SWANK Statement No. 017: Inbox Fragility and the Evolution of Tone
Let’s be perfectly clear.
If my emails make you uncomfortable—if my written clarity feels “inappropriate,” “unsettling,” or “aggressive”—you needn’t worry.
I’ll stop emailing you.
Instead, I’ll begin formally documenting and complaining about you. Thoroughly. Elegantly. Publicly, if necessary.
Because here at SWANK, we observe a simple rule of institutional etiquette:
When polite communication is pathologised, escalation becomes protocol.
This is not spiteful. It is strategic.
It is what happens when polite requests for fairness are ignored, delayed, or described as “hostile.”
We understand that some professionals are deeply disturbed by disabled people who write well.
They are jarred by parents who document, citizens who cite legislation, or women who speak with authority.
They prefer silence, submission, and unreadable confusion.
We offer none of those.
What we offer is this:
- Concise timelines
- Legal terminology
- Procedural exposure
- And the irreversible evolution of tone.
Because once someone decides that a legitimate concern is a “threat,” they’ve already refused resolution.
At that point, the email ends—and the formal process begins.
At SWANK, we don’t chase.
We document.
We correct.
We proceed.
And no, we don’t accept your apology when the ombudsman gets involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This archive is a witness table, not a control panel.
We do not moderate comments. We do, however, read them, remember them, and occasionally reframe them for satirical or educational purposes.
If you post here, you’re part of the record.
Civility is appreciated. Candour is immortal.