Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Calling a Good Thing Bad & a Bad Thing Good

Calling a Good Thing Bad & a Bad Thing Good

Ratings: (0)|Views: 40 |Likes:
Published by Jane Gilgun
This article shows a new way of succeeding at being a shit (OBS), one that still requires recipient buy-in but does not require that recipients feel at fault or that enactors have a sense of humor. All enactors require to succeed at OBS is to call a good deed bad and a bad deed good and other people believe them. Duplicity and a callous disregard for the welfare of others remains in this style of OBS.

This articles shows how I used a single case to change the theory of OBS.
This article shows a new way of succeeding at being a shit (OBS), one that still requires recipient buy-in but does not require that recipients feel at fault or that enactors have a sense of humor. All enactors require to succeed at OBS is to call a good deed bad and a bad deed good and other people believe them. Duplicity and a callous disregard for the welfare of others remains in this style of OBS.

This articles shows how I used a single case to change the theory of OBS.

More info:

Published by: Jane Gilgun on Nov 07, 2010
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/07/2010

pdf

text

original

 
The theory of OBS changes!
The OBS Express
A Newsletter of the Call Them Out Society, Ltd.,Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USAVolume 1, Number 13 November 6, 2010
Calling a Good Thing Bad & a Bad Thing Good 
by Jane Gilgun
may have discovered a new way of succeeding at being a shit (OBS),one that still requires recipient buy-in but does not require that recipientsfeel at fault or that enactors have a sense of humor. All enactors requireto succeed at OBS is to call a good deed bad and a bad deed good andother people believe them. Duplicity and a callous disregard for the welfareof others remains in this style of OBS.The case in point is the success that Republican politicians had inconvincing older people that health care reform would disembowel Medicareand hinted but did not promise that the Republicans would save Medicare.Seniors swallowed these stories hook, line, and sinker. Seniors votedfor Republicans at the highest percentage of any voting block.The truth is that health care reform does not cut Medicare at all, andthere will be improvements in services. What will change is the rate of INCREASES at which providers will be paid. This appear to be a good deed.Republicans call them bad deeds. They say health care reform will destroyMedicare. This is callous disregard for the truth and for the well-being of seniors who depend on Medicare for medical services.
Callous Disregard
Callous disregard feels good. People who act this way enjoy whatthey get so much that they don’t think about what happens to others. Moral persons think about consequences for themselves and for others, both in theshort-term and the long-term.
I
 
 The reform calls for a change in the rate of INCREASES of  payments to medical providers. Medical providers will never get less, theysimply will see smaller increases in what they get. Medical providers don’twant this. They want to keep getting reimbursed at increasingly higher rates.Republicans translated demands for no change in the INCREASE of their rates into the lie that health care reform will gut Medicare. In other words, good deeds are bad deeds. This is duplicity.Who doesn’t want a big raise every year? Most people in the USand in the world get NO raises. At least 10% of people who want jobs can’tfind them, and the jobless rate is even higher for people of color.Republicans convinced seniors that a change in the rate of increasewould destroy Medicare. They made a good deed out to be a bad deed.
The Bright Light
There is a bright light. One day the Republicans are going to have tomake good on their promises. They have to deliver on saving Medicare, notincreasing taxes on the super-rich, and reducing the budget. Some of themseem to want to start another war, too, with the sources of funds for the war so far unknown.They won’t be able to do what they said they can. How will theycover this up? Their policies caused the economic disaster in this country inthe first place and affected the rest of the world besides.There probably are many other ways to scare voters enough to sweepand keep liars in office. I wonder if there is a school somewhere where people learn how to be shits.Maybe one day voters will tire of politicians who call good things bad. Bad for whom? is a question to ask. In the case under consideration, a
decrease in the rate of increase
was bad for medical providers but GOODfor everyone else. “A decrease in the rate of increase” is a complicated idea,a fact that Republicans took advantage of.In my view, Republicans who called good things bad and bad thingsgood succeeded at OBS. In the course of doing so, they also succeeded inforcing me to modify my theory of OBS.
 
Testing the Theory of OBS
The theory of OBS is as follows. OBS is composed of four parts:1. an unkind deed2. a desire to evade responsibility for the unkind deed3. a cover-up, and4. recipient buy-in.Just as I thought. The theory of OBS does not fit politicians who callgood things bad and bad things good. These politicians do cover up, but whatthey are covering up are good deeds and not unkind deeds. They are broadcasting their unkind deeds as the truth. Recipient buy-in remains in thetheory because recipients buy into the lies as truth. They do commit unkinddeeds by calling good things bad and bad things good. Evading responsibilitydoes not exist because in their own minds they did nothing unkind. Peoplewho vote for them agree.Reformulation of the theory is difficult in light of the present case.The notion of cover-up appears to be what I have to modify. Maybe I have tohave two theories that I can consider a typology. A typology is a way of categorizing related phenomena. For example, apples and oranges arecategories of fruit. This is a typology of fruit.Covering up lies and covering up the truth are two categories of cover-up. Many perpetrators cover up unkind deeds, such as cheating on aspouse, while others cover up kind deeds by telling others that kind deeds areunkind. That is what the politicians did.They did commit unkind deeds, but it is not their unkind deeds thatthey are covering up. They have committed unkind deeds when they saygood deeds are bad deeds and bad deeds are good deeds. They evaderesponsibility for their own unkind deeds by not acknowledging that theyhave done anything wrong. Their opposition is wrong. They are in the right.
Hard to Get Our Minds Around This
This is complicated. It is hard for me to get my mind around it. Ihope one day that every voter in this country and in the world knows thatmany people call good deeds bad and bad deeds good. Maybe one day wewill look back and say, at one time in history, politicians got away withcalling good deeds bad and bad deeds good, but no more. We’re not buyinginto THAT anymore.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->