There are also people involved on both sides, and people get angry and frustrated.
> Being polite about doing that would benefit the same set of people, and may others at the same time.
And a lot of people believe that sugar-coating it would reduce the benefit by signalling that Kays behaviour wasn't so bad after all.
And maybe this approaches the crux of the problem. It seems that there is a false dichotomy at work here.
Being polite (or, indeed, just not being verbally abusive) takes less time and energy, and is overwhelmingly more effective, than being overly abrasive.
I don't believe 'Sugar-coating' has anything to do with being polite and accurate. 'Sugar-coating' is all about being less accurate and on point.
The point is that the person in question was being rude and disrespectful by continuing to ignore the instructions he'd been given in the past, and repeatedly caused a lot of very real, very heartfelt anger from a lot of people over the time he wasted for them.
Pretending not to be angry over that is very much sugar-coating to me.
Now, there are nicer ways of being direct and expressing anger, but pretending there was no anger and no valid reasons to be angry would be flat out dishonest. And I really don't think the recipient in this case had any reason to expect any civility from Linus at this point, even if others might choose less direct language.
In other words, there's a pretty egregious double standard being applied here. In my experience, that typically favors the kinds of abusive personalities who have discovered some easily-exploited aspect of the social system to simultaneously provide cover for their own bad behavior while limiting their target's ability to retaliate.
If I were on a team stuck with this guy, and required by professional norms to bite my tongue, I can safely say I'd take supreme satisfaction in seeing such a nasty employee get this severely excoriated. And make no mistake, this isn't about "feedback" or "criticism". It's about driving the guy out of the shop in a way that provides a suitable catharsis for everyone who has had to put up with his actual and sustained unprofessionalism.
Of course, tf this were an arbitrary, unjustified, or otherwise baseless response, I could see how it would be hugely damaging to Torvald's authority, and the trust he relies on. But in a case like this, the opposite seems true. And if it puts others who present similar problems on notice, so much the better.
This is also revealing: the idea that it is somehow dishonest if one chooses to not publicly verbalize one's own internal state.
We should think about that for a moment. This is the proposal: "I am being dishonest unless I verbalize my anger about a topic."
I would submit that dishonestly would require a more direct statement.
"I am not angry about your continued choices for ignorance."
That would be dishonest.
In my opinion, not saying anything about one's internal state can't be dishonest. No information was given.
