Compassion vs Honesty

https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/history-of-stigmatizing-names-for-intellectual-disabilities-continued/

"As introduced by S.G. Howe (1846), simpleton was intended to mean people with mild intellectual disability. However, it never fully entered the worldwide medical community's terminology. The term was later replaced by "moron."

Moron was an invented word. A psychologist named Henry Goddard developed the term. It was used to classify people with mild intellectual disabilities. Goddard created the novel word by combining parts of words like sophomore and oxymoron. The term was used to replace feeble-minded. Feebleminded was misused by society to refer to people with any severity of ID.

Feeble-minded came from the Latin word flebilis. It means, "to be lamented." It referred to people who were not profoundly disabled, but still required intervention and care.

Retarded comes from the Latin retardare. This means, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder." The first record of the word "retarded" in relation to developmental delay was in 1895. The term retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile. This was because it was not a derogatory term at that time. However, by the 1960s, the term became a word used to insult someone.

It is interesting to note, that in each case, the original term was neutral in meaning. As the term entered public use, it become pejorative."

=================

theres no nice way to say that someone is a weasel or a moron or a backstabber or a loonie

some people could be less of these things if their behavior wasnt coddled and tolerated quite so much

ideas and behaviors have lives of their own and they tend to grow as time goes on

if, because you dont want to be the jerk, you just ignore something, then when the consequences emerge it could be that youre partly responsible

if you kept silent when you see trouble brewing then the trouble is partly your fault - at least it is if you were supposed to be in any way a supportive element in the persons life

i honestly dont think you can consider yourself a friend or an ally if you dont have the heart to just speak the damn truth, even when its uncomfortable - ESPECIALLY when its uncomfortable, maybe

========
EDIT

snowy was different i think - yeah she felt like totjo needed to be toughened up, but her real thing - I THINK - was that she got convinced that she needs to be able to battle people verbally in order to be an actualized, empowered person

and i do think you have to be able and willing to go into battle in order to be actualized, but i dont know that she was doing it in the right way

At the risk of being way too repetitive, I'll cite the Samurai once again.

Bushido dictates that a Samurai be both honest and compassionate to varying degrees depending on the situation, but when it comes to "tough love", they had no problem eviscerating their enemies when called for. They also had a lovely tradition of slicing through their own bowels when they failed to live up to their code of ethics. It would appear that being honest with others (killing enemies with a quickness) and themselves (ritual suicide - sepukku) ultimately took precedent over showing compassion. I'm sure they did their best to begin by being polite and fair with others, but when it came down to defending one's honor, honesty was paramount.

Goken wrote: One thing that I find interesting here is that most of the responses have been on the compassionate side of things. Lot's of talk of "it's situational" and "sometimes" and such things, but I seem to not see anyone who I would have put on the "opposing" side of this argument. No one who has responded so far is on the list of people I would have figured for the "tough love" side.

I'd love to hear from someone who thinks that we're being "weak" or "too soft." We learn nothing by only listening to people that we agree with. Maybe you don't even disagree with what we're saying, but with how you view us having applied it. Maybe someone thinks that for all the previous posters' talk of "getting rough when it's needed" that we never actually do.

In my eyes the tough love option is best reserved for either people who are close friends (and therefore better able to assert that without causing too much harm (by virtue of the knowledge afforded by the close relationship)) or people who have some established authority in that relationship (eg workplace organisation). Either way, it both might be predicated to some extent which helps buffer some initial shock, but also it ensures a follow up responsibility for both parties if things do not go as planned. So if strangers start exerting tough love on people it seems a bit naive and cruel. #preamble

Otherwise yep, its easy to point out flaws on the back of something which has already become stagnant and charged, because they will often defend them with a bit too much haste which can make those flaws so large and glaring that they might even become self evident to the person having them!! And IMO the best lesson experience is the one discovered, not heard or read, so there might be some real benefit.... but where appropriate. And assuming that is the intent, and its not just attention seeking cruelness. But I try to always err on the side of careful, because people often hide personal struggle and taking people on face value or other assumption filled simplifications is unnecessary. Indeed some of the people suffering the most have learnt to hide it the best.

Somebody told me this year a saying floating around was along the lines of 'people these days prefer to say sorry after, then ask for permission before'. So on the other hand some people might use tough love as an excuse for just being selfish and rude, which means the recipient might just exert zero value to the exchange no matter where it goes, which could sink the whole concept as useful. But as a training tool I think it can be good, especially online where feelings can be lacking if a person does not already work with them actively as part of their path.

I tend to be more "compassionate" (or vague, if you prefer) online, because I know I never know the full story with someone.

