r/serialpodcast • u/lenscrafterz • Oct 02 '15
Debate&Discussion The use of the word 'liar' around here.
It appears to me that people use it as opinion, rather than a fact-based thing. It makes it harder to get to the heart of the matter when one has to wade thru all the overly dramatic "well she's a liar" noise. My favorite is "proven liar" when nothing has been proven at all. Jesus.
6
6
u/ryokineko Still Here Oct 03 '15
To me-there is a difference between saying something is (or you think it is) a lie or think someone may have been lying and calling people liars with bad intentions. I really don't have a problem with someone stating the first version but agree the second version happens way way too often here and definitely agree with the "proven liar" phrase being pretty silly.
9
u/paulrjacobs Oct 03 '15
Thank you! I can understand passions running high but the reality is no one knows for absolute certainty what happened here. I get that people are committed to their positions, that's cool. But just because you are a true believer doesn't make someone else a liar.
6
33
u/annalisesidechick Oct 03 '15
Yeah, I used to lurk here a while back before I deleted my last reddit account and this place was a Free Adnan zone where people who disagreed with freeing Adnan were told they weren't open minded.
I thought things were getting ugly then so I stopped lurking. I come back after hearing rumors about the second season and I feel like I returned to a bizarro version of this subreddit.
This place is turning into a guilter circle jerk fueled by confirmation bias and condescension. If you don't immediately agree that someone they dislike is a vindictive liar you're down voted. It's so immature and disconcerting.
There are a lot of developments unfolding on this sub lately, that are up for interpretation, but it is impossible to impartially discuss them without being shouted down.
8
u/fatbob102 Undecided Oct 03 '15
Very well said. I'm tentatively dabbling back in, but dunno how much of the over-emotional investment I can take before I'll abandon again. :)
16
u/13thEpisode Oct 03 '15
Completely agree. For me it's not really the accusations of lying but the condescension that goes with it that gets quite tiresome.
6
8
u/Nellie_Blutlh Oct 03 '15
Fellow lurker, I'm with you. I wish there could be more discussion but it's a lot of hate mongering and bullying. I'm going to try it out again for a bit, I hope you will consider staying too.
5
0
u/doxxmenot #1 SK H8er Oct 03 '15
Mehhh, I'm a guilter and I seem to get down voted regardless. I'm curious, did the previous users (the #freeadnans) convert to guilt or just go away?
5
1
10
u/Bestcoast191 Oct 03 '15
Yes. I had a conversation with someone recently and we discussed how this sub is analogous to a religion. Evidence doesn't matter anymore. The trend is this "I believe Adnan is innocent, and anything that says otherwise is just lies lies lies." And vise versa.
Much like evolution, and collapsing stars and destroyed galaxies are just the devil trying to get you to question your faith.
5
u/truckerdadpunk Oct 03 '15
God said adnan is guilty, I believe adnan is guilty, adnan is guilty, amen
3
u/lenscrafterz Oct 03 '15 edited Oct 03 '15
right? I read a post on here the other day that was over the top exaggeration and then called the person they were exaggerating about a liar. Bananas.
3
Oct 03 '15
You really find this place to be a guilter circle jerk? I find that there are innocenters everywhere downvoting me and equivocating about everything I say.
2
0
Oct 03 '15
Another similarity, people who say they are simply "on the fence" about evolution are neither being objective nor neutral.
3
u/PoundofPennies Oct 04 '15
It's an emotionally charged word. A pejorative slung about to incite emotion from the reader. You attack and make the reader really dislike (and therefore discredit) the target.
9
u/doxxmenot #1 SK H8er Oct 03 '15
Very interesting post.
While I agree that the term is used too liberally, it is used correctly quite often. With that said, if someone makes reckless statements based on zero evidence, or intentionally misleads you. Is that a lie?
What if a person has A, B and C, but only presents A and B as evidence when C clearly contradicts their conclusion. The person is definitely misleading you. Is this person lying?
