Meh. I think you’re putting entirely too much faith in certain partisans and their ability to believe the evidence of their own eyes over what their leaders tell them to believe.
As for finding the charitable meaning, I see the charitable reading as being something like, “We’ve already shown that that statement is a lie, whether or not you believe it’s true.”
The rules weren’t designed with any special circumstance in mind. The rules were designed such that saying “That’s a lie” to another poster is against the rules. It doesn’t matter what the circumstances are.
We can argue about whether it’s a good rule or not, but the rule is clear as can be.
Rules that don’t consider context aren’t good rules; and the mods have been crystal clear that they have wide discretion in how to enforce the rules.
Doorhinge wasn’t re-iterating a statement; he was making his own. It’s evident when taking it in context with his entire statement. If every benefit of a doubt were given when moderating, there would be far less moderating than there should be.
I see nothing that indicates that Sherrerd meant “you’ve fallen for a lie”, which doesn’t make sense since doorhinge was almost certainly basing his statement on what he saw in the video and not what someone else said happened in it.
So is “you’re either lying or you’re crazy” less objectionable?
As you have phrased this, it is still not acceptable since it is clearly an insult.
The whole prohibition against lying arose from the Teeming Millions. Many, many years ago, an accusation that a poster was a liar was tolerated. Several posters objected that that should be forbidden as an insult. In the ensuing discussion of the rule by the TM, it was decided by the participants of the discussion, that an accusation that one is a liar or an accusation that one was posting a lie should both be proscribed.
This rule was not set by the Mods.
In 99% of cases, it’s a good rule. I’m not objecting to the rule, I’m objecting to the way you chose to enforce it here. Given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Sherrerd’s statement, you should not have chosen to enforce the rule with a warning, and you should rescind the warning.
I was very careful about how I worded that to preclude any extenuating context. Saying “that is a lie” to another poster is agains the rules.
If you want to add some context to make it not against the rules, say something like “Sarah Sanders-Huchabee was lying when she said that”.
…right. Please listen. I think that is a bad idea. Precluding extenuating context is a bad idea.
I’m not misunderstanding what you’re saying. I’m hearing you, and I’m saying that context should be considered.
The context you’re claiming is “the poster was reiterating that that statement is a lie.”
You said this earlier:
This was doorhinge’s statement:
Were there reports that Trump and Sanders said Acosta hit a woman?
The first person that even used the word hit in the other thread was doorhinge.
What would the ruling be on “factually incorrect”?
Sometimes, indeed often, lies are told by lying liars (thank you, Al Franken) but then repeated by persons who, for whatever reason, themselves believe them to be true. I think we should be able to both call the lie a lie and presume honest motivation on the part of the person repeating it. Otherwise we risk becoming George Costanza: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
I think the ruling would be that getting too cute irritates the moderation staff.
That said, it’s possible to say that something is wrong without saying that the speaker is aware it’s wrong. This shouldn’t really be a difficult task.
I think this actually hits on a larger problem. Quite often, we will be debating some sentiment or statement. It is perfectly permissible to label it a lie or racist or something only idiots believe or whatever. That is, until and unless some poster in the thread endorses it. Then we enter a murky territory where talking about the idea or statement is also partly talking about the poster.
The way this is moderated now, it seems to me, is highly contextual. I also observe something of a chilling effect when this happens.
Not sure I see a good solution, but I think the larger problem does counsel for eschewing categorical rules.
Now I’m confused. I think saying something is factually incorrect does exactly what you’re suggestion in your second paragraph. I don’t see that as getting too cute at all.
Poster A: The sky is green.
Poster B: Sorry, but that is factually incorrect.
Are you saying that’s too cute and could be moderated? Poster B is just saying that poster A is wrong, not saying that A knows he’s wrong. Is it better/necessary for B to bring cites?
How do you suggest we tell a poster that he’s wrong without getting “too cute”?
I think handling it straightforwardly would do it.
I hope you’ll understand, we occasionally see people who like to see how close to lines they can get. “This is the line? Let’s see if I can step a micron further…”
Such does irritate us. At least me. And I can see an outcome where someone uses ‘factually incorrect’ with other constructions as a means of making a sideways accusation of lying and hoping to get away with it.
Also, remember, if you think someone is stating something incorrect and repeatedly doing so to disrupt debate you can always report it for review. I, at least, have been willing to intervene in GD and Elections to stop that under a trolling ruling.
How about “You’re wrong”?
I use factually incorrect all the time. For example:
The Laffer Curve means XYZ.
That’s wrong.
Vs.
There is no such thing as the Laffer Curve.
That is factually incorrect.
It’s a way of conveying more than wrongness, but that the wrongness is contradicted by objective facts that are essentially indisputable. Neither construction indicates a lie rather than a mistake, but speaks to the nature or magnitude of the wrongness.
That’s my view, anyways.
I think I’ll start using the phrase “That’s fake news.” when someone dispenses an untruthism.
I think there may already have been a negative ruling on that one.