Read on Twitter
I’ve noticed a curious linguistic pattern over the past few years. A sort of person—typically in educated/credentialed circles—who usually goes out of his way to sound circumspect likes to emphasize the word “lie” to describe statements by Trump. 
1/11
1/11
This by itself would not be striking, except that such people almost never use that word (or similarly strong language) to describe *anything* else. A pretense of quasi-elite society today is to maintain a tone of “neutrality” marked by extreme circumspection; 2/11
...in a world where nearly everything is subjective—from morality to history to gender identity—this means the strongest claim such people typically make is that something is the best argument or “most reasonable position.” 3/11
(This is especially true of Christians in these circles, who go out of their way to present their claims as reasonable beliefs while carefully couching any claim to universal truth.) 4/11
Thus the willingness to use such direct, harsh language for lies (or alleged lies) by Trump stands out, and even sounds jarring—like the use of a curse word by someone who rarely curses.
A few ideas on what could explain this: 5/11
A few ideas on what could explain this: 5/11
Elevated concern for absolute truth: Seems unlikely since they don’t use the same language for other lies (eg by national media or Cuomo). If anything, one would expect such concern to focus on more carefully guarded lies, which are more likely to be believed by their peers. 6/11
Imitation of media figures: The media have pushed language around “facts” “truth” and “lies” over the past five years as they’ve faced unprecedented challenges to their own lies and distortions. ... 7/11
...Their aim seems to be to shift the spotlight and discredit their opponents while positioning themselves as arbiters of truth, and this broad acceptance of their language could indicate they are succeeding with at least some people. 8/11
Class: Perhaps the reaction has less to do with the truth/falsehood of a Trump statement than his class transgressions. Because he can be jarring, violating the norms expected of a member of his class (who, even when they lie, do so with the appropriate tone)... 9/11
...a response that also departs from class norms is seen as appropriate. The charitable version of this is that they believe a direct lie should be directly called out, while more guarded ones (the type more common in their world) merit similarly guarded responses. ... 10/11
...The more cynical is that it’s not even the lie that really offended, but rather the class violation. This must be called out in an acceptable way. Since this obviously isn’t direct mention of the class issue, jarring language can emphasize that a taboo has been violated. 11/11
One added hypothesis raised by a friend: certain Trump statements have been particularly easy to call out as lies (eg one involving rain during his inauguration speech), which makes it easier for people normally reticent to use this word to extend it to many other things he says.