# Proposed expansion of the prohibition on "you're lying" **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 28, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304 "2011-11-28T02:07:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [November 28, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/21 "2011-11-28T17:12:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > IMO, it clarifies nothing that wouldn’t equally be clarified by addressing the untruths in the post directly without speculating on the poster’s motives. That would be true if the readership would be uniformly following along closely, keeping track of who said what etc. My experience and belief is that a large portion of the readership has a somewhat vague grasp of the nuances and specifics of these discussions and even this tends to wan over the course of extended back-and-forth debates. In this circumstance, the direct and attention-grabbing assertion of lying is far more effective and clear-cut than yet another rehash of I-said-this-and-you’re-claiming-I-said-that. Of course, saying someone else is lying is not the same as convincing everyone else that this is so. But at least it gets you on record with this position, so that the muddled reader at least knows that this is subject to significant dispute and that they should look more closely before accepting the other guy’s claims. > [@](#): > > it seems to me that the incorrect accusations of dishonesty far outweigh the correct accusations. (I could be wrong–it could be that most posters on this board are far less honest than I believe them to be–but it seems much likelier to me that most posters are just suspicious of those they disagree with). I’ve not measured dishonest claims against incidents. But dishonesty in debates is extremely common, in my experience. Very very few heated debates do not involve one or more posters strenuously attempting to frame the debate as themselves against some caricatured strawman version of their opponents’ position. ---
**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:** [November 28, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/22 "2011-11-28T17:50:10Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I agree. As I see it, the rule hands a hefty advantage to liars since they can’t be called out on what they are doing, and coerces people into implying that their opponents are stupid or crazy. People have to counter lies by pointing out the contradictions and illogic, but can’t imply the person doesn’t believe what they are saying; which inherently amounts to an accusation that the person is irrational or an idiot for believing such blatant nonsense. And then when the person complains about being called crazy no one is allowed to say that they didn’t mean it that way. > > The rule essentially forces people to lie by omission. Be careful what you wish for. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/23 "2011-11-28T18:56:04Z")
No, no, a thousand times, no. We don’t need any more nerf lining the walls of this place. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/24 "2011-11-28T20:42:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve not measured dishonest claims against incidents. But dishonesty in debates is extremely common, in my experience. Very very few heated debates do not involve one or more posters strenuously attempting to frame the debate as themselves against some caricatured strawman version of their opponents’ position. I think the key phrase is “in your experience.” What you see as a caricatured strawman version of an opponent’s position is, I believe, much likelier to be one of three things: 1. You’re misunderstanding the characterization of the position; or 2. You’re misunderstanding the position being characterized; or 3. The person characterizing the position genuinely misunderstands the position. Too often, people jump right past these possibilities to the conclusion that the person characterizing the position is doing so dishonestly/disingenuously/whatever. I think that’s troublesome. It appears that this is a wildly unpopular suggestion, which surprises me. So I’ll change it slightly. As I said initially, I think folks should show enough decorum and respect to refrain from such accusations without the mods’ involvement. If you absolutely feel you must accuse someone of dishonesty, I suggest two steps to take first: 1. Ask yourself whether there’s any other possibility, and really think on that question first. In a lot of cases, you might see that what you consider a strawman is really just an honest misunderstanding. 2. If you really can’t explain via your or their incompetence the behavior being witnessed, consider pitting the dishonest person rather than discussing their motives in a thread putatively dedicated to a different topic. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/25 "2011-11-28T20:54:38Z")
I don’t have time for that shit— I’m too busy typing! ---
**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:** [November 28, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/26 "2011-11-28T21:44:14Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I think the key phrase is “in your experience.” What you see as a caricatured strawman version of an opponent’s position is, I believe, much likelier to be one of three things OK, we disagree. > [@](#): > > As I said initially, I think folks should show enough decorum and respect to refrain from such accusations without the mods’ involvement. If you absolutely feel you must accuse someone of dishonesty, I suggest two steps to take first: > > 1. Ask yourself whether there’s any other possibility, and really think on that question first. In a lot of cases, you might see that what you consider a strawman is really just an honest misunderstanding. > 2. If you really can’t explain via your or their incompetence the behavior being witnessed, consider pitting the dishonest person rather than discussing their motives in a thread putatively dedicated to a different topic. I’m not sure what you’re saying here, as accusing people of lying is against the rules