Straight talk: an example (24) -- David Clarke

We writers need to read a little straight talk now and then. By contrast, it makes us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

An example of straight talk

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (pictured) was asked to comment on the activities of Al Sharpton in the aftermath of the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Mr. Clarke responded:

“I don’t expect anything intelligent to come out of the mouth of Al Sharpton. We know he is a charlatan. Al Sharpton ought to go back into the gutter he came from.”

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting, sniveling diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. A little dose of straight talk helps you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate the evasive diction of the Sensitive New Age Guys (SNAGs) in the media.

See disclaimer.

The New Newspeak

A recent article, “The New Newspeak,” discusses how some politicians “twist English for political gain.” It gives seven examples of twisted terms:

“at risk”

“barriers”

“community”

“under-represented”

“under-served”

“homeless”

“downtrodden”

The author says, “There is far more here than wooly thinking. Each term arrives with ample, almost invisible baggage that infiltrates the brain and ultimately shapes behavior.”

The author appears to have an anti-Left bias. Take that bias into account when reading him, but also try to judge his points on their own merits.

The Takeaway: We writers should always be especially alert readers. For example, we should be aware of the “baggage” that some terms carry, and avoid delivering that baggage unintentionally. As Oscar Wilde said in a different context, “A true gentleman is one who is never unintentionally rude.”

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (23) – Carey Roberts

We writers need to read a little straight talk now and then. By contrast, it makes us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) (more samples here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

Winston Churchill used straight talk and advised other writers to do the same: “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack!”

An example of straight talk

Carey Roberts (pictured) is one writer who seems to agree with Churchill’s advice. In a book review published on ifeminists.com, Mr. Roberts begins like this:

“There is no better example of how radical feminism hoodwinks women than the gender ‘wage gap’ controversy.

“For years, the Gender Warriors have been on the war path over this issue. Their argument is simple: On average, female employees receive 76 cents for every one dollar paid to male workers. And that difference equals discrimination.

“It’s time to blow the whistle on that nonsense. And a just-released book by Warren Farrell does exactly that. Why Men Earn More is chock-full of government wage data and research findings which show the feminist-driven ‘pay gap’ is an ideological con-job.

“I feel a little silly making such an obvious statement, but I guess it needs to be said: the work patterns of men and women are different.” (Source)

Analysis

Using terms like hoodwinks, blow the whistle, nonsense, and con-job, Mr. Roberts leaves little doubt where he is headed in this book review.

But he hasn’t yet turned off his pile driver. Before he finishes the book review, he uses dishonest, shrill, bombshell and tsunami.

Please note: As always on this blog, I am analyzing diction, not ideas. My intent is to show you Mr. Roberts’ straightforward diction, not to comment on the strength or weakness of his argument.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting diction. I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (22) – Laurence Vance

We writers need to read a little straight talk now and then. By contrast, it makes us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

An example of straight talk

In his book The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, Laurence Vance (pictured) writes this:

“The [U.S.] federal war on drugs is undefendable. Not only has it failed to curtail drug use, it has eroded civil liberties, destroyed financial privacy, corrupted law enforcement, crowded prisons with non-violent offenders, ruined countless lives, and wasted hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.”*

Analysis

That’s an opinion stated strongly and clearly in fewer than 50 words. Most business executives couldn’t talk this straight to save their lives.** They are hopeless pussyfooters and you should try not to imitate them.

Please note: As always on this blog, I am analyzing diction, not ideas. For example, whether I agree or disagree (or both or neither) with Mr. Vance is irrelevant to this post.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

See disclaimer.

*As quoted by Jacob G. Hornberger.

**I claim the professional expertise to make this generalization, having spent 33 years as a speechwriter and coach to hundreds of executives. Generally speaking, the larger the company the more evasive the language.

"The language of evasion"

 
Economic historian Gary North, for decades a champion of clear writing and clear speaking, analyzes the evasive language used by Kathleen Sebelius (pictured), a politician who spent $70 million to build a non-functional web site.

