Radical Honesty vs Non-Violent Communication

Cartesian Doubt As a Mediating Third Factor

“Radical Honesty encourages people to express their judgments and opinions honestly, even if they may be hurtful or offensive to others. In contrast, Nonviolent Communication discourages judgment and encourages people to communicate in a way that is non-judgmental, empathetic, and respectful.”

Both of these are wrong, my rule would be 'only say what you can back up' so random judgments that are unsupported are 'too violent' by my standard

the idea is to have 100% accuracy in judgement and to be silent when possibly inaccurate, or just engage in honest speculation and doubt

so-called radical "honesty" is actually often "false confidence" which is false and hence dishonest

radical honesty means radical silence when not honest, so simply spitting out what pops into one's head is not radical honesty if they don't really believe it [eg: compulsive lies]

I withhold belief from everything until I can back it up, so when I am radically honest I don't say unfair things

I would say this was only possible after I read and truly internalized Descartes.

since this was his method and it affected all of history