Last Tuesday, reporters were shocked to discover that a public figure known primarily for repeatedly and unabashedly lying to the public said something that was, in fact not true.
“We’ve triple- and quadruple-checked this statement,” one incredulous reporter said, “and the facts just don’t add up. There is just no way to interpret this comment in which it is not an egregious falsehood.”
Flummoxed and hoping for clarification, news organizations turned to a spokesperson for the liar in question. The spokesperson released a statement explaining the reason the liar told the lies in question. In this statement, the spokesperson said, among other things, several new lies which were vaguely related to the previous lies. This only furthered the confusion.
“When, among other things, the spokesperson in question told lies,” a distraught and overworked fact-checker said in a press statement, “we thought, ‘surely there must be something more to this than just a blatant disregard for the truth, right?’ So we fact checked, trying to interpret their statement as charitably as possible, and actually found that the alleged ‘other things’ the lies were previously thought to be dispersed amongst were, themselves, lies.” The fact checker then wrung their hands in the air despairingly. “Who could have possibly seen this coming?”
One talk show host, trying to preserve their own faith in the liar’s integrity, suggested that, maybe, the liar simply did not know that what they said was false. With this sense of optimism, they invited the liar onto their show and kindly showed them concrete evidence of the actual facts, expecting them to change their official stance to align with the truth. “You didn’t really mean to say that thing you said, which all evidence points towards being false, did you? In a surprising turn of events, the liar chose to ignore the evidence, and instead continue lying. They even told several more lies.
Even more shocked, and bordering on hysteria, reporters scrambled to try and make sense of this statement. “It’s like, they saw the evidence, they knew what the truth was, but they kept on saying the opposite of the truth,” said one disturbed reporter, tears streaming down their face. “I don’t think anyone could have possibly predicted that the liar would take this route. I just don’t understand.”
Some have suggested that the liar possibly had access to super-secret, better information that nobody else had, which would shine a light on this whole situation.
But then, yesterday, new evidence came to light. Apparently, several years ago, when it happened to be personally convenient for them, the liar had said exactly the opposite thing.
“I just don’t understand,” said one reporter, tearing out their own hair and beating their chest in anguish at the sheer unpredictability of what had occurred, “Why would the liar just…lie like that? I’m trying to make sense of it all, but I just…can’t.”
We interviewed several of the liar’s supporters, to see what they had to say about this surprising turn of events.
“The liar’s not actually lying,” one supporter said, “The liar is simply making fun of the fact that other people lie, by imitating them.” The supporter then pointed to several people who had called out the liar for previous lies, as examples.
“I’m not sure the liar actually said that,” commented another supporter. “It just seems very uncharacteristic of them to lie like that. I don’t believe it. You’re making it up.”
The final supporter we spoke to had a very simple, yet elegant way of framing their own thoughts on the recent lies told by the liar: “No. No liar,” they said. “You’re the liar.”
By Philly le’Phlumph