You Know What I Hate MK I

[Heavy Arms]

What was the type of message? Email, text, etc?

As language has evolved in the face of digital communications without many of the non-verbal cues in face-to-face communications have been replaced with punctuation.

In short form digital communications (texts, tweets, messengers, etc.) periods at the end of a message (esp. single sentence ones) are interpreted as aggressive, assertive, final, or sarcastic, compared to no punctuation or an exclamation mark instead. "Meeting at 10!" "Meeting at 10" and "Meeting at 10." have all evolved different tones thanks to limited length formats.

In long form usually conforms to traditional grammatical punctuation, but an aside or post script could be held to short standards too.

No idea how relevant that is to your situation, but it's definitely a thing these days.

[monteparnas]

Still getting an official warning for such a minor thing before any attempt to clear things out is bad HR practice. They only achieved to escalate tensions instead of defusing them.

I would consider a formal complaint against HR or talking to a lawyer.

[HorizonParty2021]

If you comply with the demands to remove punctuation from emails, you open yourself up to further complaints of being unclear in you communication. Stupid trends have to be resisted so that the basic functions of society can be preserved. There has to be someone in your company to who you can demonstrate that you are in an absurd position. Lawyers are expensive. I'm not saying don't hire one.

How would you comply with this? Format everything into flowery little text boxes? I suppose that any kind of box would be interpreted as a symbol of institutional structures oppressing someone. Ovals, but maybe that's too sexual.

[Heavy Arms]

Language is always evolving to the needs of society. The Internet has driven a change in punctuation use specifically to preserve basic functions (communicating tone in a format that reduces comprehension of tone). This isn't a stupid trend, it was a solution driven by common use to a common problem.

Getting hyperbolic isn't helpful. I already posted above how short form digital communications has a structured (if loosely because it's born from common use and varies by sub-culture) alternative punctuation use to deal with interpreting tone in text.

Frankly, as someone that is consistently read as "aggressive," "nasty," "overbearing," and so on in long form with standard punctuation, I would love something as simple as dropping a period or switching punctuation to get my intended tone across consistently in forums like this.

[monteparnas]

I think filling a complaint due to how this was handled is valid. As HR practice this was ill thought and caused more trouble than was worth.

But as a communication issue, I see no problem after everything was made clear to adopt another form. Language isn't set in stone, despite some old schools of thought on the matter.

[Kammerer]

Was informed today by HR that I had a complaint filed against me. Apparently when I wrote a message to employees asking them to do something I put a period at the end of the sentence and that was viewed as a micro-aggression. I was told to refrain from using unnecessary punctuation in work related notes to avoid upsetting employees. I told them that was ludicrous, and how the heck are people supposed to understand what I'm telling them if I can't use basic punctuation? But I was just told to do my best and that the complaint has been officially logged and the warning was given out, and that repeating this offense could see me being written up.

Is this some sort of new thing where punctuation is considered problematic?

While the complaint seems deeply misguided at best, it is true that people see text messages ending with a period as more aggressive, sarcastic, and insencere than ones ending with nothing or other punctuation marks.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...47563215302181

[HorizonParty2021]

Language is always evolving to the needs of society.

1984.

The Internet has driven a change in punctuation use specifically to preserve basic functions (communicating tone in a format that reduces comprehension of tone). This isn't a stupid trend, it was a solution driven by common use to a common problem.

If standard English is so riddled with problems and you have followed its evolution on the Internet, why do you continue to use standard English on a fairly progressive forum like this one? Is it that there is no consensus on what changes need to be made that everyone could reasonably be expected to conform to? How do you impose requirements based on constantly evolving trends

Edit: ...on 1.35 billion English speakers, for many of who, it is a second language?

Getting hyperbolic isn't helpful. I already posted above how short form digital communications has a structured (if loosely because it's born from common use and varies by sub-culture) alternative punctuation use to deal with interpreting tone in text.

In conversation, there are a variety of ways that people can express their thoughts or sentiments about the subject. It is normal to use hyperbolic examples to demonstrate that something is absurd (or to convey that the speaker thinks it's absurd, subjectively). I used that form of expression in part of my reply and did not inundate readers (3 short sentences). Here, you are declaring that you abide by a standard of helpfulness, for which almost military linguistic precision is required, eliminating any unnecessary flavor from speech. I don't doubt that this is the standard to which you feel everyone else should be expected to conform. I am a person participating in a conversation with other people too. Not everything people say has to be "On Point". Oxygen, please.

Frankly, as someone that is consistently read as "aggressive," "nasty," "overbearing," and so on in long form with standard punctuation, I would love something as simple as dropping a period or switching punctuation to get my intended tone across consistently in forums like this.

