does honesty need to be harsh?

by Ravyn 210 Replies latest members adult

• 

  DannyBear

  There is something just wrong with this idea that one can entertain two different personas, cyberlife vs real life.

  It has been said that when a person puts his thoughts down in writing, he/she are more closly revealing their hearts desire than via the spoken word.

  It may be easy for some to forgive the cutting, brutal, often cruel words of those they think they know in real life. But I suggest that those who readily defend 'abusers' on the net, need to give some thought as to whether their observations of intent are based on someones REAL persona or not.

  Perhaps the words that come gushing from the end of our somewhat cloistered fingertips, are more revealing of what and who we are, than words spoken one on one. Obviously person to person communication carries a far greater risk to the abuser than anything typed out in the privacy of ones own sanctum.

  Danny
• 

  teejay

  >>>[some] can be rather cutting at times [online] ... but ... is as gentle and kind a person as you would ever meet...

  A pertinent observation, HS, but, if I understand you properly, one that misses the point of Ravyn's topic.

  Ravyn's question isn't whether or not a person's perceived online character is the one that's genuine. One might very well have one real-life persona and a different one online -- though personally I've never understood such a need. Turning the pc off and doing other things – allowing one's "true" personality to again resurface – makes Ravyn's issue moot when it comes to online posting. But even in real life the question at hand intrudes: can you get at the truth (or help people) without being harsh. I know without a doubt that it's possible.

  Of course, in the course of dialog different people have different agendas. And the same poster's agenda might even change during the course of a single thread. Perfectly natural. If the goal is to provoke an emotional response, then namecalling is one sure-fire way to go about it. Works nearly every time with most people. One of the greatest debaters ever to grace this very forum publicly baited me more than once with the "N" word. In his case, though, I don't think the goal was truth but to cover a weak argument and to offend. (Neither of his goals were met, BTW. :D)

  OTOH, if the goal is to expose falsehood for the benefit of one's protagonist (or for the benefit of those who might be reading), then other methods are available and, I'm certain, superior to ad hominems. Knowing your "adversary" helps, of course, but even then one can almost always maintain a respectful dialog without resorting to schoolyard insults. If the opinion is ever reached that someone is unwilling to see or even consider what we have to say despite blistering, irrefutable facts, the last and best option is to discontinue the conversation altogether. Even then, it might be very true that we have accomplished the goal we set out to accomplish: expose (what we feel is) falsehood.
• 

  teejay

  >>> There is something just wrong with this idea that one can entertain two different personas, cyberlife vs real life. -- DannyBear

  Great minds do indeed think alike. *insert eye rolly thingy here... but not really* :D
• 

  DannyBear

  Tj,

  We both were thinking and posting very similar thoughts at the same time. Kwel
• 

  AlanF

  Onacruse, you and I are actually on the same page about this. Your two examples are covered under the first condition I stated: "Some people who are diagnosed with a fatal disease want complete honesty about their condition." In both examples you gave, the patient was told the honest truth. But as I said: "Others might prefer being left in the dark, and would claim that honesty about their condition is 'harsh'." That's why doctors sometimes inform the family first, to ascertain whether the person is able to bear the terrible truth.

  DannyBear:

  : There is something just wrong with this idea that one can entertain two different personas, cyberlife vs real life.

  You're still not understanding this issue. Everyone has different aspects of their personalities. In different circumstances and for different purposes, different aspects come to the fore.

  For example, you're a kind and mild man, certainly online and I'm sure, in 'normal' life. But if you saw a stranger wandering blindly down a railroad track with a train bearing down on him, your mild manner would likely disappear, right? At least, I would hope so. Now apply the same idea to the issue of waking up cult members.

  I see that some people are not properly distinguishing the differences between a cultist who is approached cold with anti-cult material (similar to a JW going to a door cold), and one who has gotten herself onto an obviously anti-cult discussion board. Do I really need to explain this? Do I need to explain the difference between trolls, and sincere seekers for truth about the cult they think they may be in? Remember that, just as there are huge differences among the personalities of people, so are there huge differences in the techniques that will wake up cultists. Some need kid gloves; others need to be beaten over the head.

  It's unfortunate that some of the people who have posted to this thread so far are not able to discern that some posters first use the kid glove treatment, and after that fails to work, take the gloves off. Knee-jerk, uninformed defenses of someone in need of a verbal beating are worse than useless.

  AlanF
• 

  xjw_b12

  Ravyn I think you've just catapulted yourself into the big leagues with this question.

  does honesty need to be harsh?

  It ultimately depends on what YOU want the result to be. Think about that.

  If you just want to hurt somebody, then of course your "honesty" will be blunt and perhaps harsh.

