It&#x27;s not easy for me to actively model the mental states of others at all times and tailor my words in order to prevent those states from entering negative territory. I can do it, but it&#x27;s not as simple as you imply.<p><i>Moreover, it suppresses the actual facts (&quot;this SQL is bad because...&quot;) in favour of that negativity.</i><p>Or it suppresses the actual facts because I didn&#x27;t feel like writing a longwinded example. &quot;Too few examples&quot; and &quot;too little detail&quot; is a critique people rarely make of me.<p><i>I think the personality trait of &quot;upset by strongly worded negative language&quot; is incredibly common, so being able to communicate with people who share it is part of basic social literacy. To me, your saying it&#x27;s too much effort sounds like those people who say using correct spelling and grammar is too much effort. If you can&#x27;t do it without thinking, you should learn, because it&#x27;s a widely applicable skill.</i><p>I have learned - anyone outside the mainstream has to. But I think you underestimate the effort that it takes to adapt to a culture or way of thinking alien to your own.<p>But that&#x27;s not the question here. The question is whether it&#x27;s acceptable for a group of people with non-mainstream tastes to build and protect a culture where their preferred modes of interaction are the default, and to prevent others who might change that culture from entering. I get the impression you are saying it isn&#x27;t. Is my impression correct?<p>I believe you are probably right that 80% of people think like you and 5% think like me. I don&#x27;t believe that this implies that 100% of organizations should cater to you. On the contrary I think if you don&#x27;t like my organization with a niche culture, it should be very easy to find a more feelings-driven organization and shift to it.