Blunt vs Tactful Communication

Are people disapproving of my experience or that I'm talking about it?

It's only rude to the people who believe that unpleasant things shouldn't be talked about.

How about you don't make assumptions about who you're talking to?

He's trying to have discussion, who are you to tell people how to communicate?

> if people disapprove of what you said and you're not sure whyGood point, I've been mildly about about that me too in some cases (I'm sbd else)

Give it a chance. Question more why the comment is made that way. Not everyone is comfortable in communicating as you did there.

I mean you're welcome do whatever you want, but I guess don't be surprised in the future when people are either confused by what you're saying or annoyed that you decided to talk about something else.

I used to be the person who would always tell it as it is - it doesn't work in general, because often times people don't want to hear it. They treat it as a grievous bodily harm and they lash out in defence.small talk and euphemisms evolved for a good reason - you need to be able to judge what's going on in the other person's head before you risk exposing yourself to their wrath.

I never suggested that someone should misrepresent or soften their position to avoid making someone feel bad. If you hate an article, I want to know that you hate it, and why. I'm only asking that everyone remember that they're speaking with other human beings.Maybe a reasonable litmus test for the HN crowd is: if the article was instead a speech at a conference, would you go up to the speaker afterwards (or during Q&A) and say what you're going to say? If not, why?

I agree, it's not like telling all the people on the face. We should have some prejudgement to whom we are talking.