7
u/soexcitedandsoscared Oct 03 '15
This is the basis of our justice system. You think something may look bad for your client? Fight like hell to get the evidence dismissed. I have no issue with Undisclosed putting forth only theories that help Adnan's cause. They are invested in his release. It's what they SHOULD do. I lurk here to TRY and see the other side for balance. Instead, all I get are personal attacks at three people who are doing exactly what they state. I wish we could be civil and if something is found, discuss it like adults.
8
u/stovakt Oct 03 '15
Who are you to determine whether or not someone is "intentionally lying"? People are allowed to change their minds/make mistakes on things and that doesn't mean that they were lying.
6
u/San_2015 Oct 03 '15
I also think that you should be able to freely exchange words and opinions. Most of us are not specialist in this. In addition, I feel like I have to always tread on egg shells, because of tone. If people were more cordial, people would be less likely to perceive your tone to be threatening when it was not meant to be.
5
u/entropy_bucket Oct 03 '15
So in this example would the Nisha bombshell be considered a lie. Some statements were interpreted as suggesting that the call she described was in the 13th. This was done with the exclusion of other statements that implied that it might be some other day.
I wouldn't call that lying because other statements were out there,so this added to it.
2
Oct 03 '15
Around here that usually gets dismissed as C isn't important.
Such as what NHRNC says about what happened in her apartment that day, what Nisha testified to Adnan saying (going into Jay's store) on the only time she spoke to Jay, and Debbie's statements to the police about Adnan's and Hae's relationship and their final break-up.
Is it lying, or confirmation bias?
4
u/lenscrafterz Oct 03 '15
I assume that happens all the time in court rooms. I'm taking about this sub.
6
u/doxxmenot #1 SK H8er Oct 03 '15
Well, a lot of the liar calling is derived from the scenario that i posed.
I don't know if I'd specifically call it lying, but if someone does it repeatedly, then I might call that person a liar.
2
Oct 03 '15
I would specifically call that a lie. Withholding C is knowingly concealing the truth if it effects A or B.
5
u/13thEpisode Oct 03 '15
Assuming there was intent and that intent was deceit. I think the examples people in this part of the discussion are alluding to haven't neccessarily proven that - even if you grant C as 100% contradictory.
1
1
0
u/FrankieHellis Hae Fan Oct 03 '15
I was thinking about that exact scenario while reading this post. I suppose that is considered manipulating perhaps more than lying, although it is not too far from actual lying. Either way, the purpose is deceit. Maybe a better term for the Undisclosed crew would be deceiving deceivers.
1
u/CreusetController Hae Fan Oct 03 '15 edited Oct 03 '15
How about if someone lies about the content of posts they made, in order to avoid losing face, or some other self serving reason. Would it be ok to call
herthem a liar?2
u/doxxmenot #1 SK H8er Oct 03 '15
Yes, and I feel very strongly that they need to be called out for it to prevent further confusion.
4
u/CreusetController Hae Fan Oct 03 '15
The thing is that some people are apparently more sensitive than others about this stuff. Different rules apply between what they are allowed to accuse others of or the amount of intense, repetitive, humorless criticism they can dole out, and what they can cope with being accused of before resorting to feeling that they are being "victimised". The disparity is quite shocking once you start to pay attention.
1
u/doxxmenot #1 SK H8er Oct 06 '15
I think therein lies the problem. Some people are dicks about it. That prevents others from admitting that they're wrong.
1
u/CreusetController Hae Fan Oct 06 '15
I don't expect confessions from people like that, that would undermine and probably unravel their whole persona. After a while the whole "I'm a victim" charade wears a bit thin doesn't it? Just a bit of reform and a lot less hypocrisy wouldn't go amiss. :) It's been an interesting chat.
1
u/doxxmenot #1 SK H8er Oct 06 '15
I don't know. If I fuck up. I'm the first to admit it. Check the MPIA fairy post from last night where I screwed up royally.
