Dishonorable speech guide
Dishonorable Speech - What Is It? (8-17-21 Revision)
Dishonorable speech is defined here as speech that ultimately supports/promotes hate rather than love, often by not accurately representing reality. Reality can be considered what is, including the laws of cause and effect and statistics.
Honorable speech is defined here as speech that supports/promotes love over hate. It often, but not always involves accurately representing reality.
Love can be defined as a feeling that acts as a motivating force to bring about a net increase in value in the world.
Hate can be defined as a feeling that acts as a motivating force to bring about a net destruction of value.
Value is defined here as how useful something ultimately is to people in supporting and promoting life, supporting people’s individual rights to their own lives and the products of their efforts, and in gaining “positive” experiences. Note that “positive” can have objective aspects, such as helping to avoid death, or be subjective, such as the positive experience you get from a keepsake that means something to you, but not someone else. “Ultimately” means taking into account the “sum total” of something’s usefulness, over the long-term, such as including possible trade-offs between some people’s positive experiences and an individual’s right to their own life and products of their efforts.
So putting all of the above together:
Dishonorable speech is speech that ultimately supports or promotes hate, that is, feelings that act as motivating forces to bring about a net destruction of value, or usefulness to people in promoting life, supporting individual rights to life and property, and gaining “positive” experiences.
Honorable speech
is speech that ultimately supports or promotes love, that is, feelings that act as motivating forces to bring about a net increase in value, or usefulness to people in promoting life, supporting individual rights to life and property, and gaining “positive” experiences.
Video on Dishonorable Speech Definition:
Categories of Dishonorable Speech
- Name calling/insults (includes insult hidden in a compliment) – 3 levels: a. insults to attributes (stupid, unattractive, etc.), b. implies they’re a bad person (e.g., they have bad intent), and c. implies they’re evil/inhuman (e.g., “he’s a monster”) – Damages (how it destroys value): Limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them. Limits peoples’ options, firstly in how they can think about the person who was the subject of the dishonor, and secondly by presenting the possibility that the same fate of being insulted could befall them.
- Applying guilt by association (implies bad intent or bad characteristics, e.g., gullibility) – 2 levels: a. person being associated with is portrayed as bad, b. they’re portrayed as evil – Damages: The person may not be guilty of anything bad, but their options become limited if people believe that they are somehow bad based on this logical fallacy.
- Shaming (e.g., “you should be ashamed of yourself for…,”) – 1 level – Damages: May try to limit others’ options by promoting your morality as the ultimate one; tries to use people’s emotions to limit their options; limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them.
- Implying incompetence/wrong doing (e.g., “The murder happened at 7pm. No one knows where John was at 7pm.”) – 3 levels: a. implied incompetence, b. implied dishonesty/stealing, c. implied violence – Damages: Limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them (based upon limited circumstantial evidence); limits peoples’ options, firstly in how they can think about the person who was the subject of the dishonor, and secondly by presenting the possibility that the same fate could befall them.
- Accusing someone of wrongdoing without supporting data (e.g., “I can just feel it, he’s a rapist. I have no proof, but I know it.”) – 2 levels: a. accusing of dishonesty/stealing , b. accusing of violence – Damages: Destroys value (such as limiting options in how people think about someone) in a way that is Indefensible due to no real data, vague language, innuendo, etc.
- Saying you’re frustrated with or scared of someone, implying they’re bad or they’ve done wrong – 2 levels: a. bad, b. evil – Damages: Limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them, and someone being angry with how someone else has acted does not mean that person’s actions were bad or that they are a bad person.
- Misrepresenting/misquoting what someone says or does to make it sound or look bad, such as by taking it out of context – 3 levels: a. bad attributes (stupid), b. bad intent, c. “evil” intent – Damages: Limits the options of the person about whom this dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them.
- Using vague terms that generally bring up negative emotions such as “cult” and “a nightmare,” about groups, things and situations rather than individual people – 1 level – Damages: Destroys value (such as limiting options in how people think about something or some group) in a way that is Indefensible due to no real data, vague language, innuendo, etc.
- Comparing to someone/something bad to imply that this person/thing will be just like them, i.e., bad – 2 levels: a. bad, b. evil – Damages: Limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them, such as by inspiring an import of prejudices against the person/thing that may not be reality-based.
- Saying something, someone, or someone’s characteristic is bad without being specific about what’s bad and/or appropriately acknowledging the good parts of it – 1 level – Damages: Destroys value (such as limiting options in how people think about someone or something) in a way that is indefensible due to no real data, vague language, innuendo, etc.; limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions by not giving a wholistic representation of the thing since there are good aspects that are not being mentioned.
