# Can we say that posters are using "alternate facts"? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 26, 2017, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217 "2017-01-26T12:41:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/1 "2017-01-26T12:41:54Z")
I know that calling them “liars” is not allowed, but “alternate facts” has been put forth by White House officials as something real to be relied on. Are “alternate facts” the same thing as lies, or are they something else? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/2 "2017-01-26T13:34:12Z")
That’s an excellent question. I’d be interested in the answer myself. Personally I don’t think that accusing someone of using alternative facts (that’s so Orwellian) is equivalent to calling them a liar. It’s simply pointing out that they have lost touch with reality. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/3 "2017-01-26T13:35:57Z")
Only if we can also use the word “contiguous” to mean “continuous”, according to the same newspeak. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/4 "2017-01-26T16:31:49Z")
Well, it is accusing them of being as dumb as Kellyanne is when she lies. ETA, I seriously doubt the mods will open a workaround to the “liar” rule. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/5 "2017-01-26T16:34:25Z")
I’ve already done it. Oops. Actually, I don’t see anything wrong with it. To me, it’s just like saying: That is factually incorrect. And I’m pretty confident the ruling is going to be “depends on the context”. _You’re just full of alternative facts, aren’t you?_… Probably not good. _That is an alternative fact._… What’s wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/6 "2017-01-26T16:46:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’ve already done it. Oops. > > Actually, I don’t see anything wrong with it. To me, it’s just like saying: That is factually incorrect. And I’m pretty confident the ruling is going to be “depends on the context”. > > _You’re just full of alternative facts, aren’t you?_… Probably not good. > > _That is an alternative fact._… What’s wrong with that? Would “that’s a lie” work? Alternative fact is something that is made up. _When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer “utter[ed] a provable falsehood”, Conway said “Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and […] our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that.”_ wiki article on alternative facts. Alternative facts = lies and untruths. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/7 "2017-01-26T17:01:08Z")
You could always respond by saying “False.” I realize there is profound emotional satisfaction to be had in calling someone a liar, even though the Board Powers frown on it outside the Pit. Perhaps a workaround would be to invent alternative language, like calling someone an “information outlier”, or maybe just a “wiar”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/8 "2017-01-26T17:03:47Z")
Falsehood. Not lie. It’s right there in your quote. Even “provable falsehood” isn’t necessarily a lie. It’s something put out as a fact that can be disproven. Happens all the time on this MB. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/9 "2017-01-26T17:19:50Z")
Now, son, just because the President does something, doesn’t make it okay. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/10 "2017-01-26T17:22:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Falsehood. Not lie. It’s right there in your quote. Even “provable falsehood” isn’t necessarily a lie. It’s something put out as a fact that can be disproven. Happens all the time on this MB. Fact is, he was told to lie and he did lie. Alternative facts was used as a polite way to avoid saying the dumb fuck was a liar. (Trump, not Spicer) Alternative facts = lies, bullshit, falsehoods etc. Accusing someone of that is so close to calling them a liar that any meaningful distinction is loss. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/11 "2017-01-26T17:22:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Falsehood. Not lie. It’s right there in your quote. Even “provable falsehood” isn’t necessarily a lie. It’s something put out as a fact that can be disproven. Happens all the time on this MB. Isn’t a lie also something that is put out as a fact that can be disproven? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/12 "2017-01-26T17:35:39Z")
Well, let’s look at the real facts; 1. The term “alternative fact” is basically new to common English, having been invented in its current incarnacion by KellyAnne Conway just five days prior to me writing this post. 2. Because it’s a very new term, the implied meaning of “alternative fact” isn’t really set in stone yet. (Indeed, Conway’s usage did not mean what everyone else is using it to mean.) It means “something that isn’t really true at all” for sure, but whether the use of the term implies the purveyor of the alternative fact is a liar or not really is not well established. So it kind of depends on how you mean the term. Calling someone a liar is impermissible outside the Pit. It doesn’t matter in theory if you encode the word with other words. If you are clearly calling someone a liar using the term “alternative fact” that’s not in the spirit of the rules and it should be a basis for an order to stop or a warning. However, the term could also be used to suggest someone has made an error, or is oblivious to the facts. So it depends on context. SMITH: It’s a travesty Leonardo DiCAprio has never won an Oscar! BROWN: Uh, that’s kind of an alternative fact, bud - he won it just last year, for “The Revenant.” That’s not calling someone a liar; it’s a bit of a sarcastic way to tell Smith he’s wrong, I guess. Or if I say my Uncle John, who’s into every form of pseudoscientific woo under the sun, “spews a lot of alternative facts.” I am not saying he is a liar. I’m saying he’s ignorant, because he is. He’s not a liar, he’s just really stupid. In time, the “alternative fact” term may clearly take on the meaning of “outright lie.” Or it might clearly take on the meaning of “anything that is not accurate, irrespective of intent.” Or it might take on the meaning of “A belief in something that is not true but is genuinely held because of an ideological interest.” Less than a week after the term was effectively coined, it’s hard to say. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/13 "2017-01-26T18:16:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Isn’t a lie also something that is put out as a fact that can be disproven? No. That could simply be a mistake. In response to the OP, I don’t think any new ground need be tread in this area. [From the sticky](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9294639&highlight=liar#post9294639) in GD: > [@](#): > > Questioning or disputing the accuracy of another poster’s statements–“I don’t think that’s right”, “That’s incorrect”, “You are mistaken”, or even “That’s not true”-- is what Great Debates is all about. However, questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement–e.g., “You are a liar”, “You are lying”, “That is a lie”, “That’s not true and you darned well know it isn’t true”–is crossing the line into attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster’s arguments, and will be considered a violation of the rules of the forum. You see above that the specific word “lie” is not a necessary element to this rule being violated. One of the ideas to focus on is intent. I construe a lie to be knowingly saying something untrue with the intent to deceive. If you assert another poster is doing that, I would construe that to be an accusation of lying. As always, context is critical. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/14 "2017-01-26T18:26:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. That could simply be a mistake. > > In response to the OP, I don’t think any new ground need be tread in this area. [From the sticky](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9294639&highlight=liar#post9294639) in GD: > You see above that the specific word “lie” is not a necessary element to this rule being violated. One of the ideas to focus on is intent. I construe a lie to be knowingly saying something untrue with the intent to deceive. If you assert another poster is doing that, I would construe that to be an accusation of lying. As always, context is critical. Thank you for the clarification. One followup-If a poster has a tendency of stating that personal opinions are facts and refuses to differentiate between the two let along back up said opinions, are calling said opinions “alternate facts” still disallowed? ---
**Author:** ![Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barkis_is_Willin)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/15 "2017-01-26T18:34:56Z")
“Alternative facts” to me, on its face, pretty clearly just means “a different set of facts.” Meaning, they’re still facts. I think that’s how Conway meant the phrase. Now, do I think what Spicer presented really was factual? Of course not. And nobody in their right mind does. I don’t know if he flat out lied or if he was just relaying bad information, but regardless, the prhase “alternative facts” technically should not mean “untrue.” ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/16 "2017-01-26T18:43:15Z")
> [@Barkis\_is\_Willin](#): > > Now, do I think what Spicer presented really was factual? Of course not. And nobody in their right mind does. I don’t know if he flat out lied or if he was just relaying bad information, but regardless, the prhase “alternative facts” technically should not mean “untrue.” Paging [George Orwell!](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/24/george-orwell-1984-sales-surge-kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts) ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/17 "2017-01-26T18:46:32Z")
I think the way the phrase is used now, because of the events of the last week, it is generally understood to mean “untrue”. I agree the mods have to look at intent, but I think language just evolved in front of our eyes with that interview. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/18 "2017-01-26T18:55:31Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Calling someone a liar is impermissible outside the Pit. Is this correct? Several other moderators have asserted and confirmed that the “liar” rule only applies in GD and Elections. Has there been a recent change in this rule? Or is there a distinction between calling someone a liar and calling there statements lies outside GD and Elections? (The OP of this thread seems to lump both together.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/19 "2017-01-26T19:21:42Z")
I was initially surprised that this story got so much oxygen. but then I know that anything that cold possibly be construed to reflect badly on Trump and Team will be highlighted and exaggerated. I was surprised because on hearing the statement originally I took her to mean that there were other, alternative data points (facts) that would support an alternative conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217/20 "2017-01-26T19:22:01Z")
Regardless, ‘alternative facts’ has a distinct meaning from ‘lie’. For example, “Witness A states he saw a man with a red top” and “Witness B said she saw a man with a blue top” are apparently alternative facts. And both can be true if the top is red one side and blue the other. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-say-that-posters-are-using-alternate-facts/778217.md?page=2)