4 ms·

If you want to get into the reeds of it, I think "assertive" and "strong" are too positively loaded (which I guess is why you didn't use them). However I would

If you want to get into the reeds of it, I think "assertive" and "strong" are too positively loaded (which I guess is why you didn't use them). However I would say the same applies to robust, coupled with the fact that "robust" on its own is not really applicable to the kind of communication you're referring to. The positive undertones are probably also why you saw a bunch of unnecessary knee jerk virtue signaling in response. I would personally have stuck with just "direct" (which is neutral), and perhaps added "blunt" (which is neutral-negative).

denton-scratch 3y ago
> (which I guess is why you didn't use them) You're right! (I don't think I considered the word "strong"). On further reflection, I think I chose "robust" as an evasive euphemism. I think "robust" was applicable to the kind of communication I was referring to, in the sense in which some meetings of diplomats are described as "a robust exchange of views" (that's euphemistic too). "Blunt" would have been less euphemistic; but it carries violent connotations that I didn't want to convey, as in "blunt instrument trauma". It's not one of the words I considered, and anyway "direct" covers it. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.