[samhuk]

> If we have an objective, context-free, helpful truth then why can't it be offered in a way that respects and honors other people?

In my view, this is essentially the key sentence that the entire blog post builds up to and revolves around.

Honestly, I am fearful of this ideology. What I see, is an author who spends a very long time and many words to explain how, sometimes, truths are "too offensive" or "inconvenient", and therefore sometimes need to be "offered" differently. This is frankly just a problematic ideology.

On the other hand, I concede that a "fact" or "truth", in isolation, can also be problemaric. After all, we have all grown tired of the usual race and crime correlation debates that often devolve into "I'm just stating facts and statistics!" drudgery. However, it's my 2 cents that I think that the author has subscribed to and promotes a somewhat problematic censorship ideology.

Delivering "truth and facts" can be a real tough cookie. I personally find that it is the single hardest thing about my line of work, and I like to think I work on some very complex engineering thingamabobs!

If someone really is wrong, provably, and there needs to be proof (data), because, say they are working on building a bridge and are making important engineering decisions, then what is the author saying you do? Not be an asshole and tell the truth but be "nice and kind" about it? Or, are they saying you lie? Wholly or partly?

[kayodelycaon]

Truth really isn't the central issue here. The issue is communication. You want the other person to hear and understand what you are trying to convey.

You may need to present your information in a way that doesn't make the person defensive. Or you need to yell because someone is being an idiot and they need to stop immediately.

You want your words to have a specific result. Tailor your words to your audience in a way that won't harm trust or future conversations. Speak to people in a way where they will best listen.

- Some people want to be confrontational and make you stand your ground. Engage with that.

- Others can be touchy and defensive. They'll need a softer approach.

Now, you can't win with everyone. There comes a point when it's the other person's responsibility to listen in good faith. If they aren't going to do that, consider the people around you. How do you want them to see this conversation?

Or just walk away. There are only so many hills worth dying on. :)

[callesgg]

Yeah I agree. My take on it is boils down to the following: Truth cant be context free.

Truth, is only valid within the model that it is defined in. True means something like, one thing being in accordance with some other thing according to some model. Example: 1=1 is true according to the rules of math.

There is always a context/model that describes what it means for something to be true, even if you can't see it. If two people seam to be disagreeing about something being true they are just miscommunicating and they are evaluating the things they think they are talking about in different ways.

With this as a background the original header of the article

> Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth?...

Is nonsense, it is a weak way of blaming once own insufficient communication skills on the receiver.