[ljf]

I don't see it as sucking up, more as showing that you have taken the time to understand what they are attempting to achieve, and that you are giving thought out feedback:

"I can see you are trying to appeal to teenagers, but the copy comes across as very young."

If I just said, your copy is childish, the recipient would likely think "doesn't he realise I'm trying to appeal to teens? God did he even read the site?"

Without context it's harder to get people to understand and act on your concerns, as most peoples first response is to already be on the defensive and try to find reasons not to implement your feedback.

[thinkingisfun]

Sure, that's just being fair. And making it clear you're criticizing a thing, not the person who made or said the thing, helps a big deal.

But all that assumes good intentions behind what you criticize. They're all happy feel-good "we're in the same boat here" examples.

How would you criticize extreme greed or callousness? Or blind obedience to state authority, and hand-waving away murder? I've had bitter fights both with someone who kinda glorifed the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion, not Royal Air Force), as with about anyone I run into on the web who says things like "Assange should be shot on sight, and without trial, traitor blah blah". And then there was this dude on a unmoderated forum who kept mocking someone else for being lesbian and having been raped as a child.

Reacting politely to things like that would have made me feel kinda dirty, you know? Beyond certain points I simply give up trying to change someone's opinion, and try to make it costly for them to have it. There are billions of people, some are complete sociopaths, or are deceived by the same; the more energy you waste on them the less you have for the rest. And being friendly to something disgusting drains me. Attacking it nourishes me. So that's that.