The Takeaway: Read the article by Dr. North. And remember, whenever you write or talk like a politician, intelligent readers or listeners will suspect that you are hiding something, even if you are not. If you are an honest person and are working in the free market (politicians call it “the private sector”), do not write or talk like a politician; use clear, straightforward language.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (21) – Joseph Sobran

We writers need to read a little straight talk now and then. By contrast, it makes us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

An example of straight talk

The late American columnist Joseph Sobran (pictured) was widely known as a man who wrote what he believed and believed what he wrote. Here, from a column titled “Language in Rubble,” is a representative sample of Mr. Sobran’s incisive-but-gentlemanly style:

At times like this, we need clear, spare, specific language that acknowledges what we are really talking about, the kind of prose that made writers like Ernest Hemingway and George Orwell, both unsentimental war correspondents as well as novelists, so useful, invigorating, and even in a way consoling to read. Even today, when you read them, you know you aren’t reading dated propaganda. Good reporters still, as ever, avoid the false, loaded language of politicians. This always irritates partisans, who suspect objectivity of being disloyal and treasonous. The more we kill, the more we seem to demand euphemism.

You don’t have to be neutral in order to be honest. You merely have to describe what you see and stick to what you really know. You must ruthlessly suppress anything that smacks of wishful thinking, letting the details do the talking even when they hurt your own side. Good writing should be calm, even cold, something the reader can trust amid all the shooting and shouting.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting, sniveling diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. A little dose of straight talk helps you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (20) – Oliver Wendell Holmes

We writers need to read a little straight talk now and then. By contrast, it makes us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

An example of straight talk

From the Wikipedia article on Buck v. Bell:

Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court ... in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

...

The ruling was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In support of his argument that the interest of the states in a “pure” gene pool outweighed the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. (Links in original article have been omitted here.)

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting, sniveling diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. A little dose of straight talk helps you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

An historical oddity: Even though Buck v. Bell sounds grotesque today, the Supreme Court has never expressly overruled it.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (19) – Allen Frances

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can make us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

Allen J. Frances, MD (pictured) is an American psychiatrist best known for having edited the fourth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The DSM “provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.”

In a press interview, Dr. Frances reportedly said “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting, sniveling diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (18) – Brendan O’Neill

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can make us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

Brendan O’Neill (pictured), editor of Spiked, says he is about a million years old in internet years. He wrote a curmudgeonly essay on what’s wrong with the internet. Although he slides into a couple of mixed metaphors, the 830-word essay is a fine example of straight talk. Here are the first three paragraphs:

What’s gone wrong with the internet? Being 39 – about a million in internet years – I remember when the web was slow-paced, unflashy, a sort of virtual salon where you’d read stuff and then chat about it with a handful of like-minded grown-ups in a quiet discussion forum. Not any more. Today, switching on the internet is like opening a sluice-gate of senselessness. It’s become a nauseating volcano of personal, invariably petty opinion, an arena one must navigate with trepidation lest one end up showered with every man and his dog’s opinions about stuff.

You now can’t read a news report online without having 400 commenters biting at the bit to tell you what they think about it. You can’t fix a holiday without glimpsing the 272 self-elected trip advisers waiting to inform you how awful the hotel you just booked is. As for Twitter – its users’ casually made revelations about their lives, their openness bordering on emotional sluttishness, make the antics on Oprah’s couch seem restrained in comparison.

The web has become a cacophony of commentary and confessionalism, a gathering of shrill individuals dying to share their half-formed views, their feelings, their pain, their holiday snaps, their cats. Is it time to step away from the machines and do something less headache-inducing instead? Some think so. A fightback of sorts has been launched against the colonisation of the internet by morons.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting, sniveling diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (17) – Jeffrey Tucker

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can make us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

In 2013, writer and editor Jeffrey Tucker (pictured) wrote an essay about what happened to gasoline prices during Hurricane Sandy. Here’s an excerpt:

Americans like to think that they are law-abiding people and that their government has their best interests at heart. But matters change when your refrigerator stops working, your house is freezing, cellphones die, and your car has no fuel to get to the store or the hospital.

