[jasode]

>I don't think redundancy or prelude is necessarily the mark of politeness. It's usually just a mark of writing style.

But to _your perception_, it's politeness. (You previously wrote: "It's direct ("I'm confused"), but polite.")

On the other hand, I categorized it as prelude.

To attempt a meta observation, it seems people require "social lubrication" in the communication. Otherwise, it sounds harsh. The lubrication is a mark of kindness.

I don't require lubrication and harsh language like Linus' writing style doesn't bother me. The difference is that I would probably use "kinder" language in more situations than he would depending on the recipient.

>But "personally" is redundant - of course it's your personal opinion.

Right... to be meta, it's a restatement of my last sentence. "I personally don't like" is _softer_ than "I don't like" which sounds more like I'm a dictator. If you and I were founder & cofounder where we have "spirited" debate, I'd leave out the redundant "personally". If you were my employee that needs softer language, I put in the redundancies.

[JoshTriplett]

> To attempt a meta observation, it seems people require "social lubrication" in the communication. Otherwise, it sounds harsh. The lubrication is a mark of kindness.

Yes, it is to some degree a "social lubricant". We're running a massive intricate machine at full-tilt with a million moving parts that sometimes just barely mesh. And while some parts of it are capable of continuing to work without that social lubricant, it certainly makes things run hotter, and decreases the MTBF. All the more reason to leave some safety margin, and help everything run more smoothly.

I disagree with the view that "softer language" is something you use with weaker people or people who you see as "below" you. I'd also disagree with the characterization as "softer". Empathy isn't "soft", it's incredibly powerful.

[graphememes]

I would say more often than not, it is used towards those viewed as weaker or those who are not capable of rational thought when presented with non-soft language.

[projektir]

This seems very susceptible to confirmation bias and itself a potential self-fulfilling prophecy...

[BenchRouter]

> But to _your perception_, it's politeness

That's not at all why Allen's comment is polite, and this is very much what I mean by "kindness requires no effort."

It's polite because it isn't actively negative towards the other person. That's all it takes. Redundancy is irrelevant.

Allen could've easily written:

> What you wrote makes no fucking sense and it's dumb as hell.

Which is both redundant and impolite.

> If you were my employee that needs softer language, I put in the redundancies.

Just to be redundant myself, redundancy is only loosely correlated with politeness. There are plenty of examples of terse, polite speech (and the inverse as well). You don't need to do this, and I would argue it's a hallmark of your particular writing style more than anything else.

[jasode]

>It's polite because it isn't actively negative towards the other person. That's all it takes. Redundancy is irrelevant.

If you believe redundancy is irrelevant, we have different opinions on how people perceive communication.

You: not writing an insult is all it takes to be "polite".

Me: People will perceive the omission of prelude and mea culpa "I'm confused" as "active negativity towards the other person". It doesn't require the literal words "you're an idiot".

So I disagree that simply not insulting is "all it takes". It often takes more than that to not make people act defensive. Lubrication, social grooming, etc.

[BenchRouter]

> If you believe redundancy is irrelevant, we have different opinions on how people perceive communication.

I'm starting to gather as such, and so continuing down this road is probably unproductive.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.