If It's Worth Your Time To Lie, It's Worth My Time To Correct It
...
People don’t like nitpickers. “He literally did the WELL AKTUALLY!” If you say Joe Criminal committed ten murders and five rapes, and I object that it was actually only six murders and two rapes, then why am I “defending” Joe Criminal?
Because if it’s worth your time to lie, it’s worth my time to correct it.
If one side lies to make all of their arguments sound 5% stronger, then over long enough it adds up. Unless they want to be left behind, the other side has to make all of their arguments 5% stronger too. Then there’s a new baseline - why not 10%? Why not 20%? This mechanism might sound theoretical when I describe it this way, but go to any space where corrections are discouraged, and you will see exactly this.
I hate to rag on wokeness further in the Year Of Our Lord 2025, but they’re still the best example I’ve ever seen. You weren’t supposed to defend racists. And so:
“Hey everyone, Joe Target shouted a racial slur and punched a black guy in the face because he hates minorities so much! This proves that we need hate crime legislation immediately!”
“But if you read the article, you’ll see they were both really drunk, the black guy insulted Joe’s wife, it was an ordinary bar fight, and there’s no reason to think race was the precipitating factor”.
"So you’re saying it’s okay and not racist at all to shout a slur at a black person and punch him in the face?”
“I was just saying that it didn’t seem to immediately be motivated by racism, and should probably be filed under other social problems like drunkenness and violence.”
"So are you denying that racism exists and causes harm?”
Well, no. But if your only real point is that racism exists and causes harm, you could have said that racism exists and causes harm, and that wouldn’t have been a lie. Instead you chose to talk about how Joe Target punched the black guy because of racism. Presumably you thought that point made your argument stronger than it would have been if you’d just said that racism existed - maybe 5% stronger. If that’s true, then that extra 5% argument strength is illegitimate, and it’s every honest person’s duty to take it away from you. If you’re allowed to have it, then eventually we escalate all the way to the point we actually escalated to, where people have said in all seriousness that Trump might try to put all minorities in camps and murder them.
(sorry - I’ve genuinely heard people say he was going to put minorities in camps, but I’m not sure they specified all minorities, and I don’t think they ever said they would get murdered there. Would you have let me get away with that exaggeration?)
I think “okay, but everyone knows that something vaguely similar is true” is an especially dangerous case of this.
Maybe I don’t agree that the similar thing is true.
Maybe the similar thing is true, but it’s got some big problem (eg is impossible in practice, costs too much, would have too many side effects) that the original catchy example doesn’t.
Maybe the similar thing isn’t really similar along the axis that matters most.
If, instead of saying the true similar thing, you say a different false thing, then that denies me the opportunity to examine the true similar thing in detail, ask you questions about it, or challenge it directly. Which was plausibly your point all along, because there must have been some reason it was worth your time to lie.
Some caveats:
You should obviously remain kind and sensitive in contexts where that’s relevant. If Joe Criminal was 5% less psychopathic than the rumors say, you can correct some unrelated tough-on-crime advocate about it, but I wouldn’t bother his victims.
I’m sympathetic to making statements that are not-technically-true for didactic, and artistic reasons, eg readability. “The sun is a mass of incandescent gas” is fine, even if it’s technically some sort of plasma. Or if it’s not fine, you’ll need some justification for nitpicking other than the one here.
I think concept handles like “frog-boiling” are okay - this is a useful thing to be able to refer to, even if AFAIK you can’t boil frogs like this in real life. But if someone argues that you’re importing some fake assumption by using the term, consider listening - often a mistake in symbolism mirrors (or covers!) a real mistake in substance.
I’m not saying you’re required to correct every little trivial falsehood. Nobody has time for that. But I think if you want to correct it, people don’t get to call you “cringe” or describe it as “well acktually”. What could be more cringe than telling small lies, then bullying anyone who tries to correct you, in the hopes that future audience will be too cowed to speak up?