# Does "Deliberately Distorted" = "Lied"

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-deliberately-distorted-lied/722598>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [June 15, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-deliberately-distorted-lied/722598 "2015-06-15T19:18:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 49

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\
**Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-deliberately-distorted-lied/722598/49 "2015-06-16T17:23:10Z")

</div>

> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> I have to agree. In modern American English, disingenuous is a fancy lie. The suggestion is that the statement is more nuanced than simply saying black is white - although that often happens here. It is still knowingly saying something that is opposite of the truth with the intention that the listener believe the statement.
> 
> It’s possible that the English usage is different from and milder than the American usage:
> 
> That’s merely an interesting possibility, though. It doesn’t change our problem.

Well… Saying somebody is lying is prohibited by the rules of the House of Representatives I think. So the word disingenuous gets thrown around a lot. It’s a fig leaf. As time as gone on, it’s been interpreted as a thin fig leaf.

## I would argue that the term has some plausible deniability to it.

Usage “experiment”:  
Here’s a sample post from 2013:  
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16467730&postcount=1](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16467730&postcount=1)

> [@In what way is Edward Snowden a "human rights defender"?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-what-way-is-edward-snowden-a-human-rights-defender/663370/1):
>
> At the outset, let me state that this post is not about whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor, or whether what he did was right or wrong. I am only questioning his new status as a human rights defender.
> 
> Which human rights is he defending? What human rights have been violated?
> 
> Is ‘privacy’ a human right? If so…
> 
> It is **disingenuous** to call Snowden a human rights defender and it is equally contrived to call confidentiality of telephone metadata a human right. Snowden may be a hero, or he may be a traitor, or maybe even nothing but a glory-seeking martyr. But he is no defender of human rights.

Emphasis added. He is criticizing those claiming that Snowden is a human rights defender: he is saying that they are bullshitting or blowing smoke. They are not lying exactly, because this is a matter of definition and privacy _plausibly_ falls in the human rights category. They are engaging in rhetoric and need to be called out as… disingenuous. Karl could have called his opponents liars because it was the OP and he was attacking somebody off this message board. But it would have looked weird.

So yeah, there’s a distinction here and distinctions matter.

(I don’t agree with Karl as it happens, but I’m discussing usage here, not substance.)

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-deliberately-distorted-lied/722598)._