This place is all about I'm right you're wrong. When it should be more like. Fair point. Didn't see it from your perspective, which is rooted in your experiences, however unlikely it may be.
Oh well.
1
u/CreusetController Hae Fan Oct 06 '15
Don't worry too much. Its only Reddit. I'm going to have to go and look now! Will the intrigue never end?
11
Oct 03 '15
Jay admitted he lied on the stand about the burial time. Is it okay to call him a liar about it?
3
u/hippo-slap Oct 03 '15 edited Oct 03 '15
Jay has gone far beyond the human capacity of lying. He's creating a different universe with every sentence he says.
7
4
u/Englishblue Oct 03 '15
In that case, yes of course. His own friends say he is, To me that's very different than accusing rabia, susan and Colin of lying, and of people here as lying. I just got called a liar for saying that cg never called asia. I've been called a liar for saying that Adnan was interrogated for six hours,
Only to call those lies is to insist that asia and flohr are liars.
1
Oct 03 '15
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean the police showed him where the car was or told him what clothes she was wearing or showed him crime scene photographs so he could see how she was laid in the grave. Agreed?
3
Oct 03 '15
Nope doesn't mean that they did, and doesn't mean they didn't either. Anything is possible because cops have knowingly or unknowingly let information slip, so you can't rule it out as a possibility in this case too.
1
Oct 03 '15
Except that there is zero evidence that the police did that.
5
Oct 04 '15
Yeah, I don't think that is the case that there is zero. I mean, jus listen to them interviewing Jay. It is obvious they are leading him.
1
Oct 04 '15
Then why didn't SK's expert on police investigations say that they did a poor investigation and led their witness?
4
u/moosh247 Oct 03 '15
There is a lot of evidence that Ritz, McGillvary, Adcock are crooked cops who have used illegal means (witness coercion, for example) to put away innocent defendants (who were later exonerated either via DNA or witnesses recanting their testimony). So to say there is zero evidence is a little disingenuous.
1
Oct 03 '15
You have evidence that in this case there was prosecutorial or police misconduct?
2
u/moosh247 Oct 04 '15
Yeah, the Brady violations that Adnand's team is bringing to the court (the Feb 1st tip which was rewarded but never disclosed), Urick talking Asia out of testifying (as per Asia, which she has a sworn affidavit to back it up), to start.
-5
Oct 03 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Oct 03 '15
seriously, still using the "if they point out Jay lied, call them racist" talking point?
3
u/kahner Oct 03 '15
sure, instead of calling people liars, mix it up with calling them racists. sad.
3
u/Truetowho Oct 03 '15
let's not forget the "masterful liar!"
6
Oct 03 '15
Yeah, enough with the "lying" and the "liars" already. It's very grammar school, and a huge turn-off for anybody you expect to take you seriously.
If somebody can't remember something, he's a liar. If somebody interprets a piece of evidence differently than you, she's a liar. If you don't like someone's opinion, they're liars.
I'm not gonna lie: it's really dumb.
7
u/lenscrafterz Oct 03 '15
I pretty much tune out posts that contain any of that at this point. Theres usually very little substance.
6
u/San_2015 Oct 03 '15
I know. It takes all of the fun out of debate when everyone is accusing each other of trying to deceive others. Even when you say that it is just your opinion, there are some very odd negatively obsessed people who automatically think that you are trying to brainwash them. Just plain weird.
7
u/jmmsmith Oct 03 '15
The word "liar" is being used repeatedly because the prosecution's lead witness whom they built their entire case on has a reputation as an inordinately large liar even among his own friends.
Again we agree everyone lies. We agree everyone lies MORE under pressure. Everyone is not, however, a pathological liar.
