3 ms·

Agree. Dave can be very blunt sometimes. I saw him on a panel earlier this year and he's just very direct. It's refreshing to get very honest answers. Some pe

• sofal 17y ago
  Here we go again with the fallacious nice == indirect argument. I've heard this over and over again and it never makes sense. Why do you think that it is necessary to go on an offensive rampage in order to be honest? Guess what? Some people actually don't hate everyone who disagrees with them and these people can be very blunt and honest without petty insults.
• callmeed 17y ago
  I wouldn't call this post "blunt" or "direct" It's got to be 2-3x the length of Jason's original post ... and poorly written
• philwelch 17y ago
  Somehow, adding various conjugations of the word "fuck" and the like into a blog post seems to make it longer and hence less direct. Direct is bluntly and baldly stating claims that people find offensive and outrageous. You don't need to throw in extra invective on top of that.
• GHFigs 17y ago
  If your aim is to communicate ideas and not simply to offend, then it's a good thing to be willing to accept offending people with the ideas you express (e.g. disagreement, criticism, heresy). However, it's a bad thing for communication to offend people with things that aren't ancillary to those ideas, you fucking retard. See what I mean?