Let’s say that in GD, Poster A claims “X”, and another poster comes along and says:
Poster B: You are mistaken. “X” is not true. You mischaracterized the situation.
Poster A: No, I am not mistaken. I characterized it exactly the way it is.
Poster B: OK, I see that your mischaracterization was not the result of a mistake. You deliberately distorted the situation.
Is there a difference between saying someone “deliberately distorted” something vs. saying they “lied about” that something?
It’s bad debating technique either way - the right response to “X is not true” would be “X is not true because of Y and Z” instead of “You mischaracterized the situation”. That moves the debate into fact-based discussion instead of he said/she said.
That point made, it seems to me that you’re effectively saying “You lied!” without using those specific words, and it’s probably worth a mod note, but then I am not moderator here, so my opinion is only of mild relevance.
I imagine this is one of those context sensitive mod calls.
That said, we sure as hell don’t need more rule book additions here.
I think there’s a difference. I can deliberately mischaracterize a situation by leaving out some facts or injecting my opinion. It doesn’t have to mean I lied.
The context, of course (sorry to give away your game, John):
Tom, IIRC, often uses phrases that imply dishonesty on the part of his debating opponents. “Disingenuous” is a word he’s fond of.
Clearly we do.
This one is difficult, because those who habitually misrepresent aid and abet ignorance. And part of this board involves accountability. This is appropriate because we evaluate the quality of the evidence based in part on the source of the information. The credibility of the witness is routinely evaluated.
So yeah, context and levels of obnoxiousness matter, both relative and absolute.
Yup. Somebody can also mischaracterize an article or another poster’s position. But there’s a murky line between slant, spin and outright distortion.
ETA2: Also a murky line between ironic disingenuousness and the other kind.
Was the context I gave not adequate? I though it narrowed things down pretty well.
Remember, Poster B originally allowed that the Poster A made a mistake. Poster A says it was no mistake. So, now it’s not a mistake. It’s a deliberate act.
It’s a serious problem. People very often post things that they must certainly know aren’t true. That makes any serious debate impossible. My assumption normally is that in many of those cases they don’t want serious debate. They want to hurl abuse for their ideological or religious or chauvinistic or whatever viewpoint.
Saying they therefore should be pitted is the wrong answer. That does nothing to salvage the original thread. Some way needs to be devised to expose to any innocents reading the thread the, um, disingenuousness of the posts.
Is this subject to possible abuse? Of course. Would it be a lesser evil than the current situation? At this point, I don’t understand how it could be worse.
I don’t understand this. If Poster A genuinely believes in what they’re saying, then they’re not lying, even if Poster B disagrees with them.
Just because they assert they are not mistaken doesn’t mean they aren’t. Otherwise, they would have just admitted to a lie. That would be stupid, so I’d argue they are at least pretending to believe they did not make a mistake.
So I’d have Poster B say something like “Okay, if you’re not mistaken, then show me where I’m wrong.”
Here’s the the thing. “You are lying” is an automatic thread derailment, at least for some posters. “You are being disingenuous”, can be an opening for further clarification. In practice they are very different.
“You distorted that article”, is somewhere in between.
But, “Here’s what the poster said. Here is how you characterized it, without offering a direct quote. That is highly misleading”, is admittedly problematic but also wholly consistent with the mission of this message board.
So yeah, context. I did not look at the example, but I worry that John Mace is pursuing a foolish consistency. Sound discourse requires lots of things and while politeness is very often helpful it probably doesn’t make the top of the list.
Also: recall that the prohibition on the direct accusation of lying took a while. I think it’s a good rule. But Gaudere once argued that is was a claim that could plausibly be evaluated within the context of Great Debates. The problem is that it’s an accusation that some take pretty seriously (while others, as I understand it, shrug it off).
Are there those who consider an accusation of disingenuousness to be an attack on their character? Per se? Because I have used disingenuousness for ironic effect. Don’t get me wrong: all terms can be used jerkishly. That’s why we have the prime directive plus guidelines that some seem to think should be made into rules. But rules can be gamed. I suspect for a few posters on this message board (not the OP) that’s the idea.
[George Costanza]Remember Jerry: it’s not a lie if you believe it.[/GC]
I consider accusations of disingenuousness to be equivalent to a personal insult. The mods don’t take this view so ymmv. It could even be a microagression. People who use that term should check their privilege.
2 of those sentences were serious.
I won’t go so far as to call it a microaggression, but I do consider it to be an attack on character. I do my best to post honestly on this board (although I sometimes joke, I trust that readers know when I joke–that sometimes gets me in trouble). Calling a post “disingenuous” is the same as saying, “you’re the sort of person who deliberately posts things that you don’t fully believe.” It’s a character attack. I’d love to see less of it in GD. Calling a post a deliberate distortion is the same sort of thing.
Awhile ago I read something saying that people vastly underestimate the sincerity of their political opponents. Their own positions are so self-evidently correct to them that they believe anyone who contradicts them must be lying about it. I see a shit-ton of that on this board.
OP, this particular interchange isn’t very helpful, IMHO. Poster A may genuinely believe their mischaracterization. Poster B moving it to “distortion” or a “lie” isn’t really helping the debate either way.
Assuming Poster B wants a way forward in the discussion, Poster B should ideally flesh out their post with “it’s a mischaracterization because reason, reason and here’s another reason. What is your response?”
Poster A can then respond to actual reasons (or Cites!) rather than “You’re wrong!” or “You’re wrong and you’re doing it ON PURPOSE!”
To respond to the original question, I don’t myself see the difference between a deliberate distortion and a lie. But I don’t think the level of discourse as represented here was really attempting to continue debate.
Of course it’s the same thing. But do you expect there to be a remedy?
The result is very similar to people trolling. There may be good reasons for not being able to call someone a troll. What actually happens is that trolls disrupt thread after thread because no one is allowed to properly characterize their actions even indirectly.
There is an overlap between trolls and liars, of course. The difference is that obvious trolls are eventually removed (after painfully long lag times) and the deliberate distorters for some reason are untouchable because mods are too uncomfortable to say out loud that they are in fact lying for fear of being accused of taking ideological sides.
Is there a remedy? Yes, the mods can move the troll boundary over to encompass serial liars. Give multiple warnings and establish that certain types of arguments are in effect trolling arguments. No hard and fast lines are required; just a tweaking of what is a perpetually fuzzy boundary that already exists and is acknowledged as fairly punishable.
I don’t understand you at all. The OP asked whether using synonyms for lying is the same as an accusation of lying, which is against the rules. I responded that of course it’s the same thing.
Your response, from what I can tell, deals with the problems caused by liars and their lies. That is not what this thread is about.