You're the person who wants a monoculture of direct speech, when it is facially evident that indirect speech is highly used in society, and you're calling me unreasonable?

I've said what I had to say. From my point of view you appear to have a bias for a particular order that you are unwilling to budge from. I'm not convinced of its correctness.

> we need clear, written codes of conduct (read: communication protocols) dictating what is and isn't polite to say, and explaining why.

People who are unable to "read the room" need this. Mores evolve without such clear guidelines, which would not be possible if many people were not able to adapt to unstated expectations. Yes, it's important to reality check. But no, protocols and explanations are not the only way to do this . We are not children anymore. We are adults and are expected to figure this out on our own. You don't seem to find my explanations adequate anyway, so the best you'd get with a protocol and explanations are people complaining about the protocol and saying they really don't get the explanations, and so don't find them worth following.

> None of this "It feels impolite to me therefore it is impolite" nonsense.

Why do you think intuitive, or guttural, means of understanding are nonsense? Without them we would be either paralyzed in analysis or slow as a sloth. We evolve to take shortcuts. We evolve, for very, very good reasons!, to read between the lines and look through superficiality. Without doing so we would have died off a long time ago.

> Clarifying and standardizing communication is unsurprisingly the best way to avoid miscommunication.

Sure, I agree with this as stated. I just think politeness, as described above, also fits into this. Hierarchy does not matter for clear communication. Blame does not matter for clear communication. And unfortunately we aren't all speaking Lojban - there will always be some miscommunication. We are also a species that reads nuance into tone and word choices. This isn't going to change, and trying to make it change is a heck of a lot less efficient than navigating around it. Not to mention dangerous! It is actively dangerous to get people to second guess their intuitive readings of social situations, at least without a lot of follow up training. People have died because they felt they should give a situation the benefit of the doubt when their instincts were to flee.

And I'll add that avoiding miscommunication is not the be all and end all. If a person knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you look down on them, this can be worse for productive labor than merely thinking it might be the case.

> These traits are antithetical to the indirect, blame-shifting style that is being advocated in the above thread.

Blame doesn't have to be cast in order for personal responsibility to be cast!

> If something is your fault, you should be the first person to admit it

I don't disagree. If you realize it, of course.

> and others should not hesitate to (directly) point it out.

They can do so politely. Much more easy to do in person where a polite tone of voice can be used.

> And it's the culture of ownership found in high-functioning organizations that we should all aspire to.

Whatever, man. Give me a stake and I'll take ownership, just give me a salary and why the hell should I feel a sense of ownership in something I don't own?

I'm done with my part of this conversation. I don't feel we're going anywhere.