Exposing Lies, Liars, and other Distinctions

[opinterph]

On-Topic: Exposing Lies, Liars, and other Distinctions

A Discussion of Equitable Guidelines​

Fellow CE&P posters:

I have observed a recent trend in which members have posted remarks accusing other members of promulgating lies and otherwise associating them with a variety of contemptuous defects. As everyone should already be aware, the CE&P Rules of Engagement prohibit the posting of remarks that insult or impugn the character of another JUBer or that are deliberately inflammatory, etc. The Rules of Engagement also specify that posted remarks should “express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally.”

Due to this increase in the incidence of posts that include statements such as: “You are a liar.”; “What you posted is a lie.”; “You are spreading lies again.”; “You and/or your ideas are delusional.”; et al, I am initiating this discussion as a means to explore “equitable guidelines” and in that process also share the manner in which I perceive that such remarks should be moderated.


Perhaps an appropriate definition of “liar” is someone guilty of prevarication or equivocation. Thus, for our purposes, liars might be identified as members who intentionally post statements that deviate from, or somehow pervert, the truth. On the other hand, alleging that another member is a liar, without substantiating a valid basis for reaching such a conclusion, assuredly constitutes a personal attack. It is also notable that the only valid basis we have to judge one another is our online activity.

Therefore, and in consideration of the fact that any reasonable basis to allege that another member is a liar (or part of some “sinister” agenda, etc.) is realistically limited to addressing the content of their posts, all CE&P participants are restricted to expressing reactions or conclusions about other members that relate specifically and exclusively to the posts published by those respective members.

The implication in this situation is that the only appropriate way to announce an observation of underlying falsehood or possible nefarious intent associated with another member’s character is to present [your own perception of] that member's ideas separate and apart from any reference to that member and then illustrate your conclusions in a way that is limited to a judgment of the ideas themselves. This protocol fairly enables you to share the opinion of your personal conclusion about other members’ published ideas, without directly impugning the character of any specific member(s).

Please recognize that this exploration of “the problem” does not represent a change in the rules. It is simply my effort to share a reasonable interpretation of the existing rules as they apply to a specific sequence of recent activity. Rather than simply proceeding to assume this interpretation is correct, I prefer to first entertain a discussion of alternative ideas and related concepts. I also want to discover if the explanation I’ve provided is straightforward and understandable. The topic only involves JUBer relations with fellow JUBers and does not extend to posted remarks about politicians or other public figures.

To relate the essence of my interpretation more succinctly:

• Any blanket statement about another member’s character will be treated as a direct personal insult. This particularly includes remarks of the general form “You are _____.” (e.g. “You are a liar.”, or “You are part of a ‘sinister’ agenda.”)

• Statements that indicate contempt for another member’s specific opinion, source(s), or ideas are entirely permissible; however, if such statements may be reasonably viewed as hijacking or disruptive to the flow of discussion, expanding a disagreement from one discussion to another, or baiting another member they will be subject to removal and/or sanctions. For example, rather than simply responding to another member's post by stating, “That’s a lie,” it is a good rule of thumb to provide a legitimate basis for publishing such a declaration.

Please share any thoughts you may have about this problem. Feel free to pose specific questions or examples; however, I do request that you respect this thread's designation as an “On-Topic” discussion.

 

[byro]

Opinterph, I greatly admire and appreciate your desire to civilize and tame the tone of this forum and I think you do so with utter clarity. And God knows I've come away from most discussions here feeling singed around the edges, prompting me at least once a week to want to close my account for good.

Having said that, however, if I were King of JUB I'd remove all censorship of any kind as I don't think anyone -- no Mod, however fair-minded -- can ever expunge the threads of heated nastiness because nastiness comes in all forms. When someone calls another person a liar it doesn't particularly bother me because I see it as a sign of flailing and weakness. But when a poster steamrolls over another and refuses again and again to respond to the central point another poster is making, I find that much more upsetting, even though the steamroller may not be using any ostensibly objectionable language. Some of the most offensive, aggressive, disrespectful, wild-eyed and childish posters can and do slip under the censorship radar even though their posts reek of contemptuousness and superiority. Pouncing on words like "lies" and "liars" is, with all due respect, tinkering at the edges and I don't personally see how monitoring language monitors behavior. People are what they are and will find a way to be hurtful even if limited to the use of three words.

