[krinchan]

The US has a lot of weird norms in the corporate office culture.

It's a result of a protracted period of tucking more and more of the emotion of an interaction into the background context to avoid offense, conflict, or resentment. A lot of this is early Corporate Culture engineering.

A good beginners example is the phrase, "per my last email." That's the one you'll see most, but variants such as "per the last meeting" and "per our previous conversation" are included.

This phrase seems innocuous enough, but it's an expression of deep frustration with a tinge of insult at it's target. It's essentially saying, "You haven't been paying attention or you're an idiot. Either way, you are wasting my time."

Imperative requests framed as optional questions is kinda a part of that. A constant stream of imperatives from your manager begins to feel like you're being "ordered around" and you're not "appreciated." So a manager will often ask you giving you the appearance of choice even though you both know you do not because the context of their authority makes it so.

For a very long time, this worked. It was definitely manipulative, if not borderline brainwashing. Baby Boomer's misguided advice to younger generations about loyalty to employers is a result of this.

For Gen X and on, it's mostly an empty husk of norms that are either meaningless or just the accepted way to insult someone without losing your job. "You're an idiot" will cost you your job but "Per my last email" carries the same message and doesn't cost you your job. Asking me politely to do a task is just how you assign tasks now, no one thinks it means you actually respect or care the assignee.

I can definitely see how this layer would cause issues with people on the spectrum. It causes enough problems for neurotypicals.

[Balgair]

Wait until you get a load of UK speech patterns:

Amazing driving > I've nearly died with you at the wheel

Great game > We lost 1-8, I hate my team, they stink so badly

We'll meet up later > I'm not going out for anything but a WW3

Not to worry > I've cataloged this offense and will never forget it

It's a bit wet > a tsunami has recently occured

An email only ending in: Thanks > I hope you die

It's fine > It is so bad that I have actually lost verbal control of myself in public

Perfect > It's all ruined

Not bad > It's total shite

Not bad, actually > I am the happiest I have been in a decade

It could be worse > The Blitz is actively occuring at this moment, all hope is lost

Come round anytime > I never want to see you again

Oh no, my fault > What are you doing you clumsy oaf

When you have a tick > You are already late

It'll be fine > I expect things to catch on fire shortly making things, somehow, worse

Well, that's brave > you are criminally insane

Quite good > underwhelming

Oh by the way...> So, to the point of this interaction finally

I just have a few minor comments > a complete re-write is required

[laurentl]

And don’t forget this other mainstay of British understatement:

I am just going outside and may be some time > I’m committing suicide, don’t wait up for me

[RichardCA]

Don't forget "British Tone of Voice".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-M2hs3sXGo

The only reason this skit is funny is because it juxtaposes the understated inflection with increasingly absurd situations.

[mlyle]

See, I view these as valuable cues as to what's immediately expected.

"Tom, finish that report by Friday" is a command. Commands are useful. Only the most critical objections can be tolerated.

"Tom, I need that report by Friday" is a statement of a requirement and has a minimal opening for a discussion about how to meet your need.

"Tom, can you please get me that report by Friday?" opens the door to more discussion. If Tom has a big problem with getting you the report by Friday, you can talk about it.

"Tom, would you like to write this Friday's report?" --- now we're open to discussion of Tom's preferences, but he's still expected to give them in a respectful fashion with expected context and reasons.

[nyir]

From how I've been reading these interactions the last one isn't actually all that up to discussion. That's exactly what's been annoying me about it. If it were, then yes, exactly like you described it would be a sensible next level after the "please do X". And for most people I'd indeed (correctly) understand it that way, just not, as the parent described, from some particular backgrounds.

Oh, but actually, maybe that's the case, I'll pay more attention to the reaction if someone "doesn't like" to.

[lazyasciiart]

If my manager said "would you like to x" I would assume he is trying to figure out who on the team to give x to, and wants to take our preferences into account. He may end up asking me to do it anyway, but at the time of the question it was not decided.

[TheOperator]

I drop "Per our discussion" PURELY to put things on the record for auditing/CYA reasons. You say "it's an expression of deep frustration with a tinge of insult at it's target."

No It's business not personal. It's literally just saying that I informed you about whatever issue. I do this to inform my team that you've already been informed about an issue and you don't need to be bothered again, to trace back to where something went wrong if an incident occurs, and to protect myself by proving that I did my job.

Sure you can use "per our discussion" maliciously but it's not always like this.

[mattrp]

Let’s face it someone who has deep frustration pretty much only cares about cya so in a way these two cases are in fact highly correlated. You might also want to question why you need a cya if you don’t harbor or anticipate “deep frustration.” :)

[bigred100]

I don’t read “per my last email” as “you’re an idiot”. If people didn’t misread emails it wouldn’t be a common phrase. And if it’s a common occurrence in an area of highly skilled employment with generally highly educated workers... I don’t see how doing it could conceivably make one an idiot.