and this is a theoretical discussion. But FWIW, of your two suggestions, 1) is obvious and 2) is not practical - unless you happen to have the energy and interest for a separate discussion of someone else’s honesty (& have reason to believe the audience will follow the discussion - which will generally not be the case). ---
**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:** [November 29, 2011, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/27 "2011-11-29T07:38:52Z")
**In defense of the status quo** The only way you establish that somebody is _intentionally_ telling an untruth is by reading their mind. Ok, that’s not the only way: in a very few cases there is a trail of evidence. But in that case, _report the evidence_. Also, any accusation of lying immediately derails the thread. It’s sort of like saying that you disagree with somebody’s stance on cross-national SO2 policy, and they’re only defending it because they like fucking pigs in their backyard. Sorry, but I’m going to defend my honor (such as it is) before I return to the finer points of technological remediation. So it’s off to the pit we go. (Less comically, something like this actually occurred to me some years back when -as I characterize the incident- I was accused of lying in a gun control thread, utterly without justification. More concretely, IIRC only the accuser thought he had a case.) **Oh yeah, the OP** > [@](#): > > So I’ll change it slightly. As I said initially, I think folks should show enough decorum and respect to refrain from such accusations without the mods’ involvement. If you absolutely feel you must accuse someone of dishonesty, I suggest two steps to take first: > > 1. Ask yourself whether there’s any other possibility, and really think on that question first. In a lot of cases, you might see that what you consider a strawman is really just an honest misunderstanding. > 2. If you really can’t explain via your or their incompetence the behavior being witnessed, consider pitting the dishonest person rather than discussing their motives in a thread putatively dedicated to a different topic. What if I take a stance of only assuming malicious or deceitful intent after all other alternatives have been carefully ruled out? If I’m debating with somebody with a history of deceit and game playing-- such a stance would be disingenuous. If I’m debating somebody with no such history, but I consider it _probable_ that they are being deceitful, then such a stance is again disingenuous. Might it be appropriate for a third party to characterize my position that way? What if I start piling on the snark, or merely toss a couple of curveballs? If I see a ridiculous post, I often respond in kind. 1. When I see ludicrous vitriol in GD, I occasionally make jokes. Some of them are disingenuous: it’s part of the humor. The target is fully within his right to call me on that, and since I’m not a troll I’ll often not respond. The joke and the point has been made. Perhaps some accusations of disingenuousness are consistent with best practice. The unifying characteristic in my examples is that the target doesn’t mind the accusation at all. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/28 "2011-11-29T07:54:39Z")
So we _are_ allowed to call people liars or insincere via the word ‘disingenuous’? ---
**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:** [November 29, 2011, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/29 "2011-11-29T08:35:57Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > So we _are_ allowed to call people liars or insincere via the word ‘disingenuous’? I am not a mod. Your post appears to reflect some interest into what can be gotten away with, for some reason. Generally speaking, it is better to characterize arguments than individuals. I suspect that extensive usage of euphemisms as a stand-in for prohibited behavior would be frowned upon. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/30 "2011-11-29T08:59:51Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > No, no, a thousand times, no. We don’t need any more nerf lining the walls of this place. Precisely. Agreed. stupid damned proposition. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/31 "2011-11-29T12:37:21Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > So we _are_ allowed to call people liars or insincere via the word ‘disingenuous’? In Great Debates, one may allude to the fact that one’s opponent is insincere. If one does that in a manner that appears to be an accusation of lying, one will be Moderated. Insincerity does not equal lying. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/32 "2011-11-29T14:21:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Insincerity does not equal lying. It doesn’t? I’ve certainly always seen it essentially used as a synonym for “lying”. The only real difference is that it also applies to non-verbal dishonesty like facial expressions, an “insincere smile”. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/33 "2011-11-29T15:57:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > In this circumstance, the direct and attention-grabbing assertion of lying is far more effective and clear-cut than yet another rehash of I-said-this-and-you’re-claiming-I-said-that. > > Of course, saying someone else is lying is not the same as convincing everyone else that this is so. But at least it gets you on record with this position, so that the muddled reader at least knows that this is subject to significant dispute and that they should look more closely before accepting the other guy’s claims. The direct “You are lying” may be more attention-grabbing, but it is also easier to drop than to support. Given the way some people around here misinterpret what other people are saying (just look at Peter Morris’s thread in ATMB), there are plenty of instances where one person thinks the other person is lying, but the other person is not lying. It is a misperception on someone’s part. If you _really_ need to “get on record” about what you _think_ the other person is doing, you are still able to do so with statements “you are