3 ms·

> 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" fo

> 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....
    - pvg 5y ago
      The second one is very much about disingenuous people (and their dealings), it's from a WaPo piece headlined Deshaun Watson is taking a stand against disingenuous NFL owners. It could change the league. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/01/deshaun-watson-trade-cal-mcnair/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/01/deshaun-wat... Just like 'shut your lying mouth' is, in fact, calling someone a liar and not merely an observation about some independent attribute of their piehole.

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....
  - pvg 5y ago
    The second one is very much about disingenuous people (and their dealings), it's from a WaPo piece headlined Deshaun Watson is taking a stand against disingenuous NFL owners. It could change the league. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/01/deshaun-watson-trade-cal-mcnair/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/02/01/deshaun-wat... Just like 'shut your lying mouth' is, in fact, calling someone a liar and not merely an observation about some independent attribute of their piehole.