Brutal Honesty or Brutality Disguised as Honesty? | Take Two
When to be brutal and when to be better.
Take Two is a newsletter series hosted by Revolution of One where two different writers give two different perspectives on one hot issue. Our resident writer Salomé Sibonex is joined by a second, anonymous writer to give you a close-up look at how different minds interpret the same events.
If you’re too gentle, you’ll be steamrolled over and can lose your right to self-expression. If you’re too harsh, you can set your own goals back by turning off would-be listeners. In a time when we’re constantly shouting about some new issue, finding the sweet spot—if there is one—for how we deliver the truth is increasingly relevant.
Can the truth be tainted by the way you tell it?
The latest example of brutal honesty came from Matt Walsh, who shared his brutally honest disdain for Dylan Mulvaney. Walsh has the right to say what he believes, but does saying what you believe with no attempt at tact or temperance eclipse the importance of saying what you believe?
Take two perspectives and then give us yours.
Take #1
By now we all know the fear of being ostracised, vilified and publicly ridiculed is the new normal. Every other day, someone else is accused of crossing the lines of political correctness and bringing upon themselves a torrent of insults. Under such suffocating conditions, coming across someone who simply ‘tells it how it is’ can feel as refreshing as finding a fountain in a desert.
In a culture divided by those who believe we live under progressive tyranny and others who are sure we exist knee-deep in fascist rule, many come out in support of those who pride themselves on brutal honesty while others recoil, disgusted by what they consider to be needless cruelty.
But recently, we at Revolution of One have been thinking, how is the truth best served? Scalding, frosty or lukewarm?
When the cultural climate encourages us to walk on eggshells, a variety of ways to spread the truth is essential, but one’s delivery ought to consider what they hope to achieve and be informed by their end goal.
Though many condemn the unsympathetic overtones of brutal honesty, most people have no problem employing it against those they dislike, making brutal honesty an overworked weapon used to dispel untruths of the other side.
So why do people favour casting truth harshly rather than offering a gentle dose of different perspectives? To put it plainly, being harsh is easy. There is little art involved in not mincing your words.
There’s a famous aphorism attributed to George Bernard Shaw, “if you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you.” It’s a statement that captures the inevitable discomfort people feel when confronted with a challenging idea, opinion or observation.
It recognizes that if you want others to digest a message, a verbal gut punch must be assisted by something sweet.
Although it takes far less effort, it's much easier to attract an audience when your flavour of honesty is brutal. Indeed, the chief benefit of brutal honesty is its ability to hold our attention. The downside is that it rarely makes us listen unless we already agree with what is being said. Yet this may be the point—brutal honesty, even when it’s cruel, is likely to be refreshing for those who feel suffocated by everything they want to say but are afraid to.
The brutally honest provide for their audience, comfort, safety, relief, the feeling that one isn’t going mad, and unfiltered truth in a climate of slogans, and euphemisms. The value of this cannot be overstated, so many wise thinkers wouldn’t exist had they not been inspired by the harsh critiques of other writers.
When you are choked by insincerity, brutal honesty is the breath of fresh air that many of us are gasping for. So, if your goal is to make people feel less alone, emboldened and confident in what they already believe, brutal honesty may be the best approach.
However, many people who pride themselves on brutal honesty, conveniently forget that there is a difference between being frank and being coarse. If you want to persuade others to consider different points of view, or even interrogate the usefulness of their own ideas, brutal honesty won’t get you very far. Consider when you were last on the receiving end of brutal honesty and how quickly it enacted personal change… The likelihood is, it didn’t. Most of us have strong reactions to someone boldly telling us “how it is” and what we must do to improve.
The world is brutal enough, and many are skilled at personifying its brute nature and are even boastful about it. To them, “telling it how it is” is often code for “I pass rude judgments on others and equate my bombastic, haughty, observations with a respect for objective truth.”
But what takes real courage, is knowing that you could say something in a hurtful way and choosing instead to convey it in a way that can resonate with people you disagree with.
Unlike brutality which is impulsive by nature, to be tactful requires a level of sophistication. Rather than a reaction, tactfulness is a considered response that requires time and patience while following the basic principles of ethics.
