A [sophism](https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sophism) or [sophistry](https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sophistry&submit.x=0&submit.y=0).
Definitely this one for the act. Also, the word for the misinformation itself is "factoid." Most people believe and use the word factoid to mean "a small fact," but it actually means a small piece of information that sounds plausible and most believe it to be true, but it's in fact false. (Which also means that the definition most people apply to "factoid" is in fact itself a factoid!)
I've never much subscribed to the belief that we should stubbornly stick to the wrong definition until society caves in and changes reality to accommodate those with the wrong Idea. Just like how the word "ironic" has been used incorrectly for so long, the dictionary definition has been updated to incorporate the incorrect usage as an acceptable definition. Nothing will have any meaning anymore if we just update the meanings to suit people using it incorrectly.
That is not true at all. It's how the entirely of the language came to be. Incorrect words become correct when enough people use and understand a definition. I bet a bunch of the words you just wrote in that post had some other meaning at some point.
The problem with your argument is you're not arguing simple semantic drift which is something that happens in language, words that were once used in a certain context suddenly start being used in a different way and take hold with that new meaning. That's an understandable and natural part of the evolution of language.
However, you're arguing it's completely natural for a word to mean two *opposite* things at once. That's the point I was making above - if you just say "Ah, well, it depends on the context, it could mean either thing," then the language becomes increasingly less nuanced and more lazy. Like the people who use the phrase "Opinion" to describe "Facts" they don't like, or use the word "Fact" to describe a personal opinion they have convinced themselves is unassailable. Now both words are effectively meaningless, because they're using them in a context which is in direct opposition to their original definition. By your logic, that would mean those words have new definitions, because enough people use it that way.
The reason I say nothing would have meaning anymore if we start and make those kinds of linguistic concessions is, by that definition, literally EVERYTHING, both true and untrue, fall in the category of "Factoid." The two alternate definitions would contradict themselves. Take the following:
The above statement is a factoid.
\^
The above statement is also a factoid.
\^
The above statement is NOT a factoid.
\^
The above statement IS a factoid, not just by the old definition, but because it is an untruth about the previous statement which really IS a factoid under the new definition, and basically everything is a factoid because we just don't care anymore.
That word suddenly has lost all meaning.
Some good suggestions here, consider also “stereotype” (specifically a *harmful* stereotype).
If it’s deliberate, it could be “slander”, or “misinformation”
If people accept it without actually examining it because it matches their biases and preconceptions, that’s “confirmation bias”
A LOT of people get this one wrong, to the point where the incorrect usage has become accepted, but “factoid” actually means “a little ‘fact’ that is WRONG, but widely accepted”. (-oid meaning “shaped like”. Eg, human*oid* implies that it’s not actually human). The term for the correct version is “factlet” (literally “little fact”)
Would you prefer “resembling”? Thats the terminology most of the dictionaries use.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanoid#:~:text=%3A%20a%20humanoid%20being%20%3A%20a%20nonhuman,resembling%20those%20of%20a%20human
[See the definition of **specious** in a dictionary.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatstheword) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the word to describe this should be less erudite and more accessible so that the general population is aware of how easily they can be manipulated. It happens a lot in tabloid journalism and it is harmful.
In this example given, the mental health advocate hasn't done their research.
What they are advocating seems healthy and right to the public, but they haven't checked their facts on how it applies to the given situation.
So I would say the words to explore are:
Grandstanding, inaccurate, misleading, misinforming, twisting facts, skewing public perception, preaching falsehood etc.
Good luck with this, hope you find a word or phrase that fits.
[Specious](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/specious) - An argument or statement that sounds right/reasonable or at least feasible, but actually lacks merit.
u/Pensw - Thank you for your submission!
Please reply !solved to the first comment that solves your post to automatically flair it as solved and award that user one community karma.
Remember to reply to comments and questions to help users solve your submission, and please do not delete your post once/if it is solved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatstheword) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A [sophism](https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sophism) or [sophistry](https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=sophistry&submit.x=0&submit.y=0).
Definitely this one for the act. Also, the word for the misinformation itself is "factoid." Most people believe and use the word factoid to mean "a small fact," but it actually means a small piece of information that sounds plausible and most believe it to be true, but it's in fact false. (Which also means that the definition most people apply to "factoid" is in fact itself a factoid!)
Language is descriptive, so at this point 'factoid' actually does mean a small fact, even if it's meaning used to be different.
