I can see how it’d look like that in the abstract, but in out in the world it really does seem to work. That’s the standard I’m using here—works-in-world.
But the commentators who are telling you “this doesn’t work for us” are part of the world. This conversation is part of the world. You’re getting commenters right now, in the world, telling you that you are provoking a hostile reaction when presumably you don’t mean to. So there’s something about your style that isn’t working right for at least a significant minority of the target audience.
I can imagine situations where the style you’re advocating or modeling here would work well. In a specific kind of corporate environment, it would work well.But in an intellectual discussion forum, I think it can have an effect opposite from the one you intend. That’s why you’re hearing from people saying that it’s “irritating” or “sets their teeth on edge” or that it’s coming across as condescending.
“That’s weird. I think Chrome is the most visually appealing of any browser right now. Its primary virtue is minimalism, but the parts that are there are beautiful. I don’t get how you could think otherwise.” See that second one? I see the equivalent of that sometimes among smart people. And it’s bad.
Because of the final sentence, yes, that WOULD be likely to provoke a hostile reaction. Without that last bit it would be fine—a simple statement of personal preference, unlikely to cause any offense.
See, though, I stated up front that I believe in niceness. We don’t have any argument over whether niceness is better than rudeness: we have a difference in perception about what’s actually nice (and likely to make people react positively) and what’s condescending and/or dismissive (and likely to make people react poorly).
Also, tangentially, it’s been kind of strange for me to have a discussion after writing a piece like this.
It is odd, and meta, but also interesting, so thank you for starting the discussion—and for responding politely to criticism, which is always difficult.
But the commentators who are telling you “this doesn’t work for us” are part of the world. This conversation is part of the world. You’re getting commenters right now, in the world, telling you that you are provoking a hostile reaction when presumably you don’t mean to. So there’s something about your style that isn’t working right for at least a significant minority of the target audience.
I can imagine situations where the style you’re advocating or modeling here would work well. In a specific kind of corporate environment, it would work well.But in an intellectual discussion forum, I think it can have an effect opposite from the one you intend. That’s why you’re hearing from people saying that it’s “irritating” or “sets their teeth on edge” or that it’s coming across as condescending.
Because of the final sentence, yes, that WOULD be likely to provoke a hostile reaction. Without that last bit it would be fine—a simple statement of personal preference, unlikely to cause any offense.
See, though, I stated up front that I believe in niceness. We don’t have any argument over whether niceness is better than rudeness: we have a difference in perception about what’s actually nice (and likely to make people react positively) and what’s condescending and/or dismissive (and likely to make people react poorly).
It is odd, and meta, but also interesting, so thank you for starting the discussion—and for responding politely to criticism, which is always difficult.