Language is important, very important. Whenever I hear or read something that begins with “Can we please…?” I ALWAYS get my feathers ruffled. A bird that just flew through a hurricane ruffled.
I realise that this is not healthy, so I went to AI to better understand why that phrase gets under my skin so much and what, if anything, I can do about it.
The information in this blog post is useful for anyone who communicates.
In other words, this blog is important for everybody, because as my favourite Professor, Dr. Christopher King, taught way back in the day, “You cannot NOT communicate.“
Once you have read this article, you will know why saying “Can we not…” upsets you when you hear it, and why you shouldn’t use those words when communicating with another human being. Heck, don’t use it when speaking with your pets, either, for that matter!
You will also learn techniques for defusing the situation when someone uses the offending phrase in a polite and professional way.
Methodology
I typed a very simple prompt into Google Gemini, expecting nothing much, a paragraph or so. Instead, Gemini provided a treasure trove of information on why “Can we please…” is so annoying to so many people. At the end of this article, I will copy Gemini’s “Show thinking”, as I also find that useful. Hopefully, you will too.
Table of Contents:
- Table of Contents:
- Would you like me to give you a few professional ways to shut that phrasing down when someone uses it on you?
- The “Thinking” for Why am i so annoyed when somebody says “can we please…”
Why am i so annoyed when somebody says “can we please…” Are they being passive aggressive?
You are definitely not alone in this. That specific phrasing—“Can we please…”—triggers a fight-or-flight response in many people.
While it is technically a polite sentence structure, the subtext is often loaded. You are annoyed because your brain is picking up on a disconnect between the words (polite) and the intent (controlling or critical).
Here is a breakdown of why this phrase is so irritating and whether it counts as passive-aggressive.
1. The “Schoolteacher Effect” (Infantilization)
This is the biggest culprit. “Can we please…” is the default sentence structure used by elementary school teachers to manage unruly children.
- “Can we please use our inside voices?”
- “Can we please put our toys away?”
When an adult uses this on another adult, it feels condescending. It implies that you are behaving like a child who needs to be gently corrected, rather than a peer who needs to be spoken to directly.
2. The “Forced Teaming” (The Fake ‘We’)
The speaker uses “we” when they actually mean “you.”
- They say: “Can we please get this report formatted correctly?”
- They mean: “You messed up the formatting. Fix it.”
This is annoying because it is manipulative. It pretends to be a shared responsibility to soften the blow, but everyone involved knows the blame or the instruction is directed solely at you. It feels dishonest.
3. The “Exasperated Please”
Usually, “please” is a politeness marker. However, when placed in the middle of a rhetorical question like this, it often functions as a marker of impatience.
- “Can you pass the salt?” (Neutral request)
- “Can you please pass the salt?” (Implies: I have asked you three times, or you are taking too long).
When someone says, “Can we please move on?”, the subtext is often, “I am tired of you talking.”
4. Is it Passive-Aggressive?
Yes, very often.
Passive-aggressive behavior is defined by expressing negative feelings indirectly rather than openly.
- Aggressive: “Stop doing that. It’s annoying.”
- Assertive: “I would prefer if we tried a different approach.”
- Passive-Aggressive: “Can we please just try to get this done?”
The phrase allows the speaker to issue a command while maintaining plausible deniability. If you get mad, they can gasp and say, “I was just asking nicely!” It weaponizes politeness to hide criticism.
Summary
You are annoyed because you are detecting a status play. The person is momentarily positioning themselves as the authority (the teacher/parent) and you as the subordinate (the student/child), all while hiding behind the veneer of a “polite team request.”
Google Gemini:
Would you like me to give you a few professional ways to shut that phrasing down when someone uses it on you?
Prompt: Yes, please!
The trick to shutting this down is to refuse to accept the premise that you are a child being scolded.
You do this by stripping away the emotional subtext (the “can we please”) and responding only to the literal fact, often by correcting the “we” to an “I” or “you.” This signals: “I am an adult, and I don’t need your weird parent-voice.”
Here are a few ways to handle it, depending on the situation.
1. The “Anti-We” (Correcting the Grammar)
When they use the “Fake We” to command you to do something, you respond by immediately reclaiming ownership. This highlights that you are the one doing the work, not “we.”
- Them: “Can we please make sure the spreadsheet is updated by noon?”
- You: “I will have my updates finished by noon.”
- Why it works: It subtly corrects their grammar. You are saying, “There is no ‘we’ here. I am doing the job. I am aware of the deadline.”
2. The “Clarification” (Forcing them to be direct)
Since “Can we please…” is passive-aggressive, the antidote is to force them to be direct. Make them say what they actually mean.
- Them: “Can we please just follow the process?”
- You: “Just to clarify, is there a specific step you think I missed?”
- Why it works: It forces them to leave the safety of the vague “we” and point a finger directly at you. Most passive-aggressive people hate doing this because it feels too confrontational.
3. The “Validation of Urgency” (Ignoring the tone completely)
If they are using the “Exasperated Please” to imply that you are slow or incompetent, respond to the urgency, not the attitude.
- Them: “Can we please get this moving?”
- You: “I can see this is a high priority for you. I’ll send you an update in 10 minutes.”
- Why it works: You are treating their emotional outburst as a data point (“this is high priority”) rather than a scolding. You remain the professional; they look like the one panicking.
