[globular-toast]

Way back when I was in school and much less confident than I a now, it was actually comments like yours that hurt the most. What you're essentially saying is "I know what was said is true and I don't dispute that, but you shouldn't have said it".

For me this was like a second blow. Criticism always hurts, but at least the first guy thought I was tough enough to take it. You, on the other hand, not only agree with the first guy, you think I'm so feeble that I need a "nice" person like you to shield me.

When people stick their neck out they will sometimes get hurt. This is totally normal and a natural way of learning and developing. Safe spaces don't make successful people. The comment you are replying to didn't even seem emotional to me and certainly didn't attack the person. It was just honest feedback.

[skinnymuch]

You are reading way too into the post you responded to. At no point did they agree that the OP is speaking the truth. They said to rephrase it to not just be negativity. But constructive too.

You then bring up safe spaces which is irrelevant. It appears you had an agenda from the get go and are attempting to create a narrative here.

[globular-toast]

> They said to rephrase it to not just be negativity. But constructive too.

On the one hand I agree with you and I personally always try to be positive whenever possible. But nobody owes you constructive criticism and sometimes it's just not possible to think of anything positive. An attitude of "no negativity here" will just create a culture of yes men which isn't actually constructive at all.

I have no "agenda". I have opinions and I have experiences. I expressed how I feel because I assume the commenter wanted to do good and they'd like to know that it's actually harmful to some people, like me.

I suppose I also can't believe someone would feel the need to come to the rescue for the OP (as if they can't defend themselves) after such a harmless post. There's no personal attacks, no strong language, nothing. The assumption seems to be the OP is too soft to take it, which I can't help but think has sexist underpinnings.

[skinnymuch]

i used agenda in a way of everyone having an agenda to have people see their perspective as a good one if not correct one.

You quoted me saying “not to just be negative” then went on to talking about “an attitude of no negativity here”. Those two aren’t the same thing.

The above and especially your last paragraph appear to again repeat your pattern of having a typical “anti-woke”* agenda. Along with strong assumptions you build into innocuous situations. It seems like trolling because of how wild the last line is. Which gender is it even sexist against? I don’t know OP’s gender. Why would this ever be the assumption? It’s so far out of right field.

* I don’t care for a handful of things from either side of the aisle myself. But there’s a difference between that and trying to shoe horn anti-woke stuff into every convo.

[willio58]

Being right doesn’t excuse you from being kind. You can critique something in a constructive way. This isn’t about safe spaces, it’s about keeping communication civil.

[boulos]

> but you shouldn't have said it

Isn’t quite right. “You shouldn’t have said it like that”.

I totally agree that criticism is necessary, and that pandering doesn’t help people. Being constructive is just more productive. If the goal is to get the person to change what they’re doing, be constructive.

For example, “instead of repeating ‘package.json’, the labels should be semantic (e.g., < package name >)” would have been constructive.