Lies, liars, trolls: what to do about them.

tim wood

Aristotle defines a lie (from memory, citation welcome) as as a representation not in accord with understanding. If your mouth says something that your mind knows isn't so, then you lied. (And not, according to Aristotle, necessarily of itself a bad thing.) I expand that definition here to include any intentional expression not in accord with the intention of the speaker. And I regard them as all bad things (perhaps defensible in service of a greater good - but that way problems not the topic of this thread).

Some lies, then, are to avoid deserved censure and blame, others to gain undeserved rewards. A third category is the lie told not for these reasons, but to "poison the well" of communication, while at the same time reiterating relentlessly the lie or lies that poison. These latter can also include evasion, misdirection, creating confusion - and anything that furthers the covert agenda at the expense of the truth.

Nothing new, here. But if we look we may discern the outline of an historical evolution. Back far enough, and the good king was the king who won. The king who lost was a bad king. Agamemnon can stand as representative of both. That is, if the lie led to winning, then it was good - a tool for the good, and he was "good." In the Old Testament it was apparently standard practice for the losers to adopt the ways, gods, and understandings of the victors, to the point of eventual assimilation and the disappearance of their cultural identity from history. Truth, then, did not seem to have a lot to do with anything.

The Iliad and Odyssey may be taken as expressions of the end of that era. That is, both note events that in the midst of the era would not be notable. Agamemnon slaughtered his daughter to gain the wind, and generally fits the description of what we would call a "weasel." And of Odysseus and his son Telemachus, we learn what they are at Odyssey XXII, 440 - 445 and 457 - 472.

Greek literature after Homer seems to move in the direction of truth, its value and implications. With Socrates, speaking though Plato, we see at least a disdain for sophistry, and the effort to systematize truth and make it rigorous. Of course it cannot be either, and so from at least then until now, lies and truth in all their shadings and gradations have striven and strive for ascendancy.

Unfortunately liars and trolls - a kind of liar - are among us at every level. Indeed, there seems something about world-culture, not just local culture, that rewards the liar, the one who lies best. The question of this thread is what can and may be done about it and about them.

Anger seems justified and appropriate. The lie seems always against the common good, the common purpose. And the common good or purpose always seems in movement towards the true. "The truth shall set you free," is not just an idle platitude. But as truth takes its position on the battlefield, the lie snipes from cover, avoids direct engagement, and wages its wars "by any other means." And anger in itself is nothing more than a subjective judgment - which can be persuasive, if persuasiveness is enough, but is not itself a complete demonstration.

We all have lied. Most of us regret our lies and try to do without - the result of lessons learned and mature understanding. Arguably there is even a right to lie, as "free speech." How free a speech a lie is, is debatable. What is not debatable is that lies are on their face bad for the common good. As to rights, in the US the "unalienable" rights are to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and one supposes no one would take exception. But in the US, to secure these unalienable rights, all others are surrendered (as themselves unalienable rights). There may be a right of free speech; it's not absolute, and a fortiori, no right to lie.

Maybe we here can start small. There are liars and trolls here. I propose that within an informal system of warnings, that recalcitrant offenders be banned. How do we recognize the lie? By its signs of evasion, avoidance, non-responsiveness, persistence, misdirection, confusion making, deliberate misstatement, & etc. This is a philosophy site: love of wisdom: willingness to learn and be corrected, and on the other side to be clear, patient, and an educator. And in the case of argument, to be clear, direct, and to the point. That is, not a sophistry site, nor a liar's nor a troll's site. They poison our place. Usually there is room for the liar, one can distance oneself from them. But the world has got small; they make themselves and their lies and purposes our business, even in those cases when the assure us the matter is "none" of our business. Ultimately it's them or us. Let's make it us

Hang, draw, and quarter.

Terrapin Station

It's very difficult to tell if anyone is lying, really, because you need to know that what they believe to be the case at time Tx is different than what they're claiming to believe at time Tx. That requires knowing their mental content, contra their expression. Obviously that's not something we can really do.

tim wood

↪S

If only!

tim wood

↪Terrapin Station

You're not distinguishing between liar, lie, and lying. You're correct (imo), lying can be hard to recognize. But the lie can be known, and the liar. Mediately, to be sure. No one I know claims to immediately recognize lies, liars, or lying, at least all the time.

