I am surprised you would think of it as 'stealing' users.
This is almost surely an example of euphemism in the service of politeness. My favorite example of Paul Graham wording in the service of saying something firm nicely is "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. 'That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'" I love the use of "can be shortened to" there, as if pg's only concern is saving people extra keystrokes. I think the polite phrase "stealing users" here similarly leaves another idea unexpressed.
Writing behavior like that is probably the least-charitable interpretation of an instruction to ask the user what they want, and is certainly not within the spirit of that original request.
Ergo that tactic makes whoever uses it a malefactor
> Wrapping everything in a euphemism does not make it more professional.
We may have very different definitions of "euphemism", but I do not see saying "I’m unable to add value to this meeting but I would be happy to review the minutes." instead of "That meeting sounds like a waste of my time" as a euphemism.
The benefit of the former is that you are signaling an openness to being wrong. The latter doesn't imply you're right, but nor is it signaling an invitation to disagree. In my experience, when people (including me) say the latter, they are wrong about 50% of the times - there often is something in the meeting that made it useful. Stating it is a waste of my time will come across as arrogant (justified or otherwise).
Even saying "I'm not sure there's value in meeting. What are you hoping to gain from this meeting?" is better than "I think it's a waste of my time".
George Carlin had a great bit[1] about our continuous need to soften our language with euphemisms. That, combined with a kind of forced optimism: needing to hide all negativity inside robotic passive aggression, is what communication has become in a lot of corporations. I don't imagine anyone actually likes having to do it, but we all seem to adopt these speech patterns eventually.
Every time your boss tells you, "Hey, can you tone it down next time? Fred told me he was very offended by your asking him to do his job!"-- you're being asked to participate in the game.
Because I'd rather offend people needlessly than use needless words, and you have to choose one or the other.
Reminds me of a quote from Robert Heinlein
"Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untravelled, the naive, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as 'empty,' 'meaningless,' or 'dishonest,' and scorn to use them. No matter how pure their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best."
That line is how people write when they're trying to signal something to a minority of people at the expense of the normal reader. What's really strange is the following "I'll thank them by not naming them".
Is anybody else frequently bothered by this type of voice in blogs? If you are going to go out of your way to research all these points and write ten thousand words about them, please don't finish it off by telling me I might be ass-fucked. It's not a "firm slap in the face," it's a simple vulgarity that makes you appear incapable of using expressive language. It seems inappropriate for the type of blog the author seems to be trying to write. Most confusing moment: using asterisks in ass-fucking. You either think it's appropriate to use or you don't, don't use it and simultaneously censor yourself.
The first use of the term "pals" was OK, but the repeated use of phrases like "these guys", and "and pals" in the anonymous article, in an attempt, I guess, to project a casual tone, got pretty grating pretty fast. Oh, interesting research.
For those that don't find the irritation caused to others as a sufficient reason to stop doing it, consider that it just simply sounds unprofessional and basically just simply inhibits clarity. It sounds like a slightly more refined version of spamming, like, the filler word "like" all over your documentation.
People rightly deduct style and professionalism points for this regardless of whether they're personally offended.
It sounds like they're using 'Chicago politician' as a character description (valid or not). Similar to how people might use Nazi (e.g. Grammar Nazi, or "You're such a Nazi!") etc.
That is not what the GP post is taking issue with. They are saying that it looks like someone got a new Thesaurus for their birthday and went wild trying to sound smarter than they were.
FWIW I agree with the GP- there's no reason for anyone to talk this way.
This is almost surely an example of euphemism in the service of politeness. My favorite example of Paul Graham wording in the service of saying something firm nicely is "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. 'That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3.'" I love the use of "can be shortened to" there, as if pg's only concern is saving people extra keystrokes. I think the polite phrase "stealing users" here similarly leaves another idea unexpressed.
reply