Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you suggest to write a title that’s less inflammatory? I have a higher tolerance to this type of language. Some people find any critique offensive. Some embrace it. With any public confrontation, you’re bound to get a spectrum of people with various reactions. How do we make sure criticism, even harsh, needs space in public dialog whether it is open source or not? If it’s meant with good faith, that is. Peo…
Instead of "sucks", how about any of these: * My Frustrations with Hugo's Documentation * How Hugo's Documentation Confuses Me and How to Improve It * Why I Don't Like Hugo's Documentation The key thing I've done here in the first three is to reframe the criticism as an _opinion_ ("I", "me", "my") rather than an absolute ("it sucks"). I don't think it's too much to ask people to state their opinions _as opinions_ in…
However, if you look under the facade, when talking to your colleagues and with people around you, “sucks” is very much a common, daily word.
This is the way I look at it. Sure, it’s not professional. But, the author is not trying to be professional I suppose. I am not going to debate it’s appropriateness.
I want to be clear, the point I’m debating is not about “sucks” per se, but any general criticism. Whenever you need disclaimers, it could mean two things 1) Rude or unacceptable title 2) Society expects unreasonable conformity and adherence to a particular language, set of values, etc.
In the case 2), we had a huge debate about “master vs main” branch. There are many examples.
We’d be better off dialing down the conformity and be more inclusive. Check in deeper about intentions and faith, than the facade of language. If the author used the language you suggested, but had bad intentions, that’s a bigger problem.