[ThomPete]

Can we stop with the claims about a post-truth era?

It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths.

It's that we have just realized that interpretation is not the same as truth and have now been made aware that there are other interpretations of the facts than our own.

We don't live in a post-truth world, we live in a world were the truth is confused with difference of opinion.

[krapp]

>It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths.

"post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people. See Karl Rove's quote about the "reality-based" community (which may or may not be apocryphal) versus the American empire which simply creates whatever reality it likes.

[coldtea]

>"post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of political arguments for many people.

It mostly means:

"Some people can't accept Trump got elected, so when e.g. criticism of him being sexist/rapist etc because of some comments back in the day is discarded, they call it a post-truth world. At the same time, it's not post-truth when the same people discard allegations of rape for Bill Clinton and his wife helping with cover up".

Or, as I'd put it:, both party voters could not give a rats arse about the truth, but the Democratic party has a better stronghold on academics, columnists, intellectuals and "hi-bro" journalists, etc., the sort of people who would just single out the others' disregard of the truth as "post-truth".

[battlebot]

Well said. I would add that journalistic ethics have reached a new low. Astoundingly new low. On the other hand, I was not alive in the 1890s during the era of "yellow journalism" where everyone with a printing press was turning out nothing but bullshit on an hourly basis and hawking it to unsuspecting rubes.

Turns out there is good money in just making up crap and printing it.

[jerf]

I remain unconvinced that journalism has reached a new low, rather than our ability to detect its shoddiness has reached a new high.

The only two things I could identify as uniquely a problem today that weren't problems in the past are A: the money is coming out of journalism faster than it can adapt to it and B: the incredibly immediate pressures to be first and get the most clicks. The latter being a thing that has always been present to some degree, since journalists have always made money by attracting eyeballs in one form or another, but the immediacy of the pressure today I'd say is a quantitative change that becomes a qualitative change by sheer size.

But I'm still unconvinced this is a new low, rather than one that we're detecting. Journalism has some nasty stuff in its history. It certainly hasn't reached a new low if you step outside of the United States. The press still hasn't quite reached Pravda lows, but I will conceded it is currently engaged in a full burn towards it.

[ThomPete]

Completely agree. It's a sign of health not sickness that we are experiencing this change.

What people often forget is that at the same token lies can be spread so can corrections to those lies.

[notahacker]

In Britain at least, popular use of the term "post-truth politics" predates Trump's run for power and was widely applied to campaigns run by the left as well. It's really less about whether specific allegations are true and far more about a rhetorical style in which a campaign proactively makes a high volume of brazenly false claims with the apparent purpose of forcing the opposition into rebutting them rather than the more traditional forms of political lies (denying uncomfortable truths, making promises not intended to be kept, stating hypotheses as facts). But yeah, which side tells the most lies has never been particularly high on voters' list of priority, not least because it's very rare for a campaign to be predominantly honest.

[ThomPete]

It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science.

There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions.

You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that there are bigger problems (astroid hitting earth for instance) etc.

[diyorgasms]

This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them.

We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.

[coldtea]

>Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them.

"I never had sexual relations with that woman".

"Read my lips: there will be no more taxes".

"It depends on what the definition of is is".

"I will close down Guantanamo Bay".

[croon]

> >Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them.

> "I never had sexual relations with that woman".

Wait, there's a sex tape of Bill Clinton?

In all seriousness, quotes are all good, but you would benefit from saying what it is you hope to achieve by them.

[ThomPete]

I think the point is that facts (whether on TV or not) didn't use to matter more than they do today.

[aninhumer]

>"I never had sexual relations with that woman".

And he was impeached for that, which is exactly the point.

[coldtea]

Impeached just means they accused/questioned him about it. He remained President just fine, and was acquitted of the charges.

[ThomPete]

No that is not the point. The point is that politicians lie and always have lied also historically.

[Chris2048]

> "I will close down Guantanamo Bay".

To be fair, it seems like he tried. He just failed?

