You shouldn't dismiss a criticism just because it's delivered rudely. At the same time, why deliver a criticism rudely? What does that gain over delivering it politely?

Usually, if you're delivering a criticism, the intent is to inform the other party of some type of flaw that exists that you've observed or experienced. If you hope they fix that flaw, you're bound to get better results delivering the criticism politely than rudely ("you get more bees with honey than vinegar").

Sometimes you do have to deliver the information in a more abrasive fashion because you've painfully exhausted all polite approaches and the criticism has to be conveyed (usually because time sensitivity), but it should not be the first approach, it should be a last resort. Personally I argue that should only be done if there is a imminent danger of some sort (e.g. no, you're wrong the house will explode if we don't turn the gas off and put the fire out), otherwise you should simply agree to disagree before that point and try again another time or hope the other party may think about your argument more.

Because we're human beings, and it doesn't matter how right you are if nobody can stand having you around. I'd wager that a group of "average" researchers that can be respectful and get along is going to get more done than a genius that nobody will work with because they're an ass.

I wish that were true, but historically you'd be wrong. While there are plenty of counter-examples, when it comes to innovation and novel inventions that have widely sweeping social effects, they're usually the result of the "eccentric genius", and not always by the choice of the inventor. One of the things I find interesting in this larger comment thread is the failure to acknowledge that historically speaking it's been those who bucked current consensus to investigate or prove out their ideas that faced backlash, censure, and harassment within academia, not people who happened to have mainstream ideological viewpoints coloring their work.

There's a lot of words in this larger comment thread about reasoned criticism of some of the more difficult to prove ideas being championed by those in the CRT camp as being harassment, and a lot of people trying to paint those putting forward that criticism as being disrespectful assholes. But rather, history paints a different picture of the types of research that endures harassment. As an example, take the case of the doctor who first pushed for other doctors to wash their hands. [1].

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/23/ignaz-semme...

> What is gained if we dismiss out of hand criticism because it is not respectful?

If I were to understand this correctly (ignore if I misinterpret), you are saying out of hand criticism is fine since we would gain something, be it necessary correction or the undeniable truth. But if you were to criticize and suggest an alternative path to the truth, why say it harshly? Why bring in unnecessary shame to the person behind all the hard work? There is no reason be to so arrogant.

Sorry, my bad. "Out of hand" was supposed to go with "dismiss". "We dismiss without analyzing it because it's un-respectful."

As for the second part, I will reuse an answer I've given before: I am tired of the lying, and I do consider politeness to be lying. "Yes, your children are smart and beautiful" and "that dress doesn't make you fat" (your fat does) can only be repeated so many times.

A lot of people disagree with me :)

Being harsh and abrasive is not the same thing as being honest. Just respect the people even when you are demonstrating that their ideas are stupid. Everyone say stupid things at some point, there is no need to be an arsehole.

I understand this, and even agree with it up to a point. However, sometimes the gap between worldviews is too large.

Here's a few hypotheticals:

- you're a Christian trying to politely explain to a Satanist that you dislike sacrificing children to Moloch

- you're a transgender trying to politely explain to a rabid transphobe that maybe you have a right to live your life as you see fit

- you're a doctor explaining to someone that vaccines are not a conspiracy to kill the population

- you're someone genuinely scared of the possibility of raised water levels in a few decades talking to the owner of a 3 mpg monster truck

Now, how long do you think you can last being polite? More to the point, WHY?

Seems to me like it's a matter of gauging the other person's willingness to change their mind (an admittedly difficult task in itself). If there is no argument or evidence that you could present which would be good enough to do so, the entire conversation seems to be pointless and it's probably best to just walk away. If they are in fact open to being proven wrong, doing so politely may still not work (i.e. they may be able to counter any point you make), but the odds are better than if one does so rudely. All other things being equal, we're more likely to be persuaded by someone we like (or at least are neutral toward) than someone we dislike.

> Now, how long do you think you can last being polite?

Difficult, I admit. I don't have tons of patience with the clearly-wrong-but-backed-by-spurious-arguments-and-willing-to-argue-forever types.

> More to the point, WHY?

At least in the case of the doctor, because if the person is your patient, it's part of your job. And even if they aren't, it's still a health concern. Reach them if you can.

Now, there's a place for a verbal smackdown if you're at a party, say, and this person starts telling the room their anti-vax baloney. It's important that the room not believe this person. But still, be as polite as you can.

Right. In these contexts my reply is usually “fuck off”. Similarly with people arguing in bad faith. Life is too short to waste time with lunatics, but at the same time there is no point attacking them.

I have seen few complete nutcases in a scientific context, though. But sometimes decent people have strange opinions about, say, vaccines, in which case I tend to change subject or walk away.

> - you're someone genuinely scared of the possibility of raised water levels in a few decades talking to the owner of a 3 mpg monster truck

Someone 'genuinely scared' of raised water levels in a few decades is as nutty as someone who's 'genuinely scared' of QAnon or vaccines.

A 3 mpg monster truck owner might have chosen to not have any children, so are not raping the planet like breeders.

If I'm - "you're someone genuinely scared " then I'm pretty close to mentally ill. If my brain is malfunctioning generally it'll be much harder to deal with conflict. Why not just chat to someone who owns a truck, for my own mental health reasons.

If your honesty is all about insulting people and never something positive, then it says more about you then about honesty itself.

Also, you don't have to comment on other people children at all. What is even the point of judging whether someone kids look beautifully or not? I doubt people comment on your beauty either.

Redefining words to get's one way is now a staple of contemporary discourse. The problem with any policy of dismissing commentary that is disrespectful is that the definition of disrespectful will simply be changed until all contrary arguments have been banned for being disrespectful. How many times over the past year have common words suddenly had new definitions added to them for political expediency? Seems like quite a bit and we're told "no, that's always been part of the definition" even while print evidence and cached Internet Archive records show otherwise.

>what is gained if we dismiss out of hand criticism because it is not respectful?

As someone who has experienced some of this, the criticism isn't being dismissed because its disrespectful. It is being dismissed because the disrespect is the point, and the only point in many cases. It is not criticism, the criticism is a bad faith label to immunize the disrespect from consequences.

If you dont, you have no business to complain when people around you start to treat you the same way. Or when they finally get sick of you, retaliate and try to push you out.