[blotter_paper]

While I don't disagree with my reading of your statement (which may differ greatly from your intent -- I'm not sure), I also don't see it as another way of putting my last comment; I was attempting to make another point entirely.

[diffrinse]

Yikes, that's embarrassing, could you possibly clarify your meaning? My point was that communicative strategy changes significantly depending on whether you account for the other person also having a perspective which is also a product of history

[blotter_paper]

No prob, but if mdszy reads this I want to explicitly note that this is not meant as a caricature of their statement, I'm just trying to distill my meaning down into the most simple terms I can muster.

Alice buys a status symbol instead of donating to a charity. Bob says "Alice, stop and think about whether you care more about status symbols than charities!" Even if I agree with Bob's implicit condemnation, I can still see how Alice would feel attacked by the wording. Perhaps Bob wants Alice to feel attacked (this could be an attempt to jar Alice into recognizing her own greed), but it does Bob no good to not understand how he might be perceived by Alice. If Bob understands how he will be perceived then he will be able to craft his message in more useful ways -- ways that I would expect to be significantly friendlier on average, but which may sometimes actually be more combative. Ignorance of the perspectives of others does the message writer no good.

I also feel like I agree with your point, which is significantly more empathetic and less realpolitik than mine.