Israeli Author Categorizes Lies and How to Respond
Translated & summarized from Zman Yisrael by baba
An Israeli author categorizes lies into three types: factual, consciousness-altering, and loyalty-demonstrating. He argues that while factual lies require swift debunking, consciousness-altering lies necessitate attacking the broader narrative. The most blatant lies, intended to show loyalty rather than be believed, should be met with dismissal and laughter. The article criticizes the media's fact-checking efforts as often ineffective against these different forms of deception.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Author Dror Feitelson categorizes lies into factual, consciousness-altering, and loyalty-demonstrating types.
- Factual lies, like Netanyahu's claims about Hamas warnings, require swift factual correction.
- Consciousness-altering lies, such as justifications for the Gaza war, need narrative-level refutation.
- Blatant lies, exemplified by Trump's inauguration crowd claim, are for demonstrating loyalty, not belief.
- Feitelson suggests dismissing blatant lies with laughter to expose their proponents.
- The article criticizes current media fact-checking as often ineffective against these lie types.
An article by Dror Feitelson, a computer science professor at the Hebrew University, categorizes different types of lies and suggests appropriate responses, arguing that the media's current fact-checking approach is often ineffective.
Feitelson identifies three types of lies. The first type concerns specific facts, such as claims about events that did or did not happen. He cites Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assertion that he was not warned about Hamas's intentions to attack Israel and that security and intelligence agencies believed Hamas was deterred. Feitelson counters that Netanyahu received numerous warnings from various sources, including Arab leaders, and that it was Netanyahu himself who claimed Hamas was deterred, thus opposing preemptive action. The author suggests that for factual lies, the appropriate response is a swift and detailed examination of the facts, highlighting discrepancies between the lies and reality.
The second type of lie aims to change public consciousness, creating an alternative reality disconnected from facts. Feitelson uses the justification for the war in Gaza as an example, where the narrative promoted was that the war was necessary for absolute victory over Hamas and for security, prioritizing this over the return of hostages. He argues that refuting specific claims within this type of lie is ineffective, as the liar can simply move on to another falsehood. Instead, the response should be to attack the entire narrative, for instance, by reminding the public of Netanyahu's alleged past funding of Hamas and his opposition to alternative leadership.
The third and most blatant type of lie is one that is obviously false and not intended to be believed but rather to demonstrate loyalty. Feitelson uses Donald Trump's claim about his inauguration crowd size as a prime example, noting that the White House spokesperson's defense of the lie, regardless of personal belief, served to show loyalty. In Israel, conspiracy theories, such as one alleging Yair Golan knew about the October 7th attack in advance due to a photo of him smiling, fall into this category. Feitelson contends that attempting to refute these lies is counterproductive and only amplifies their usefulness. The appropriate response, he suggests, is to dismiss them with laughter, exposing the liar as part of a group or "cult."