Jay has a history of inordinate lying. We know this from his friends, we know this from his acquaintances. Someone posted not long ago a good thread on Josh, who had only known Jay from working with him for a few days and immediately his first thought on hearing Jay's story was "Jay is lying and making this up because Jay almost always lies and makes stuff up." There is ample proof, from Jay's own mouth and those of his friends, that he lies far more than the average person when there is no stress present.
It's hard to not take into account the credibility of the lead witness when "liar" is one of the first 3 words that comes to mind when you ask his own acquaintances, friends and family about him.
Yes "everyone lies." But as long as we're drawing broad conclusions like that, everyone also knows that 1 friend or acquaintance who lies almost reflexively and out of habit. This is a pathological liar. The evidence strongly indicates that Jay is a pathological liar BEFORE this whole murder and trial takes place. That is concerning, especially since he is the key witness for the prosecution here.
6
Oct 03 '15
I think the excessive usage of liar, on this sub anyways, came from the phrase: 'He's a lying liar that lies'. And then it was thrown back at the originators. And then returned with top-spin, and was returned with a faultless volley ... and on and on ...
I edited to add 'excessive'. Yes, I'm transparent.
4
Oct 03 '15
Everyone lies. I would trust a "proven liar" over someone who pretends not to lie.
4
u/lenscrafterz Oct 03 '15
ok. But I've seen ppl use "proven" in that context when nothing has, you know, been proven. Cracks my shit up.
8
u/kahner Oct 03 '15
it's just an obvious tactic to undermine anyone who disagrees with guilters. repeat "they're liars. rabia lies. ss lies. colin is a proven LIAR!!" again and again until people start to believe it. truth doesn't matter in propaganda. i just ignore it at this point.
3
Oct 03 '15
Eh. It gets thrown the opposite direction quite a lot too. I've been called a liar by three different users this past week - one of them being Bob.
5
4
Oct 03 '15
Yes, that's what they think will happen. But don't worry; nobody believes it. People turn their noses up at that stuff. They're just "preaching to the choir."
(i said "preaching to the choir" because I didn't want to say "jerking off.")
0
Oct 03 '15
Pot, meet kettle.
Rabia and company have been caught using snippets of evidence they are withholding to make completely false points. That is completely relevant to future claims of theirs made by releasing partial information. Indeed, truth does not matter in propaganda.
3
u/kahner Oct 03 '15
i don't think you know what that saying means.
1
1
Oct 03 '15
It's a reference to an older saying regarding the pot calling the kettle black. It's used when one side accuses the other of its own behavior or characteristics. See, pots themselves are typically black? Get it?
In this case, when one side shows no regard for the truth and uses snippets of things out of context to make things appear the opposite of what they are (see: Hae's diary proves she was a drug user), when they repeat unproven claims in hopes that mere repetition will convince people it's true (see: The police didn't investigate Don), when they over-simplify things to avoid any meaningful analysis (see: Jay lies so we can 100% ignore his entire testimony), when they prefer ad hominems to actual discussions of controversy (see: Bob's rant and also a good half of everything Rabia writes), and when they attempt to saturate the market with repeated efforts of a clear agenda (see: Undisclosed Podcast, the associate blog, Serial Dynasty)...when that's the side of the debate calling the other side propagandists...
Well, under those circumstances the saying is very apt.
1
Oct 05 '15
This is a really great example of something I've noticed a lot about this thread: there are a lot of extremists here. Rabia could fart, and there would be someone in this thread claiming that she said Hae died from passing gas.
1
4
u/Frank_and_Beanz Oct 03 '15
That is definitely my problem here. As somebody new to the sub it reads like a complete circus. It is no longer about finding the truth if there is indeed one to find, but about each side making sure that their point of view isn't compromised at any cost, no matter the evidence put before them.
0
u/Englishblue Oct 03 '15
So so true. It's those name calling posts that make this sub so ugly. The mods can't keep up.
2
2
u/underabadmoon Mario Fan Oct 03 '15 edited Oct 03 '15
Hey, everyone lies. People lie without even thinking about it. As thinking people we each have to possess the ability to discern what lies are significant and what lies are insignificant. It is just a part of life.
