On "brutal honesty and [------]"

I posted this comment to a private Facebook group in a response to the posting of an article that justified, what it called, "brutal [-------]." Since it's a private group and a private response, I don't want to uncover any revealing information, so I'll censor it here a little. But here are some of my thoughts for the day.

This one bugs me.

I see the value in being true to yourself and value in not easing people into things. The article highlights how artificially gaming people to ease them into [-------] is hurtful and divisive in the long run. However, I think attitudes like this can be really damaging, especially in communities where "everybody knows everybody."

I see attempts to justify "brutal" behavior as a means to self-enable negativity. Whenever I've gotten into a conversation where somebody says "I'm being brutally honest," for example, the conversation immediately gains a new, nebulous variable: what being "brutal" means. It muddies the water with inherent negativity and puts the other person on the defensive. What may have started as a conversation about hurtful or dangerous behavior, or a personal, caring concern, suddenly becomes about something else. In other words, "being brutally [-----------]," as a justification for anything, merely distracts from the original theme/topic.

It derails conversations about behavior into matters of identity. If the person was doing something that hurt other people, they can shrug it off with an identity statement: "I'm being brutally [-----------]." It always shifts the power into the hands of the person who has chosen "brutality" as a method. It's a power grab, no matter how justified.

Heck, this "brutality" is just as much of a "relationship gaming" technique as the "ease them in" issue that starts the article. Both methods dehumanize, turn the other person into a "type." The intentions may be good, but they don't seem to make conversation more open.

I like the ideas behind the article; I understand that people need to take control of their lives; I understand that easing people in to something like [----------] is misguided. But I don't think claiming "brutality" is a positive response. I, personally, will avoid any community/person who preaches/justifies "brutality."

When I read, "So yeah. It seems selfish, but… be brutal," I say "Fuck you. Grow up and fuck your 'it seems selfish, but' attitude. Do you know how many narcissists are reading that and patting themselves on the back? And thank you for the warning as we try to clean up the mess your self-justified brutality created."

---

I'm sure I'll change my attitude about these statements, and I imagine that I'm misreading or over-reading. But as someone who's going through therapy right now, reading articles like this just makes me feel empty inside. People can do better than this.

I heard a little bit about "brutal honesty" on a somewhat recent episode of CBC's Ideas called "The Truth About Lying." .Here is is:

In it, one of the speakers advocates for "brutal honesty." She says it makes things clearer and makes things better in the end, even if it hurts. This isn't terrible. But my problems with it start when we justify our brutality in the name of a philosophy like "brutal honesty." I mean, if it wasn't negative, it wouldn't need to be brutal, would it?

Besides, our moods and opinions shift and change constantly. Why cause hurt and turmoil when it's likely that, once you're out from underneath the fluorescent lights or once you've eaten a food, you'll regret being so brutally honest? I don't formulate opinions quickly enough to be brutally honest. It would be a stupid thing for me to aspire to or advocate for.

I prefer to maintain relationships of peace, thank you very much.