As usual, we have strayed far afield. The issue is one of balance and I think Pat did a fine job of approaching it. As I noted in my earlier post, if we want to discuss architecture then negative comments are sometimes required. The manner and forum matter.
Now if one does not care about what others say, then this conversation is irrelevant. But there are those who do and unless we choose to ignore their feelings as being less important than our ability to say anything we wish at any time or place, we shouild take those into account.
Which brings us to Matt's "PC" comments. I understand the frustration at the "PC" police who can go overboard in an effort to protect groups from perceived offensive behaviour engendered by unacceptable motives. But not every effort to restrain behaviour is politically motivated. Sometimes it is just good manners which predate the PC movement by hundreds of years. Polite behaviour used to be viewed as the mark of an educated, caring person. It only takes a little effort to try and consider the other person's feelings when deciding how to phrase a remark. This does not require dishonesty, only tact. Nor is it required in all circumstances, some situations require the unvarnished truth. But if one saves the tougher approach for times when it matters, it is far more effective because the listener knows the topic is important. Moreover, mannered discourse often prevents the deterioration of an argument which allows a more nuanced discussion of the matter at hand. Based on the tone of many of our recent discussions, we could use a little more of that.