When people write, or speak, in a manner that is not specific or transparent,

[Zorra]

it immediately and universally raises this question in the minds of the liberals/progressives among us:

"What is this person hiding, and why is s/he hiding it?"

Speaking and writing using vague, winding, general, non-specific terms and phrases when addressing specific issues/events makes the intentions of the speaker/writer immediately come into question.

Folks garner a great deal more respect and support when they speak/write honestly, directly, transparently, and understandably, so that the intent of their communication is perfectly clear to anyone with a reasonable command of the English language.

Many liberals/progressives immediately distrust anyone that speaks, or writes, evasively and non-transparently.

This is part of the reason why the consensus form/process of leadership employed by OWS is effective.

If someone has something to say, then say it. Tell us clearly where you really stand.

Don't try to hide behind vague, mangled, condescending gobbledy-goop circular communication because you don't want anyone to know what you really believe. End of story.

Most of us know immediately when someone is trying to bullshit us by lying, being deliberately evasive and/or obtuse, or is using standard propaganda speech/devices with the intention of deliberately deceiving others.

In summation, I'd just like to say,

"Well, the dog might have eaten my homework, he was in the house when it disappeared, but maybe I lost it somewhere, I dunno, or whatever, but something happened to it, and Fido is a usually a good dog, and besides that, yesterday I found a sack of quarters by the side of the road, and wouldn't have found it if Fido had not peed on a tree, so everything always works out for the best, but we may have to do something about this, and hope everything goes well."

It's always best to just say, "Mom, I didn't do my homework". Mom can always tell when the kids are fibbing or hiding something, by their words and their body language.

Honesty, sincerity, candidness, and transparency universally earn the trust and respect of good people.

Let the unrecs begin.

[MADem]

1. When you finish up with "Let the unrecs begin" do not be surprised if you get your wish.

It's not to do with the content so much as the challenge of the last sentence, I suspect.

[Zorra]

4. Case in point. nt

[MADem]

5. Which case? Did you just do an unrec? nt

[CJCRANE]

2. K & R nt

[William769]

3. Recommended.

[frebrd]

6. .........

:rofl:

[Romulox]

7. Is this supposed to be ironic? A little *context* might specify the object of your critique. nt

[Zorra]

8. Here's one: "I am not a crook". - Richard M. Nixon

[quinnox]

9. I like the post, but it is ironic

that you appear to be doing what you are criticizing - not being clear and up front what you are talking about or referring to, lol.

[Zorra]

11. No. It is pretty much universally true, IMO. If it illuminates

specifics in your mind that you believe to be examples, well, then, it is what it is.

There are many examples, especially in, but not limited to in any way, the spheres of politics and power.

The OP was sparked by specific events, but the idea evolved into a communication with a much more universal message, because I believe the message, in reality, is something many of us agree upon, and I have not seen it posted here before as a direct and clear OP.

The direct and clear stated intent of this post is to try to help foster honest, clear, and direct discussion, and to deter anyone that intends to deliberately deceive others, because they believe that they will somehow gain something by deceiving others.

[quinnox]

16. Ok but a post like this one with some vagueness

about what the true object might be won't be very popular. Just my opinion, putting in a bit more meat into it might have been an improvement.

[Zorra]

29. I'd point to freeper posts as a DU example, but they've been tombstoned,

and their posts are no longer available.

[JoePhilly]

21. By not sharing the specific events, you are not being transparent.

And the fact that you felt the need to use italics for your most concise statements, indicates that even you at some level knew much of what you wrote was "winding" and needed clarification.

[Zorra]

24. See posts # 8 and #10. Here's another specific for you:

[JoePhilly]

31. Those 2 examples are a little dated aren't they?

And as for the "I won't respond" if you think some one is trying to lead you into saying something that would get you banned my the Mods ... or deleted ... umm ... ok ... are you worried that you could actually be led in such a fashion?

[Zorra]

33. All a devious poster has to do is post a personal attack, and

an entire long sub-thread, containing an exchange of many constructive ideas, can be deleted without recourse.

It's a foolproof method that a devious poster can use to wipe posts they don't agree with off the board.

Using personal attacks is total win-win for them - most especially for trolls that receive compensation.

As for being dated, no. They are timeless.

[JoePhilly]

36. I don't think so.

A single personal attack will get deleted, particularly if you alert on it.

