4 ms·
Many lot of human emotions are when judging a situation, based on their assessment of mindset of the villain. But using that as a yardstick will leave society w
by roenxi 3y ago
Many lot of human emotions are when judging a situation, based on their assessment of mindset of the villain. But using that as a yardstick will leave society worse off. It is an instinct that does not scale to 8 billion humans. Doesn't even scale to the 10s of millions of humans.
If brutal honesty is not tolerated then people will just lie more. If Hitler had believed that this speech mattered (and he was probably correct that it did not) then he would have just said something different and had the same actions carried out.
The real problem is the people who, in public, only accept exactly what people claim verbally and either unwilling or unable to look at the incentives in play. We've had people just as bad mindset as Hitler in government - probably even in the major democracies. There isn't really an argument otherwise, we know the system favours amoral narcissistic sociopaths in high office. The checks on power and better incentives in a democracy matter far more than honesty or lies.
- watwut 3y ago> If brutal honesty is not tolerated then people will just lie more. If your honesty means being brutal, issue is you. > If Hitler had believed that this speech mattered (and he was probably correct that it did not) then he would have just said something different and had the same actions carried out. Hitler knew his speech mattered and that is literally how he became so powerful? He was literally the speaker of the party. He became party leader only after he established himself as a speaker whose speech matter. Also, what Hitler reiterated in that pre attack speech was what he wanted the troops to do and how he wanted them to act. He was talking about the destruction, because he thought his speech matter and destruction was what he wanted to achieve. This has nothing to do with honesty being allowed or not - he literally threatens people with execution if they honestly disagree.
- boxed 3y ago> If your honesty means being brutal, issue is you. "brutal honesty" does not mean physically brutal. It means not sugar coating the truth.
- JackFr 3y agoPeople who claim to be brutally honest, typically believe that the virtue of honesty somehow balances their brutality.
- boxed 3y agoNow you're making a statement of statistics though. Not about definitions. And this I agree with. But saying it as a blanket statement is too much for my taste. Children are often brutally honest. Because they literally don't know the other person will be hurt.
- watwut 3y agoI meant exactly what I wrote. If your honesty consist entirely of negative things, then it is on you. And if you cant deliver criticism or negative things without being brutal, then it is on you. There is such a thing as honest compliment, for example. And also, "brutal honesty" is fairly often euphemism for "exaggerated and emotionally laden claims". These things are not factually true nor honest, they are said and phrased for maximum negative impact.
- boxed 3y ago> If your honesty consist entirely of negative things, then it is on you. That was quite a leap you made there. You can be brutally honest and have positive things to say. In fact, positive things have higher positive impact to the recipient from such a person, since they know they aren't sugar coating.
- damascus 3y ago'Brutal honesty' and 'not sugar coating the truth' are both lines used by emotionally immature people protecting their own values and ideals. Anything that needs to be said while being "brutally honest" can also be said honestly with compassion and empathy, but that takes a lot more self-awareness and emotional skill than just emotionally vomiting on someone else and calling it 'brutal honesty'.