4. The “Agenda check” (For interruptions)
This is for when someone interrupts you in a meeting with “Can we please stick to the agenda?”
- Them: “Can we please get back to the main point?”
- You: “Noted. I’ll wrap this point up quickly so we can move on.”
- Why it works: You acknowledge the request (“Noted”) but you do not stop immediately. You finish your sentence. This signals compliance with the time, not submission to their command.
5. The “Nuclear Option” (Calling out the tone)
Use this only with a peer you know well, or a subordinate who is being disrespectful. Do not use this on a boss.
- Them: “Can we please just get this done?”
- You: “I’m happy to help, but ‘Can we please’ makes it sound like I’m unwilling to do the work. I’m fully on board, just working through the details.”
- Why it works: It exposes the subtext. You are telling them, “I know what you are doing with your voice, and I don’t like it.”
Summary of the Tactic
The goal is to be unfailingly literal.
If they treat you like a child (“Can we please put our toys away?”), you respond like a calm, high-level consultant (“I will ensure the assets are filed correctly”). It creates a tonal gap that makes them look emotional and you look competent.ou respond like a calm, high-level consultant (“I will ensure the assets are filed correctly”). It creates a tonal gap that makes them look emotional and you look competent.
The “Thinking” for Why am i so annoyed when somebody says “can we please…”
Exploring Annoyance Origins
I’ve been analyzing the user’s annoyance with “can we please…”. My current hypothesis centers on the potential for passive-aggressive undertones, which I find quite compelling. I’m also considering the implications of perceived power dynamics in the situation, and how that might contribute to the negative reaction. I’m moving toward an understanding of how the phrase affects the listener.
Refining Annoyance Factors
My exploration into the user’s annoyance with “can we please…” has intensified. I’m now honing in on the phrase’s inherent implicitness. The shift from “I” to “we” feels like a manipulation, and I find the parent-child dynamic theory particularly compelling. I’m also examining the forced teaming aspect more closely, focusing on how this perceived imposition creates the negative emotional reaction.
Pinpointing Underlying Discomfort
My current thinking on “can we please…” has shifted. The performative politeness aspect feels especially insightful. I’m focusing on the cognitive dissonance the phrase creates – a seemingly polite question concealing a direct command. The implicit blame and loss of autonomy are key, especially the way it boxes the listener. I’m also exploring the passive-aggressive nature more, considering the implications of indirect criticism wrapped in “niceties.”
Dissecting Phrase Components
My current focus is breaking down the constituent elements of “can we please…”. The “Schoolteacher Effect” resonates deeply – it’s the condescending tone that grates. The “sugar-coated command” aspect is also key. The odd use of “please” – acting as an intensifier rather than a softener – is now crystal clear. I’m thinking about a nuanced perspective: it’s usually passive-aggressive, but context matters. I’m also considering alternative, less loaded communication methods.
Formulating a Response Framework
My current thinking is focused on building a practical framework for responding to “can we please…”. I’m structuring the response to acknowledge the underlying frustration first, similar to a validation strategy. Then, I’m thinking of breaking it down into sections to address the “Royal We,” infantilization, and the loaded “please” individually. The aim is to create a useful guide and scripts to enable a more direct, yet still professional interaction style.
The “Thinking” for “give you a few professional ways to shut that phrasing down when someone uses it on you?”
Evaluating Annoyance Strategies
I’ve been analyzing the user’s request, focusing on the underlying annoyance with the “Can we please…” phrasing. I’m exploring direct, professional responses that shut down the request without being rude. I’m considering responses that shift the focus back to the original request or project deadlines. Further refining is underway to create a list of responses that maintain professionalism, and avoid reinforcing the problematic phrase.
Analyzing Dominance Tactics
I’m now investigating how to assert dominance without veering into unprofessional territory. I’m carefully evaluating how to address the user’s annoyance with phrases like “Can we please…”, exploring ways to strip away the underlying power dynamic. This has led to the development of strategies like literal pivots, directly reframing the request in a more assertive tone. Further analysis focuses on responses that subtly challenge the initial framing, forcing the requester to clarify their intent.
Crafting Direct Rebuttals
I’m now focusing on strategies to directly address the underlying annoyance with “we”. I’m exploring a direct question like “Do you mean you want me to do it?” to expose the implicit request for someone else to do the work. Additionally, I’m analyzing the effectiveness of responses like “Just to clarify, are you asking me to handle this?” to reinforce responsibility. Further refinement centers on responses that tactfully, yet firmly, address the communication style.
Devising Response Framework
I’ve refined my approach to address the user’s communication style. I’m building a tiered response structure, moving from polite deflection to firm assertion. My focus is now on actionable options that span a spectrum, from mild redirection to direct confrontation. The goal is to categorize these responses and incorporate them into a toolkit, that includes bolding for direct script recommendations and italicized bullet points for situational clarity. I’m working to include scenarios for handling work assignments, vague complaints, and urgent requests.
Refining Empathy Strategy
I’m now focusing on empathy within a professional framework. I’m exploring ways to address the user’s communication, aiming to create solutions that are helpful and clear. My current refinement targets avoiding aggressive tones, prioritizing winning the interaction through professional detachment. I’m prioritizing grey rock strategies to shut down the implicit emotion of the user’s request, emphasizing the best defense is refusing to engage with the emotion. This refinement is being undertaken while keeping in mind the need for a practical toolkit in the final output.
Perry's Pen 
Leave a comment