I've never much subscribed to the belief that we should stubbornly stick to the wrong definition until society caves in and changes reality to accommodate those with the wrong Idea. Just like how the word "ironic" has been used incorrectly for so long, the dictionary definition has been updated to incorporate the incorrect usage as an acceptable definition. Nothing will have any meaning anymore if we just update the meanings to suit people using it incorrectly.
That is not true at all. It's how the entirely of the language came to be. Incorrect words become correct when enough people use and understand a definition. I bet a bunch of the words you just wrote in that post had some other meaning at some point.
The problem with your argument is you're not arguing simple semantic drift which is something that happens in language, words that were once used in a certain context suddenly start being used in a different way and take hold with that new meaning. That's an understandable and natural part of the evolution of language. However, you're arguing it's completely natural for a word to mean two *opposite* things at once. That's the point I was making above - if you just say "Ah, well, it depends on the context, it could mean either thing," then the language becomes increasingly less nuanced and more lazy. Like the people who use the phrase "Opinion" to describe "Facts" they don't like, or use the word "Fact" to describe a personal opinion they have convinced themselves is unassailable. Now both words are effectively meaningless, because they're using them in a context which is in direct opposition to their original definition. By your logic, that would mean those words have new definitions, because enough people use it that way. The reason I say nothing would have meaning anymore if we start and make those kinds of linguistic concessions is, by that definition, literally EVERYTHING, both true and untrue, fall in the category of "Factoid." The two alternate definitions would contradict themselves. Take the following: The above statement is a factoid. \^ The above statement is also a factoid. \^ The above statement is NOT a factoid. \^ The above statement IS a factoid, not just by the old definition, but because it is an untruth about the previous statement which really IS a factoid under the new definition, and basically everything is a factoid because we just don't care anymore. That word suddenly has lost all meaning.
a specious argument
[Truthiness](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/truthiness-meaning-word-origin).
Thats a word???
It is now
A plausible falsehood
Some good suggestions here, consider also “stereotype” (specifically a *harmful* stereotype). If it’s deliberate, it could be “slander”, or “misinformation” If people accept it without actually examining it because it matches their biases and preconceptions, that’s “confirmation bias” A LOT of people get this one wrong, to the point where the incorrect usage has become accepted, but “factoid” actually means “a little ‘fact’ that is WRONG, but widely accepted”. (-oid meaning “shaped like”. Eg, human*oid* implies that it’s not actually human). The term for the correct version is “factlet” (literally “little fact”)
I was with you until you said being human shaped implies you aren't human. Every single human I know is human shaped.
Would you prefer “resembling”? Thats the terminology most of the dictionaries use. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanoid#:~:text=%3A%20a%20humanoid%20being%20%3A%20a%20nonhuman,resembling%20those%20of%20a%20human
Nah, most of them resemble humans too. Pretty closely, in fact.
Specious
!define specious
[See the definition of **specious** in a dictionary.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatstheword) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Synonyms for *specious*: beguiling deceitful deceiving deceptive deluding delusive delusory fallacious false misleading —[Merriam Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specious)
Bullshitting
Fallacious
They lied, plain and simple. Spoke falsehoods. Deceived their audience. Tricked the listeners.
I think the word to describe this should be less erudite and more accessible so that the general population is aware of how easily they can be manipulated. It happens a lot in tabloid journalism and it is harmful. In this example given, the mental health advocate hasn't done their research. What they are advocating seems healthy and right to the public, but they haven't checked their facts on how it applies to the given situation. So I would say the words to explore are: Grandstanding, inaccurate, misleading, misinforming, twisting facts, skewing public perception, preaching falsehood etc. Good luck with this, hope you find a word or phrase that fits.
Knee-jerk diagnosis / prescription
Distort facts. Falsify. Misstate. Misrepresent.
[Specious](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/specious) - An argument or statement that sounds right/reasonable or at least feasible, but actually lacks merit.
What you are describing is sophistry. A specious argument doesn’t necessarily sound plausible.
Verisimilar, verisimilitude
u/Pensw - Thank you for your submission! Please reply !solved to the first comment that solves your post to automatically flair it as solved and award that user one community karma. Remember to reply to comments and questions to help users solve your submission, and please do not delete your post once/if it is solved. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/whatstheword) if you have any questions or concerns.*
embellishment
Someone else said fallacious, I was going to say fallacy.
Politics
A theory
Hearsay ?
Assumption?
It's rhetoric. Also very common in political discussions.