It's very difficult to tell if anyone is lying, really, because you need to know that what they believe to be the case at time Tx is different than what they're claiming to believe at time Tx. That requires knowing their mental content, contra their expression. Obviously that's not something we can really do. — Terrapin Station

It can be difficult. It can also be pretty obvious. If I told you that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, would you believe me? Would you think that I was mistaken? Would you withold judgment? You'd think that I was lying, wouldn't you?

Terrapin Station

You're not distinguishing between liar, lie, and lying. — tim wood

? No need to, really, unless you don't understand grammatical permutations. "Liar" is the person telling a lie, the lie is what they're uttering that's different than what they believe to be the case, and "lying" is the act.

Terrapin Station

If I told you that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, would you believe me? Would you think that I was mistaken? You'd think that I was lying, wouldn't you? — S

How would I know that you don't believe that you're on the moon right now with Chevy Chase? You could be crazy.

How would I know that you don't believe that you're on the moon right now with Chevy Chase? You could be crazy. — Terrapin Station

Seriously?

Terrapin Station

↪S

You don't think that people can have some beliefs?

You don't think that people can have some beliefs? — Terrapin Station

What? Wait, if this is some sort of subtle practical joke, given the title, then hats off to you.

Yes, I do think that people can have some beliefs. And I don't think that you'd entertain as a serious possibility that I'm crazy enough to really believe that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase.

(Even though I really am on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, but that's not the point).

Terrapin Station

What? Wait, if this some sort of subtle practical joke, given the title, then hats of to you. — S

In other words, there are some beliefs that you'd say that particular individuals couldn't actually hold.

I don't think that. Even if the person doesn't have a history of saying things that are crazy, they could believe something crazy now.

In other words, there are some beliefs that you'd say that particular individuals couldn't actually hold.

I don't think that. Even if the person doesn't have a history of saying things that are crazy, they could believe something crazy now. — Terrapin Station

It would be an extremely remote possibility, so not something that I'd take seriously, because I'm reasonable like that. (As is Chevy Chase. He doesn't give serious consideration to the remote possibility that I believe that we're on the moon together, either. I know that because I just asked him).

Terrapin Station

It's not normally something I'd worry about.

I might go, "Wait--you believe what now?" And if they persist saying whatever it is that caused me to react like that, I'd just go "ohhhhkay."

No need to worry about whether they really believe it, really.

It's not normally something I'd worry about.

I might go, "Wait--you believe what now?" And if they persist saying whatever it is that caused me to react like that, I'd just go "ohhhhkay."

No need to worry about whether they really believe it, really. — Terrapin Station

But the question is whether or not they're lying, and whether or not you can tell, not whether or not you're worried about it. Most of the time I'm not worried about climate change or cancer, but I'm not on the fence about whether or not they're real.

T Clark

Maybe we here can start small. There are liars and trolls here. I propose that within an informal system of warnings, that recalcitrant offenders be banned. How do we recognize the lie? By its signs of evasion, avoidance, non-responsiveness, persistence, misdirection, confusion making, deliberate misstatement, & etc. This is a philosophy site: love of wisdom: willingness to learn and be corrected, and on the other side to be clear, patient, and an educator. And in the case of argument, to be clear, direct, and to the point. That is, not a sophistry site, nor a liar's nor a troll's site. They poison our place. Usually there is room for the liar, one can distance oneself from them. But the world has got small; they make themselves and their lies and purposes our business, even in those cases when the assure us the matter is "none" of our business. Ultimately it's them or us. Let's make it us — tim wood

I get annoyed at people who disrupt the forum. Lying though? What is there to lie about here? We're anonymous. We don't really deal in facts so much as opinions. How can an opinion be a lie? Trolling? I've been accused of trolling when expressing a sincere disagreement. As good philosophers, let's define it. From the web:

A person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
A person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.
Someone that starts arguments or upsets people by posting off-topic or extraneous messages....Their goal is to cause people to get emotional and to harass people online.

Those seem like pretty good definitions to me. The emphasis is on disruption. Stopping the rest of us from having fun.

So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos.

Tim - how exactly do you propose to crack down? I get the impression this thread is in response to recent activities on the forum. I do see above average barking and hissing going around right now. Most of that seems to me to come from lack of discipline, courtesy, and familiarity with the forum rather than an effort to disrupt.

So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. — T Clark

Just hang 'em, then.

Terrapin Station

But the question is whether or not they're lying, and whether or not you can tell, not whether or not you're worried about it. Most of the time I'm not worried about climate change or cancer, but I'm not on the fence about whether or not they're real. — S

I'm not on the fence about whether people can lie. Just whether we can tell that a particular person is lying . . . not that it matters much to me that we can't tell, as I noted.