- Misrepresenting how things are in reality (as through exaggeration, and logical fallacies such as over-simplification, hasty generalization, cherry picking, the black and white fallacy, it does not follow/false conclusion, straw man, slippery slope, genetic fallacy, bandwagon, appeal to authority, false equivalency, future prediction, mind reader) – 1 level – Damages: limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions.
- Assuming/implying/declaring someone to have bad intent or bad beliefs, (e.g., “rich people only care about money”) – 2 levels: a. bad, b. evil – Damages: Relies on the mind reader fallacy: limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions, as well as limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them.
- Offering opinion or allegation as fact – 1 level – Damages: Limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions.
- Placing blame without accepting responsibility/mentioning broader responsibility – 2 levels: a. for things you are partially responsible for, b. for things you are totally responsible for – Damages: Limits peoples’ options (such as the ability to avoid similar bad effects in the future) by encouraging them to be weaker: to blame, deny responsibility, and claim that they are a victim.
- Promoting entitlement/victimhood (e.g., “you deserve better”) – 1 level – Damages: Inspires people to be less resourceful and consider fewer options to make things happen in their lives.
- Overstating a problem, or its level of risk (alarmist, promoting fear/anger) – 1 level – Damages: Promotes non-critical thinking, and fear and anger-based decision-making, which limits options.
- Understating a problem, or its level of risk (such as encouraging a lack of caution when death or serious injury are reasonably possible) – 3 levels: a. could affect health mildly, b. could affect health severely, c. could result in death – Damages: Promotes risky behavior that could result in serious injury or death.
- Ambiguously joking or using subtle sarcasm that suggests doing something unsafe – 3 levels: a. could affect health mildly, b. could affect health severely, c. could result in death – Damages: Potentially promotes risky behavior that could result in serious injury or death.
- Using terms about people that may be accurate, but are unnecessary and de-humanize by effectively defining someone by their bad actions or alleged bad actions, such as referring to someone as a “murderer,” “terrorist,” or “liar” (these could be replaced by “people who’ve committed murder,” “people who’ve performed or were involved in acts of terror,” and “people who’ve lied” – all of which convey that these are still people) – 2 levels: a. implying someone’s bad, b. implying someone’s evil – Damages: Supports a non-reality-based narrative that destroys value such as you are what you do and say; limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them; devalues someone’s personhood/de-humanizes them (and you).
- Mocking (such as through sarcasm) -2 levels: a. attributes, b. intent – Damages: Limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them; limits peoples’ options, firstly in how they can think about the person who was the subject of the dishonor, and secondly by presenting the possibility that the same fate could befall them; devalues someone’s personhood/de-humanizes them (and you).
- Being disrespectful, e.g., interrupting, telling someone to “shut up,” swearing, not acknowledging that someone has spoken, being condescending, saying demeaning things (such as sexual harassment) – 2 levels: a. interrupting, condescending, not acknowledging someone’s spoken, or swearing, b. demeaning – Damages: Devalues someone’s personhood/de-humanizes them (and you).
- Not addressing something bad with someone directly before spreading the information (e.g., telling everyone about a fly in your soup at a restaurant before/rather than telling the owner; responding on social media to someone’s “bad” social media post before/rather than private messaging them as to why you think it’s destructive) – 3 levels: a. regarding potential incompetence., b. potential dishonorable speech, dishonesty or stealing, c. potential violence – Damages: Limits someone’s options to correct a value destruction.
- Leveling (e.g., “they only succeeded because they were lucky,” or saying the person who came in last did just as well as the one who came in first) – 1 level – Damages: Destroys value by mis-representing the true hierarchy of value.
- Value inverting, i.e., something that’s good is made to be bad or vice versa – 2 levels: a. good/bad, b. good/evil – Damages: Destroys value by mis-representing the true hierarchy of value.
- Ends justifying the means (e.g., “it’s ok to suspend the justice system if it makes us feel safer in the short-term”) – 2 levels: a. means involve dishonorable speech, dishonesty or stealing, b. means involve violence – Damages: Destroys long-term value for the sake of shorter-term value.
- Gossiping, introducing irrelevant data/information such as health, sex, and wealth level-related – 2 levels: a. socially acceptable, b. socially unacceptable – Damages: Distracts (limits options) from real value building; also can be a form of leveling, i.e., destroys value by mis-representing the true hierarchy of value.
