You seem to be spending a lot of effort to bend over backwards to PC orthodoxy

From I Don't Know:

[09:05] Eliezer: what you say is another issue, especially when speaking to nonrationalists, and then it is well to bear in mind that words don't have fixed meanings; the meaning of the sounds that issue from your lips is whatever occurs in the mind of the listener. If they're going to misinterpret something then you shouldn't say it to them no matter what the words mean inside your own head

[09:06] Eliezer: often you are just screwed unless you want to go back and teach them rationality from scratch, and in a case like that, all you can do is say whatever creates the least inaccurate image

[09:06] X: 10 to 1000 is misleading when you say it to a nonrationalist?

[09:06] Eliezer: "I don't know" is a good way to duck when you say it to someone who doesn't know about probability distributions

[09:07] Eliezer: if they thought I was certain, or that my statement implied actual knowledge of the tree

[09:07] Eliezer: then the statement would mislead them

[09:07] Eliezer: and if I knew this, and did it anyway for my own purposes, it would be a lie

[09:08] Eliezer: if I just couldn't think of anything better to say, then it would be honest but not true, if you can see the distinction

[09:08] Eliezer: honest for me, but the statement that formed in their minds would still not be true

[09:09] X: most people will say to you.... but you said....10-1000 apples

[09:09] Eliezer: then you're just screwed

[09:10] Eliezer: nothing you can do will create in their minds a true understanding, not even "I don't know"

[09:10] X: why bother, why not say i don't know?

[09:10] Eliezer: honesty therefore consists of misleading them the least and telling them the most

If I'm dealing with someone who doesn't think politics, the mind killer, requires an effort towards calm and careful thought, and has beliefs primarily as attire rather than anticipation controllers, and who doesn't understand that policy debates should not be one sided, and who is dealing with non-allied interlocutors by assuming they are innately evil and pattern matching them to evil groups with heavily motivated cognition, and sometimes reasons that enemies are innately evil in violation of conservation of evidence, and sees a negative halo around any concept within shooting distance of the point I am trying to make, and doesn't strive to think non-cached thoughts, then the truth is that I automatically know s/he's wrong.

The truth is not enough; if one were to use the words that best represent these ideas to one's self, a significant portion of the audience would believe things less aligned with truth than they do after one does one's best to accommodate their thought patterns, as the blog is now.