Just wondering if calling someone disingenuous in GD is kosher or verboten. It seems similar to calling them lying, but it’s really a different accusation, I think. To me, it’s more like saying that they are not debating in good faith, and using examples or reasoning they have to know to be faulty (although that sounds like trolling).
I don’t have any examples – I was recently stunned by what seemed like an obviously disingenuous argument in GD and was about to say so, but pulled back.
It’s always possible that the debater really believes what they are saying, even though it seem ridiculous on its face, I suppose. Would saying, “that seems really disingenuous” cross a line?
There’s probably already dozens of threads asking this question, so feel free to just refer me there and shut this one down if it’s too redundant.
I’m pretty sure I’ve read Tomndebb making this accusation on more than one occasion (yep, cite and cite, for two examples among many).
On the one hand, I think it’s not always a great word to pull out: it’s way too easy to assume someone is being disingenuous when they dare to disagree with one’s own brilliantly incisive analysis, because how could an honest person possibly not realize the obvious correctness of one’s posts?
On the other hand, there are some real disingenuous assholes out there.
Well, that saves me the trouble of digging that out.
Disingenuous argumentation is a difficult thing to moderate. How does one tell when a debate opponent is arguing in bad faith. That would almost become trollery in form.
Still, I won’t say I haven’t, once in a great while, come in and said, ‘knock it off’ to those posters who are doing so. It can happen when an argument is refuted but a poster keeps returning to it. I seem to recall doing so in a SSM thread where a poster kept returning to the ‘marry my dishwasher’ argument without acknowledging that it had been refuted. I’d prefer not to do so, but sometimes there it is.
As for making an accusation of disingenuousness? I’d say it’s not best practices as it could easily be considered an accusation of lying and could lead to the accuser getting in trouble.
Best to report when you think someone is doing so. Let us try to work it out.
Thanks, Mr. Chance! I appreciate the clarification. It can be quite frustrating when you’re thinking “this person can’t possibly be this dumb,” but you can’t really accuse them of being disingenuous even though that seems like the only possible explanation (given they can operate a computer :)).
Doesn’t seem like something that can be moderated, unless it’s really blatant. Well, that’s why we have the Pit.
RS
Posting on and off for 16 years without a warning
I wasn’t privy to all the discussions that led to the prohibition against calling someone a liar, but it makes sense to me because it’s an insult; it impugns someone’s character and goes beyond the language needed to conduct debate. But what I think is problematic and counterproductive to debate are interpretations of any comment that might even remotely be construed as implying lack of total forthrightness as being equivalent to flat-out calling someone a liar. I can understand the mods’ sensitivity to that because some posters are adept at using such methods to circumvent the rules, but it can also be very unfair.
IMHO, “disingenuous” is in that category. As always, context is important, but it often just means that someone has cleverly worded a comment or a question in a way that is favorably biased to his side of the argument. IMHO it is so far removed from the insulting connotation that someone is, by nature and character, a liar, that you need a powerful telescope to see any similarity at all. There are lots of other expressions that could also be unfairly equated with the “lying” accusation, but in most cases only if one applies quite the creative stretch. In my view such stretched interpretations stifle the vocabulary of debate. I just noticed, in fact, in looking up “disingenuous” in the Cambridge Dictionary, that while the rules of parliamentary debate prohibit accusations of lying against another MP, Hansard is full of parliamentary quotes using “disingenuous”. If it’s good enough for the British Parliament …
“slightly dishonest; not speaking the complete truth” - Cambridge dictionary.
No telescope needed. It’s almost like you intentionally “forgot” to acknowledge things you were obviously aware of so as to keep your point intact. I wonder if there’s a word for that?
I should report that … for accusing me of being a liar!
But see, this is just my point. Even that definition, which is one of the stronger ones – Merriam-Webster defines the word as “lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness” – is to my mind a world away from an obvious insult like calling someone a “liar”, which is a character attack not much different from “you are a congenital liar and so is your mother” – and which does nothing to advance debate. The fact is that in debates, people DO in fact advance positions in ways that are not fair and balanced. In my view such tactics DO deserve to be called out for what they are, but I would regard them as being attacks on the argument and not on the person’s character.
Some might argue that these distinctions are somewhat academic, but the interest that I’m advocating for here is an environment for vibrant debate. If we can condone inane “witnessing” threads but not allow even the mildest suggestion that someone’s argument is less than completely candid because it somehow constitutes “an accusation of lying”, then our priorities are not consistent with the direction that I think most of us would like to see the board evolve.
