When you encounter stonewalling, do you think the party is guilty or complicit?

1. 79

   Express10posted 12 years ago

   When you encounter stonewalling, do you think the party is guilty or complicit?

   replyreport
2. 82

   Marcy Goodfleischposted 12 years ago

   It depends on the situation - people can stonewall even when there's not a 'guilty or not' issue at hand.  I think of passive aggressiveness when the silent treatment comes up.  Silence (or stonewalling) is a form of power-assertion, and can even be abusive.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Express10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very good point about passive aggressive types.

      replyreport
3. 61

   swordsbaneposted 12 years ago

   I don't understand the question.  Stonewalling means not answering a question or not providing information by means of evasion or refusal.  If they are stonewalling me, they are guilty by definition.  If I need an answer to my question and someone is refusing to answer or evading my question, my opinion doesn't enter into it.  This person IS guilty of stonewalling me.  Even if he's doing it for a really good reason, that doesn't change the definition.
   
   Since I don't know what other party may be involved, I'm not sure what you mean by "guilty or complicit"  If I'm trying to get information about a crime and someone is stonewalling me, I'd have to get the information to even guess if the guy stonewalling me was guilty or complicit of whatever crime took place.  If he was stonewalling me and there was no reason for him to be doing that, then I would suspect he at least knew about the crime, but not necessarily had any part in it.  The most I could guess was that he had a vested interest in me not knowing what I was looking for.  That's not the same thing as being guilty or complicit.
   
   In short, just by the way you asked the question, I have WAY too little information to answer it.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Express10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If someone's being evasive when you ask for specifics or trying to avoid discussing something you have reason to believe they know about, would you feel they are doing so because they are guilty themselves or helping others?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      swordsbaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It would all depend on what it was I wanted to know about, how trustworthy I thought the person I was asking was, and what I thought of the "others" involved.  Too many variables to answer.  You might well have asked me "How suspicious are you?"

      replyreport
4. 48

   Ericdierkerposted 12 years ago

   No a Stonewalling is an attempt at denial of the revelation of a truth. The truth may or may not relate to your query. Discernment is called for.
   guilt or complicity probably is irrelevant. If something bad happened it probably happened among bad people. Call that the criminal milieu and get the hell over it.
   So the only relevance to stonewalling is if hit bothers your own inquiry to the truth.
   
   Life among the wrong folks is tedious with machinations and agendas. A good stonewalling only gives you the push back to where you should be pushing. Do not gauge it or elevate it further than part of the game.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Express10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Stonewalling tends to make me think badly of those doing it. The answers do show that there are other possibilities, though I will likely continue thinking it's where I should push more. I think you shouldn't elevate those who attempt to deny truth.

      replyreport
5. 69

   Missing Linkposted 12 years ago

   it can represent all the typical-classical stuff you think of, however it may not at all represent the classical assumptions
   
   for example, someone may just not want to get involved...for a variety of reasons---like not wanting to deal with the hassle, fear, etc. 
   
   I use to work in a government agency and occasionally things were on a need to know basis so if you were asking questions but you were not in the loop per the need to know, you could be stonewalled
   
   a mentally ill person can appear to be stonewalling when really it is a mental illness that is contributing...same with someone who has had a head injury or any other numerous medical conditions,

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Express10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      These are extremely good observations. I had not thought about the possibility of someone not wanting to get involved or medical issues.

      replyreport
6. 67

   marwan asmarposted 12 years ago

   I think it is both. But sometimes stonewalling is made because of waiting for a definitive answer from a third party

   replyreport
7. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 12 years ago

   My observation is  stonewalling is the fashionable thing to do these days.  If you have an opinion and you don't agree with those around you cannot be accused of being disagreeable, biggoted, intollerant, or ignorant on the subject if you stonewall.  It is the only decent thing to do.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Express10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very, very true. Your take is spot on in a variety of situations for those who can't handle differing opinions.

      replyreport