20 ms·
> where the truth simply wasn't important That's a criteria that should be agreed upon by both parties; otherwise to the person recieving the "bullshit" it's i
by ColanR 6y ago
> where the truth simply wasn't important
That's a criteria that should be agreed upon by both parties; otherwise to the person recieving the "bullshit" it's indistinguishable from a lie.
Edit: where did I make a moral statement? Let's call a spade a spade: we're talking about "potentially false speech". If it's a false speech where the receiving party thinks the truth is important, then from their perspective they were lied to regardless of what the speaker thinks.
- firethief 6y agoNot every useful distinction need be relevant to moral judgement.
- jessriedel 6y agoBullshit is different than lying, but that doesn't mean anyone is arguing that it's moral. The fact that the listener might be led to believe something false is just one negative aspect of bullshit.
- GavinMcG 6y ago"Should" generally gets read as moral, especially when you bring in a comparison to lying, which is clearly a moral issue.
- lesbireal 6y agoI think Hacker News needs to believe that bullshit and lying are different things.
- pjc50 6y agoWhy do you think that?