Hillary the “Liar”

I don’t like squabbling over semantics. I really don’t. And yet, time and again, I find myself having to because people fail to comprehend – intentionally or otherwise – how words work.

The subject for today is the word “lie”.

Ah, yes. I bet you can already guess what brought this on. Naturally this is in response to the myriad accusations of one Hillary Clinton being a liar of biblical proportions, but it needn’t apply just to her: I’ve taken to defend even George W. Bush against some reckless accusations of being a liar as well.

It’s an accusation that seems to be remarkably easy to toss around when you don’t like someone, despite the fact it can be incredibly difficult to prove.

Getting right to the point, telling a falsehood is not the same as telling a lie. Let me say it again in different terms to press it a bit: telling something that’s factually inaccurate does not necessarily make that person a liar.

The reason for this simple truth is easy: lying means a person is deliberately misleading. For a person to actually be a liar, they have to know the truth and still tell a falsehood despite it.

If they misremember or have been told incorrect information, themselves, them saying what they think is the truth and isn’t, doesn’t mean they’ve lied. It means they had bad information and they answered, to the best of the knowledge, with the truth. Being wrong isn’t a crime. Misremembering isn’t a crime. We all do it and sometimes even about very important things. That’s part of being human.

Has Hillary Clinton told falsehoods? Absolutely.

Did she do so while knowing the truth was something else? That’s what remains to be seen. It can be incredibly difficult to prove a person is a liar because it depends on knowing what they know and/or knowing their intent. And for this reason calling someone a “liar” is an act that should not be taken lightly. The burden to prove it can be very difficult. Even upon reviewing transcripts of hearings regarding Hillary Clinton’s “E-Mail Scandal”, those pressing her often resort to emotional pleas like: “she MUST have known, how could she not, in her position?” That’s not something you say from an evidence-based mindset. That’s something you say when you want to trivialize the need for evidence to try to press a personal belief as fact.

But I digress.

When it comes time to speak of people we don’t like it’s very easy to cast a wide net with the notion of “lying”. It’s easy to prey on other people’s dislike to avoid the burden of proof. It’s little different than children believing every rumor spread about another child simply because they get caught up in the mob mentality, and feel comforted by the validations of others who believe the same thing. It’s childish. It’s unintelligence. And it can do an incredible measure of damage upon a person who, factually, did nothing wrong.

So ask yourself this: when the masses all call someone a liar and lower their levels of “trustworthiness”, are you going to go with the mob or are you going to critically examine the evidence to see if they truly are a liar? Because the answer to that may determine whether you support the bully or stand up for the bullied.