> Actively fostering a culture of "no filter" is painful at first. But like exercising, the more you do it, the easier it gets. And it's better than the alternative—death.
You say that people tried to tell you what was wrong, and that you didn't listen.
Better communication doesn't mean "start with being blunt", just as better communication doesn't mean "dance around the issues but never talk directly about them for fear of offending people."
Or, let's see how this works:
You're an idiot if the lesson you get from this is that 'no filters' are a good idea. Only a dumb-ass would reach that conclusion. The same kind of fuckwit who would ignore all the smart people trying to give them information and who only gets the point when someone is exasperated enough to fall into rudeness.
I see your point, but different sides of the communication need to hear different things to make things better. Whatever side you're on, you can only change what you do, not what other people do. He's talking to the "tellers" in this case, based on his experience as a recipient, telling them what works.
I totally agree with you on the stupid false dichotomy that comes up in all these discussions. It's difficult but possible to get your point across efficiently without being rude. If people think you're being rude, well, sometimes that's a listener problem and there's nothing you can do about it.