They could be deluded, they could be mislead-Is there a reason why “lie” would have to be the default here?
Doesn’t matter if they are deluded or misled, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a lie. Or do you go by the Costanza rule: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
#notalldemocrats
If person A tells a lie, and person B believes it and repeats it, then what person repeats is wrong. Now, if what you say is “Whoever told you that is a liar” I would have no problem with that because there would be no question as to who the initial liar is.
It’s mostly just the rich ones. They have the money to corner the market on baby blood. The rest of us have to make do with rare hamburgers.
So you do think “if you believe it it’s not a lie”? I never thought I would see a real live person agree with George Costanza. It’s a famous line because it was so ridiculous.
Your off-base ridicule aside, it is possible to be wrong and not be a liar, your repeated attempts to find a loophole notwithstanding.
Part of the definition of “lie” is intent. Literally just look it up in the dictionary, any of them. Telling a mistruth without knowing that you’re telling a mistruth is not lying. It’s not a matter of “what we think”, that is the actual definition in the English language. If you don’t think that, you are objectively mistaken.
ETA: Here’s one from Merriam-Webster:
to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
What is it you think the intent is when people say Demoncrats are baby killing blood drinking pedophiles? Or that the insurrection was actually a guided tour? Or that Trump won the election? Do you think they really believe it?
Some do, some don’t.
Of course it does. A lie is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
The whole joke about the Costanza rule is that it is technically accurate. If you genuinely believe something to be true, you are not lying when you say it. George, however, is advocating that Jerry somehow convince himself that what he is saying is true, even though he knows it isn’t.
This is, of course, not actually possible. Hence why the advice is useless.
If doubt you believe otherwise. Would you say that your mother was lying if she told you that she, say, lost her keys in the bathroom, when you later find them on your porch? Of course not. Your mother genuinely believed she lost them in the bathroom.
She said something that was false, but did not lie.
No, George knew it was a lie when he said it. The joke was that even tho he knew it was a lie, he was choosing to believe the lie.
Right, she genuinely believed that, so no lie. George knew it was a lie and chose to act like it was the truth. Hence, he lied.
And I think that’s enough of a hijack about this for this thread.
Point being, unless you know that they know it’s not the truth, you don’t know if they are lying.
And even if you very strongly suspect that they know very well that what they say is false, it is still not appropriate to call them out on it outside of the pit.
Trolling is basically a way of lying. You are saying things you don’t mean and acting in a non-genuine way just to get people to react. You are acting out a role, playing a part. And you can’t accuse someone of trolling unless it’s done in the Pit (or in a report) for the same reason you can’t accuse someone of lying.
Not necessarily:
RIP, Colibri.
Fair enough. Trolls are usually posting insincerely but you can definitely post things that you mean knowing it will upset people. Like going into a thread about a game you dislike and thread-shitting by ranting about how bad the game is and only idiots would like it. You might really believe that it’s true but you also know it’ll piss everyone off and you intend that to happen.
I agree with you. As I posted upthread, there’s a spectrum of superficial form of words that ranges between:
The form of words that superficially address the post is preferable, sure. But I don’t think drawing a bright line in this roughly synonymous spectrum should be the main focus. I think what’s far more important is whether such a criticism follows up and adds substance to the debate by citing posts and actually addressing the substantive issues that the allegedly stupid poster has raised.
On a related note, I think a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that the ad hominem fallacy is also about the superficial form of words, about whether a criticism is literally directed at the person. That’s not correct. It’s not fallacious to point out some relevant aspect of a person’s character. Pointing out that a CFO candidate is a convicted tax cheat is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, because that’s clearly relevant to the job. An ad hominem would be (for example) claiming that a physicist’s theory of quantum gravity is without merit because he once had an inappropriate affair with a student.
Just being literally directed “at the person” is not sufficient to place a criticism in the category of the ad hominem fallacy. It must be an irrelevant personal attack.
I’m pretty sure all of the above would generate a mod note or warning. What I think you’re leaving out is:
Your post (singular) is stupid.
I don’t consider this an insult in any way and while the mods sometimes seem to steer us towards being more polite, I don’t recall seeing such a statement result in a warning in a forum such as GD.
Nor do I. Moderation policy does seem to focus entirely on the superficial form of words - and I don’t agree with it.
I don’t think the minor semantic difference between “that’s a stupid post” and “you are stupid” is what should really matter. Either of these things should be unacceptable if that’s all you say. I think what’s far more important is whether someone follows up and adds to the debate with a substantial post that addresses and discusses the issues that the allegedly stupid post/poster has raised, and explains why they are thought stupid.
I’ve made plenty of stupid posts. I’m not stupid.
Sure, they should ideally justify why they think a post of mine is stupid, but it’s not an insult even if they don’t.