misrepresenting what I said” or “that is a distortion of my position” or “your facts are in error”. They are sufficiently clear to the audience that you feel the other person is not playing fairly. As far as the OP, I don’t really support the recommendations. In general, I would agree that it is less than helpful to speak to another poster’s motivations or to ascribe them with dishonesty. However, there are times those things can be germane. I certainly don’t want the rules to be fuzzier and _more_ subject to interpretation. ---
**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:** [November 29, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/34 "2011-11-29T16:04:13Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > If you _really_ need to “get on record” about what you _think_ the other person is doing, you are still able to do so with statements “you are misrepresenting what I said” or “that is a distortion of my position” or “your facts are in error”. They are sufficiently clear to the audience that you feel the other person is not playing fairly. These are pretty much the same thing, without the hotbutton word. As a practical matter, this is what people frequently do - try to skirt the rules in this manner and communicate the same message without using the word “liar”. Personally I don’t see much value in this. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/35 "2011-12-02T01:36:05Z")
I couldn’t log on for a while, but I think just abandoning a discussion is rude. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > No, no, a thousand times, no. We don’t need any more nerf lining the walls of this place. I really like that line. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Generally speaking, it is better to characterize arguments than individuals. Obviously, I agree with this. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Not to be the dude that pulls out the thesa > urus on you, but [yes, it is.](http://thesaurus.com/browse/disingenuous) > > I’m unclear what relevant difference folks are drawing between “dishonest” and “insincere” (the latter being the most common definition of “disingenuous” that I’m finding). > > In what way is it productive? Especially since, as I keep saying, people have a tendency to impute dishonesty (or insincerity, or disingenuity, or willful misunderstanding, or whatever you want to call it) to an opponent based on the opponent’s unwillingness to accept their brilliant arguments. When you call someone any of those words, you’re speculating on their motives, you’re not addressing their argument, and you’re probably speculating incorrectly. I don’t think insincere, dishonest, and disingenuous mean the same things; that’s why we have and use three different words. I do think that when people appear to be getting caught up in their own arguments, sometimes it helps the discussion along to point that out. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/36 "2011-12-02T08:04:52Z")
Setting aside the issue about whether calling someone a liar is a direct insult and whether some insults, should be allowed in GD… **Concerning Best Practices** > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It appears that this is a wildly unpopular suggestion, which surprises me. So I’ll change it slightly. As I said initially, I think folks should show enough decorum and respect to refrain from such accusations without the mods’ involvement. If you absolutely feel you must accuse someone of dishonesty, I suggest two steps to take first: > > 1. Ask yourself whether there’s any other possibility, and really think on that question first. In a lot of cases, you might see that what you consider a strawman is really just an honest misunderstanding. > 2. If you really can’t explain via your or their incompetence the behavior being witnessed, consider pitting the dishonest person rather than discussing their motives in a thread putatively dedicated to a different topic. Upon reflection, I actually like this. You might want to substitute in “dishonesty or bad faith”. My problem is that strawman arguments, disingenuousness or hidden motives are not necessarily done with an intention to deceive or muddy the waters. Error, irony and parsimony are 3 possible explanations: all can be _clarified_ to varying extents (with the possible exception of irony: some don’t like to step on their jokes). Still if you really are dealing with somebody who plays games and never comes clean (i.e. a troll as opposed to a humorist) then it is indeed a difficult situation. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2011, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/37 "2011-12-02T10:11:09Z")
> [@j666](#): > > I don’t think insincere, dishonest, and disingenuous mean the same things; that’s why we have and use three different words. I tend to think of _liar_, _dishonest_, _insincere_, _disingenuous_, as being on a spectrum from a form of _active brazen_ dishonesty, to \*passive incidental \*dishonesty. For example, one can be _disingenuous_ by not going out of his way to point out a known weakness in his own line of argument, and yet not be a _liar_. One can strike a tone that is _insincere_ while not factually being _dishonest_. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2011, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304/38 "2011-12-03T01:00:59Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I tend to think of _liar_, _dishonest_, _insincere_, _disingenuous_, as being on a spectrum from a form of _active brazen_ dishonesty, to \*passive incidental \*dishonesty. For example, one can be _disingenuous_ by not going out of his way to point out a known weakness in his own line of argument, and yet not be a _liar_. One can strike a tone that is _insincere_ while not factually being _dishonest_. Liar is definitely active. Dishonest may be active or passive. But “insincere” … hmm, is insincere dishonest? Sometimes, it’s just polite. Lot of that will be happening in the next few weeks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-expansion-of-the-prohibition-on-youre-lying/604304.md?page=1)