 

[LaloGS]

Opinterph, I greatly admire and appreciate your desire to civilize and tame the tone of this forum and I think you do so with utter clarity. And God knows I've come away from most discussions here feeling singed around the edges, prompting me at least once a week to want to close my account for good.

Having said that, however, if I were King of JUB I'd remove all censorship of any kind as I don't think anyone -- no Mod, however fair-minded -- can ever expunge the threads of heated nastiness because nastiness comes in all forms. When someone calls another person a liar it doesn't particularly bother me because I see it as a sign of flailing and weakness. But when a poster steamrolls over another and refuses again and again to respond to the central point another poster is making, I find that much more upsetting, even though the steamroller may not be using any ostensibly objectionable language. Some of the most offensive, aggressive, disrespectful, wild-eyed and childish posters can and do slip under the censorship radar even though their posts reek of contemptuousness and superiority. Pouncing on words like "lies" and "liars" is, with all due respect, tinkering at the edges and I don't personally see how monitoring language monitors behavior. People are what they are and will find a way to be hurtful even if limited to the use of three words.

I couldn't have said it better Byro. Of late, it has been hard to have a civilized exchange of ideas and discussion because of a few.

 

[MystikWizard]

I have to agree with everyone else. So, someone calls someone else a "liar"? Big deal. Am I going to go cry about it? Of course, not.

But for purposes of discourse, if someone is accusing someone else of being a liar, yes they should back up their assertion with facts. Of course to some people, as we've seen demonstrated, facts don't matter.

 

[greydog]

I have to agree with everyone else. So, someone calls someone else a "liar"? Big deal. Am I going to go cry about it? Of course, not.

But for purposes of discourse, if someone is accusing someone else of being a liar, yes they should back up their assertion with facts. Of course to some people, as we've seen demonstrated, facts don't matter.

I think that you need thick skin and a pair of balls to enter this forum -- after all,
it is politics and politics is rough and nasty.
I don't believe in censorship, but I agree that if someone calls you a liar, they should
back up with facts.
I think that some of the rules for C.E.& P. are too restrictive.

 

[LaloGS]

But it is not as simple as calling some one a liar. There are posters on this forum who do nothing but attack other posters personally for their opinions. They almost never have reasons other than the poster's opinions don't agree with their own. These few, never offer sources, and a careful reading of their posts on various threads, show they lie about their affiliations politically. They act like a 5th column for the Republican POV while claiming to be Democrats.

Attack GWB, and they are right there, Johnny on the spot with a personal attack about how ignorant and stupid your POV is. They don't even like the use of red in Repuglican. While they are subtle enough to not use certain words that are red flags for Moderators, they none the less are not playing by the rules of the forum.

One mod has suggested that every time this occurs the offended poster report the poster offending. but I don't see that would stop the problem. The offensive poster only has to report a post as well even if it is not offensive. That would tie the Mods up unnecessarily.

 

[NickCole]

Unless moderators patrol every post and respond to infractions with meaninful sanction, which is the only way to fairly impose rules like this, I'm in favor of zero censorship. Otherwise all these rules do is keep honest people honest while smarmy people go on being smarmy.

 

[LaloGS]

Unless moderators patrol every post and respond to infractions with meaninful sanction, which is the only way to fairly impose rules like this, I'm in favor of zero censorship. Otherwise all these rules do is keep honest people honest while smarmy people go on being smarmy.

I agree with you Nick. I don't like censorship. I had one of these attack posters recently put me on ignore because he finally couldn't take truth anymore. But I'd never ignore him for any reason.

 

[LaloGS]

There is no way the "offensive poster" can know you reported his post until after a mod has already reviewed the offensive post.

Still, that is a form of censorship. The mods should be cognizant of these sort of underhanded attacks on a person, and deal with those attacking posters themselves. It is not just a matter of looking at hot words like liar, and stupid etc.