If you are aware of this, how is it that you can place yourself in the position of being the example everyone else has to follow when having a conversation? If, by constantly criticizing people trying to have a conversation, you succeed in suborning everyone into communicating by the standards you hold, by you own admission, you would succeed in replicating this in everyone else's speech. Is that what you think would be good?

[HorizonParty2021]

Was informed today by HR that I had a complaint filed against me. Apparently when I wrote a message to employees asking them to do something I put a period at the end of the sentence and that was viewed as a micro-aggression. I was told to refrain from using unnecessary punctuation in work related notes to avoid upsetting employees. I told them that was ludicrous, and how the heck are people supposed to understand what I'm telling them if I can't use basic punctuation? But I was just told to do my best and that the complaint has been officially logged and the warning was given out, and that repeating this offense could see me being written up.

Is this some sort of new thing where punctuation is considered problematic?

When you asked how you are supposed to comply or adapt, they said, "Do your best.". That is completely unfair. If this is being put across in a meeting with no official record or a letter that they are willing to sign, I would arrange to meet again and ask them to clarify how you are supposed to comply. Bring something that can record the conversation.

The conclusion this YouTuber makes might be useful for explaining the position you have been put in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS4X1JfX6_Q

[Heavy Arms]

1984.

I was alive that year, what about it?

The novel, if you're meaning to reference it, is spelled out Nineteen Eighty-Four for its title. Newspeak is bad because it is a constrained language that is heavily regulated by the government to exert control of the populace, and deny the creativity and critical thought that stems from the natural progression of language in a healthy society. Orwell's point here, is that language shouldn't be a tool of the powerful to oppress.

If standard English is so riddled with problems and you have followed its evolution on the Internet, why do you continue to use standard English on a fairly progressive forum like this one?

The idea that this is a fairly progressive forum is... strange to me. It's a forum with a lot of progressive posters, which isn't the same thing.

Of course, like everyone does to some extent, I adapt my language choices based on context. Forums are long form focused, and the clarity of punctuation in its standard role is more important because of that. The little tricks texting has developed don't work with multi-paragraph posts; which is fine because they weren't designed to.

How do you impose requirements based on constantly evolving trends

By being a human that participates in society. Common use language is always in flux. How the rules are enforced has always had to adapt to that. This isn't some brand new thing even if the Internet has been a relatively unique uptick in change. There's language use that would have been considered acceptable for workplace use in the 80s that would get you in trouble in most workplaces in the 90s.

The far more pernicious concept is the idea that humans hit some age where they get to opt out of adapting to changing common language use without social consequences.

In conversation, there are a variety of ways that people can express their thoughts or sentiments about the subject.

Then... the idea that people came up with methods to express sentiments in a new way for a new format really shouldn't be generating this level of vitriol from you.

Oxygen, please.

OK. Seriously. What the fuck did I ever do to you? You constantly respond to me like I ran over your favorite pet repeatedly, and then threw its corpse at you while laughing, when as far as I can tell, we've never met outside this forum, and the worst thing I've ever done is have a different opinion than you.

...how is it that you can place yourself in the position of being the example everyone else has to follow when having a conversation?

Citation needed.

If, by constantly criticizing people trying to have a conversation, you succeed in suborning everyone into communicating by the standards you hold, by you own admission, you would succeed in replicating this in everyone else's speech. Is that what you think would be good?

What are you even talking about? Someone asked if something was I thing. I answered that it was, in fact, a thing. You've contributed... what? A bunch of hyperbole, snide comments, and useless sarcasm? Are you even trying to make a point or just derail things?

And... you realize you just linked to a YouTube video that was saying exactly what I was saying right?

[AnubisXy]

Thanks for the responses guys. I did get clarification from HR in writing over what course of action they want me to take, which is basically to avoid using punctuation in text messages in the future as that could upset employees. Which is dumb since I'm sure I will run into situations where people aren't exactly sure what they need to do since it won't be clear, but HR essentially told me that confusion was preferable to hurt feelings.

So, whatever. I'm so sick of my job anyway. I've had too many customers having meltdowns and screaming and throwing tantrums like 2 year olds and shouting obscenities in my face. I've had more people scream in my face in the last 6 months than I've had scream in my face in my whole life. This was really the last straw. I'm putting my resume out there and applications into some other places. We'll see what happens.

I'm so done with this shit.

[nofather]

So, whatever. I'm so sick of my job anyway. I've had too many customers having meltdowns and screaming and throwing tantrums like 2 year olds and shouting obscenities in my face. I've had more people scream in my face in the last 6 months than I've had scream in my face in my whole life. This was really the last straw. I'm putting my resume out there and applications into some other places. We'll see what happens.

Apparently that's getting to be more and more common (customers having meltdowns and tantrums). Wish you luck finding something new and better.

