whereas policing their emotions to make sure they feel the right thing when they make words . . . ew!

I don’t think sarcasm has to be vitriolic. In response to the example of a store announcement that says “in order to better serve you, we will be closed this afternoon”, one might respond with “I feel better-served already!” There’s hardly any vitriol, and the absurdity of the situation is promptly exposed.

I agree about things like mission statements being rather silly and tedious, particularly in a corporate context where, as the author notes, the only real mission is to make money for shareholders. In fact I think a mission statement is marginally less pointless in the context of a public institution because, frankly, it's not always clear what the end goal of a lot of those institutions are.

I don't really see the problem with this, however:

> What, for instance, was the mysterious "quality" that we discussed at every meeting? What did people mean when they spoke earnestly about "aims and objectives" and "learning outcomes"?

If people are discussing "quality" I presume they are referring to quality of output, ie, you want whatever good or service you are delivering to be good, not bad. And knowing the aims, objectives and outcomes of meetings, projects, etc, is absolutely a positive thing.

There is no "fake sincerity" as far as I can see. There is politeness - sure, maybe it is fake politeness (discounting the possibility that your server actually wants you to enjoy your meal). But it's still better than rudeness which is quite often the alternative.

Frankly it sounds as though the author is simply annoyed at (i) the private sector, for being the private sector, and (ii) the public sector, for looking to introduce the same focus on customer service and accountability that has long been present in the private sector.

Very well timed post! The author really should produce an update for the new millennium.

I was just ranting about this yesterday, after having to endure a chat session w/ a "customer care associate".

The blatantly patronizing platitudes are really rudeness with flowers, and highlight the corporations use of exploited offshore call center workers as a human shield against the frustration of their customers.

I'd also be curious to know about the tech of delivering "We're so sorry for your inconvenience, thank you for your patience..." messages automatically after certain periods of quiet in the chat channel.

How many other patronizing platitudes are delivered automatically? Or with single click buttons on the "care representative's" console?

Does anyone actually like these interfaces?

Do people really want a bot to kiss their ass while they're trying to report a broken product?

Someone seems to think so...

> "We're so sorry for your inconvenience, thank you for your patience..."

My god this pattern has to stop. Systems are making it impossible to just wait for a human while doing something else.

The worst seems to be telephone companies advertising their own offerings on hold, but even my dog's vet has introduced this "CHECK OUT OUR APP FOR APPOINTMENTS" thing in their hold music. You have to constantly be on guard because everything that sounds like a human might or might not actually be a human. Please just give me light, instrumental music to know I'm not disconnected and stfu.

I think this is further evidence of what happens when corporate/pr/product people are rewarded for marginal improvements in bottom-line metrics despite the long-term expense of customer satisfaction. Eventually the margin curve flips negative. Hopefully.

And some terminology is so fun when they are essentially messing over you. Mandatory gratuity, hmm why not just call if service-charge? Or just directly include it in price and not even mention it?

It's guilt tax. If you price your coffee honestly, at 8 usd, but your competitor at 5 usd with gotcha fees, guess where customers will flock to.

I realize it may just have been a placeholder. But LOL at the implication that 5 USD is dishonest for a cup of mostly warm water in most places of the universe

Or, in SF, you'll get an item near the bottom of your receipt labeled "SF Mandate". What's the mandate? Employers have to pay for employee health care. Why isn't it rolled in to the prices? Partly passive aggressive sniping at city hall, partly to keep the menu prices low. The "SF Mandate" portion is taxable, though, so it really is just them adding a hidden fee.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/restaurants/article/Explainer-Wh...

Irony and satire are not effective against Nicespeak because those who engage in it are either evil or stupid. The evil know what they are doing and will meet you with hostility for being called out. The stupid will react with confusion, frustration, and ultimately hostility for your failure to engage with them in the pleasantly appeasing mediocrity which it requires.

See The Endgames of Bad Faith Communication https://consilienceproject.org/endgames-of-bad-communication... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30997666

Recently I've been encountering more and more service workers who are AMAZED at my INCREDIBLE and AWESOME choice from the menu.

Until now I didn't think I had any sort of special ordering skills. I mean, they hand me a menu and I have no choice but to select 2-3 items from said menu. Just like everyone else. But I've come to realise that MY particular choice of those items is somehow better than the common man. I have a skill that was previously untapped and has only now come to light.

SUPER!

This is timely. One of the fascinating things about chatGPT is its facility with precisely this kind of language usage.

The trite ‘nicespeak’ phrases and word choices all contribute precisely zero additional information content or value; that they can be convincingly simulated by the LLM just picking the most appropriate next token suggests honestly that that’s also exactly how they’re employed by humans - just as meaningless padding around the core message.

I see a lot of people looking at GPT outputs and saying things like ‘this is great it can take my three bulletpoints and turn them into a complete presentation script!’ - to me that suggests you should skip the presentation and just send a text with the three bulletpoints.

GPT is great at adding this performative ‘packaging’.

I really hope what that teaches us is we don’t need to waste time with the packaging in the first place.

It seems like the problem is not on Nicespeak itself but more on the power structure that enforce such style of communication. Nicespeak itself feels like an essential lubricating part of the language but what makes it Nicespeak and not "nice words" is the authority.

I think the very definition of nicespeak is that it serves a corporate power structure. That’s what distinguishes it from ordinary civility.

Niceness itself is a lubricant. Nicespeak may be more analogous to a higher performing synthetic lubricant that however has some severe downsides, such as inferior performance, when used outside of its design parameters.

