But it’s strictly better to be able to convey those things without triggering people, making people annoyed enough that they leave, or putting them into a political frame where they are more trying to defeat your argument than focus on truthfinding.
I think that this is very wrong, in multiple ways.
First and most obviously, if such “more tactful”[1] formulations cost more to produce, then that is a way in which using them would not be strictly better, even if it was better on net.
Second, even if the “more tactful” formulations are no more costly to produce, they are definitely more costly to read (or otherwise parse), for at least some (and possibly most) readers (or hearers, etc.). (Simple length is one obvious reason for this, though not the only one by any means; complexity, ambiguity, etc., also contribute.)
Third, if the “more tactful” formulations are less effective (and not merely less efficient!)—for example, by increasing the probability of communication errors—then using them would be directly detrimental, even ignoring any costs that doing so might impose.
Fourth, if “less tactful” formulations act as a filter against people who are more easily “triggered”, who are more likely to become annoyed at lack of “tact”, who are prone to entering a “political frame”, etc., and if, furthermore, having such people is detrimental on net (perhaps because communicating productively with them imposes various costs, or perhaps because they have a tendency to attempt to force changes to local communicative or other practices, which are harmful to the goal or the organization), then it is in fact good to use “less tactful” formulations precisely because they “trigger people”, “make people annoyed enough that they leave”, etc.
I think the amount of expectations an intellectual community should have that people are capable of doing that isn’t zero.
It is possible that an intellectual community should expect that people are capable of doing this, but also that said community should expect, not only that people are also capable of not doing this, but in fact that they actually don’t do this.
I am not sure if this is a short summary label which you’d endorse; you use the word “tact” elsewhere in your comment, so it seemed like a decent guess. If not, feel free to provide a comparably compact alternative.
I think that this is very wrong, in multiple ways.
First and most obviously, if such “more tactful”[1] formulations cost more to produce, then that is a way in which using them would not be strictly better, even if it was better on net.
Second, even if the “more tactful” formulations are no more costly to produce, they are definitely more costly to read (or otherwise parse), for at least some (and possibly most) readers (or hearers, etc.). (Simple length is one obvious reason for this, though not the only one by any means; complexity, ambiguity, etc., also contribute.)
Third, if the “more tactful” formulations are less effective (and not merely less efficient!)—for example, by increasing the probability of communication errors—then using them would be directly detrimental, even ignoring any costs that doing so might impose.
Fourth, if “less tactful” formulations act as a filter against people who are more easily “triggered”, who are more likely to become annoyed at lack of “tact”, who are prone to entering a “political frame”, etc., and if, furthermore, having such people is detrimental on net (perhaps because communicating productively with them imposes various costs, or perhaps because they have a tendency to attempt to force changes to local communicative or other practices, which are harmful to the goal or the organization), then it is in fact good to use “less tactful” formulations precisely because they “trigger people”, “make people annoyed enough that they leave”, etc.
It is possible that an intellectual community should expect that people are capable of doing this, but also that said community should expect, not only that people are also capable of not doing this, but in fact that they actually don’t do this.
I am not sure if this is a short summary label which you’d endorse; you use the word “tact” elsewhere in your comment, so it seemed like a decent guess. If not, feel free to provide a comparably compact alternative.