Patri Friedman

50 years ago we didn't have Twitter. But we certainly did have people reacting strongly to tactlessness. And no, consideration is not 'anti-truth'; it's part of being able to express oneself clearly.

Our flawed human brains cannot consider "how will this be received" without contaminating our evaluation of "what is true?" Truth is monogamous, it permits no other considerations.

That is, frankly, an asinine approach. Truth can only be expressed in language and language is inherently a matter of "how will this be received". You cannot separate the two.

That's like saying that pizza and love are the same, because we talk about them both with words. I'm sorry that you are so lost in the world of spin that you find it incomprehensible that language could be used to describe a search for objective truth.

I'm sorry, but that is a completely idiotic reply that doesn't grapple with what I said at all. Of course you can use language as part of a search for truth. But you can't communicate any truth without regard to how your words will be understood.

You can communicate with a focus on logical meaning, rather than being hamstrung by working around associational thinking. Avoiding triggers & misinterpretation takes many more words, and is sometimes impossible (ie subjects taboo to even mention)

If you haven't avoided misinterpretation then you've failed. It doesn't matter how 'logical' you think you are - you have not communicated what you meant to communicate. Complaining that it takes 'many more words' is basically complaining that communication is hard.

And no subject is so 'taboo' that skilled and considerate writers can't find a way to address it with the appropriate tone. All you're doing here is making excuses for bad writing by citing purity of intent.