Yes, that was a blunt way of saying it, I admit it. Now given the number of upvotes, it seems like it resonates.

A more nuanced way of saying this is that if you need to carefully think about how you address your manager, then it hints towards the fact that your manager is not good at being a manager. And in that case there is no way you can teach them if you are their report (if you know better, maybe you should be the manager instead, but it means that you put your manager in a bad position by showing it).

It is also a bit extreme to say that a good manager never needs feedback. What I meant is that they don't need feedback about how they fundamentally behave as a manager. Of course they need to receive information from their reports (be it just "we can't do this because I just proved that it is technically impossible").

The difference is that with a good manager, you won't have to read articles teaching you how to not hurt their pride.

And finally, the problem maybe on the side of the subordinate. But in that case it's not a problem of talking to the hierarchy: if an employee hurts his colleagues because they communication is too harsh, then of course there is something to improve there. But in my experience, employees tend to "blend in": if everybody talks trash of everything, then newcomers will adapt. If everybody is respectful, newcomers will be respectful.