This is a good point but I think under-discussed. Ultimately what separates a well intentioned person with terse communication, (perhaps) poor empathy skills (i.e. lots of programmers), etc, from an asshole, is intentions. If we could read minds, it would be easier. But we can't, so we read words (and facial expressions, when available). If those signals line up with "asshole", whether or not its true, the person will often be taken as such. Moreover, its possible to be correct and / or on the moral high ground and still be an asshole. Nobody likes being around assholes. And to be clear, I don't know much about this person, so I have no idea if they are one. But I wanted to add on to this comment, I think firing someone for being an asshole is a fine thing to do, regardless of their status or contributions. Which presents an odd situation if a person is not actually an asshole but just seems like one.

The question of "is this person terse, or are they an asshole?" can be very difficult to answer. I think it's interesting how in this thread alone, we can see that people with different views on the core issue are answering it differently. I tend to fall on the author's side on social justice stuff, and I lean "no." Others, who don't (or seem not to), clearly lean "yes." I wonder, if the circumstances were reversed, what I and they would think.

I know it sounds like a joke, but I've taken to using a lot of exclamation marks in my communication lately for this very reason.

It feels dumb to me but I know for a fact that some people who are quick to take offense ease when they see it.

It's also much worse for women and people of color who are assumed to be rude for acting in ways white men wouldn't think twice about.

I've known people all up and down the spectrum of "curt" and you just have to reset your expectations. I have coworkers who talk like this all the time whether they are actually grumpy or not. I just try to act according to how I feel I should and try not to reflect whatever I'm getting from them.

There is this saying about implementing network protocols where different implementation may have non-standard extensions or divergent interpretations of the standard (assuming there is one): Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you emit.

(It has a name, but I keep forgetting it.)

In my experience, this is equally applicable to social interactions and works surprisingly well.

except that, for a same communication style, people from some genders are given a pass and perceived as "assertive" and people from other genders are perceived as "aggressive"

Gotta throw in some emojis yo