Saying that some people need to be subjected to abuse is a terrible point of view.
But to your main point, I've seen my share of the polite leading the polite. If there is a general level of competence, fine, work can still proceed. But often, workplaces need an asshole who will voice their opinion in blunt language. There are moments when diplomacy causes, at best, avoidable delays, but at worst completely fucked projects.
Workplaces don't need assholes. People who reasinably criticise are not assholes.
As another aside, I feel this is the problem with downvoting. It is a blunt criticism in a society where criticism must be delivered cautiously to avoid offense.
And most often, those contributions were normal or even state of art when they have been made - making accusation not so much blunt. Instead, it is appeal to emotions, an attempt to leverage funy sounding expression for own goal.
And it is only fair when people respond to it in kind.
First you calling being blunt abuse.
Second your thinking a terrible point of view that some people should be subjected to abuse. Some people should be physically abused. Joshua Milton Blahyi, David Parker Ray, Rodrigo Duterte are good examples.
Often the only power you have is your speech. If people are offended when shown how shitty they are, it's on them. Stop coddling real abusers under the cover of professionalism or political correctness.
I think that's completely morally wrong. The only exception is if someone else is physically at risk and you are protecting them.