Elementor #977 – DishonorableSpeechInPolitics

Archived Categories of Dishonorable Speech

Categories updated for grammar consistency and slight wording changes, Nov. 20, 2020:

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”) – Why it’s a problem (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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 to make it sound bad, such as by taking it out of context – 3 levels: a. bad attributes (stupid), b. bad intent, c. “evil” intent – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 as fact – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: Limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions.
Placing blame without accepting responsibility/looking at broader responsibility – 2 levels: a. for things you are partially responsible for, b. for things you are totally responsible for – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Promotes risky behavior that could result in serious injury or death.
Ambiguously joking or using subtle sarcasm that suggest doing something unsafe – 3 levels: a. could affect health mildly, b. could affect health severely, c. could result in death – Why it’s a problem: Potentially promotes risky behavior that could result in serious injury or death.
Attacking someone’s personhood rather than their actions or ideas/policies they are presenting – 2 levels: a. bad, b. evil – Why it’s a problem: 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.
Mocking (such as through sarcasm) -2 levels: a. attributes, b. intent – Why it’s a problem: 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 yourself).
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, b. demeaning – Why it’s a problem: Devalues someone’s personhood/de-humanizes them (and yourself).
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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Destroys value via 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 – Why it’s a problem: Destroys value via 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 safer) – 2 levels: a. means involve dishonorable speech, dishonesty or stealing, b. means involve violence – Why it’s a problem: Destroys long-term value for the sake of shorter-term value.
Gossiping, introducing irrelevant data such as health, sex, and wealth level-related – 2 levels: a. socially acceptable, b. socially unacceptable – Why it’s a problem: Distracts (limits options) from real value building; also can be a form of leveling, i.e., destroys value via 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – 2 levels: a. financial damage, b. reputational damage – Why it’s a problem: 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 dishonesty or stealing, b. about violence – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Supports lying to destroy value by giving a mechanism to avoid accountability for lies.
Lying with bad intent (to gain an advantage in a negotiation, for personal interest, etc.) – 2 levels: a. misleading, b. inaccurate – Why it’s a problem: Promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing; limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions. Note: we cannot honorably call out this form of dishonorable speech in politicians because we can never know their intent. We can call out factual inaccuracies, but not that they were made intentionally/with bad intent.
Saying the name of murderers which effectively glorifies them – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: Incentivizes bad action and value destruction.
Promoting hate/prejudice – 2 levels: a. inspiring stealing, b. inspiring violence – Why it’s a problem: Promotes hate, and thus value destruction.
Threatening to do something undesirable, i.e., blackmail – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: Promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing.
Threatening/calling for violence – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Same reason as the original dishonorable speech was, plus by repeating the information, you are amplifying it so that more damage may result.

Summary of changes from the above categories to the Feb. 11, 2021 updated ones:

Changed “Why it’s a problem” to “Damages”
Category #7 was updated to include not just what someone says but what they do as being misrepresented – this expands the category to cover video taken out of context as well as words taken out of context
Category #19 was changed by removing its original form of “Attacking someone’s personhood…” and replacing it with: “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).”
Category #21: the first level was expanded from “interrupting” to “interrupting, condescending, not acknowledging someone’s spoken, or swearing”
Category #25: the example for ends justifying the means was expanded by adding the words “in the short-term” and quotation marks to get: “e.g., ‘it’s ok to suspend the justice system if it makes us feel safer in the short-term’”
Category #26 was expanded to include “data/information,” not just “data”
Category #28: a third level was added and the second level was re-written so these levels are now: b. reputational damage, regarding socially unacceptable behavior, dishonesty or stealing, and c. reputational damage, regarding violence
Category #29: the first level was expanded to include “socially unacceptable behavior” as well as dishonesty and stealing
Category #31: changed from “Lying with bad intent” to “Lying or misleading”, now with 12 levels instead of 2 to get: “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.”
Category #32 was modified from “Saying the name of murderers which effectively glorifies them” to “Saying the names of convicted or alleged mass murderers which effectively glorifies them”
Category #35 was changed from “threatening/calling for violence” to “threatening/calling for/promoting violence or anger,” and broken out into 3 levels instead of 1, i.e., a. for anger, b. for violence against one or more people, c. threatening/calling for war

Original categories, Oct. 27, 2020:

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”) – Why it’s a problem (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.
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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 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.
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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 to make it sound bad, such as by taking it out of context – 3 levels: a. bad attributes (stupid), b. bad intent, c. “evil” intent – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 someone or something 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, and mind reader) – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 as fact – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: Limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions.
Placing blame without accepting responsibility/looking at broader responsibility – 2 levels: a. for things you are partially responsible for, b. for things you are totally responsible for – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Promotes risky behavior that could result in serious injury or death.
Communicating ambiguous jokes or subtle sarcasm that suggest doing something unsafe – 3 levels: a. could affect health mildly, b. could affect health severely, c. could result in death – Why it’s a problem: Potentially promotes risky behavior that could result in serious injury or death.
Attacking someone’s personhood rather than their actions or ideas/policies they are presenting – 2 levels: a. bad, b. evil – Why it’s a problem: 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.
Mocking (such as through sarcasm) -2 levels: a. attributes, b. intent – Why it’s a problem: Limits the options of the person about whom the dishonor was spoken by changing how people think about them; 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; devalues someone’s personhood/de-humanizes them (and yourself).
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, b. demeaning – Why it’s a problem: Devalues someone’s personhood/de-humanizes them (and yourself).
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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Destroys value via mis-representing the true hierarchy of value.
Inverting value, i.e., making something that’s good to be bad or vice versa – 2 levels: a. good/bad, b. good/evil – Why it’s a problem: Destroys value via mis-representing the true hierarchy of value.
Ends justify the means (e.g., it’s ok to suspend the justice system if it makes us safer) – 2 levels: a. means involve dishonesty or stealing, b. means involve violence – Why it’s a problem: Destroys long-term value for the sake of shorter-term value.
Gossiping/communicating irrelevant data such as about health, sex, and wealth level – 2 levels: a. socially acceptable, b. socially unacceptable – Why it’s a problem: Distracts (limits options) from real value building; also can be a form of leveling, i.e., destroys value via 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – 2 levels: a. financial damage, b. reputational damage – Why it’s a problem: 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 dishonesty or stealing, b. about violence – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Supports lying to destroy value by giving a mechanism to avoid accountability for lies.
Lying with bad intent (to gain an advantage in a negotiation, for personal interest, etc.) – 2 levels: a. misleading, b. inaccurate – Why it’s a problem: Promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing; limits people’s options to make informed, reality-based decisions. Note: we cannot honorably call out this form of dishonorable speech by politicians because we can never know their intent. We can call out factual inaccuracies, but not that they were made intentionally/with bad intent.
Saying the name of murderers which effectively glorifies them – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: Incentivizes bad action and value destruction.
Promoting hate/prejudice – 2 levels: a. inspiring stealing, b. inspiring violence – Why it’s a problem: Promotes hate, and thus value destruction.
Threatening to do something undesirable, i.e., blackmail – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: Promotes cheating (dishonesty) for personal gain, a form of stealing.
Threatening/calling for violence – 1 level – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: 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 – Why it’s a problem: Same reason as the original dishonorable speech was, plus by repeating the information, you are amplifying it so that more damage may result.