[Sconce]

... Nnnope, letting a mod tackle this one, I'm currently too overwhelmed by the sheer subjective experience of existing to even think about getting involved in this derailment.

Speaking of, I hate that my brain won't let me exist without regularly getting overwhelmed by the subjective experience of selfhood and conscious thought. Mental illness sucks, y'all.

[monteparnas]

Speaking of, I hate that my brain won't let me exist without regularly getting overwhelmed by the subjective experience of selfhood and conscious thought. Mental illness sucks, y'all.

Wish you best of luck. Been there already, I know how it is.

Personally I think those heated exchanges suck, but are needed for the health of the community as people vent what had been building up. But I may be wrong.

And about AnubisXy decision, it seems to come from a lot more than just the text thing. As I said before, the problem was far less the complaint from the other worker and more how HR decided to tackle this.

I'm not a thorough specialist, but I had some HR training in Psychology school and several good courses on the matter at my workplace (we have access to an excellent digital educational program, I must admit). First thing you do in those situations is to deescalate and try to approach the "offender" in a sensible manner, which can be done through many means.

This company obviously have an HR department either filled with untrained workforce or overworked. They could have approached Anubis in a more sensible manner and explained better at first contact instead of just throw the complaint and say "do better", as any trained personnel would know that this first contact set up the emotional state for the whole matter.

Or even better, they should have made an impersonal, general crash course about text conventions with the workforce, to set company standards for the communication. Also have in place a mediator that could have dealt with it without formalizing the complaint, as this is extremely stressful.

But if this minor inconvenience was handled with such blunder, then I doubt this isn't indicative of other problems on HR. I can't say for sure without further details, but it seems that Anubis' decision was a matter of time.

My suggestion on talking to a lawyer is because this handling of the situation may be considered workplace harassment, as it gaslights and increases stress instead of solving problems adequately. If this isn't a first time, then the more reason to do that.

[HorizonParty2021]

If I am a silent reader and a post turns into a forceful argument between two people, I often scroll rapidly through, noting key things, but not becoming invested in taking a side. My sympathy is with the person being dogpiled and alienated, when that happens, whether or not I agree with the opinion that got them into such trouble.

The risk that you open yourself up to when sharing a specific mental health diagnosis is that a troll will use it in argument against you. People can: have a mental health condition that is that is diagnosed and being treated, have a condition that's undiagnosed or have no condition that warrants a diagnosis. However, even people in the third category can experience things that are injurious to their overall mental wellbeing, while never incurring a condition. I use "condition" as opposed to "disease", because it is less dehumanizing in the way it sounds to me. I have one such condition, which is treated as best as can be. Recently, this condition has been aggravated by stress. I did not sleep last night. I have a tentative appointment today to discuss the ordeal I am continuously subjected to. Anyway, it is each person's choice whether or not to declare a condition they have and I think people without any condition have as much right to participate in the conversation. That reduces any pressure to volunteer information, so as to be able to claim first hand experience. It's not as if the people close to me have no idea what I go through, since everyone has mirror-neurons.

In the future, I might get more specific about my condition and if there's someone gaslighting me, I will talk past them in order to share some insight with the rest of you that I have gained through experience. There I go, referencing my first hand experience. There is an upside to my condition and I would start with that to add something positive to the a topic that can necessarily be dire and serious.

[nofather]

An excerpt from an interview with a linguist, in this case Gretchen McCulloch, studying the emergent language changes.

The period is such an interesting new battleground for Internet language because there's definitely a traditional use which is still found in formal writing. You know, the book contains many periods, and they're not passive-aggressive because it's a formal context. But in an informal context, you don't need the period anymore to distinguish between one sentence or one phrase and the next because you're just going to hit "send" in a chat context. You can just send the message. ... And that makes your messages easier to read than this massive wall of text, particularly on a tiny screen.

And yet that means that the period is now open and available for taking on other sorts of meanings and other connotations. And one of those is that very sense of formality — and you know when you read a formal sentence ... and making your voice deeper at the end of the sentence, like you conventionally do with a period in formal writing, adds a note of solemnity or finality or seriousness to what you're saying. ... But the problem is if you say "OK, sounds good." — and you add that note of seriousness — now you've got positive words and serious punctuation, and the clash between them is what creates that sense of passive aggression.

This sort of situation isn't entirely new, it's just a result of meshing more informal communication methods (texts) for formal ends (work stuff). An older analogy that should be imaginable could be a friend in casual clothes knocking on your door, telling you, 'Come on, we're going out.' As opposed to the same situation with them wearing a suit and tie. Or a coworker noting, 'I saw you at Subway last night.' As opposed to finding a letter sent through the mail that says the same thing. It's one reason companies should maintain guidelines for communication (like work phones), to keep people from getting "mixed messages" like this. Especially since not everyone is going to be working off the same experiences.