Hello /pol

Hello /pol

I have been thinking of something lately. I know many of you here are in favor of absolute truth. That no matter how bad it is, telling the truth is the most important thing. It's an ideology.

Since I had this mindset ever since I could think and always try to be on the side of the people that are right, that speak the truth, I am now 21 years old and I face a problem I haven't thought too much about before.

If you are always on the side of the truth, that means you have to go against your friends and family quite often. I find myself talking about loyalty a lot and I think loyality is avery important thing. But how do you stay loyal when the truth isn't on the side of the people you're supposed to be loyal to?

For example, my best friend recently broke up with his girlfriend. The entire thing was objectively, clearly, truthfully his own fault. I told this to him mercilessly. I said I am just on the side of the truth.

In short, we argued because he said I was a hypocrite. How can I go on talking about loyalty when I don't have his back here.
But well, what about the truth then? What's more important? How do I balance loyalty and truth?

I know this isn't 100% politics related, but I think most of you are smart enough to see why this is a pinch that could very well be translated to political issues.

What's Sup Forumss take on this?

Pic not related

Being brutally truthful IN-GROUP is ok.

The key is you tell your friend the hard truth but only in private, between the two of you.

You always try to present a united front to the world.

So try not to side with someone else against your friend IN PUBLIC and excuse it by saying "I'm just interested in the truth."

That's what instinctively-treacherous leftists do ALL THE TIME.

Yeah, this can lead to difficulties, if your in-group comrade is very wrong and some out-group person is very right.

You just have to negotiate these as best you can.

But remember the quotation from the Godfather:

"Don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again."

You actually did balance truth and loyalty. If you were not loyal to him at all you wouldn't argue with him in the first place because it wouldn't matter to you. You also stood for what you perceive as truth - so it's gg in my book

What makes you so confident that you know what the absolute truth is? Are you 100% sure that you're not deceiving yourself in some way? If not, fuck off.

> now 21 years old

Stooped reading.

Go outside Klaus, and stop larping as a man of wit of wisdom.

I see. I refused to do this to this point because I thought lying despite knowing the party I am supposed to take sides with also worsens the way people view me.
I keep thinking about this that way
If everyone puts loyalty before the actual truth (even if just to save face) then arguments will never end. If I know the side I am on is absolutely wrong and I still argue in it's favor for loyalty's sake, what's the point then?

Come on. I am not saying I always know the truth, but I can be emotionally detached enough to know that I, as long as it's not about me personally, stay objective to things. Knowing who is right and who is wrong in an argument is very often simple as hell. I am talking about the times when truth is obvious, of course.

You are in the right. By telling him the truth you are making him a favour.

But I am trying to learn a life lesson here. What's wrong about exchanging ideas? I don't even think I am particularily smart.

Never lie about the truth but sometimes it is a good thing to just don't mention some things.

Very few people would view it that way, but subconsciously I think I know you are right. Now that I think about this, I found myself thinking about how they should be happy that I correct them and tell them they are wrong.

As some people pointed out here, being on someone's side despite them being wrong is actually being much more hypocritical, if I think about it.

Very good advice.

>If everyone puts loyalty before the actual truth (even if just to save face) then arguments will never end.
They won't end anyways.
Don't be that guy who doesn't have your friends back, you will get isolated!

>I told this to him mercilessly
Out of all of your autism, this sentence sticks out the most.
You have no concept of timing or subtlety.
You don't know when to be supportive, and when to tell him what you really think. You don't know how to tell the truth in a way that gets it across, rather than just makes you look like an ass.
>I think it was both of you, and you made mistakes bro, but at the end of the day it was just a girl, so I've got your back anyway
I'm guessing you are more of a
>I'm sorry I just can't side with you on this, because my loyalties lie with the truth, you see, I am a wizard and...
KYS pls Hans.
Sage.

All you do is sugar coat things then. It doesn't get the point across and people will make the same mistakes again. I learned this a long time ago. I think the real autist here is you.

Yes, as I said, it's difficult.

"Putting loyalty before the truth" doesn't mean "obeying loyalty INSTEAD OF the truth".

Basically, lying is pretty much always bad.

If you lie to defend your cause, even if you do it cleverly, a lot of people will see the lie and know it's a lie and you will do your cause much more harm in the long run.

Much better just not to say anything.

And if you find yourself constantly having to defend a comrade who is wrong, you need to fix that comrade.


In summary:- try not to attack a comrade in public under the excuse of "being truthful".

One other point:

No-one likes a friend who doesn't have his back in a fight.

But if you take your friend aside in private beforehand and say "look, you're wrong on X, if you make this stupid point in public I am not going to back you up", then he shouldn't feel so much betrayed if you just leave him to it.