And branch that follows such an attack will get deleted similarly.

I think the Mods generally do a good job selection which parts of the tree to prune.

And if you think about it ... the ideas you want to convey are far more important than any single post, or sub thread, or OP. Those can't be deleted. And so if your were part of a constructive line that DID get deleted, or locked, you can try to re-engage the topic in new OPs and posts.

As for paid trolls, sure there probably are some. But given the nature of DU, its not like you can truly ID them anyway.

[Zorra]

38. I disagree. I've seen it happen several times here, especially

recently.

I am not saying that all personal attacks here are used as a device for this purpose. The majority are not.

I am saying that some posters have deliberately used this device effectively.

I can't point to specifics, because the posts have been deleted.

[Zorra]

10. One more thing: I will not engage in discussion with anyone

that appears to me to be purposely leading discussion to a point that forces the moderators to have to delete a post, or an entire sub-thread, in order to have content removed that they (meaning the above general "anyone" in the subject line of this post) disagree with.

Also, any challenge that appears to me to be a purposeful veiled attempt to get me to in some way violate DU guidelines will be ignored.

It will be a waste of time.
:hi:
Peace and Love

[Hutzpa]

12. I would like to know what cause this outburst?

nt.

[Zorra]

14. Long term observation of obvious BS in politics. nt

[Hutzpa]

15. ok good answer

:*

[patrice]

13. Yes and No. It is quite possible that some inability to understand is the product of deficits in

logic skills and/or knowledge, or certain attitudinal characteristics, or motivation, or . . . . of the communication recipients.

The effect of a communication depends upon specific traits of the communication event itself, the universe of which is not limited to the devious, and upon specific traits of the message recipients, the universe of which is not limited to appropriate mental competence and honesty.

[Zorra]

20. Good point. This needs to be analyzed and should always be taken into account.

Many people have the ability to analyze events and make rational, accurate judgments about these events. If a majority of reasonable people reach consensus on the nature of these events and draw similar conclusions, it is reasonable to believe that their assessment of the events is accurate. Without this acknowledged ability for reasonable people to view events and draw the same conclusions, attempts at effective communication would be a vain exercise.

The law uses a device called "the imaginary reasonable man" because of these types of issues. In order to foster genuine communication, and not get caught up in tedious debates over semantics and non-extenuating circumstances,

"An imaginary person who is used as the legal measuring stick against which to determine whether or not a defendant exercised appropriate caution in an undertaking, or whether he exhibited negligence by not taking the precautions that the hypothetical reasonable person may have taken under the given circumstances, or by doing something that a reasonable person would not have done."

http://law.yourdictionary.com/reasonable-man-or-person

That said, mom still always knows when someone is lying.

Thank you for your insightful post.

[patrice]

25. Thank you for your consideration. GA is a revolution because it actually DOES provide for

systemic opportunities for the relevant traits and characteristics of message & recipient to be discovered and shared, but it's a process that does take really a lot of time, attention to detail, and the social courage to break deeply encoded patterns, courage because people don't like it when their ways of thinking are challenged.

[patrice]

17. Not everything said in GA is fully, or even adequately, understood by everyone. There are a wide

variety of causes; GA is not immune to any of that, especially since the Occupy movement is involving an unusually wide variety of DIFFERENT kinds of persons, with different experiential and skill backgrounds.

[Zorra]

27. I agree.

GA gives a larger body of people the opportunity to evaluate the validity and intent of a number of different ideas, and subsequently arrive at a collective judgment, a consensus, about these ideas.

Some people might not understand things in a common way that the majority of people understand things.

A homeless schizophrenic person that hangs out with us might not grasp what is going on, but that should not deter us from making what we judge to be constructive decisions about as how to best proceed in order to achieve our goals.

[patrice]

30. Yes, and responsibly include the homeless schizophrenic person too, if the group decides it is

possible. Those kinds of decisions need a level of honesty that requires continuous courageous cultivation.

[Zorra]

32. Absolutely. I used this specific example because I"ve seen exactly

that, and other similar exchanges, firsthand at a GA.

The respect given was uplifting, and way cool.

[patrice]

45. Yes! Because that kind of environment is the authentic therapeutic milieu for many problems; the

extended family that checks and balances one another.

[snooper2]

18. unrecced as unrec was mentioned...