Tact is a by-product of self-knowledge. When we know ourselves intimately, we discover what makes the truth hard to bear. For example, you might discover that your need to always be on social media “for work” is a cover-up, because admitting that you might be addicted to the internet is uncomfortable.
Equally, when you desperately want someone to see where you’re coming from, expressing yourself with tact is an effective way of navigating their self-defensive landmines.
So when considering how the truth is best served, it is worth asking yourself if you want connection or attention?
— Anonymous
Take #2
Does the intention behind speaking a truth affect the outcome of that truth? The same truth can be shared in different ways: an embarrassed confession, a gentle contradiction, an angry outburst. The truth remains true despite whether it’s whispered or yelled, but the way that truth is received can depend on the person who imparts it.
I’ve learned to parse the difference between tactful contradictions and sugar-coating my words for those who take any reason to attack them.
I’ve spent enough of my life afraid of reactions to find kinship with those who embrace the punishment honesty now carries. I get it. The natural response to being repeatedly pushed is to finally push back. Human history is a giant brawl with each side trying to land one more hit against the other, forever.
If you take a step back, you’ll see the tragic comedy we’re doomed to live through. Conservatives once held the influence to censor and condemn, adding warning labels to music and hand-wringing over video games. Today, progressives happily use the power to censor and condemn, adding trigger warnings to text and finding evil at the root of whatever offends them.
You’re chained to a cultural merry-go-round and the operator is nowhere in sight.
Every threat still feels as real as it did before you were born but everything moves at double speed now. Sometimes the only thing that can slow the incessant spinning is a raging scream.
Not too loudly, though—you might upset someone.
Brutal honesty is well-named because it mediates honesty into something more complex. When honesty isn’t just honesty, we’re after more than just the truth: we’re seeking reality, but also release. Not everyone who expresses an honest thought is solely trying to express their honest thoughts—they’re also expressing the emotion behind it.
Sometimes the truth is secondary to the emotion and it’s our anger or fear that needs expressing most. Anger can be true, too.
People are tired, tense, upset, and afraid. We’re fed bad news and insults every time we look at a screen. It’s hour 13 on a 17-hour flight and the seat neighbor you first politely greeted has become your mortal enemy over an armrest. I’ve watched a lot of insightful and articulate thinkers grow hard edges and sharp tongues after too long in the arena of ideas. We lose the capacity to care about how our concerns are received when we’re defensive and exhausted.
I can’t bring myself to condemn brutal honesty. I know it rarely changes minds and can even do more harm than good, but it doesn’t feel right to say it’s outright wrong. Just like a therapist wouldn’t view their client’s tirade as wrong but as truth armored in anger, I can see past the brutality straight to the honesty.
Brutal honesty is the weapon of choice for someone who cares deeply, but is so primed for having that care attacked, they won’t send it into the world unarmored.
The worries about how brutal honesty harms the cause it cares about are wise. One wrong word is enough to have your entire point mangled into something villainous today. A climate where people look for every chance to attack each other encourages more of honesty’s brutal cousin.
If you don’t like brutal honesty, don’t create a culture that’s hostile to honesty.
Equally, don’t hide your true emotions behind honesty and claim you’re only expressing an idea. If you’re angry about a problem, the truth isn’t solely about the problem, but your anger with it—so tell them both. For a culture as emotionally embattled as ours, we struggle to honestly state “I’m angry and upset about this” without masking our emotions with intellect.
The conflicts that require honesty and the emotions that make us encase that honesty in brutality will never go away. This is life—an endless series of problems we’re trying to solve with no certainty in how. We don’t need to join hands and sing kumbaya, but we could be a little slower and more strategic when it’s our chance to throw the next hit in this ancient human brawl.
— Salomé
What’s Your Take?
Brutal honesty probably isn’t going away any time soon, but the reasons we use it and the outcomes of using it are complex. It’s your turn to share a take on brutal honesty.
What drives the desire to use brutal honesty?
Is there ever a time when brutal honesty is better than gentle honesty?
How do we make brutal honesty a less popular part of our culture?