- Promoting conspiracy theories – 3 levels: a. non-scientific drama, b. accusations of dishonesty or stealing, c. accusations of violence – Damages: Promotes non-critical thinking, and fear and anger-based decision-making, which limits options; Distracts (limits options) from real value building.
- Revealing information for personal gain that is stolen, private and/or was told in confidence – 3 levels: a. financial damage, b. reputational damage, regarding socially unacceptable behavior, dishonesty or stealing, c. reputational damage, regarding violence – Damages: Makes stealing OK; limits the options of the person the information is about by changing how people think about them.
- Sharing negative info from an unvetted (especially anonymous) source – 2 levels: a. about socially unacceptable behavior, dishonesty or stealing, b. about violence – Damages: Supports lying to destroy value by giving a mechanism to avoid accountability for lies.
- Spreading rumors (e.g., “I don’t know if it’s true, but I heard…”) – 3 levels: a. “positive” rumors for personal gain, b. of dishonesty or stealing, c. of violence – Damages: Supports lying to destroy value by giving a mechanism to avoid accountability for lies.
- Lying or misleading – 12 levels (these 6 levels with and without proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt): a. misleading for financial gain, b. lying for financial gain, c. misleading regarding socially unacceptable behavior, dishonesty or stealing, d. lying regarding socially unacceptable behavior, dishonesty or stealing, e. misleading regarding violence, f. lying regarding violence – Damages: Promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing; limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions.
- Saying the names of convicted or alleged mass murderers which effectively glorifies them – 1 level – Damages: Incentivizes bad action and value destruction.
- Promoting hate/prejudice – 2 levels: a. inspiring dishonesty/stealing, b. inspiring violence – Damages: Promotes hate, and thus value destruction.
- Threatening to do something undesirable, i.e., blackmail – 1 level – Damages: Promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing.
- Threatening/calling for/promoting violence or anger – 3 levels: a. for anger, b. for violence against one or more people, c. threatening/calling for war – Damages: promotes violence and destruction; also promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing.
- Trial by media or providing information that would make it difficult for someone to have a fair trial – 2 levels: a. admissible evidence, b. inadmissible evidence – Damages: Limits justice system options for upholding due process; limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them.
- Repeating someone else’s dishonorable speech = same level as the original dishonorable speech – Damages: Same reason as the original dishonorable speech was, plus by repeating the information, you are amplifying it so that more damage may result.
Videos on 37 Categories of Dishonorable Speech:
Compiled List of Damages of Dishonorable Speech
- Limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them
- Tries to use people’s emotions to limit their options
- May try to limit others’ options by promoting your morality as the ultimate one
- Limits people’s options, firstly in how they can think about the person who was the subject of the dishonor, and secondly by presenting the possibility that the same fate could befall them
- Destroys value (such as limiting options in how people think about someone or something) in a way that is indefensible due to no real data, vague language, innuendo, etc.
- Limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions
- Limits people’s options (such as the ability to avoid similar bad effects in the future) by encouraging them to be weaker: to blame, deny responsibility, and claim they are a victim
- Inspires people to be less resourceful, and consider fewer options to make things happen in their lives
- Promotes non-critical thinking, and fear and anger-based decision-making, which limits options
- Promotes risky behavior that could result in serious injury or death
- Supports a non-reality-based narrative that destroys value such as you are what you do and say
- Devalues someone’s personhood/de-humanizes them (and yourself)
- Limits someone’s options to correct a value destruction
- Destroys value via mis-representing the true hierarchy of value
- Destroys long-term value for the sake of short-term value
- Distracts (limits options) from real value building
- Makes stealing OK (is a type of value inversion of bad made good)
- Promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing
- Supports lying to destroy value by giving a mechanism to avoid accountability for lies
- Incentivizes bad action and value destruction
- Promotes hate, and thus value destruction
- Promotes violence, destruction
- Limits justice system options for upholding due process*
- *A note on why due process important: it, in theory, helps avoid innocent people being convicted, as well as abuses of power by the government, police, and government officials.
Difficulties/Limitations in Identifying Dishonorable Speech
Identifying dishonorable speech is not without difficulties. For example, you may believe that lying is always dishonorable, but what if it saves someone’s life? Is it still dishonorable? If it’s still dishonorable, is it less dishonorable than lying for personal gain? How much less dishonorable?
Another example: is it dishonorable for a politician to “dodge” a debate question? Did the politician agree beforehand to answer all the questions? What if the question itself is dishonorable?
