I find that actively trying to not sound rude is much better than saying "I don't want to sound rude", even if you get it wrong and end up sounding rude anyway
Rhetorically speaking, "I don't want to sound rude" can have the opposite effect as the one intended by the writer (when I'm on the receiving end that's almost 100% of the time). It basically states, from the get-go, that the opposing argument is so deeply flawed, requiring such a strong, ruthless counter-argument, that there's a good possibility that you might offend your interlocutor's sensibilities. Even if you're so fucking right that your answer erupts from the depths of your logical mind with the power of a thousand volcanoes, that's not a good way to create rapport. At this point, no one knows your reasoning yet. You may sound like a douche bag. You may be right, but not as right as you think. You may also be very wrong, and in that case you not only promised something you couldn't deliver, but you also made it hard to take the conversation forward. Because, by belittling your interlocutor, you created an environment where getting it wrong is not admissible, and he/she will apply the same rule to yourself. Even in the case that you're right, your behavior discouraged further questions. All because you wanted to be nice! Communication is hard.
There is also the cliche attached to saying "not trying to be X" immediately followed by the person still being X. E.g. "Not trying to be racist but... [racist statement]." So that certainly doesn't help with the perception of those that use such preemptives either. But I never even really thought about how flawed that rhetorical approach is, even from the start, so thanks for pointing that out. IMO it's definitely a good argument against using them even as intended.
I cannot imagine a situation where this cliche could be truly useful unless you intend to say something you shouldn't be saying at all.
But it's a lot of fun when you purposely break the convention, "I'm not racist, but man this orange juice is good."
Oh, and also, congrats on being one of today's lucky 10,000 :)
https://www.xkcd.com/1053/
Hey, I'm not opposed to a good non sequitur! That's why I always jump on one foot when it rains so the leprechauns don't eat me.
And I'm a part of a group of 10'000? I'm happy to be part of any group of 10'000 (except maybe cancer?). I'm special!
To help you celebrate your special day!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f4CyQto-0E
:)
Ha... you sweet!
I can definitely see the rationale of people who use such preemptives, even honestly. It's simply an attempt to avoid a potentially predictable outcome of people misinterpreting their intent when discussing controversial topics. However I wholeheartedly agree that it's rarely (if ever) actually useful, and in fact more often than not has the exact opposite effect by drawing increased scrutiny to the statement that follows because of that cliche I mentioned.
Yeah... they definitely sound like a good idea in theory, but experience tells otherwise.
In teaching, there's a paradigm regarding rules which says you shouldn't name undesirable behaviors. For example, instead of "don't hit other students," the rule would be "keep your hands to yourself." Why? Because if the student looks at the wall and sees the words "HIT OTHER STUDENTS" it puts the idea in their mind regardless of whether there's a "don't" in front of it. That's not to say that every student is then going to suddenly start swinging--just that you can avoid even creating the thought in a child's mind simply by choosing your words carefully.
The effect is not just limited to kids either. As an adult I experience a small form of this almost daily. With chip readers on cards, almost all of them have text that reads "Do not remove card" while the transaction is processing. I cannot tell you how many times I've almost pulled my card out prematurely simply because I looked down and saw the words "REMOVE CARD" without fully parsing the "DO NOT" beforehand. A dead simple fix would be to change the text to something like "Leave card inserted" and then "Remove card" once the transaction is finished.
I feel like what you brought up is the same idea. By naming "sounding rude," you've now introduced that concept in the conversation even though you're trying to negate it. To improve the messaging you could simply do without it or rephrase it to something more neutral/positive (e.g. "to be honest...").
That makes perfect sense to me!
And not only is it "better", it's easier too. It's more relaxing and empowering to own my emotion and express how I really feel (which includes silence, the absence of expression). If I feel angry, offended, irritated, or otherwise just not OK, it almost always work better if I express the feeling as it is. In this way, I
It almost always ends up easier to speak our minds.
I think a good environment is not one where misunderstandings never happen, but one where there's always room for further explanations, and people are open and kind to understand each other's points with an open mind and beyond first impressions. Also allowing people to learn from each other in a deeper and positive way... maybe that asshole from accounting just need some love, you know? :D
(nothing against accounting! kkkkk)