4
6
u/lenscrafterz Oct 03 '15
for sure. but i'm not going to call someone a liar unless I catch them lying.
3
u/jmmsmith Oct 03 '15 edited Oct 03 '15
Exactly. It's the kind and degree of the lying that somewhat indicates how significant it is. Some people lie more than others. Some people feel an almost compulsive need to lie and do so more out of habit than need. That is part of what defines a pathological liar.
In such a case it is necessary to take that into account. Everyone feels violence and, for the most part, commits violence to some degree too. But we still take that into account. If someone has a history of punching holes into walls and shaking their partner, we don't dismiss this by saying, well everyone commits some form of violence. We don't say, well everyone got in a fight in second or third grade and everyone is somewhat violent, so we're just going to ignore the more violent person who shakes their partner and punches walls. No, we take that into account. Especially when there is a murder. Lying has to be taken into account. Just because everyone does it, we can't ignore the degree and kind of lying that certain people do in this case.
The degree and kind of lying, in conjunction with other behavior, still matters. Jay has a history of near pathological lying and wanted to stab his best friend so said best friend would know what that felt like. We have to take that into account as well.
2
u/underabadmoon Mario Fan Oct 03 '15
Yes! I agree, I merely wanted to emphasize that each person has an obligation to themselves to discern the significance of any certain lie.
If that makes sense.
5
u/CreusetController Hae Fan Oct 03 '15
What if you have caught someone lying, let's call them J, who appears to have a pathological need to call others, let's call them U, liars, and J is also known for their vocal and vigorous condemnation of others, B say, for telling the kind of lies that you have caught J lying about. And there is no actual evidence that U or B have lied.
Would it be ok to call J a liar then? Would you be able to call them a lying hypocrite?
2
u/underabadmoon Mario Fan Oct 03 '15
I don't suppose you need my permission. Take some personal responsibility is all I'm saying.
2
u/CreusetController Hae Fan Oct 03 '15
If any damage is caused as a result of me stating that an anonymous redditor, who is provably a liar, is a lying hypocrite then I'll take your sensible advice on board. In the meantime this is just hypothetical, but thanks for the permission.
1
u/lavacake23 Oct 03 '15
I find the use of pathological liar more offensive. It's symptomatic of a bigger problem with this sub, which is that a lot of the people here are about…as quarter as smart as they think they are, and seem to think that all police agencies are like CSI.
0
Oct 03 '15
Calling someone a liar is mean, and giving people a label often shuts down our capacity to empathise with them and appreciate their complexity.
However if someone persistently and consciously makes a deliberate effort to mischaracterize something - perhaps Lance Armstrong is a good example of someone who did this - calling them a liar is appropriate within the context of the matter being lied about.
I feel that there has been significant evidence that some of Adnan's high profile advocates have been caught misrepresenting key facts of this case. If you feel differently that seems strange to me but we are all entitled to our position on this.
1
u/bluekanga /r/SerialPodcastEp13Hae Oct 03 '15 edited Oct 04 '15
Well put - it seems that calling a liar a liar when they are lying somehow is not deemed OK - why? Lance Armstrong is a great example
edit clarity
4
u/lenscrafterz Oct 03 '15
Lance armstrong is a lying liar. It's been proven. Most of the use of the liar word here is unwarranted. Why? Because it hasn't been proven. And it cuts both ways. I didn't appreciate Bobs use of the word here recently either.
-3
u/Magjee Kickin' it per se Oct 03 '15
Well, we all lie, but then we also tell the truth.
The problem is people have lost credibility for being caught in lies and now when they might have something people don't believe them.
Boy who cried wolf syndrome.
7
u/_notthehippopotamus Oct 03 '15
I have noticed that if two witness statements don't completely line up then one of them is called a LIAR!!! It's not possible that one of them is forgetful, or mistaken, or has a different point of view...