It's a very diffuse and unaccountable authority though. I've seen the take that nicespeak is a stand-in for social class - upper classes have the tutors and entertainment preferences to learn nicespeak. Failure to conform to the requirements of nicespeak is like signaling membership in the working/uneducated class, which leads to social exclusion particularly in managerial positions. But it's not from a central authority, more a consensus partially based on fear of association.

Seems like a decent analysis to me - does anyone have a critique?

I'm with you on the first part. If I'm subordinate or dependent in a relationship, just openly treat me that way; there's no shame in that. The patronizing nicespeak is more objectionable.

Perhaps less so in the UK and other places than in the US? It's TV so who knows, but I loved the episode in The Crown where Princess Margaret says to a middle-class Margaret Thatcher something like "Just say 'What?'. Never beg for anything, much less for pardon".

And it continues with overseas call center workers who blather about how much they “understand“ your concerns, but in fact do not. Or how sorry they are “you’re experiencing this this problem” and “understand how important your return of the wrong size socks is to you”.

Sheesh

Do we need customer end bot tools to maintain any hope of interacting with corporations on equal footing?

I couldn't help but think of one of Carlin's acts while reading this - Advertising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtK_YsVInw8

To some extent, nicespeak is the shibboleth of the middle class.

A few don't have to speak it, and many never learn. They usually stand out in professional settings

Fussell calls out all kinds of indirect or euphemistic "polite" speech as middle-class. "Passed away" versus "died", even.

"High" speech is much more direct. You don't butter people up before asking for something, or apologize for being a bother, for example. You just ask. You don't dance around what you want, or what happened, you simply state it.

I'm a little confused here and I'm sure I'm missing the point. This article seems to argue (and some comments here) that being rude should be normal? Why? Why wouldn't we be nice to customers for their business?

On the other hand, hasn't bullshit/passive-aggressiveness/etc been always called out?

I share the confusion, that the article seems to bash at nice, everyday phrases without giving the same nice kind of alternatives to lubricate communication, but rather it gives irony and satire, which are of the other end. The point of the article isn't about rudeness but making a meaningful conversation, and that passivity and talking from rulebooks doesn't really help from the author's point of view.

I’m not sure where you got that idea from. The thesis is that there is a distinction to be made between ordinary civility and “nicespeak”. The distinction is that the latter is insincere, and serves the interests of a corporate power structure.

I think the author is just not very self aware. The rules of communication do change, but they probably weren't aware of the unwritten social cues that they picked up earlier in life. Cues that probably were equally annoying and frustrating to someone a generation earlier.

I think lots of people would be a bit more at peace once they start embracing the fact that language and culture are always going to be moving and changing. Thing are going to feel awkward and forced until they feel normal and you'll continue to be expected to adjust to the norms. Some of those norms will suggest that you've been doing certain things 'wrong' all your life and it's gonna be hard to swallow, but everyone will always go through this stuff and this is why you can probably find some rants against political correctness for as long as there have been columns in newspapers.

It's a complete waste of energy, I hope the author found some peace in the 22 years since this article.

> This article seems to argue (and some comments here) that being rude should be normal?

No. The article is not talking about ordinary courtesies between individuals (those are mentioned briefly, but only to contrast with the article's main subject). It is talking about a tactic used by organizations.

> Why wouldn't we be nice to customers for their business?

Being nice as you and your company solve the customer's problem is great.

Being nice as you and your company epically fail to solve the customer's problem, and continuing to talk as though everything is just dandy even though it is nothing of the sort, is not great--but unfortunately it is a common tactic that organizations use and train their customer support representatives to use. That is what the article is talking about.

> hasn't bullshit/passive-aggressiveness/etc been always called out?

Not when it is cloaked in a veneer of seeming niceness, no.

> This article seems to argue (and some comments here) that being rude should be normal? Why? Why wouldn't we be nice to customers for their business?

The difference is intent. Being polite to someone to put them at ease in a difficult situation, to give them a better experience of their day, or to lubricate an awkward interaction, is a good thing. Relentlessly and deceptively framing yourself and your actions in the highest possible light is selfish and corrosive. There is overlap, such as greeting somebody in a cheery way as they enter a business. But where there is overlap, the selfish intention corrodes the positive one. When somebody greets me as I enter a store, I can't help seeing them as a worker who is forced to perform emotional labor on behalf of a business that wants to extract maximum economic value from me. It doesn't feel personal.

Likewise, when a customer service rep on the phone expresses positivity and a desire to help, I'm aware that they may be instructed and empowered to solve customer problems as well as possible, but they also may be following a script to guide me towards the cheapest outcome for the company, and their apparent compassion and helpfulness might be calculated to engender feelings of trust in me, so that I feel like I'm in good hands and allow them to guide me towards an outcome that is less than I'm entitled to. Their tone may even be being graded and used to evaluate them.

> hasn't bullshit/passive-aggressiveness/etc been always called out?

When something becomes normalized, it doesn't get called out. In the context of economic competition, it even becomes excused as mandatory.

My un-favorite non-pology language is "I'm sorry you feel that way."

The purpose of Newspeak was to bypass the rational faculty and trigger an emotional reaction in the listener (as well as confining the speaker to the appropriate emotional state). The purpose of Nicespeak is the same.

Learning accent, idioms and cultural references were always parts of learning a language or judging how you learned that. Even years ago and in normal language class lessons.

Watching entertainment or reading books were always part of that. And my friends going for American universities 20 years ago were memorizing cultural references idioms etc along with unusual words and what not. Cause it was a on the test.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com