Being Incorrect does not make someone a Liar

[Princess Rose]

I've been seeing this trend in the forums and it really bothers me, so I thought I would make a thread about it.

I see someone post something - usually something controversial. They provide some evidence to support their point, but perhaps the evidence is shaky or misunderstood.

And then come the replies. And, of those that disagree, at least one claims that the OP is lying.

Do people not understand what lying means? Or do they believe so deeply in their own POV that they simply cannot comprehend that someone might have a different opinion, so therefore they must be lying?

A variation of this is when someone quotes something and then interprets it in a way that the other person disagrees with. Misquoting (or not understanding the quote) doesn't make you a liar either. It might make one stupid, but not a liar. (equally possible is that the quote was used correctly by the OP and the replier is the one failing to understand it)

Seriously, does anyone have insight into this? What the hell is wrong with these people? Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. Having a different opinion doesn't make you a liar either. And two people interpreting the same piece of writing in two different ways - there are entire schools of thought devoted to differing interpretations of the same data.

tl;dr: Why do people call other people liars when they are expressing a different opinion - as if different opinions aren't possible.

 

[Technocrat]

There's a significant gulf between "a different opinion" and "flat-out wrong". An admission of their mistake, with further research in future would stop them being perceived as liars.

 

[Blunderboy]

Possibly some people scan the longer posts and miss the point. Sometimes it can be hard to guess the inflections of a post, compared to someone speaking.
Some people are probably just being dramatic/assholes.

 

[Bacaruda]

Strange, I don't see this that often. Don't know how to discuss this matter though. It's a statement?



YOU LIAR!

 

[Strain42]

While I do mostly agree with you, the concept of "lying" is a pretty gray area that a lot of people misconstrue and are unsure about.

For example. To some people lying is the simple act of saying something that isn't true. If you say you were at Bill's House, watching some TV when you were really at a strip club, that's a lie.

But to some people, withholding information is the same as (and in some cases worse) than lying. Like if you say you were at Bill's House, watching some TV...even if that's true, apparently if the TV in question was some hot porno, if it got out, you're now a liar because you didn't say that in the first place.

I do agree though, just because someone says something that turns out to be wrong, a simple correction is what's in order, not loud yelling that someone is a liar.

 

[Gigano]

Well, you can't really know whether someone was acting in good faith, so for all you know they could be liars.

And I don't see a lack of linguistic clarity in this area as being particularly problematic; both terms really come down to that you believe them to be incorrect, and you don't like them for holding the position that they do (due to it often being controversial as stated). Whether you go by "incorrect" and "unsympathetic", or the technically inaccurate term "liar" that convey something to that effect, ultimately matters little.

 

[Indeterminacy]

And I don't see a lack of linguistic clarity in this area as being particularly problematic; both terms really come down to that you believe them to be incorrect, and you don't like them for holding the position that they do (due to it often being controversial as stated). Whether you go by "incorrect" and "unsympathetic", or the technically inaccurate term "liar" that convey something to that effect, ultimately matters little.

Well, being untrue and being misleading are definitely two different kinds of property one might attribute to a sentence. One says that "what you have said is inaccurate" while the other says "what you have said is manipulative". I would say that a failure to distinguish between the two indicates that one views the debate as performative rather than investigative, and this is disingenuous when it comes to actually resolving the matter at hand.

 

[Gigano]

...
Well, being untrue and being misleading are definitely two different kinds of property one might attribute to a sentence. One says that "what you have said is inaccurate" while the other says "what you have said is manipulative". I would say that a failure to distinguish between the two indicates that one views the debate as performative rather than investigative, and this is disingenuous when it comes to actually resolving the matter at hand.

Well yeah, it certainly ain't the ideal debate people like Habermas would aim for, but sometimes - oftentimes - the debate is performative. Particularly when it concerns matters of a clash between fundamentally different basic principles, where most persistently controversial subjects tend to belong.

The nature of an internet forum debate is not necessarily to convince a firm opponent - an exceedingly rare occurrence even IRL - but to present one's own arguments for consideration or rejection to a wide audience (which can then interfere if they wish). As with other public debates, it's more of a soap box than an attempt to test and possibly reevaluate one's own views. That belongs, if not always in the world of ideals, then certainly in less competitive private conversation. And the nature and objectives of the verbal games played here is generally rather different.

 

[Indeterminacy]

Well yeah, it certainly ain't the ideal debate people like Habermas would aim for, but sometimes - oftentimes - the debate is performative. Particularly when it concerns matters of a clash between fundamentally different basic principles, where most persistently controversial subjects tend to belong.

The nature of an internet forum debate is not necessarily to convince a firm opponent - an exceedingly rare occurrence even IRL - but to present one's own arguments for consideration or rejection to a wide audience (which can then interfere if they wish). As with other public debates, it's more of a soap box than an attempt to test and possibly reevaluate one's own views. That belongs, if not always in the world of ideals, then certainly in less competitive private conversation. And the nature and objectives of the verbal games played here is generally rather different.

I'm not so sure about the suggestion that being performative in online debate of necessity extends beyond its being public. Here's my perspective: it strikes me that matters of semantic clarity are plainly important. Getting clear on terms and concepts in use facilitates quite complex distributed projects in the world we live in. Online forums are a particularly interesting place to query matters of interpretation, because they attract such a broad range of participants.

Not much in that turns on the fact that it's semantics I'm interested in - any number of political or philosophical topics can benefit from having a broad user-base to interact with and query. By contrast, the position that online debate is performance makes it seem like it's mostly irrelevant to one's own intellectual development simply because you're in a particular context. I just don't see why that has to be so; having a study session with your classmates in a local cafe doesn't need to be about exposing your work to the baristas.

I'll happily grant that often an instance of an online interaction occurs that is essentially performative. I got warned the other day for playing on words at someone's expense (worth the warning), which was nothing but destructive to the discussion that they were originally trying to have. But not all discussion needs to be; sometimes you can learn new things on these kinds of fora. Part of the reason for insisting on the distinction between Lie and Untruth is to ensure that such constructive discussion can still take place.