[themadstork]

19. Smells like evasive BS.

[Zorra]

22. OK. What do you believe that I am attempting to evade?

What type of agenda would I have by encouraging people not to use deceptive practices?

As an anonymous poster on a message board, what can I possibly gain from this, other than, hopefully, more honest and clear communication?

[mmonk]

23. Interesting thread.

Even if some of it flies over my empty head.:-)

[CJCRANE]

28. Mine too...

I agree with the basic point in the OP, even if it was arrived at in a slightly elliptical way.

Plus for a thread about direct plain speaking...there doesn't seem to be much of that going on.

[RedCloud]

26. So after more than a century of their cynicism and deceit our guys *owe* them something?

Like a quick answer?

Did Karl Marx help the workers or the bourgeoisie when he wrote Das Kapital? Who benefited? Who was prepped for the battle?

Those bastards can wait a century until everybody gets done monkeying with them. It would historically balanced to do so.

[librechik]

34. ...or maybe you just don't understand their message

probably from not listening to them. They have been quite clear in their demands, IMO.

[Zorra]

35. I don't understand. Exactly who has been quite clear in their demands?

I'm really puzzled by your post.

If you are referring to OWS, I've been actively involved with the Occupy movement for over 2 months.

Search out my posts, they are all radically supportive of OWS

Or are you referring to the Third Way being clear in their demands?
;-)

[librechik]

40. I think Occupy has been quite clear in its aims,

those who complain that OWS needs to be less vague and have more precise leadership are really missing the point. By staying a bit loose and undefined there is room for many more opinions, all under the 99% umbrella--

The "you" in my post was general and not aimed at you, dear Zorra, apologies about the ambiguous tone, my reply was poorly written.

[Zorra]

41. *phew* It's all good, thanks for responding!

I don't think you and I have ever disagreed about anything here at DU, so if you thought I was out of line, I would take it very seriously.

no worries
:hug:

[MadHound]

37. Ah, so we're supposed to hold to some sort of vague standard of transparency?

Who determines whether something is transparent or not? You? Me? Or is that in the eye of the beholder? Probably the last there, the eye of the beholder, because quite frankly the concept of transparency is a relative one that varies from person to person. People have different standards, different ways of writing, differing ways their mind work. What seems completely transparent to one set of people is thicker than mud to a different group.

If we try to set out a certain, preconceived set of rules that govern what is and isn't transparent we wind up valuing all communication at the lowest common denominator, which does immense harm to free and thoughtful conversation.

[Zorra]

39. No. See post # 20. Also: Definition of Doublespeak below:

(First of all, I am not advocating censorship. I am advocating not deliberately being deceitful).

Definition: Language intended to distort or obscure its actual meaning.

Examples of doublespeak:

"Doublespeak is language which pretends to communicate but doesn't. It is language which makes the bad seem good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem unattractive, or at least tolerable. It is language which avoids, shifts or denies responsibility; language which is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language which conceals or prevents thought.

"Doublespeak is all around us. We are asked to check our packages at the desk 'for our convenience' when it's not for our convenience at all but for someone else's convenience. We see advertisements for 'preowned,' 'experienced' or 'previously distinguished' cars, not used cars and for 'genuine imitation leather,' 'virgin vinyl' or 'real counterfeit diamonds.'"
(William Lutz, "Doubts About Doublespeak." State Government News, July 1993)

"With doublespeak, banks don't have 'bad loans' or 'bad debts'; they have 'nonperforming assets' or 'nonperforming credits' which are 'rolled over' or 'rescheduled.'"
(William Lutz, The New Doublespeak. HarperCollins, 1996)

"Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
(George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946)

http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/doublespeakterm.htm

Are you against auditing the Pentagon?

Do you feel that corporations are honest and therefore need no regulation or oversight?

Do you believe that George W. Bush clearly spoke the truth, and had good intentions when he invaded Iraq?

We make judgments about the veracity of words, actions, and events all the time. The majority of us have powers of discernment. We can judge if someone is being deliberately deceitful, either directly or through the use of doublespeak.

If we believe what some people tell us, rather than what we see, we'd have serious problems.

[fascisthunter]

42. very interesting thread

wow!

Kick and Rec!

[Zorra]

43. It

is no surprise at all that you really get this.

Thanks.

Happy Thanksgiving
:hi:

[fascisthunter]

44. Same to you friend

:hi: