[brhsagain]

I'd argue that telling someone the truth does absolve you of responsibility, because if the truth upsets someone, what they're actually upset about is the reality of the universe. Or if it's a truth about them, then the reality about themselves. The truth-teller is just the messenger. Each person is responsible for how they deal with reality, including the parts they don't like.

I get what the article is saying. Given the reality of how people are, when you state the truth it has x effect on others, and the author is arguing that you are responsible for that effect. But I'd argue that when a truth upsets someone, even if you hadn't told it to them, eventually it would've upset them anyway, because the underlying reality that upsets them is still there. You aren't ultimately the cause of their upset.

[AnimalMuppet]

1. Often "you can't handle the truth" is used for something that is... less than the truth. The speaker wants it to just be the truth, with no argument, but they're ignoring some very relevant issues/context/details/data. When that's pointed out, they say "you can't handle the truth". No, you (the one claiming this is "the truth") can't handle the complexity of reality, and are using this cliche to try to stop conversation that is threatening to make you deal with all the complexity of the real world. We're not actually upset (maybe a little annoyed at this person who won't listen accusing us of being unable to handle the truth). It's more you who are upset, and are either projecting that on us or pretending that it's us.

2. If you tell me the truth and you're a jerk about it, I may get offended by the truth, but I'm almost certain to get offended by you being a jerk. You are absolutely the cause of that part of us getting upset.

[brhsagain]

I don't think I disagree with point #1. What you're describing is just not stating the truth. I'm sure "you can't handle the truth" is wheeled out in all kinds of situations where the person saying it is the one who's wrong.

I'm refuting the narrower argument that is sometimes made that just because something is true, it doesn't give you the right to say it.

In regards to point #2, I agree that if I deliver the truth and include a side payload of being-a-jerk, certainly, I'd be responsible for that payload. But many people in many cases think that just stating the truth simply, plainly, no extra malice or attacks, just stating a disagreeable truth bluntly, is being a jerk. In those cases I think the upset really is just about the underlying unpleasant truth itself.

[AnimalMuppet]

OK, 3: You're telling the truth, with no jerkiness.

3a: Some truths you have to earn the right to tell. They're being a bad spouse? Nothing useful is going to come from a random stranger pointing that out, even if they're right. That kind of truth takes a close friend, telling them in the right situation, with the right amount of firmness and the right amount of gentleness. You have to build the bridge of the relationship before you can take that kind of freight over it.

3b: You're telling the truth, but they're a snowflake, and they're melting. That is totally not on you, but once you find that out about them, you have to realize that there is nothing you can usefully do. (At least, I don't know of any way where you can get them to actually listen, rather than just blowing it off because it offends them.)

[lazyasciiart]

No. They can also be upset because you are bringing up negative things that make them sad/annoyed to think about, to which there is absolutely no benefit in thinking about.

Like spending a wedding reception saying to everyone "there are people starving to death right now". Is that true? Yes. Are people upset by that knowledge? Yes. Are they, completely separately, pissed off at you for being an asshole that decided everyone should think about starving people during the wedding reception? Yes, quite reasonably.

[brhsagain]

That feels like a bit of an edge case. I mean, I take your point that you can definitely have no social skills and run around interrupting people's conversations and going "hey, did you know that animals are tortured every day?" and that would be you being a jerk. But I'm not talking about that.

Am I crazy? I feel like what I'm describing is a near universal phenomenon and everyone knows what I'm referring to/has experienced this. I'm talking about how in general, people just don't like people who are "right all the time." People don't like criticism delivered bluntly even when it's correct, relevant and actionable. People don't want to hear things with implications that go against their moral values, or suggest that something they spent lots of time on was wasted, or reflect badly on themselves. There's that famous quote about how people don't want to hear things when their paycheck depends on them not hearing it. They don't like hearing those things even when they are true and directly related to them. I don't like hearing those things. I'm talking about those cases.

[lazyasciiart]

You’re looking for straightforward “shooting the messenger”. While it’s true that it can be straightforward deflection of negative feelings about the scenario to the person who made them aware of it, I think you’re still discounting that a lot of the time, the majority IMO, people shoot the messenger so that they stop getting messages. Stop telling me your colleague is stealing paperclips so I can pretend I don’t know. Stop reminding me I have homework to do because I’m trying to forget it.

[remkop22]

It's not just about upsetting the other person, it's more about the end goal. If the end goal is to express superior knowledge, do strike down your hammer of truth.

But if the end goal is to enlighten the people around you, and let them enlighten you, then it matters how you package your truth. Sadly it's seems to be human nature that if you tell someone that their perspective of the universe is wrong and don't give them any leeway, there's a high chance of them just dismissing it because it would hurt them.

Now if you are more diplomatic with your self devised absolute thruths, you might find that the people on the receiving end are more willing to accept them.

This concept seems to be fully absent from politics these days.

[web007]

> When people claim that they are just telling the truth and can't be blamed, it is likewise nonsense. We are always responsible for the words we speak and the actions we take. We're not let off the hook just because it's true.