Is Not Offending More Important Than Honesty?

[Waldo]

In situations where you can either go along with a person’s delusional sense of reality, or, honestly express your own perception of reality; is it more important to be honest, or to not offend the person by challenging their delusional notions.

 

My sense is that the world (human society) is inclining more and more towards ‘honesty and truthfulness are not so important as not offending people’.

 

What do you think, what’s important, truthfulness or not offending delusional people?

[catmiss]

40 minutes ago, Waldo said:

In situations where you can either go along with a person’s delusional sense of reality, or, honestly express your own perception of reality; is it more important to be honest, or to not offend the person by challenging their delusional notions.

 

My sense is that the world (human society) is inclining more and more towards ‘honesty and truthfulness are not so important as not offending people’.

 

What do you think, what’s important, truthfulness or not offending delusional people?

I don’t know about ‘delusional people’ but I’m known as someone who speaks their mind, sometimes that offends people who disagree with me. Those that matter to me will have a reasoned argument and we probably agree to differ. Those that continue to be offended will continue on that path without me. So be it.

[Anna B]

Interesting question.

 

Personally I believe honesty should trump giving offence, but it can be delivered with tact and diplomacy so as to give as little offence as possible, but I agree that these days people are quick to take offence where none is intended, - but that shouldn't stop people disagreeing with them.

 

But your example actually begs the question, what is the truth and what is delusional? Things are rarely black or white. Most of the time it comes down to different opinions rather than unassailable truth/delusions, and all opinions are valid, even those of people 'with a delusional sense of reality.'

 

I would ask why they think as they do, and to back it up with a reasoned argument. If they can do that, then you are duty bound to respect their point of view even if you don't agree with it (and maybe do a little research of your own,) and they yours, or simply agree to differ.

There is also IMO a responsibility on the part of someone with strong opinions, not to deliberately take offence or jump on the 'offence' bandwagon just because other opinions differ from theirs.

 

And remember the world is a strange place, there are many people 'with a delusional sense of reality' who have been proved right in the end. 

 

[the_bloke]

I'm not sure who the delusional people are, but generally the more impassioned someone is about their belief then the more likely they are to claim offence when they are faced with a differing viewpoint. You see it all the time, in the news, social media, this forum and so on. 

 

IMO the greater the level of offence someone claims when faced with a different viewpoint suggests they are intolerant and closed minded, and the more hysterical they get over it the bigger the effort they are making to shut down any further debate on the subject.

[RollingJ]

14 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

I'm not sure who the delusional people are, but generally the more impassioned someone is about their belief then the more likely they are to claim offence when they are faced with a differing viewpoint. You see it all the time, in the news, social media, this forum and so on. 

 

IMO the greater the level of offence someone claims when faced with a different viewpoint suggests they are intolerant and closed minded, and the more hysterical they get over it the bigger the effort they are making to shut down any further debate on the subject.

Think that is the best response to date - you have to respect others belief, whether you agree with it or not, but equally, they have to reciprocate. If they don't, walk away and ignore - they are not worth getting upset about.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Waldo said:

In situations where you can either go along with a person’s delusional sense of reality, or, honestly express your own perception of reality; is it more important to be honest, or to not offend the person by challenging their delusional notions.

 

My sense is that the world (human society) is inclining more and more towards ‘honesty and truthfulness are not so important as not offending people’.

 

What do you think, what’s important, truthfulness or not offending delusional 

Depends on what you mean by 'delusional'.

 

If its something one believes but doesn't impact on others,  then let it be.

 

If on the other hand it's something that needs telling, being honest so that it serves a better purpose all round, no harm in saying it out- without the intention of offending.

[geared]

Hard to draw the line with things though.

 

A couple of years ago anti-vax people were fringe nutters, mocked by pretty much everyone.  They and their views were very much to the fore during the pandemic.

The same can be said for the QAnon, they were a total joke until they kicked the door of the capitol building in and ransacked the place.

[RollingJ]

Just now, geared said:

Hard to draw the line with things though.

 

A couple of years ago anti-vax people were fringe nutters, mocked by pretty much everyone.  They and their views were very much to the fore during the pandemic.

The same can be said for the QAnon, they were a total joke until they kicked the door of the capitol building in and ransacked the place.

The A-V crowd are still woefully badly informed, and as for QAnon (from what little notice I've taken of them), they are what I would describe politely as a rabble. I can think of other definitions , but on this forum, they'd probably get me banned.

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

The A-V crowd are still woefully badly informed, and as for QAnon (from what little notice I've taken of them), they are what I would describe politely as a rabble. I can think of other definitions , but on this forum, they'd probably get me banned.

Actually, as far as the A-V crowd are concerned, they are possibly better informed than most having taken the trouble to research the vaccine deeply, and this has been difficult because much of the information, often given by professors and other experts, has been taken down and not made readily available. Its certainly never reached the MSM. The experts certainly don't all agree that the vaccines are the pandemic panacea that we have been led to believe.

 

This in itself is scarey because the public who are to have the vaccine should surely be able to hear all the information and make up their own minds. I now know the downsides that come with the vaccine and still think people should have the jab (I've had mine) but by trying to keep some of the information out of the public domain, it has added fuel to the 'conspiracy theories' and made the situation worse. 

[apelike]

26 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Actually, as far as the A-V crowd are concerned, they are possibly better informed than most having taken the trouble to research the vaccine deeply, and this has been difficult because much of the information, often given by professors and other experts, has been taken down and not made readily available. Its certainly never reached the MSM. The experts certainly don't all agree that the vaccines are the pandemic panacea that we have been led to believe.

 

This in itself is scarey because the public who are to have the vaccine should surely be able to hear all the information and make up their own minds. I now know the downsides that come with the vaccine and still think people should have the jab (I've had mine) but by trying to keep some of the information out of the public domain, it has added fuel to the 'conspiracy theories' and made the situation worse. 

Sorry I don't understand the logic. If much of the information is taken down, not made readily available and never reaches MSM then where does the information come from that the anti-vaxers use to promote their stance?