Speak what you think now in hard words

From The internet has made defensive writers of us all by Paul Chiusano. His core observation is:

I think the web has made us all write more defensively, and it’s a shame, because we’re effectively contorting our communication style to defend against a small minority of mean-spirited and uncharitable actions by some. Actually, as I say that, I instinctively feel the need to hedge myself–I don’t believe that people are really mean-spirited (well, perhaps some are–gak I’ve done it again!), but there’s something about commenting about stuff on the internet with people you’ve never met that seems to bring out the worst in people.

Agree. The redeeming grace of writing defensively is that it often forces you to examine your argument in greater detail. Where are the weaknesses in logic, evidence, etc.? Writing things out is a good discipline for better quality thinking. On the other hand it trashes effective communication. The more you detail an argument, the less likely it is to engage.

Sometimes you just have to be bold and count on the goodwill of the reader to bridge the gaps you leave. Ralph Waldo Emerson had something to say about the pedantic naysayers who are ever eager to find the least discrepancy.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

He also had good advice.

Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.