I'm not on the fence about whether people can lie. Just whether we can tell that a particular person is lying . . . not that it matters much to me that we can't tell, as I noted. — Terrapin Station

But there are some clear enough cases where we can tell. You're just setting the bar unreasonably high, as usual. And I don't think that it's intellectually honest of you to take the stance that you can't tell in at least some cases, like my example earlier. You know I'm not crazy enough to believe that.

Janus

↪S

What are you doing on the moon with that fuckwit?

tim wood

Tim - how exactly do you propose to crack down? — T Clark

Fair question and accurate observations. The lie can be manifest in the post itself. That a proposition may be false is clear in the content, the assertion. That it's a lie can be discerned in the failure to acknowledge questions as to or about the content. And the lying in a continued destruction of civil discussion. And this happens and has happened.

That is, for present purpose, the lie lies not in a single proposition, but is discerned as the result of a process. As such, as process and behaviour, it stands in itself by itself as itself - self-proving.

I doubt that any moderator would want to go there. Were I one, I wouldn't. As site managers, however, they may find grounds for a rethinking - not should, necessarily, but may. Lying - as here defined - damages the quality of discussion and holds it hostage - the lie is a form of abuse.

How to address? It seems to me the only way is the bringing to the attention of a moderator evidence of a persistent or over-all pattern of behaviour, where he or they make of it what they will. Or another way: a determined and persistent refusal to respond substantively to fair questions could be evidence that what the poster is about isn't to be found in what he or she is writing. In any case, all of us have at least some experience with issues like these, and possess at least some judgment.

At the heart of the matter is who shall hold the field. Reason, or attempts at same? Or rant and destructive behaviour? Of course our issues aren't even storms in teapot - maybe a thimble! But even at small scale the issues are real, nor is there anything about this site that in itself argues a suspension of rules of civil discourse.

NOS4A2

That was a great read. Thank you.

But I fear Truth is no motivating factor in your plea for censorship. If you resort to censorship you cast doubt on Truth itself by replacing it’s force with suppression. Truth doesn’t require protection, especially by those who believe they lay claim to it. Think of Milton’s famous insight:

“Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.”

JS Mill makes it more explicit:

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

I see nothing wrong with the banning of ill behavior. As for these so-called lies, I’m pretty sure fellow posters are far enough into adulthood to figure that out for themselves.

tim wood

But I fear Truth is no motivating factor in your plea for censorship. — NOS4A2

You're right, and it isn't. Nor is it censorship I'm looking for.

Truth doesn’t require protection, especially by those who believe they lay claim to it. — NOS4A2

Correct again (imo), truth as truth not only needs no protection, but is itself its own and only possible protection. Truth as communication, on the other hand, may well need protection. Nothing you can say or do can impair any truth as itself - 2+2 always equals 4, and gold is always a yellow metal. But you can impair or even prevent the communication of and sharing of truth.

Let her and falsehood grapple,

Sure, but what is acceptable as grappling must be tailored to the particulars of the grappling place, even as simple fairness. But the lie has no interest in fairness. What Milton means is let them battle. In that case, truth wins. But the lie will not battle!

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion

No one is interested in silencing an opinion, or at least I am not. But a lie is not an opinion. (See above for how "lie" is defined for this thread.)

As for these so-called lies, I’m pretty sure fellow posters are far enough into adulthood to figure that out for themselves. — NOS4A2

Indeed, I agree again, I think most - not all - are. But also again, that's not the point. The question of the OP is what to do about lies, as defined above.

What are you doing on the moon with that fuckwit? — Janus

Last minute replacement. I was supposed to be meeting Professor Brian Cox, but instead I got Chevy Chase. You can imagine my disappointment.

That was a great read. Thank you. — NOS4A2

Aha! Now I know you must be lying. Caught you red handed.

tim wood

Aha! Now I know you must be lying. Caught you red handed. — S

And, not what will you do, but what can you do - what is the best thing that can be done - about such things? (Btw, nose4, I believe you, and a belated Yw.)