In the meatverse, I'll happily say to someone's face "That's the stupidest idea I've heard all week" or "You're being a sook, bugger off, either eat something, sleep, or take a dump, and come back with a clear head" or "you fucked up, take it on the chin"


But, these are people I know somewhat more intimately, and I can make that call with better assessment of all the situational details.

I don't think these phrases lack compassion, if they are appropriate to the circumstances - but If I delivered them "online", they might be regarded as quite negative.

One of the benefits, I suppose, of relationships is that you gain a sort of "shorthand" for communication, that to outsiders may seem rude or insulting. Given how public a lot of online interaction can be, you get the views of everyone, regardless of how tangential or insubstantial the relationship may be.

Alright, for the sake or rounding out the conversation rather than us all reciting each others' words like a choir... (you can see this isn't going to be very compassionate already, right?)

More and more I become frustrated with 'compassion'. I think it's because out of the concept of compassion we, as a society, have developed political correctness - compassion taken to such ludicrous extreme that it loses the heart of what compassion truly is. I see everywhere words that are 'taboo' because they are 'hurtful'. Why? I understand that language evolves and terms which were once objective and scientific have entered the common vernacular as derogatory (such as moron or retard as described above). What about the word 'fat'? As a father of two young children it is socially acceptable to teach them the difference between tall and short, but somehow frowned upon to teach them the meanings of the words 'fat' and 'thin'. I don't accept that. If a person is tall or short, that is out of their control as it is largely determined by genetics; on the other hand, a person's girth (subject to some medical conditions to the contrary) is largely within their control. Yet', despite the 'global obesity "epidemic"' I'm expected to be considerate of how a person might feel if they are described using objective adjectives such as 'fat' or 'thin'. This is only further propagated by the regular social reinforcement of "it's who you are on the inside that counts" - of course it does, but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to take care of your body, nor should it condemn me for making basic observations (not necessarily judgements) about the extent to which you do so.

This is where I think we have lost our way and we are entirely too focused on 'compassion' at the expense of 'honesty'.

Similarly, I am often accused of 'victim-blaming' as I firmly believe in taking responsibility for your actions and circumstances. When I hear of people being bashed and robbed I ask, "Why were they walking through a secluded area in the dark of night with all that money?" Sure, in a utopian world we would be free to do so without concern for criminality, but we do not live in that utopian world. I certainly don't condone the behaviour of the offending party, but surely the 'victim' ought bear some small amount of responsibility for making themselves an easy and desirable target. This argument is then frequently shot down with allegations that I must believe victims of sexual assault are to blame as well. No, and yes. Such a heinous crime is definitely the responsibility of the offender (male or female) and should rightly be condemned. That said, while I wouldn't consider wearing revealing clothing to be "asking for it" I do feel the need to point out that a rational person should be aware that that attire is more likely to attract unwanted attention than not.

Perhaps I have just learned to be predisposed to valuing honesty over compassion after more than a decade as a LEO. People frequently ask for compassion due to their individual circumstances when I 'book' them and yet, having perhaps 'seen too much' I feel the need to offer them honesty instead. Because when it comes to saving lives, compassion for someone who may have difficulty paying a fine does not achieve the same result as telling them honestly the tragic consequences when someone less fortunate made the same mistake and paid for it with their life. The former downplays the severity of the infraction and its potential consequences, the latter reinforces it. Additionally, after so many years dealing with a subset of society that deals with lies and deceit as their stock in trade I think I've come to value that simple honesty when I encounter it. Even when directed my way, though it hurts in the short term, I have the ability to choose how I respond to honesty, and I can choose to improve something that has been illustrated to me if I don't like it.

A prime example. Last month my 5 year old son jiggled my belly and said "daddy, you're fat". I knew I was. I was the heaviest I've ever been and I knew my health was suffering as a result. My wife told me, "It's alright, you work so hard and you don't have much time to look after yourself with your job and the kids". One of these people I love was being honest, the other was being compassionate. As a result of one of them I now schedule time to workout for 30 minutes every day and I have given up carbonated drinks, dough based foods and refined sugars and instead upped my water intake and started eating more 'raw' foods. I've dropped about 6 kg in a month and I feel better than I have in a long time. All because an innocent child gave me honesty, which forced me to decide if I could accept the truth, or was going to change it, rather than simply being comfortable with sympathy because someone showed me compassion.

Of course, I do tend to agree with the consensus that it is situational. Wisdom lies in determining which is required and in what measure.

While we should seek to be compassionate in all our dealings, there are occasionally times when we must be honest and there is no proper way to be kind. In those cases, we should still be honest. No amount of feeling-saving is going to lessen the blow of a hard truth that needs to be spoken.

If the truth is one that isn't necessary, then we can leave it be. Some, however, are very necessary and leave us few choices toward kindness.