anyway radical honesty has its faults. like for exampel everyone being too dum to speak
the main fault is that it leads to people only talking about themselves and their feelings and not anything else that might be important. this whole clusterfuck just now is the perfect example. notice the ratio of posts about the amazon scandal vs posts about peanutbuttershoes.
i try to stay fairly civil in discussions i care about because im interested in actually talking about the topic at hand rather than telling ppl what i think of them.
i don't think that being dishonest is civil; i think it's more polite and kind to a person to tell them what you don't like about them (or their games or posts or ideas or whatever) than to pretend to agree or to hide your criticisms
also, i think radical honesty itself is insurance against everyone talking about themselves, because honest people would also be honest with egoists who talk only about themselves, saying 'stop talking about yourself and keep on the subject', or 'shut up you narcissist' for instance
i'm not sure that talking about people rather than abstract ideas is all that bad, though. it leads to more alienation and less intimacy if all your conversations revolve around disconnected or abstract issues distant from you. personal verbal altercations, though they may be temporarily unpleasant, lead to longer-lasting friendships and greater knowledge of and interconnections between friends. if nobody ever fought there would also be no sense of community (since a community is just a network of people, some of which like each other more than others), or at least only an artificial cult-like sense of community where everyone tries to fit in and is afraid of stating what they think so as to offend each other