T Clark

At the heart of the matter is who shall hold the field. Reason, or attempts at same? Or rant and destructive behaviour? Of course our issues aren't even storms in teapot - maybe a thimble! But even at small scale the issues are real, nor is there anything about this site that in itself argues a suspension of rules of civil discourse. — tim wood

I think I know exactly how you feel. I don't want you to think I don't share your values. I know the feeling of standing on solid intellectual ground, with my feet under me, nice wide stance in front of someone else who stands the same. Both trying to work out the things that are important to us working with the other person. Ideas against ideas maybe, but not poster against poster. I like the people on this forum and I don't want to waste my time pissing on each others shoes. I don't want to distract from their voices.

As you can maybe see, I am skeptical that group action beyond that already provided by the moderators is the right way to go, but I think there may be individual things I can do to make things better. Some ideas:

I try to make sure I am not contributing to the problem. Make sure my posts are reasonably civil and respectful and not disruptive. Don’t call anybody a dick, no matter how much they deserve it. Make sure I try to stay on the subject as described in the OP. Respond to people when they comment on the things I’ve had to say. Try not to go too far off on a tangent. Never, never respond to anything @S has to say. I try to stay away from people I don’t get along with. I have had some success with all this, but I have a ways to go.

The best way to have some control over the course of the forum is to start high-quality threads and shepherd them through the process. No half-assed off the cuff dipsy-doodle themes. We’re supposed to be philosophers. Pick something you understand, know something about, and have thought about extensively. Don’t piss out thread after thread of meaningless bull shit. Describe the terms and goals of the OP clearly. Define terms. Describe what you want to include in the thread and specifically what you don’t want to include. During the discussion, protect the OP by letting people know when they are getting off track or being disruptive or heading off on a tangent. If you have to, go to the moderators. You have standing with your own threads, this is where you can make a difference.

Try to do similar things in your posts in other’s threads. They’re the boss. Stick with their Ops. Try to contribute if you can, not find fault. Again – make your point clearly, tie it into their posts, define terms. Support the original poster when people try to hijack their thread. Try not to go off on tangents. If you find yourself doing that, shift to a PM. If you don’t have anything substantive and relevant to add to the main thrust of the thread, go somewhere else.

In a limited way, take a little social control into your own hands. Politely point out to people when they are off-base without disrupting the discussion. Do it as a PM to avoid disruption if it makes sense. In other people’s threads, the original poster gets the final word.

Support the moderators. I try to be really careful about this – enlist their support. They are all hammers and we tend to look like nails to them, so don’t be heavy handed. Only bring them in if it’s important. Be fair.

For me, these are goals. I often fail to live up to my own standards. I'll keep trying.

For me, these are goals. I often fail to live up to my own standards. I'll keep trying. — T Clark

Indeed. You just can't resist responding to my little pearls of aggression on occasion.

But in all seriousness, that was mostly good advice. Except for the part about finding fault. That's exactly what you should be doing. The less faults, the stronger the end product. The sooner they're identified, the sooner they can be addressed.

Your advice is a lot more detailed, but less punchy than what I would have said, which would be to get over it and move on.

Isaac

I don't think that. Even if the person doesn't have a history of saying things that are crazy, they could believe something crazy now. — Terrapin Station

Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way?

Oh and @S, if you're on the moon with Chevy Chase, then who the fuck is this I'm on Mars with?

Pattern-chaser

So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos. — T Clark

:up: Our mods seem to do a good job. Thanks to them! :up:

Amity

So what do we do about it...drum roll....nothing. Or at least nothing much. This is a well moderated forum. The moderators usually get crap when they delete posts or ban people. I think they walk a good line between rigid control and chaos.
— T Clark

:up: Our mods seem to do a good job. Thanks to them! :up: — Pattern-chaser

Agreed.
If things get out of hand, the mods are accessible and can give an objective perspective via PM conversation. I have had a few helpful exchanges with @Baden

The problem often lies in our becoming too subjectively and personally upset with an individual.
It can be emotionally exhausting with anger often leading to an escalation with knee-jerk, sweary responses. It's important to gain perspective, control the anger and not to get too sucked in, as per:

I try to make sure I am not contributing to the problem. Make sure my posts are reasonably civil and respectful and not disruptive. Don’t call anybody a dick, no matter how much they deserve it. Make sure I try to stay on the subject as described in the OP. — T Clark

After making your point or objection as to any misrepresentation, walk away. As per:

get over it and move on. — S

Chasing and harassing - ask yourself if it's worthy or worth it.

Follow your own philosophy of life. If too rigid and absolute, this can lead to stress, hypertension and bloody noses.

Lies, liars, trolls: what to do about them.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions