NO MORE: “Constructive Criticism” – Killing The Lie!

Bird of PreyPoerksen (2010) provided sage counsel regarding how language plasticity leads to tyranny. Unfortunately, when discussing criticism, the tyranny of “constructive criticism” is displayed, and it is time for this lie to end, permanently!  Let me state, for the record and unequivocally, criticism never constructs positive behaviors!  Criticism doesn’t change simply because an adjective attempts to make criticism less harmful.

Criticism

Criticism defined, provides key insight from the common definition, “The expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.”  Disapproving based upon perception and expressed through words, looks, actions, and behaviors; this is criticism, and the best people in the world to criticize are the British.  IIf I call the British extremely critical and claim that is a compliment to the residents of the British Isles, those in Scotland and Ireland will understand, and no adjective in the world can make this criticism “constructive.”  As a point of reference, I draw this conclusion about the British from history, but knowing that does not make the criticism less accurate or less painful. On the contrary, I think the British have come a long way in changing their critical behaviors, actions, and manners and applauding them for their growth.

NO FearThe remaining definitions in the term criticism expand nicely upon the point that criticism and being critical can never be “constructive.”  “The analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of work.”  “A person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something.”  The etymology of critic, which is the root of criticism, comes to us from Latin criticus, from Greek Kritikos, from kritēs ‘a judge’, from krinein ‘judge, decide.’  Never forget criticism, or the act of being critical originates from personal perception, a choice to be judgmental and critical.  The intent is to pass judgment upon something, someone, or someplace with the intent to cause personal harm or sway the opinions of others.

Constructive

Being constructive is “serving a useful purpose, or tending to build up.”  As noted above, criticism cannot be constructive because the adjective “constructive” is the polar opposite of criticism, which tends to tear down, demean, and depress.  Yet, when business leaders begin to write annual reviews, they are told to constructively criticize their employees, to sandwich criticism between praise to make the criticism less painful, and to construct comments in a manner that showcases strengths while not dwelling on the criticism.  Why; because this is the “scientifically approved” method for leadership, provide “constructive criticism.”  Except, criticism is a personal opinion and can never construct anything!

Why are we discussing criticism?Why

09 June 2021, in my company email box, I received an email, considered a “Thought of the Day,” from no less an auspicious source as the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Department (DEI).  If anyone knew the damage of tyrannical language, I would think those in DEI would have a clue.  Yet, by their email, it is clear that DEI continues to drink the Kool-Aid and act the tyrant where language is concerned.  The email attempts to define destructive criticism and constructive criticism and then provides steps for distinguishing between the two forms of criticism.  Completely forgetting that criticism can never be constructive and will always be destructive.  From the email, we find these two fallacious concepts:

      • Destructive criticism: is undermining and can cause harm. There is no upside or way to positively spin what is said/written because the critic does not have your best interest at heart. It is destructive criticism that gives people fear of criticism in general.
      • Constructive criticism: is designed to be helpful and is based on valid facts/observations. It’s meant to help you grow and become stronger. It’s not always positive, but it can help you to see things in a new light. The critic almost always gives it based on their experience and genuinely wants to help out.Anton Ego 4

Using the definitions provided, can you see the tyranny?  Are the problems with plasticizing criticism behind the adjective “constructive” evident?  Do you understand the term plastic language and how plasticizing a word can destroy a person? Finally, ask yourself, does the professional critic write to “help the subject” of the criticism out, or do they criticize for another purpose entirely?

undefined1960, Doris Day’s movie, “Please Don’t Eat the Daisies,” has a character who moves from being a professor of acting at a college to being a theater critic.  The movie is a comedy and delightfully shows the problems with criticism.  Better, the film underscores how criticizing never leads to constructing a person, a reputation, or an industry.  A more recent example of the problems with criticism can be found in the Disney/Pixar animated movie “Ratatouille.”  Anton Ego is the critic of restaurants, and his name strikes fear and dread into the hearts of the cooks and chefs in a restaurant.  Anton Ego is a tyrant who employs criticism as a tool for his own ends.  The final criticism of Chef Gusteau’s Restaurant near the end of the movie is a stunning example of how criticism can never be constructive!

Bait & SwitchFrom the DEI email, we find something very interesting in the Constructive vs. Destructive questions; the lack of the term “criticism” in the constructive criticism questions. Instead, criticism has been subtly changed to “feedback” in every place the term criticism should reside. So, for example, the first item under constructive is stated, “Feedback and advice from others are essential for growth and success.  Look at criticism as a learning opportunity.”  Better still, the third item in the constructive list states, “Detach yourself from criticism.”

Your ability to understand and refuse to play word games promotes operational trust in an organization, brings stability to teams, and establishes you as a person willing to learn.  Learning thwarts tyranny, and the tyrant has to give ground.  Never lose the moral high ground!

Knowledge Check!Fighting tyrannical modular language, or the plastic word games people play to control an audience, I suggest the following:

        1. Question terms used—demand logical answers.
        2. Know words and definitions; if unsure, ask SIRI, look the terms up in multiple dictionaries, but don’t rely upon one source for an explanation.
        3. When in doubt, practice #2, then #1 until you are less confused. I have found those working to plasticize words cannot stand scrutiny.
        4. Sunshine disinfectant works when tyranny is found; put the tyrant in the sunshine and watch them emulate a vampire in the sunshine!

Freedom requires a willing mind and a courageous heart; you are never alone when you take a stand against tyranny. So stand and watch the tyranny begin to fall like a rock slide.  Be the tiny rock that starts something big!

Reference

Poerksen, U. (2010). Plastic words: The tyranny of a modular language. Penn State Press.

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Election Fraud – Understanding Begets Opportunities for Change

Image - John Wayne QuoteA noted fact in American History, not favorable, but factual; in every election the dead will vote for the political left.  When the dead vote, this is fraud.  Fraud is generally defined in terms as, any wrongful or criminal deception, with intent, that results in financial or personal gain.  Logic relates that the dead, being dead, are not eligible to vote in an election; yet, somehow, the dead continue to vote.

To qualify for the legal term of fraud, there must be three conditions met, deception must occur, intent established, and someone gains personally or financially.  A friend asked, how is the dead voting fraudulent, meeting the three criteria for committing fraud?  First condition to meet fraud, a deceptive action is committed, completing the election ballot for someone else, or in someone else’s name is deceptive.  Second condition, intent; intent is established in criminal law by showing that first the defendant knows right from wrong, then can understand what they are doing is wrong, and both conditions can be met with circumstantial evidence.

For example, simply asking a person if they knew what they were doing when performing an action, and if that person can distinguish between right and wrong after the action has occurred, can easily establish intentions.  If a person has chosen previously between right and wrong, their intent can be used to reflect they still know right from wrong, barring any traumatic experience or injury to the head.  Again, intent is easily witnessable and provable.

Third and finally, personal gain or financial profit.  Essentially the Greeks gave us this piece of legal thinking by asking, Cui Bono and Cui ProdestCui Bono? is a rhetorical Latin legal phrase used to imply that whoever appears to have the most to gain from a crime is probably the culprit.  Cui Prodest? is a Latin term which means “who profits?”.  Generally used to raise a similar question as “Cui Bono,” and specifically to point out the fact that those who benefit from an event are likely to be responsible for causing that event.  Thus, since the Political Left, in America’s political system this is currently the Democrats and those who support leftist political ideology, are the only party to benefit from dead voting, it is easy to draw a conclusion that the political left is intentionally committing fraud in elections for personal gain.

Government Largess 2What is gained in committing election fraud; the gain is political power, favorable laws, a compliant media to fawn upon you, and personal gain.  My friend asked me how a politician gains financially by being elected.  I responded, how did Ex-President Bill Clinton in the year after leaving the White House, just making 57 speeches, earn $13.7 Million in speaking and writing fees?  One year, 57 different speeches, a little writing, and $13.7 Million USD just appeared.  This is but a single example of how politicians, and ex-politicians, turn momentary fame in the ballot box into lifelong Millions of dollars.

My friend was very specific, how do you tell who committed the fraud in elections?  Do you try to go to the source, as in who completed the ballot, or do you just lump the fraud together into one big case and hold those gaining from deception responsible?  I do not know how to answer this question and stated so.  In my small knowledge about the law, the answer to me, appears to lie in legal strategy played by a prosecutor; however, I could be very wrong.  What I do know, is that “those that gain, need to either hang together, or hang separately, but they need to hang!”

Here is the real problem with fraud of any kind, but especially election fraud, trust.  When those voting lose trust in the process to elect a candidate to a political office, regardless of politics, that trust is fickle.  Easily lost in seconds, never fully regained.  Worse, the taint of fraud cannot be expunged and all in that election are tainted equally, the winner and the loser.

Lady JusticeHowever, one of the legal issues facing the calls to clean up voter records and the fraud of dead people voting is the legal hairsplitting between intentional and unintentional fraud.  Unintentional fraud is also referred to as negligent misrepresentation.  If you, as a citizen concerned about election fraud are confused, it is okay, this is a lawyer’s bread and butter, and a logical person’s headache.

Several of the legal challenges made by politicians after an election have been thrown out of court or received judgments that the case has no proof of fraud, even though there are clear indications that a normal person can see of dead people voting and a dead person voting is fraudulent.  All based upon the problems of holding a group responsible for committing fraud, versus a single person.  Herein lies the problem.

A county in the United States has an election office.  That county’s election office holds the reigns on county elections, overseen by the state.  Under the US Constitution, State’s Rights have already caused a Civil War and as such remain a very testy issue in the Supreme Court.  The Federal Government, and other State Governments, cannot force, cajole, threaten, or coerce a state to clean up their voter rolls.  Thus, if the dead vote in an election, this is a State’s Rights issue, not a Federal Government issue.

2017 and 2018, President Trump made an honest attempt to ask, beg, and entice the individual states and counties to clean up their voter rolls.  Except, Corporate Media, Democrats, and some Republicans fought tooth and nail to squash President Trump’s efforts to have an honest and transparent election in 2020.  My friend asked me, how do you know the voter rolls need cleaned up?  Because during the run up to the 2020 election, I began receiving text messages from state’s I have not lived in for years or decades, asking me to vote for a specific candidate or platform.