Suddenly, regular people in New Jersey and New York found themselves having to make the decision between obeying and surviving. They chose surviving. You probably would too.

Will officials learn anything from this experience? Absolutely not. They will repeat it. The experience of Sandy only ended in tightening the gouging laws. Gov. Christie was widely considered a hero even though his despotic actions spread misery much more widely than it otherwise would have spread.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to euphemistical, effete, evasive diction (samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.
   
See disclaimer.

“A Tsunami of B.S.”

Of all the faults that prevent clear writing and clear speaking, bullshit (nonsense) is among the most common.

Every one of us employs B.S. occasionally; we differ only in frequency. That’s why I am recommending you read the essay “A Tsunami of B.S.” by the American entrepreneur and bestselling author Robert Ringer (pictured).

Here’s an excerpt:

So, the question is, what can you do to protect yourself from drowning in the tsunami of B.S. that relentlessly comes at you each day?
 
First and foremost is to make a sincere and ongoing effort to curb your own B.S.  Knowingly or unknowingly, we’re all guilty of slinging a bit of B.S. at times, but that doesn’t mean we have to make a religion out of it.

Second, always do your best to steer clear of those who demonstrate they have mastered the art of B.S.  And to accomplish that, you have to pay more attention to what people do and less attention to what they say.

That advice gets easier and easier to follow as you rack up experience. After more than 40 years as a professional writer and editor, I notice that I often quickly see through B.S. (my own and others’) that I would have fallen for when I was a younger man. One of the compensations of aging, I suppose.

The Takeaway: I recommend you read Mr. Ringer’s essay in full. It is good advice, clearly stated. If you would like to read a philosophical essay on B.S., I recommend On Bullshit by the American philosopher Harry Gordon Frankfurt.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (16) – Tracy McMillan

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can make us more aware of the evasive diction that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

In 2011, Tracy McMillan (pictured), a relationship author, television writer (Mad Men), and matchmaker (Ready for Love), wrote a now-famous hard-hitting article to women in their 30s. The article appeared in The Huffington Post under the title, “Why You’re Not Married.” It is as straight as straight talk can be.

For example, Ms. McMillan cites six possible reasons why the reader is still not married:

You’re a Bitch.

You’re Shallow.

You’re a Slut.

You’re a Liar.

You’re Selfish.

You’re Not Good Enough.

She explains how each of these traits impedes marriage. For example, in the “You’re a Bitch” section, she writes:

“...most men just want to marry someone who is nice to them. I am the mother of a 13-year-old boy, which is like living with the single-cell protozoa version of a husband. Here’s what my son wants out of life: macaroni and cheese, a video game, and Kim Kardashian. Have you ever seen Kim Kardashian angry? I didn’t think so. You’ve seen Kim Kardashian smile, wiggle, and make a sex tape. Female anger terrifies men. I know it seems unfair that you have to work around a man’s fear and insecurity in order to get married – but actually, it’s perfect, since working around a man’s fear and insecurity is big part of what you’ll be doing as a wife.” (Link added) (Flesch Reading Ease score 70.3)

Analysis

Some readers will agree with Ms. McMillan’s opinions; some will disagree. But no sane, literate adult reader could possibly misunderstand those opinions as stated. And that’s the whole point of straight talk: Make it so clear that no one could possibly misunderstand you.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to euphemistical, effete, evasive diction (sample here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction. Start by reading Ms. McMillan’s article in full. It is a masterpiece of straight talk; if we all wrote like this, we would be a lot closer to world peace.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (15) – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can, by contrast, make us more aware of the evasive diction that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

Here’s a well-known quotation from the French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pictured):

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.” (Source)

Readers may or may not agree with Mr. Proudhon’s description of government, but they can easily understand it.

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have been habituated to euphemistical, effete, evasive diction (sample here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. By contrast, it will help you remain consciously aware of evasiveness – and therefore less likely to unconsciously absorb and imitate evasive diction.

P.S.: Some writers mistakenly think that they should always try to avoid using the passive voice, that passive verbs are always weak. This passage provides a good counterexample; no one would call it weak, even though it contains 66 passive verbs.

See disclaimer.