Is it my fault if you can't handle the truth? (2019)

Does "good enough" satisfy the definition of "Leveler" though? How can we objectively predict that "good enough" would still not cause offense?

I personally think not because I do not think "good enough" can be objectively predicted without testing it out on the other person -- "good enough" is subjective.

If "trying" is all that matters, then how hard are we supposed to try? I personally struggle with this as I find it very time consuming and stressful to even know when to stop trying. I have no objective measure to stop because I have incomplete knowledge and am just guessing.

Granted there are obvious and quick things to consider to avoid being "cruel or dismissive," but I had to learn about those things beforehand. Everytime I say something I will learn some more, but I will definitely not learn everything.

The OP also seems to be claiming that collaboration is the greatest ideal to strive for in every context. But what if I have different priorities such as objectivity, truth, and reason?

All fair -- except the context is there's sort of a self-proclaimed "rationalist" community which is known for eschewing social norms to the point of seemingly deliberately over-considering controversial ideas as a reaction (e.g. certain racial topics, pandemic, etc). I think those people are the type we're talking about.

A truly rational person would potentially never call themselves "rational" because they would know most people find it an alienating term and kinda an unfair self-assessment.

Engineers too are human. They have egos and beliefs and care more about the things they build than they should. Their feelings get hurt when people are rude, short, or belittling - or when they perceive that someone's being rude, short, or belittling.

The perfectly rational engineer (read: human being) doesn't exist outside of a select few neurodivergant folks. Acting as if every engineer is perfectly rational is now, and always has been, a mistake.

Just ask Linus' more verbose colleagues; have a look at how he has changed over the many years he's lead the kernel development.

“People who are brutally honest get more satisfaction out of the brutality than out of the honesty.”

        — Richard J. Needham

I read some Krisnarmurti. We can put a thousand kinds of labels -truthfull ?- on it. And he is known as a person who constantly talks about seeking the truth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti) One of the features that I pay attention to in his speeches is that he always puts reality in a high, inaccessible, -perhaps-mystical place, interacting with people like sitting together in parks and public places instead of communicating with people through publishing articles. And usually starting with "Let's think together" when putting forward an argument. Knowing something, authority - you can examine it if you're curious, he rejected all serious religious titles given to him and abolished the community that brought him to that position-, I come across many books "How to argue everyone", "How to win every argument". No, reality is not something that can be grasped only by the mind and reinforced with thoughts and arguments, life is a common field of cognition, develops through asking questions and getting to know oneself. As he mentioned a lot, all "isms" are like a kind of mental prison. (I'll try to find individual citations if desired). I found rationalism beautiful, despite the ism at the end, Although I didn't do much research on it, it caught my interest. On the other hand, the information I don't remember from where I know is: "Reality is something pure and clear as it is, rather than something that changes with arguments as a result of judgment." Mental arguments under reality and the prevailing assumptions in them only determine the perception of reality in the viewing community. I don't want to talk about absolute reality anyway, but I use it in a sentence. After that, saying something like "You can't accept the truth" to someone is like an unfortunate, ignorant attack on each side's own reality. The party that sees himself as the one who knows and tells the truth - there are all kinds of it, the one who dictates, the one who legislates, the one who makes religion - actually does not take the humble position required by science. may have distanced himself, put himself in a position he would not want. For the other side, the situation is already pathetic. In my own serious discussions, I note that let's not call it reality, please, but a common consensus area. The other party may break away from the common consensus and find itself in an unpleasant place as alienated and excluded. After that, it would be like living in a dungeon that creates isms, can make people do very bad things when necessary, and at least does not see the sun - real -. I think accepting the truth may be the way to go, with an open desire, a desire for heart, mind, self-knowledge, and actually accepting the truth as one whole. In my inner reality, in the mental world, what is called reality is consensus. And reality is experienced in a way that is modest, more or less scientific, by living it, being humble, rather than living in life without a serious will to exist and being presented to outsiders saying this is the truth. It's just experienced, knowing is a mental thing, and reality is beyond mere knowledge - yes, I seem to put the concept on a higher ground - it's a single, changeable whole, reinforced by life. In my experience, the situation is often painful because, let alone thinking together, consensus spaces - forums, political consensus spaces, academies, I don't even want to include religions - are like sunless, depressing places, even under the influence of the pathetic human ego. We can think about all these things together, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, to approve me with their mind, to be told that you are right - this is ego food, it can get me out of my way - but if you want, let's think about this together. Wouldn't this world we have created be a place to live if we did not have a common area of consensus and conditioning, if we had a constant fear, punishment and reward mechanism, and these methods are no longer obsolete? Imagine if I'm presenting all I've said by saying this is the truth, Will this belong to me, I will write my name under it, if I convince you with scientific evidence, mind games, interesting discussion methods, Ooh we will say, have we reached the truth, will I start to get fat in a position like a great sage and now be more confident - if it is possible to stay - will I start to lead people and will our ground be reality. I don't know, let's think together if you want, but I think at best we would be like a helpless, sunless forest. Without symbiosis - the forest - pure, direct communication, we can turn to humans who worship the gods of their own creation. I think that happiness, peace, joy, compassion, meaning meaning cannot exist in the realm of pure thought and logic.