[warent]

Jokes aside, some of this is just normal communication used in business and that's not a bad thing. The consistency is actually useful when communicating between businesses. Makes it easier to integrate and speak the same language so everyone stays on the same page.

[superconformist]

Yes, I can tell you and I have synergy. B2B consistency is not just useful, it is impactful.

Despite the win-win dialog we're having, maybe we should take it offline.

[hbarka]

That was funny. I get your /s

[gerbilly]

Except that many of these terms exist not to make communication clearer, but to obfuscate, to hedge.

It's a type of obscurantism. It also sounds like a bunch of shibboleths, secret handshakes of the C level people.

Why do we accept terms like re-structuring, downsizing etc? Can't we just call it what it is: "Firing people?"

[warent]

Because there's more information being communicated in "downsizing" or "re-restructuring."

All downsizing involves firing people, but not all "firing people" involves downsizing.

True, people can abuse those terms for a doublespeak effect, but they have legitimate uses.

[gerbilly]

> True, people can abuse those terms for a doublespeak effect, but they have legitimate uses.

Yeah, and opium sometimes has legitimate uses in pain management.