It is embarrassing to have a mod remove the word "stupid" as one did from a post of mine when it was a paraphrase of Bill Clinton's "It's the economy stupid." It made my post appear to be some sort of an attack on the member I was responding to, when it was not even close to an attack.

Using hot words may make it easier to spot things getting out of hand in a thread, but it is not the end all for identifying personal attacks. The few people I'm talking about, and I believe we all know who they are, never contribute much of anything to any thread they post in other than personal attacks against posters they dislike of disagree with, yet they are allowed to continue their attacks because they don't often use hot words.

I'm just asking the Mods to look at these kinds of posts a little deeper for an undercurrent of hostility toward members posting their beliefs and ideas. I'm not asking Mods to banish these people, they have a right to their opinions, but I do wish there was some control over personal attacks however subtle they are. It would go a long way to make the dialog here on CE&P more debate than angry spewing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Opinterph is attempting to be consistent with the rules as they are---calling someone a liar is a personal attack. Saying that a statement is a lie is still allowed... nothing's changed, other than you have to hope the reader of your lie-exposing post can make the obvious implication that liars tell lies.

Calling someone a liar is only a personal attack if it isn't substantiated. Telling just one lie is not sufficient to earn the appellation, twice may or may not be, but three documentable lies within memory stand as a pretty strong case that the person posting those statements is a liar. Anyone awarding that label, though, had better be ready with the documentation, and it should be solid -- no sloppy typing, slips of the literary tongue, or anything of the sort, can count: it has to be something that everyone, except perhaps some stubborn partisans, will believe.

 

[Kulindahr]

good point. there are many posters who show a strong tendency to falsify, there are others who's own posts condradict one another

Tanks.

Glancing back over my own post, it occurs to me that just saying "You're a liar" even after, say, three plain lies in a few weeks, while perhaps legitimate, might not be politic: better would be to say, "I think you're becoming a liar", or "I say he's a liar -- anyone agree?"

Recently I've called a number of people "ignorant". That also can be a personal attack, but I've always pegged it to specific information either posted in the thread, linked in the thread, or easily available online with just a little effort. As with "liar", "ignorant" is a word with objective content, however much they've become emotionally loaded. So long as we stay with the objective content, I don't see any problem using any word at all -- the trick is to avoid using them merely for the emotional load.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Tanks.

Glancing back over my own post, it occurs to me that just saying "You're a liar" even after, say, three plain lies in a few weeks, while perhaps legitimate, might not be politic: better would be to say, "I think you're becoming a liar", or "I say he's a liar -- anyone agree?"

Recently I've called a number of people "ignorant". That also can be a personal attack, but I've always pegged it to specific information either posted in the thread, linked in the thread, or easily available online with just a little effort. As with "liar", "ignorant" is a word with objective content, however much they've become emotionally loaded. So long as we stay with the objective content, I don't see any problem using any word at all -- the trick is to avoid using them merely for the emotional load.

To call another member ignorant, a liar, stupid, etc., is more than a subtle nuance.

My question is, why resort to directly questioning the honesty, integrity, alliance, or education level of another poster in this forum at all? Either directly or generally?

Why not look at the information that they've provided that supports their perspective, and then question that perspective instead?

It's the personal connotations that calls into question everything that goes on in this forum, more so than the content that's presented most of the time.

If, for example, any number of us have found information that is in fact a lie, or fabrication, or from known dubious sources, why go through the extended effort of tagging the person who made the post as being of the same credibility of the sources, and information that they provide, or provided?

This is where, I think as a Moderator, that some of us have a problem Moderating this forum, and perhaps one of the reasons why some members see an inconsistency on our part in Moderating.

Where do we step in and draw the distinction?

If we step to fast then we're "over-moderating," if we don't act fast enough then we're showing bias.

I can tell you that, in Moderating this forum, there are more than two or three of us who see what's been reported, and sometimes as little as only one of us who see something that's been posted, but that all of us take into consideration the whole post history of a member.

Though it's a violation of our RoE to carry on a debate from one thread to another, it's not difficult to see the interactions that each of you have with one another, and the sometimes adversarial tone that's taken with each other regardless of the topic.