When all treasures are tried, truth is best.
- Piers Plowman (1377)

oh man, I almost feel sorry for you, so I'm going to post some more.

In your OP you asked
>How do I balance loyalty and truth?
Yet you clearly have no interest in doing that. You want a way to tell the truth, 'mercilessly' and without compromise, but while also retaining what few friends I imagine you must have.
Short answer is, you can't be a dick and expect people to be ok with it.
On the other hand, you don't need to lie to people or withhold the truth. You can be supportive by being honest, but with tact and good timing.

I don't wish this upon even you, but imagine your friend was on a bridge about to jump, and he asked you a question. You know the truth would probably make him jump, but you also have to be honest. How would you handle that situation?

Not even saging anymore, I am now interested to see where this goes.

This is not such an interesting gedankenexperiment because clearly you say whatever you think will get him down off the bridge as best you can.

I thought the whole theme of the thread was "loyalty in public" i.e. if a friend or family member is attacked in public by an outsider, and the outsider is right, what do you do?

If it's in PRIVATE it's not really that interesting because you pretty much always tell the truth with people you actually care about.

Yes, the bridge thing would be a kinda temporary, short-term exception, but it would have to be that extreme so it's like saying you should allow for relativistic effects in everyday life - no, you can just assume the speed of light is infinite for all practical purposes.

Op do you think you are morally different than your friends and family? That is to say do you hold the same moral obligations to them that you think they should to you? If so then you should expect the same loyalty from them that you give. What you did to your best friend is the most loyal thing a man can do. Loyalty is the decision to stick with a friend and help guide them towards the right path. Loyalty is not following the blind into the pit but guiding them away from it. If they hold the same loyalties to you then they will understand in time that you intentions were pure. So just hold your own give them the facts and your perspective of what is going on and trust that those who love you will listen

>I thought the whole theme of the thread was "loyalty in public"
I didn't get that impression. I thought it was about telling the truth being an ideology, and that OP believes the truth must come before all else.
As he puts
>I know many of you here are in favor of absolute truth. That no matter how bad it is, telling the truth is the most important thing. It's an ideology.
So my situation, however unrelated it may seem, needs to be answered by OP specifically.
Would he be willing to bend his own rules in an extreme situation? just how far does his 'ideology' go?
This is what I am trying to find out.

>If it's in PRIVATE it's not really that interesting because you pretty much always tell the truth with people you actually care about.
There are people out there who lie to their friends so they can keep them as friends. I am not defending this either, because that is the other extreme, but I think OP is trying to gauge himself against them, and come up with a centrist-style solution without comprimising on his 'absolute truth' philosophy.
The simple fact is, you can't do that.
That, fellow bong, is what I am trying to illustrate.

True loyalty is not blind loyalty. By following along with his actions even if you knew they were wrong, that is acting against what you believe. You did not do that. You didn't side with him when you knew he was wrong. That is true loyalty. True loyalty is being able to tell them they are wrong, stick by them, and help them be right again, help them be good again.

If your friend had murdered someone, loyalty is not helping them get away with it. Loyalty is helping them get help.

I was like OP but this guy is right. It's a pointless exercise trying to be truthful to people outside of your group, especially if they are enemies even.

Learning how to deceive people is a very useful skill for survival when things get tough. Honestly, my life is somewhat fucked up because I valued the truth so much around people who are more interested in how they look, or people who were pretending to be friends but will stab you in the back when you get the chance.

If it's your best friend, they should be able to handle te truth, that doesn't mean be a dick, and there is also the chance that you are wrong anyway.

Thanks guys, really appreciate that you can still have meaningful discussion here.

Holy shit you niggers take everything so literal

>If you are always on the side of the truth, that means you have to go against your friends and family quite often

Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…
Das richtig Hans.

You can disagree with someone and still stand by them.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You didn't betray him by telling him he was wrong.

Many people don't feel like you stand by them if you tell them they are at fault for x thing.

>I know many of you here are in favor of absolute truth.

>white women don't want to fuck me so I call it genocide

>I said I am just on the side of the truth.
That's some faggoty-ass shit
You prefer being honest, you're not on the side of truth, don't take on airs.

>In short, we argued because he said I was a hypocrite. How can I go on talking about loyalty when I don't have his back here.
Being loyal doesn't mean you don't tell your friend when he fucked up. Being loyal means you stay his friend even though he fucked up.

your sensory apparatus is faulty, therefore absolutely truth you can never know (with the exception of mathematical logic 2+2=4)

you're a fag. never too early for intelligent introspection.