>Sounds like a recipe for the sterile PR speak we're surrounded by. If he's angry, why shouldn't he write angry?

This guy let his rage blind him so much it's hard to actually get anything of substance out of the article. I think the only real example he gave was Thomas's video. The rest was just complaints about generic behavior towards him that I haven't ever witnessed in the last 4 years I've been on this site.

Also, it makes him sound incredibly stupid. The best insults he can come up with are that people have little dicks? What is this, high school? There are lots of much better insults around self-importance that you could easily sling at this crowd.

> If he's angry, why shouldn't he write angry?

Well, among other reasons, because excessive incivility and outright slander when you are accusing people of incivility and slander kind of makes it hard to take you seriously.

But then again, its also kind of a repeated pattern with Zed and communities he has been involved in, so its not all that surprising. (Which, again, might be a speaker-specific reason to avoid it; instead of attracting attention to the subsequent message, it might be dismissed as "oh, so its HN's turn now, big surprise".)

Well, there's a difference between speaking to vent and speaking to effect change. If you want to change things, speaking (or writing) angrily is usually counterproductive. If you just want to express yourself, then you can write however you please.

because then instead of paying attention to what you have to say, we will pay attention to how.

(As an example, consider the above sentence continued with "stupid motherfucker. I can't understand how idiotic and entitled people on the internet are this days.")

There is a vast gap between sterile PR speech and "weak limp dicked little loser".

Writing angry is fine if you want to get into a fight. Writing angry is not a great tactic if you want people to stop attacking you.

I dunno, because I don't have a tiny little mosquito penis?

I feel you. Sadly, almost no one else here does. I am yet to determine as to why, but everyone prefers smoothed-out shit to blunt truth. And the topics discussed here are not even that emotional compared to other possible alternatives.

This is also said in the context of the recent 'blabla no negativity' rule.

"The rule is no gratuitous negativity. You can be negative, just try to at least be constructive about it"

"The rule is no gratuitous negativity you stupid fuck. You can be negative, just try to be constructive".

Which sentence do you think is goig to derail conversations and lead to useless but heated argument?

If people are not obsessively looking for reasons to be offended (which kind of might hint about subtle underlying psychological problems) - neither.

I'm sorry, I felt I also had to jump on the bandwagon. For me it's got nothing to do with psychological problems, I was just heavily put off by the incredibly macho and sexist tone (many paragraphs contain references to size of male genitalia).

I'm with the GP post; write after having cooled down. That doesn't have to turn it into PR speak at all, and it might have as a side-effect that it'll be taken to heart by more readers.

But that's just my €0.02.

Calling someone a stupid fuck is clearly corrosive and going to derail threads. Do you really not see that?

And placing the blame for that on mental health problems? That's ignorant and lazy.

Why is the premises here that everything to the last letter has to be taken seriously? I'll be damned, but there's reddit? netsec and such places. They seem to fare pretty well. Relevant rules?

- Don't create unnecessary conflict.

- Keep the discussion on topic.

- Limit the use of jokes & memes.

Places a bit of trust in people's hands instead of slapping 'lel no this, lel no that'.

I can't say I blame something or someone (well maybe people introducing those rules), after all it barely affects me.

You don't think that calling someone a stupid fuck is creating unnecessary conflict?

> taken seriously

It absolutely does not always do that (although you've chosen a pretty harsh phrase which has a high chance to be considered extreme).

What you call "blunt truth" I call weak-willed, knee-jerk tantrums. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

You don't have to weigh your words like a two-faced politician to get your point across.