I'm imposing the DU Death Penalty on myself, with the sentence suspended. You can help me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

My promise to everyone reading this: if you catch me lying on the pages of DU, and you can document my lie, I will acknowledge it, I'll write my GBCW post, and I'll immediately follow up with a post to Skinner demanding to be banned "right f-ing now". This goes into effect now, and remains in effect for as long as I'm at DU.

Why?
I strongly believe that if we can't be honest with one another, no matter how much we might disagree, then this site has a fatal flaw. There must be some objective standard of truth upon which we can all agree. Also, I hate liars more than I could possibly describe in words. DUers should be able to feel confidence that the facts presented in these pages are true, and that members are honest in their dealings and in their statements. If we can't do that, we're no better than the other guys.

In Scope:
If I tell DU that Hillary Clinton skins puppies alive in her Chappaqua dungeon, I'll need to provide documentary evidence of that. If I cannot, I'm a liar, and I need to be banned from this site in order to remove the poison I'm infecting it with.

If I tell DU that Hillary Clinton skins puppies alive, and I link to an article that doesn't back my claim, and you call me on it, and I claim that the article must have been changed, it's incumbent on me to find the older version of the article that backs my claim. If I cannot do that, I'm a worthless liar making up highly unlikely scenarios in an attempt to evade, and I need to be banned from this site so that I don't make it suck.

If I tell DU that Bernie Sanders drowns kittens, and you point out to me that the linked article in no way supports my claim, and I counter by telling you that this isn't the main point of the article and I go on to attack you on some other point, I'm being an evasive liar, and I should be thrown clear of this site.

If I tell DU that Bernie Sanders drowns kittens, and you point out to me that the linked article doesn't support my claim, and I respond by telling you you're acting like a stalker, then I'm a lying asshole trying to insinuate dark things about you in order to draw attention away from my own lies, then I should be thrown the hell out of DU for multiple reasons.

Out of Scope:
Opinions are out of scope. If I tell you I think Glenn Greenwald is a shithead, that's my opinion, it's not a truth or a lie.
If you post an article and I tell you what I believe the author of that article meant, that's subjective editorializing on my part--an opinion, not a truth or a lie.

If I tell you I own a red Ferrari, I'd be lying, but since none of you know me, there's no objective standard for truth, and so there's no proof of a lie. To be clear, this would be despicable, but there does need to be some standard of proof. For the record, silver Prius.

If I tell you that Famous Q Johnson was born on July 3, 1858, and you have an article showing he was born on July 2nd, that may just be a mistake on my part, or on the part of one website or another. This one's all about acting in good faith. If I'm acting in good faith and I can show that, it's not a lie and it doesn't qualify.

If I'm snarky or uncivil to you, shame on me. But I'm not lying. Out of scope.

Is it all about me me me?
I hope not. I would hope others, from all left-of-the-aisle walks of life, would join me in this. That's almost certainly not going to happen, but imagine if it did: 'Oh, hello Sally, I see you're posting with the DU Unofficial Badge of Honesty. We may disagree on everything, but at least I know you're acting within some self-imposed standards of honesty'. OK, it's not exactly bumper sticker material, but it would be refreshing, and it would set us apart from other, less savory sites.

Omitting lies from posts wouldn't fix every problem that exists, but it would be a hell of a start. And I'm not George Washington either. I've told lies, and I'm not proud of them. But to the very best of my recollection, I've never tried to sell DU on something I knew not to be true. I've been mean-spirited, I've been snarky, and I've even oversold my opinion on this matter or that. But I haven't told a deliberate lie here. So I'd like to subject myself to this suspended "DU death sentence" starting now, and ANY DUer can call me on this at any time.

thank you

[Buzz Clik]

1. "Is it all about me me me? I hope not."

There's lie #1.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. I talked about objective standards of truth. This certainly does not qualify. It's your opinion.

Edited to add: I'd certainly welcome you to join me in this attempt to bring more honesty into discussions.

[jberryhill]

3. It can be difficult to tell...

...if someone is lying or genuinely mistaken or misled.

Although when they reach a certain level of adamance, the circumstances would suggest they had a heightened obligation to be correct.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. Very true, and I should add this:

If you correct me in the errors of my ways, and I end up saying, you know what, you're right and I was wrong--that was a mistake on my part, not a lie. However, if I keep insisting that I'm right in the face of something you've presented that shows I'm not right, throw me off the island, please.

[JonLP24]

9. Exactly

I personally see no reasons why anyone should disagree with this OP or this thread -- what you decide on leaving or staying is your business but the overall message I fully support. Like, post #1 is anything on logical arguments or relationship books mentions the accusing someone of a lie as improper as assumptions really cause a lot of problems -- particularly if someone on the receiving end is telling the truth (I have so many stories) obviously introducing information is and you nailed in your reply is the more recommended approach.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Kick

[TBF]

6. Here ya go -

Skinner has already given us a guide on what to post in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978

No clue as to why all these other net nanny posts are coming up telling us all what to post.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. Thanks. I'm actually imposing something more restrictive on myself.

And since "myself" was the object of the preposition, I'm failing to understand what you mean about net nanny posts that tell you what to post. My post is self-referential.

[JonLP24]

8. I agree with everything

Truth is my bond -- my favorite thing about it is it never changes. Lies are the polar opposite of that to me and on a smaller scale I feel lies just complicate situations that are better solved with truth, I have seen bizarre relationships that just inevitable lead to chaos when want they want can be achieved with honesty when they lose it all anyway but you see this on larger scales like so much in sales is based on manipulation & lies. Like you wouldn't know the simple word 'OK' is actually quite complex (you can steamroll someone into a sale with ending the sentence with OK but not in the "is that OK?" but "we'll set you up with an installation OK&quot but all those are other issues but on politics the policies that are promoted wouldn't bother me if they were more straight-forward as to why (then the Republican party would disappear) or what it does but instead we get the BS spin to justify a policy -- it really disturbs me on Yemen but thankfully just a few I've seen pushing the propaganda but more commonly is the pretending of something as not really as what it is & pretzel logic defense. In Scope and Out of Scope I get you.