It would be nice if each of us started fresh with one another with each new thread or post, but that's generally not the nature of things in this forum.

I just thought I'd shared that perspective with the rest of the posters in this thread. Which by the way continues to be an interesting read.

 

[Telstra]

this reminds me of the Simpsons episode about Itchy & Scratchy.

Too polite is boring.

 

[Centexfarmer]

this reminds me of the Simpsons episode about Itchy & Scratchy.

Too polite is boring.

I hear ya, but aren't some of the topics in this forum already contentious enough without making things personal?

Even if they're very cleverly disguised (as most offenders would argue, but rarely openly admit) as a nuanced personal attack?

 

[JayHawk]

The problem is that people can not resist the urge to belittle to make their point. I occurs over and over in these threads. Whether it is disguised as a point towards a group of people who you know the other poster belongs or a direct insult is irrelevant. Tempers flare and anger shows all too often. I dont think any of us are innocent. I do believe when i am not invloved (key words) then I can see how little and petty someone else looks as they belittle someone just to make their point. It makes them feel good so they do it. I do not know how you change that base desire in so many. I am glad however that the mods exist to hose down the heat every once in while. I am also glad the sight allows and encourages the diversity of opinion. Many opinion/blog/forum sites dont allow it because the members destroy anyone of an outside opinion. SO we should all be thankful.

 

[Telstra]

curious,

what happened to byro ?

 

[opinterph]

curious,

what happened to byro ?

I am wondering the same thing.

… however, I do request that you respect this thread's designation as an “On-Topic” discussion.

 

[Centexfarmer]

The problem is that people can not resist the urge to belittle to make their point. I occurs over and over in these threads. Whether it is disguised as a point towards a group of people who you know the other poster belongs or a direct insult is irrelevant. Tempers flare and anger shows all too often. I dont think any of us are innocent. I do believe when i am not invloved (key words) then I can see how little and petty someone else looks as they belittle someone just to make their point. It makes them feel good so they do it. I do not know how you change that base desire in so many. I am glad however that the mods exist to hose down the heat every once in while. I am also glad the sight allows and encourages the diversity of opinion. Many opinion/blog/forum sites dont allow it because the members destroy anyone of an outside opinion. SO we should all be thankful.

You bring up a lot of valid points.

One of the things that I think that all of us lose sight of, including those of us charged with Moderating this forum, is that the name of the forum is Current Events and Politics.

Rather than focus on the politics of any given current event, we allow ourselves to get caught up within the "interpersonal-politics" between those posting, and challenge them, each other, and eventually the Mods over the pettiness between the ensuing drama rather than the topic at hand.

For example, if I start a thread that states "Y," and back that thread up with links, opinions, ideas, analysis, and supporting of opinions backing up my statement of "Y," and someone comes and along and states, "Of course you would state "Y," because you, your links, opinions, ideas, analysis, and that support "Y" are BS.

Even if the poster presents links, opinions, ideas, analysis, and which supports "Z," an "inter-personal" dynamic has just been set, and from that moment forward nothing that either of those two members post will equal anything except disagreement, or an opposing view regardless of how close either of the two are to the correct view, or to each other's personal opinion on the topic.

That's what I'd like to see change around here.

Now the next question would be, how to do that?

 

[JayHawk]

Well I think that is going to take therapy provided by JUB toi each member.

I know I know that is short and snappy but I really have no solution. Some of the 800 pound heads need to type in a solution.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well I think that is going to take therapy provided by JUB toi each member.

I know I know that is short and snappy but I really have no solution. Some of the 800 pound heads need to type in a solution.

I thought that the human head only weighs 8lbs.

I guess I was referring more to elevating the level of conversation and debate around here.

Let me try again, if someone presents a topic for discussion, and provides links to support their perspective on things, and if someone wants to debate that perspective, who's the liar? The person presenting the links, or the person presenting the perspective? If you were charged with enforcing the RoE and the CoC here, how would you deal with someone who's known for calling other members liars, but providing no links or support to back up their own claims?

Who becomes the liar then?