LinkedIn ImageAs an independent voter, I generally never become entangled in the mess surrounding elections.  Yet, in 2020, not a day past without a text from Wisconsin, Ohio, Maine, Wyoming, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, or Arizona political action committees or the democratic party representatives contacting me to urge me to vote for a democratic candidate or democratic favored piece of legislation.  While I have not checked, I would not be surprised to see I had voted in every single previous state of residence, all because mail-in ballots were sent out and my records were still live and active on all those state rolls.  If I, as an independent voter received this harassment, I can only guess what it was like for those who had political party membership.

Still the courts, at the bequest of lawyers, refuse to call fraud, and judge a logical decision.  If a dead person votes, someone committed fraud.  Since the fraud always benefits one party over any other party, than that entire political party needs to be held accountable for perpetuating that fraud, encouraging fraud, and for benefiting from the fraud committed by operatives.  Election fraud does not happen only through dead voting.  There is vote harvesting, where operatives are expected to canvass neighborhoods to “help” those unable to get out to the polls to complete their ballots.  Except reality reflects a bunch of people sitting at tables filling out blank ballots.

We also have another interesting technique in committing fraud, hacked election machines.  Where technically the voter machine “glitches” and a republican vote becomes a democratic vote.  Except, these errors are not actually errors, but programmed methods for stealing an election in the United States.  Fraud and theft are pretty much the same crime, while the lawyers wet themselves from trying to separate these into two different crimes, the fact remains if John Smith votes Republican and all John’s votes are turned democrat through technical means, John’s voice has been stolen from him and this is basic theft.  Not a technical malfunction, pure and unadulterated theft.

Mail-in ballots in the run up to November 2020’s election was a big issue; why, because this is another excellent method for stealing ballots, negating a person’s voice, and perpetuating fraud.  Mail-in ballots in 2020 had problems being delivered to voters, being returned to the county timely, or at all in a couple of cases, and being handled in a manner that allowed a person’s voice to be marked according to their preferences.

President AdamsIn every county and state in America, ballot dumps occurred.  In the six states causing the most problems, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, and Nevada, we find the most egregious ballot dumps.  Pennsylvania had 90,000 votes dumped into counting in the early hours.  Where did these votes come from?  Why did more than 89,000 votes for Biden and a third-party candidate, when the regular population mix would have these vote totals much lower?

Finally, we have the real issue in correcting, auditing, and holding honest elections, money!  Holding an election is expensive; thus, a taxpayer would think that those counting the ballots would be considerate and do their jobs right the first time.  Except, this is not the case, and every day that passes without a certified election increases the costs of that election.  Add in court and legal fees, and the election costs skyrocket into deficit spending rapidly.  Yet, when fraud occurs because those in the county election offices actively work to muddy an election’s results, why are these people not required to pay for their political shenanigans?

Consider a simple example, a baker makes a mistake on a product, the costs involved in the first attempt are the bakers to absorb, not the customer who needs the product delivered.  A car mechanic cannot escape the costs and consequences if they make a mistake in diagnosing a problem, or if a newly repaired vehicle winds up causing an accident due to mechanical failure.  Yet, these election results, a product of the county election officials hired to perform an honest election, too often get certified and real harm is done to the taxpayers in that county, and the officials remain in comfortable jobs able to meddle in future elections to their greedy little hearts content.

The Duty of AmericansIs the problem clear regarding where the fraud occurs; because, at the end of the day election theft and fraud is a local government issue with national repercussions.  Due to a law that insists that every veteran applying for a city, county, state job gets interviewed; I interviewed with a county election office.  The interviewers all came in spouting, neigh on screaming, their political agendas, we had a well-used PETA coffee mug, coats with patches and marketing materials for democratic candidates and clauses, a parking lot full of leftist political stickers, and I was hoping to obtain a job I was overqualified for, but desperately needed.  The interview began with a hostile attitude towards me and I knew within 2-minutes that I was not going to win this job.  All due to my not declaring publicly my political leanings.  Diversity laws include diversity of thinking which empowers checks and balances in operation; yet local governments across the country have become silent mouthpieces for totalitarian government.

America, the 2020 election is a sham, a farse, a perfect example of how to steal a federal election, and every candidate is equally tainted from the fraud committed.  Fixing the election fraud will require local elections to demand a clean sweep of every single elected official and staff member in local government election offices.  A full and complete refusal to use technical means to handle elections in any way, shape, or form.  Plus, fraud laws need tightened with harsher consequences.  The 2020 election was stolen, and a usurper is set to fill the presidency, fraud in elections has reached the ultimate tipping point, and represents a breakdown of trustworthy government from the dog catcher to the President, taints every single elected official, and requires the citizens of America to reclaim the government and demand those parties responsible, including the corporate media, to be held accountable!

PatriotismIf the American Republic is to endure America must have fair, transparent, and trustworthy elections as the first and most basic building block of responsible government!

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.
All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/