“Misleading/needs context” seems to be an epistemic status that’s neither truth, nor lie, nor bullshit (ie indifferent to truth/falsehood). This type of assertion needs a name and some theorizing/steelmanning.
Very unsatisfying/weak to accuse someone of this. Like “you’re mean!”
Conversation
“Misleading” needs a clearer account. How is it done? Why is it bad faith? How can we prove intent to mislead? It’s not as simple as simply giving wrong directions knowingly (that would be a lie).
3
5
A misleading statement is one whose truth value exhibits sensitive dependence on initial narrative for the listener, and whose truth value for the speaker is illegible. It’s a half-truth X because the truth value of interest, X+Y, depends on the unspoken Y.
2
4
When is it okay or not okay to take a statement “out of context”?
When is it okay or not okay to substitute your context for the speaker’s?
Maybe when you suspect that the speaker actually shares your context but is pretending to operate in a different one for personal gain.
Replying to
It doesn't need a name, it needs a response:
IDFMA.
Which can stand for:
• Insufficient Data For Meaningful Answer (for which people have used this acronym since quite a while)
• IDFMA Doesn't Fully Mean/Measure/Mediate Anything
• It Does(n't) Fucking Matter Any(more/way/how)
1


