How do we tell truths that might hurt?

The uncomfortable argument

A short, sharp essay circulating in the computing community asks a blunt question: when you discover an unpleasant truth, do you tell it — or bury it to save face? It has been reported that the piece argues computing science repeatedly chooses the easy silence. Allegedly, departments and practitioners divert attention rather than confront uncomfortable realities — Dijkstra’s infamous COBOL jab gets a name-check as an example of “fight the disease or pretend it does not exist.” The claim is simple and bruising: we often know better than we act, and that prolonged quiet chips away at intellectual integrity.

The human cost

Why does anyone keep quiet? Because truth-telling carries real, personal risk. Tell an inconvenient truth and you may be branded unrealistic, revolutionary, or just plain trouble. The essay even trots out Galileo as a cautionary tale — a nice historical mic drop. This is the emotional core: honesty can make you unpopular, sometimes professionally endangered. Who wants that? Few do. So many truths stay in private agreement and public silence.

So what now?

This isn’t just nostalgia for a purer age; it’s a practical challenge for a field that builds the systems we all rely on. With the rise of AI, privacy scandals, and software that runs critical infrastructure, the stakes are louder than ever. How do we speak up without getting written off? The original writer asks the questions and lists the uncomfortable truths — not to provoke for its own sake, but to force a conversation. That’s worth noting: the piece aims to prod a complacent culture, not just wag a finger.

Speak up and expect pushback. Or stay silent and live with the rot. Which will you choose? The essay even slyly suggests a test: if you’d rather not have been disturbed by the message, go ahead — add that preference to the list of uncomfortable truths. A neat, slightly wicked way to end a plea for honesty.

Sources: cs.virginia.edu, Lobsters