It’s easy to say “you are ignoring/forgetting/minimizing important facts” instead of “you are being disingenuous”. One leaves the possibility of an error on the target’s part, the latter does not. It seems to me that you want a polite way to call someone a troll.
I most strongly disagree. Someone making a disingenuous argument is – by virtue of that fact alone – neither a liar nor even remotely a troll, but just someone trying to win a debate through selective argumentation, and that fact should be called out in a forthright fashion.
I don’t think we’re such precious snowflakes that we should constantly be self-censoring the exact words and phrases we use in order to avoid offense – even a word like the above that’s perfectly acceptable in that most staid of all institutions, the British Parliament. Why should we use your suggestion of a very long string of words separated by slashes to make a delicate roundabout comment when a single common English word will do? As I said, I’d like to see GD be a place for vibrant debate where the rules we really need to be cognizant of are just common-sense rules against personal attacks and impugning someone’s character. I have no issue at all with the rule against calling someone a liar. I have an issue with stretched interpretations of distantly related words and phrases being deemed to mean exactly the same thing.
The slashes indicate a choice of words to be used in that slot. “you are [blank]ing important facts” is not a long string by any standard, least of all your own.
I agree that calling an argument “disingenuous” and accusing someone of lying are not the same thing. I have used the term before, and I do not mean that the person is stating a falsehood. I generally assume they believe every word they are saying. (And, even if I doubt that, I pretend for the sake of the argument.)
A disingenuous argument is one where the speaker is using an invalid argument or fallacy as a rhetorical device. It happens when you are more concerned with the appearance of winning than actually debating. It is a common defense mechanism.
I don’t expect the mods to be able to moderate it away, as it would be a huge undertaking and requires more than just the few mods we have for that forum. But I do think people in GD should be able to point out when this is happening.
I would suggest what I always thought was the rule: attack the argument as disingenuous, not the poster. Calling a person disingenuous is a different thing–it does imply lying or trolling. There I agree with reporting to the mods.
Fundamentally we have a trade-off between avoiding needlessly hostile flareups in GD and creating rules than inhibit clear communication. “Liar” is clearly inappropriate because its a statement about someone’s personal habits: such characterizations belong in the pit. “Lying” was once permitted in GD; I supported curbs on its use.
The problem with “Disingenuous” is that some native speakers believe it to be a simple euphemism for lying. Others native speakers perceive it as IDing an entirely human tendency to emphasize the stronger points in your argument - which is something very different and much less dishonest than making knowingly false claims. I’m in the latter category, but others are in the former.
I’ve been accused of being disingenuous here: it didn’t bother me as it was applied to remarks I made that were either ironic or flip. I was kidding on the square: the reader wasn’t intended to interpret them as courtroom testimony.
(Meta: is the last remark disingenuous? Did I really think that someone would be confusingly think that my remarks were being made in a court of law? Or was I using a metaphor?)
OTOH, I’ve also been (baselessly) accused of lying in GD when that was permitted. No worries, but that earned a direct trip to the Pit, where the accuser was encouraged to explain his (complete lack of) reasoning. The word “Liar” can instantly derail a GD thread.
tl;dr Mods should be wary when interpreting or expanding the “Do not accuse others of lying” rule, in the interests of clear communication. Posters should wary of using the term “Disingenuous”, because it can be understood in a wide variety of ways by native speakers of English.
OK, acknowledged, but those three words all carry quite different shades of meaning, and are by no means synonyms. And it’s entirely plausible that none of them might convey the meaning appropriate to the circumstances. Look, we’re all agreed that we’re not going to go around insulting each other like third-graders in a school yard. Why does that mean we have to expunge from our vocabulary anything that even remotely suggests dishonest argumentation?
The argument has never been that we should be able to accuse some poster of being disingenuous. It’s a word that should be available to characterize a poster’s specific argument, in exactly the same way as the words “wrong” and “false”.
I’ll let you do the rules lawyerin’ with the mods. If we disagree on whether “disingenuous” includes the idea of deliberate dishonesty then I guess we speak a different language.
I think there is precedent, first set by someone who is not completely left-wing, that prefixing a “not completely not” makes the level of insult acceptable for GD. I received no admonition when I wrote:
If someone is not arguing honestly, I don’t see much point in continuing with them. It’s definitely not productive in a GD context (which, despite the naysayers, can be productive; I’ve had my own mind changed there more than once). Characterizing someone’s argument as disingenuous doesn’t serve much purpose, except to indicate why the conversation is over.–and even there, I don’t know that such an indication is necessary.
