If somebody has a goal to communicate a certain thing, and does not succeed in communicating that because [nearly] everybody interprets them as being rude or obtuse instead, deductive reasoning would point to the conclusion that their approach to communication was the wrong one for the situation, and to the conclusion they should probably attempt to modify their communication if they wish to achieve a different result. (I appreciate that for autistic people, it might be particularly difficult to discern how or why their attempts to communicate a point do not succeed. I also appreciate that failed communication applies both ways, and that a neurotypical person telling an autist that they "never admit they're wrong" is a failure on the part of the neurotypical person to appreciate that this statement will most likely be interpreted hyper-literally)

Alternative, one can avoid that reasoning and rationalise not discarding consistently failing conversational stratagems because the cause of the failed outcome of a conversation is a person's opinion which lacks the same consistency as mathematics (and therefore more effective conversational stratagems can - at best - only be supported evidentially by inductive reasoning). But that just leads to the wrong outcome more often.