You're begging the question. The question is, is that behavior intrinsically offensive? What does it mean? With Linus, as far as I can tell, all it means is

You're begging the question. The question is, is that behavior intrinsically offensive? What does it mean? With Linus, as far as I can tell, all it means is that you've done one stupid thing and have taxed his patience by trying to justify it. Other cultures would express the same thing via what Linus calls "false politeness" and "backstabbing." So they have harsh words for his style of communication, and he has harsh words for theirs. Why do we assume that one of them has to change? And why do we assume it should be Linus? Their argument boils down to invoking the fear and discomfort they feel in response to Linus. Unreasonable fear based on cultural discomfort isn't good grounds for asking someone else to change their behavior. Take a guy like me who grew up in a house where everybody sat quietly and read books and nobody ever raised their voice. Maybe I don't feel entirely comfortable when I go someplace where everybody is loud and open about everything, including their unpleasant feelings. In a different time, I would just call them animals. I would judge them for all the danger and aggression that I intuitively attributed to them. And for a long time such judgments were unquestioningly accepted. But times are different. You can't hold someone responsible for whatever meaning you read into their behavior. You have an obligation to question your interpretation and see if your assumptions are reasonably consistent with the facts. Is it reasonable for anyone to fear violence because of harsh comments directed to them by Linus Torvalds? Of course not. We all suffer from unreasonable fear because of cultural preconceptions, and we ought to doubt ourselves first before claiming that other people should change because of how we emotionally react to them.