To be able to determine whether there was dishonorable speech in these examples, and to what level, we may need more information. A further difficulty that could arise is that the same words in one situation could be dishonorable, and in another not. For example: “I wonder if we should worry about him killing himself” could be said based on effectively nothing with the bad intent of trying to decrease a person’s credibility, for instance, or it could be said out of genuine concern to a limited audience of people who care about this person because he’s already threatened to kill himself multiple times, he’s off his meds and his girlfriend just broke up with him. Same words, in one case meant to damage, in the other to help. By the way, wanting to help is a good start to speaking with honor, but it isn’t a guarantee against saying dishonorable things.
Also, if someone is misleading/lying with nefarious intent, to bring about some massive destruction at a later time, it may very well not get captured by my analysis since I may not have enough information about the person or what they are talking about, and they may even seem to be speaking with honor, but it’s just to get you to trust them so they can create maximum destruction later. Their words may then actually be some of the most dishonorable because their seemingly honorable words are a step along the path to a lot of value destruction. Unfortunately, we can never know someone’s intent, so the best I may be able to do is suggest the possibility that their words may be dishonorable based upon some other information about the person, such as them having a criminal history of scamming people, if that information is available to me.
There are some factors that may not be captured by my analysis if it’s being done only from a written transcript or an audio recording with no video, including: raising one’s voice/yelling, rolling one’s eyes, making faces, laughing, tone of voice, hand motions/gestures, body language, eye contact and posture. When analyzing video or audio, I will try to call these things out when they are in themselves dishonorable (such as lewd gestures) and/or support a certain interpretation of the spoken words to be dishonorable. I will also make a note of whether I am analyzing a video, just audio, or just a written transcript.
With all that said, I do the best I can to identify dishonorable speech, but may be incorrect in identifying it sometimes. It should be noted that the person speaking is partly responsible for other people understanding their meaning, so even if the speech was not dishonorable, the speaker may want to be informed that their words could be taken to be so that they may choose their words more carefully in the future.
A Note on the Rating System
I’ve tried to come up with a rating system for dishonorable speech that is analogous to a justice system for words, with a “suggested sentence” handed out at the end of the analysis that is measured in “years.” This is not meant to be a suggestion of an actual criminal sentence for anything someone’s said, it is just an analogy. I believe the analogy to be useful because I think people generally have some pre-existing “feel” for the criminal justice system and levels of crime severity indicated by the number of years in prison someone is sentenced to. People can then import that feel to get an idea of the level of dishonor in someone’s words based on if their “suggested sentence” is 5 years, 15 years, 60 years (“life”), or what have you.
In the criminal justice system, there are infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies, and various levels of each of these. Infractions, such as parking tickets, are generally only subject to fines. I’ve put “dramatic language” in this category, i.e., I generally won’t even call it out, nor “sentence” it to any “years.” That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have effects, it’s just that the damages are relatively small compared to other types of dishonorable speech. Misdemeanors are generally punishable with up to a year in prison, and felonies for longer periods depending on the severity of the crime. Some dishonorable speech is treated as if it were at the misdemeanor level, while some at the felony level.
I do not pretend to be judge or jury on anyone. If anything, I view my role more like a prosecuting attorney – it’s for me to make the case for a certain “sentence” on someone’s words, not on them as a person, and you can judge for yourself whether my arguments/called out categories of dishonor make sense or not.
To come up with a ratings system, I first came up with some initial categories of dishonorable speech, and added to them as I read through different speeches and writings by politicians, realizing that additional categories would be useful to cover some of the different types of dishonorable speech I found there. As such, I feel that the categories I’ve come up with are a good and solid start, but I do not claim that they are exhaustive.
With what I felt was a reasonable set of categories in hand, after writing out the “problems” or damages that can come from each one, I set out to rank the categories for levels of damages, and then assign “suggested sentence years” to each category, some of which have up to 3 levels of severity within them. This ranking of categories by level of damage is not absolute nor completely objective, and someone else may come up with a different order, i.e., it does contain some opinion on my part as to what I think is worse damage or value destruction. With that said, I believe the rating system to be useful as a quick guide to the level of dishonorable speech, and it also provides a useful, if imperfect, measurement tool to see if one’s speech becomes more or less honorable with time.
I believe the dishonorability categories will likely be refined and perhaps expanded as more analyses are performed in which more types of dishonorable speech may come up. The rating system will also likely be refined with time. I feel it is a worthwhile endeavor to strive to identify and quantify levels of dishonorable speech as accurately as possible even if 100% accuracy will never be achieved, and the measurement system for quantification may evolve with time.