Help me ask why you didn't just

You are seriously misinterpreting what I said.

What I said applied to a very specific scenario, the one described in the article: you have something you want to tell or ask people when you don't know them or their work very well, and you aren't sure how to say it or ask it without giving offense.

If you don't like the fact that the best thing to do in that situation is nothing--don't tell or ask them--then you have an obvious way to change the situation so that's no longer the only good option you have: get to know the people and their work better. In other words, connect with them, exactly as you describe. Once you've connected with them, you will either know how to tell or ask them what you wanted to tell or ask them, or you will have found out that you don't need to tell or ask them any more, because you have found out the information you originally wanted without having to.

I understand that connecting with people like this is very hard for many people, particularly techies. It's hard for me. But that doesn't mean you should try to avoid it, and I never said you should.

> I cannot fathom why you have such a big problem with someone using a blog post to crowd source suggested wording to try to explore how to do X better.

Because he's doing it backwards. He's trying to tell or ask something potentially offensive to people he doesn't know well, without trying to get to know them better first. In other words, instead of asking how to do X better, he should realize that he needs to do Y first, before even thinking about doing X.

As a society it seems like we're moving more and more to a model of conversation where the onus is on the speaker/writer to communicate in the most obsequious manner possible to avoid offense, while the listener/reader is allowed to interpret what is said/written as offensively as they want.

It's certainly a kind thing to ask "Could we use SSHD here?" instead of "Why didn't you just use SSHD?" But if someone says, "Why didn't you just use SSHD?" I think the person hearing that question has some responsibility to take the question at face value, and not read an insult into it.

Ultimately, the speaker/writer and listener/reader are supposed to have the same goal: to solve the problem in the best way possible. Maybe SSHD is a better solution, and if it's a better solution to use SSHD, then we should use SSHD. That's the entire point of asking the question in the first place: to try to discover if SSHD would be a better solution. But if the person hears "Why didn't you just use SSHD?" and concludes "They must think I'm an idiot", then how are they going to handle hearing "We should use SSHD instead."? I think it's reasonable to expect adults to be able to take this sort of criticism without feeling hurt or getting defensive.

Someone so married to their own work/ideas that they take polite criticism of their work/ideas as a personal attack can't be an effective member of a team, and since they'll always feel under attack for every mistake they make that gets corrected, they will be miserable to boot. This thought process doesn't represent reality: just because you used the wrong tool doesn't make you a stupid person or a bad engineer, and just because someone thinks you used the wrong tool doesn't mean they think you're a stupid person or a bad engineer. I'd go so far as to call this a mental disorder; it certainly fits the DSM IV definition[2].

Smart people and good engineers make mistakes: a big part of what makes someone smart and a good engineer is that they actively seek out people who catch their mistakes.

So sure, strive to communicate in a kind, compassionate way. But also strive to be confident enough that you can take criticism of your ideas and work without taking it as an statement about you, or your value as a person or worker.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/

Fortunately, doing is a technical skill that can be learned; however, the desire to do so requires first abandoning both that holier-than-thou attitude making flawed inferences about other people's preferences, and the narcissistic belief in your own Socratic importance.

> I would have used sshd, because I am inexperienced and don't understand your approach. Could you help me understand?

- Pressure on the good actors to communicate using the protocol. Basically being positive at all costs. It creates depression as feelings are constantly suppressed. - No pressure on the bad actors to correct their behaviour. Unless someone with the necessary authority notices the issue and had interests in taking the required action.

A game of fools, because, if a team is mostly made of good actors, then the frustration is tolerable, and perhaps the bad actors can be raised to the level of "good". There is a tipping point though, I've observed, where if the ratio of bad actors gets high, there is less and less of a incentive to do the right thing. Since criticism must be kept to none, or made in private, it becomes a battle of alliances. Things are said quietly. People end up spending more energy in sculpting a great image, rather than becoming better.

It's a game of fools. Fool participants, it's even contagious.

It also somewhat serves management as they only are to then decide how to compensate, promote, lay off every individual without risking any questioning from the contributors (everyone is equal by the sound of things, really)

When I say good and bad actors, I don't mean a category of people is bad while another is good. It's not about the intent, but about skills, performance, agile abilities, knowledge and wisdom.

It's important to have some tact, and respect. But I don't see anything wrong in calling out someone on poor execution. He may learn from it. And so what if it is made in public. Perhaps everyone needs to know. Again, tact and respect, it is not incompatible.