Take the following text: “Kennedy was not a homosexual.” A postmodernist may respond in this way:
“I want to know why anybody would have to make such a statement if there wasn’t a suspicion that Kennedy was a homosexual. And if there was a suspicion of the fact that he was a homosexual, given his popularity, there’s a pretty good chance that suspicion is true. Since the suspicion is probably true, the statement ‘Kennedy was not a homosexual’ is not a truth statement, it’s damage control. So it turns out the statement ‘Kennedy was not a homosexual’ really means that Kennedy was a homosexual.”
Now there I’ve taken a statement and actually derived it to have the opposite meaning to the one the author intended by asking certain kinds of questions of it.
— J. P. Moreland, from the lecture Truth and the Consequences of Postmodernism