Oh absolutely! Not sure where I conveyed anything different, but I agree with you.

> but people with integrity ... are seen as "rude"

You seem to be drawing a line between having integrity and being seen as unpleasant.

It's not wrong though, isn't it? Amount of confidence allowing someone not to avoid confrontation essentially makes some people feel unsafe, perceive it as unpleasant and causes hate response.

This assumes the only way to persuade someone to change their minds is via unpleasant confrontation. In my experience this is very rarely needed. You're right that a lot of confidence is required though, but it is the type that is rooted in truth and humility (rather than confidence from convincing yourself how great you are).

But then abandoning some integrity to not manipulate people is not a high bar anymore.

The very act of trying to convince someone is an act of manipulation, you can't divorce the two. Unless you're speaking simply to say your mind and without the desire to actually change something? Is that an act of integrity? Or is proclaiming what you believe for no other effect than to let people hear you an act of pride?

Holding a divergant opinion and expressing it is not necessarily an act of pride or manipulation.

To remain silent is often to implictly agree with an assumed group consensus.

Indeed. I'd say this is almost always the case. People apply Cunningham's Law without realizing it. That manager you hear confidently stating their project idea? There's a good chance they aren't really sure about it, but assume someone will push back if it's wrong. The same applies to behaviour; speaking back is often what it takes for the other person to back down from unethical behaviour.

> Is that an act of integrity? Or is proclaiming what you believe for no other effect than to let people hear you an act of pride?

Being proud of one's integrity doesn't actually diminish it, except in the eyes of those who are looking for reasons to diminish or relabel it anyway.

Arguably, not considering strategic approaches in maintaining social ties and fostering greater community is also abandoning one's integrity as a social animal.

That's only if you assume that confrontations are necessarily rude.

I would argue that most people do see it exactly that way. Even if a confrontation is handled extremely well, from the little data I have (what I've seen) most people are so terrified of confrontation at all that it is almost always seen as rude or disruptive.

Well, of course it's disruptive. That's the point. You are trying to force a change in someone's behavior. But it doesn't have to be adversarial. You can have disagreements but still try to work together. In fact, I would say it is extremely important to try to do that in almost every circumstance. Even if you are confronting someone who is not an ally, it's best to try to do it in a way which is strong and firm but also doesn't make them into more of an enemy any more than necessary.

No you can't. A non-negligible minority of the population will conflate "inconvenient to me" statements or actions with "rude" statements or actions. Standing up for what you believe or what's right or what's correct by definition necessitates conflict with whoever you're standing up to and sometimes people take it personally.