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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
