I mean, you did just spin it into its worst interpretation. I read the grandparent post as meaning, "Be brutal when the least ego / public stature is at risk, but never cut people down in front of their peers."

That assumes the only problem with being brutal is making people look bad in front of their peers. That's far from the only problem with being brutal.

I make no such assumption, and I'm not a fan of brutality. I'm not endorsing his position, I'm just rephrasing it as what I believe he meant to say.

I'm also not a fan of intentionally putting the worst possible spin on someone's words. Reading charitably is pretty much always a net positive for any thread.

arkades is right, and there's a site guideline that specifically addresses this: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. It's easily plausible that one of blazespin's concerns is not to humiliate people in front of their peers.

This is a problem with this sort of discussion generally: a lot of the people arguing for others not to treat each other badly, treat others very badly indeed whilst arguing it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I could certainly have phrased my comment more clearly.

My point was not necessarily that that was what they were saying, but rather, that that is a likely outcome of that approach.

I've added an edit to my original comment clarifying this.

Well, you avoid anyone losing face, which is important. Being brutal, however, is not a good advice in any situation except a rap battle. Direct != Brutal.