  But if you are trying to convince someone of something, you will be as kind and tactful as possible.

  onacruse is correct, and Prisca expanded on that. Just look at the jws. There are very smooth and polished on their deliveries, and they are DIShonest.
• 

  Ravyn

  so far everyone has had some very deep and valid points. Just to clarify my position, sometimes i forget other people see the internet as an alter ego or separate persona...I just can't do that myself...I think because I grew up with a schizophrenic father and sister and lived at different times with two bi-polars....

  I used to go to Psychiatrists every year in fear---waiting for the other shoe to drop---taking MMPIs and worrying about 'when' I was going to go nuts. The last doc I went to finally got thru to me---he said "Ravyn, if you were going to be schizophrenic, you would have done it already! You don't have to be schizophrenic---you are multi-layered."

  So if I seem inconsistant on some discussion board---it isn't that I am being a different person than I am offline---it is just another aspect of me--period. I use the discussion boards as a journaling experience. I write things online that I would write in my diary or journal, and I tell secrets and share hurts that I could not do face-to-face. Anonymity feels safer.

  So on the subject of honesty, I am as honest online as I am offline. I just feel freer to be honest online and because the written word is the medium, sometimes the emotions are not obvious to the reader and can be misinterpreted.

  thank you all for your input, this thread is definitely a keeper.

  Ravyn
• 

  DannyBear

  Alan,

  I suppose had it not been for the incidious jw cult instilling all of its inherent personality quirks, like being overly denfensive, always having to be in the center of the 'black' never 'gray' areas of life, I truly believe that I would be even more centered as a kind and mild person.

  But because of all the baggage I carried for thirty years as a mindless robot, Iam still after 24 yrs out, working or trying to be less judgemental of other's. I guess I will never totally shake it. Not to mention that I can loose my temper with the best of em, but afer 55 yrs of living with myself, I have concluded that doing so never brings the desired results.

  Anyone who works up enough gumption to post a coherent comment on these db's should be given common courtesy.

  Repeating rumors, even lies, are not exclusive to 'trolls' or cultists. We all fall for some scam at one time or another in our lives. To me it's all timing.

  Let's use NG for example. Who may or not fall into the category of a troll. Her expressions could very well represent the thoughts of many others unwilling to post them. In the case of jw defender's I would even go further and say that this is a fact.

  So instead of attacking the messenger (troll) if we attack the idea, the message itself, then everyone wins. Any lurker or reader who leans the way of the (troll) may well conclude that it is not worth the resulting condemnation, to be honest with their comments. It is the stuff that makes being 'politicaly correct' such a ruse.

  Dullness seems to creep over these db's when every thought and every comment is strict compliance with what is considered to be 'correct'.

  I say let them post what on their minds, no matter how silly we think it is. They will in time reveal whether their just fishing for attention, or really seeking information.

  Danny
• 

  teejay

  >>> So if I seem inconsistant on some discussion board---it isn't that I am being a different person than I am offline---it is just another aspect of me--period. -- Ravyn

  My dear sister Ravyn,

  I hope you weren't offended by what I said earlier (about people with separate on- and off-line personas) or think that I was talking about you in any way. I was NOT by any means.

  Those that I was referring to are those who CONSCIOUSLY make a decision when they go on-line to say and do things (in the context of your topic) that they would never do in person simply to provoke a response.

  >>> I use the discussion boards as a journaling experience. I write things online that I would write in my diary or journal, and I tell secrets and share hurts that I could not do face-to-face. Anonymity feels safer.

  You touched my heart with this comment. I think we all do what you said here.

  I view myself as (and am by nature) a logical, rational, person (albeit sometimes a poor listener/reader) both on- and off-line. I'm also by nature (like many men) one who isn't usually given to a lot of emotional expressions. At the same time, like many of us I carry emotional scars that I might have a harder time sharing in person than here on the board. That's not what this thread's about.

  Peace.
• 

  AlanF

  Hi DannyBear,

  : So instead of attacking the messenger (troll) if we attack the idea, the message itself, then everyone wins.

  True enough. But in the case of a real troll, who rarely has a message but is there mainly to provoke, what would you suggest be done? Ignore them? Or demonstrate why they're a troll and hope that naive lurkers will get the message? If the latter, isn't that a form of "attacking the messenger"? Is that still wrong in your eyes?

  : Any lurker or reader who leans the way of the (troll) may well conclude that it is not worth the resulting condemnation, to be honest with their comments. It is the stuff that makes being 'politicaly correct' such a ruse.

  I think you're confusing a true troll (as defined above) with someone who I would call a "braindead cultist". Pretty much everyone can follow clearly presented arguments and come to their own conclusions. But if a lurker does that and finds that his or her own ideas are trashed by the arguments, and then decides to hold on to their wrong ideas, and likely keep silent, that's their lookout. They're obviously not going to be swayed by mere truthful arguments. And if a true troll happens to present arguments in line with the ideas of the lurker, and clear refutations are presented but the lurker refuses to see it, again that's her lookout.

  AlanF