He was playing it too safe to bring about the drastic measures needed to close gitmo.

[mcguire]

"Are Clinton and Trump the Biggest Liars Ever to Run for President? A short history of White House fabulists." By DAVID GREENBERG, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-donald-t...

[Chris2048]

> and people believe them

Or don't care. Some people in the US are so far under water, they are desperate for change; such that they'd back Trump whatever.

Sexual allegations? Who cares if he can actually tries to bring back my job...

Note, I say this without any implication of whether the allegations are true. My point is, people might not care either way. A sexual predator that fixes things is better than an someone virtuous that does nothing.

[ThomPete]

When did facts use to matter and for what?

The only disservice is to claim that things are somehow different when they are in fact the same.

[mcguire]

You see, there was this Golden Age. Everyone was beautiful, honor and virtue flourished, and Truth was held above all else.

Some people say that this age was in the '50s. Others, the 1880s. Some even claim it was the 1790s.

Mostly, they're just barking mad.

[arethuza]

What I have noticed recently is a rather shameless admission by many in politics that not only have they been lying but ultimately that "truth" doesn't matter.

[ThomPete]

In politics truth doesn't matter as such and never have. Politics is about getting it your way not about being right. It's about interest and choices.

The idea that politics is or should somehow be based on facts is misguided. We have science for facts what we choose to do with those facts is were politics come in.

[croon]

> The idea that politics is or should somehow be based on facts is misguided.

> We have science for facts what we choose to do with those facts is were politics come in.

The second sentence explicitly contradicts the first one. By your second one you are saying that politics is based on the facts that science provides. Or rather, should be.

[ThomPete]

No I am saying that facts are used in politics and that we choose to use those differently.

But facts aren't the only things which are used in politics.

[arethuza]

Of course, I agree that politics isn't based on facts but the idea that politics shouldn't be based on relevant facts is, to me, an appalling idea.

[ThomPete]

But again who decides what are relevant facts? This is the crux of the matter here.

What you seem to want to have is a technocratic system.

[arethuza]

Ideally I'd expect politicians to pick and choose "facts" that suit there arguments (or on a rare occasion actually have their arguments informed by data) and to ideally reference the sources so they can be checked by anyone who cares.

Is that an "elite" approach then?

Of course, what I describe above is an ideal - politics is a mucky business and the essence of a democracy is essentially that we get to choose between the liars. However, what I do have difficulty with is the idea that reasoning from actual factual data or scientific hypotheses has no role in politics.

[ThomPete]

But thats the problem. You can have two argument which are both true but politically only one of them can win. This is why we argue.

Not because we are uniformed but because our perspectives are different and our perspectives are different because it affects us differently.

And so the real danger here is to go along with this romantic notion that facts used to be more meaningful when in fact it was only that perspectives were more aligned than they are today.

[placebo]

The fact that you are right about the possibility of taking other interpretations as non truth, does not mean that no opinions are simply misguided and not based on truth. In addition, there have been many articles that are simply made up, which has nothing to do with difference of opinion.

[ThomPete]

Sure but that does not mean that people don't care about the truth.

There have always been made up stories and lies and propaganda and conspiracy theories it's nothing new it's just become much more obvious now and thus actually allowed us to live in a more truth based world rather than the previous ignorant believe that there are only one way to look at things.

Politics is about choice not about truth.

[tomp]

I think it's more simple than this. People have been trained over decades not to believe or trust politicians (e.g. Obama's "I will close down Guantanamo Bay"). So now they just don't bother any more.

Before the media/Democrats can credibly criticise "fake news", they first need to regain the people's trust.

[tacomonstrous]

Are you implying that Obama didn't make a good faith effort to do what he promised and wasn't repeatedly thwarted by a leery Congress? Because that's not what happened.

[TeMPOraL]

Did people not have history lessons in school? Politics is full of shit since the dawn of time. Politics is war by other means; lies and half-truths are the primary arsenal in this conflict.