4 ms·

If you call someone disingenuous, then yeah, you're being offensive. But if you call the idea disingenuous, then it's much less offensive. If you phrase it like

If you call someone disingenuous, then yeah, you're being offensive. But if you call the idea disingenuous, then it's much less offensive. If you phrase it like, "isn't that a little disingenuous?" it's even less offensive yet (I think "isn't that a lie" would come off a fair bit more offensive). Using "disingenuous" and words like it, I've had a lot of success finding common ground or at least identifying the locus of disagreement. But of course someone who is set on causing offense can probably manage with any word.

dang 5y ago
Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. Therefore, if an internet comment calls an idea or an argument disingenuous, it's calling the idea-holder or argument-maker disingenuous. It may be a little more indirect, but it's still an attack. In my observation, that word has the opposite effect of 'finding common ground', so I'm surprised to hear you say that. If finding common ground is what you want to do (which is great), there are other words that should give you even better results.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. I don't think that's required. If I call an idea "disingenuous" (or "misleading" for that matter), it doesn't imply that the arguer intended to mislead, but only that the idea lends itself to misinterpretation ("it seems disingenuous to suggest that the protest was violent on the basis of the actions of one or two out of tens of thousands" <- this seems about as polite as anything IMHO). But any way of suggesting that an idea is incorrect or inaccurate risks causing offense--it's a perilous enterprise and no matter which word you use, ultimately you have to lay a lot of groundwork to demonstrate good faith, common ground, etc. That's my $0.02, anyway.
  - dang 5y ago
    Dictionaries define the word in terms of human qualities (dishonesty, insincerity, etc.), so I don't think this argument is on solid ground lexicographically :) The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous).
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I don't know man. I've spoken English my whole life and I've never heard of anyone being confused about referring to an idea as 'disingenuous' or similar. :) Certainly no one (except you) has corrected me that it can only apply to people. Indeed, dictionary.com offers examples of "disingenuous" referring to ideas: > The move has no political chance in a Democratic House, but sends a clear, though disingenuous, message about punishing supposed “extremism.” > He would rather endorse someone with genuine doubts than someone with disingenuous beliefs. And there are many examples in which "disingenous" refers to things other than people. > The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person I wouldn't be surprised at all if "(dis)ingenuous" originally referred only to people but came to take on a broader meaning. This happens all the time--words are fluid on even very short timespans. Consider the verb form of impact: > Sense of "strike forcefully against something" first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of "have a forceful effect on" is from 1935. In only 18 years the word acquired a figurative sense (and I strongly suspect linguistic velocity--the rate of change of language--has much increased in the Internet era--although not uniformly across the lexicon). Considering your Etymonline link dates "disingenuous" to the 1650s, it would be surprising if this figurative sense hadn't developed in the intervening ~370 years. Anyway, while I do enjoy discussing and learning about language, I have to get back to work. Thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your day! :)
      - dang 5y ago
        The first example does refer to people. That's the point of using the word "disingenuous" there. "Sending a disingenuous message" means a message you don't really believe. The second one is hard to make sense of without more context. Words are sort of statistical meaning clouds—people have different associations and use them differently. Regional variations play a large role. I'm pretty sure the word disingenuous does imply intent to deceive, though, and it's a significant moderation issue because it's extremely popular in internet arguments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=disingenuous&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

dang 5y ago

Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. Therefore, if an internet comment calls an idea or an argument disingenuous, it's calling the idea-holder or argument-maker disingenuous. It may be a little more indirect, but it's still an attack. In my observation, that word has the opposite effect of 'finding common ground', so I'm surprised to hear you say that. If finding common ground is what you want to do (which is great), there are other words that should give you even better results.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Ideas can't be disingenuous because they don't have intent to begin with. I don't think that's required. If I call an idea "disingenuous" (or "misleading" for that matter), it doesn't imply that the arguer intended to mislead, but only that the idea lends itself to misinterpretation ("it seems disingenuous to suggest that the protest was violent on the basis of the actions of one or two out of tens of thousands" <- this seems about as polite as anything IMHO). But any way of suggesting that an idea is incorrect or inaccurate risks causing offense--it's a perilous enterprise and no matter which word you use, ultimately you have to lay a lot of groundwork to demonstrate good faith, common ground, etc. That's my $0.02, anyway.
- dang 5y ago
  Dictionaries define the word in terms of human qualities (dishonesty, insincerity, etc.), so I don't think this argument is on solid ground lexicographically :) The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=ingenuous).
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I don't know man. I've spoken English my whole life and I've never heard of anyone being confused about referring to an idea as 'disingenuous' or similar. :) Certainly no one (except you) has corrected me that it can only apply to people. Indeed, dictionary.com offers examples of "disingenuous" referring to ideas: > The move has no political chance in a Democratic House, but sends a clear, though disingenuous, message about punishing supposed “extremism.” > He would rather endorse someone with genuine doubts than someone with disingenuous beliefs. And there are many examples in which "disingenous" refers to things other than people. > The etmyology is interesting: ingenuous originally meant noble, which is also only something that would be said about a person I wouldn't be surprised at all if "(dis)ingenuous" originally referred only to people but came to take on a broader meaning. This happens all the time--words are fluid on even very short timespans. Consider the verb form of impact: > Sense of "strike forcefully against something" first recorded 1916. Figurative sense of "have a forceful effect on" is from 1935. In only 18 years the word acquired a figurative sense (and I strongly suspect linguistic velocity--the rate of change of language--has much increased in the Internet era--although not uniformly across the lexicon). Considering your Etymonline link dates "disingenuous" to the 1650s, it would be surprising if this figurative sense hadn't developed in the intervening ~370 years. Anyway, while I do enjoy discussing and learning about language, I have to get back to work. Thanks for the conversation, and enjoy your day! :)
    - dang 5y ago
      The first example does refer to people. That's the point of using the word "disingenuous" there. "Sending a disingenuous message" means a message you don't really believe. The second one is hard to make sense of without more context. Words are sort of statistical meaning clouds—people have different associations and use them differently. Regional variations play a large role. I'm pretty sure the word disingenuous does imply intent to deceive, though, and it's a significant moderation issue because it's extremely popular in internet arguments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=disingenuous&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....