Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by krapp 3445 days ago
>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.
2 comments
coldtea 3445 days ago
>"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".

link
battlebot 3445 days ago
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.

link
jerf 3445 days ago
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.

link
ThomPete 3445 days ago
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.

link
notahacker 3445 days ago
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.
link
ThomPete 3445 days ago
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.

link
diyorgasms 3445 days ago
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.

link
coldtea 3445 days ago
>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".

link
croon 3445 days ago
> >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.

link
ThomPete 3445 days ago
I think the point is that facts (whether on TV or not) didn't use to matter more than they do today.
link
croon 3445 days ago
So you are claiming that no one cared about the Clinton scandal in the 90s?

Because no one sure didn't seem to care about the numerous Trump ones.

link
aninhumer 3445 days ago
>"I never had sexual relations with that woman".

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

link
coldtea 3445 days ago
Impeached just means they accused/questioned him about it. He remained President just fine, and was acquitted of the charges.
link
Chris2048 3444 days ago
Didn't he lose a law license or something as well?
link
ThomPete 3445 days ago
No that is not the point. The point is that politicians lie and always have lied also historically.
link
aninhumer 3445 days ago
Yes they always lied, but they used to be punished if they were caught. The fact that it's easier to catch them now shouldn't change that.
link
Chris2048 3444 days ago
> "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.

link
mcguire 3445 days ago
"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...
link
Chris2048 3444 days ago
> 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.

link
ThomPete 3445 days ago
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.

link
mcguire 3445 days ago
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.

link