No, we cannot. The abrasiveness is load-bearing.
Quality doesn't enforce itself and using soft language allows mediocrity to hide itself in it.
Quality doesn't enforce itself and using soft language allows mediocrity to hide itself in it.
You've introduced a category that could be described as an alias for "bad", and then you threw in random stuff into that, based on unclear and handwavy criteria.
This can only end in a screaming match, so let's not do that.
I'm curious, though: How would you picture protecting taste while at the same time adopting an inclusive (as in not putting people off) stance? Do you have examples of such a behavior?
> How would you picture protecting taste while at the same time adopting an inclusive (as in not putting people off) stance?
I don't, because I reject the definition.
Being inclusive does not mean "not putting people off". For starters, because measuring there doesn't work. How people react is not a direct reproducible consequence of your actions. Your actions might influence it, but they have this ginormous internal state that has much more control over it.
But that is a side-track.
The actual problem with the definition is that putting people off isn't bad.
Putting people off for arbitrary reasons like race, gender, etc is, but that "arbitrary reasons" is a strong modifier that significantly limits the set, and was dropped in your framing.