[maria2]

We’ve been in a post-truth society for some time now. Anything that makes it easier to lie is a positive in my book. Society needs to accept that we’re well past the time where information can be trusted. Either we adapt or die.

One thing that helps me is to understand that I really don’t need to know the truth. I wake up. I see my family. I watch my daughter smile. I enjoy the company of friends. I drink a nice glass of wine. What value does the “truth” have in my daily life? Most of the time, what is true and what is lie only comes up in a political discussion, and it almost always is unpleasant.

[pjc50]

> I wake up. I see my family. I watch my daughter smile. I enjoy the company of friends. I drink a nice glass of wine. What value does the “truth” have in my daily life?

When people talk about privilege, this kind of bucolic normalness is what they mean; all of those things are great, but their ability to stay great is conditional on a huge, precise system that depends on trust (which in turn depends on truth) to run. You can go to the store and buy wine without ever once having to test it for antifreeze.

[spritefs]

> You can go to the store and buy wine without ever once having to test it for antifreeze.

This doesn't say anything about truth, only past experience. Which isn't truth

> all of those things are great, but their ability to stay great is conditional on a huge, precise system that depends on trust (which in turn depends on truth) to run.

It depends on trust, yes. But trust doesn't depend on truth (because someone doesn't need metaphysical or religious beliefs for them to be trustworthy)

[maria2]

> all of those things are great, but their ability to stay great is conditional on a huge, precise system that depends on trust (which in turn depends on truth) to run.

I 100% agree that the system is built on trust and that the system is where I derive my enjoyment of "bucolic normalness."

However, trust in the system has absolutely nothing to do with truth. All systems are driven by those with power. The opinion of the masses, whether informed by the truth or otherwise, doesn't matter.

For instance, another person mentioned the lie of "de-nazifying Ukraine." Russia has also plainly expressed its imperialist ambition and the ability to reduce NATO's influence in Eastern Europe. Both of those things are true. Does that mean Russia is justified in invading Ukraine because they told the truth about their intentions? The population in Ukraine is strongly against Russian influence. But if those in power wanted Russia's influence, the population would be powerless to stop the transition. To see evidence of this, look no further than Belarus. In Belarus' 2020 election, something like 90% of the population voted against the president. 5% - 10% of the population actively protested in the streets. Workers went on strike. And yet, the elites in Belarus aren't interested in regime change so nothing happened.

Take gerrymandering as another example. The goal of gerrymandering is very plainly to disenfranchise certain voters. Everything knows that. It is the truth. And yet gerrymandering still happens.

Another example: do you really think Trump, the senators, and representatives responsible for the Jan. 6th insurrection really believed that the election was stolen? Of course not. They wanted power and "stop the steal" was just a pretext. I'm sure many of the "stop the steal" supporters understand this too. The lie is just a pretext to get what they want. Again, the truth doesn't matter. You're not going to convince Jan 6 supporters of "the truth" and have them change their mind, because they're motivated by a selfish grab for power. They could care less about the truth.

Ultimately, trust in the system comes from the shared belief that our representative form of government is the best for everyone. Sometimes, that means needing to sacrifice a personal objective, like a quest for power, for the good of the entire system. If the elites want a different form of government, like one where they consolidate power for themselves, then that is what will happen. That is what's happening. The truth isn't going to stop it.

[spritefs]

> You're not going to convince Jan 6 supporters of "the truth" and have them change their mind, because they're motivated by a selfish grab for power. They could care less about the truth.

Someone is more at fault if you prove that a wrong was committed because of malicious intent instead of outright ignorance. People who want to see punishment have an incentive to do this. This is why people try to disregard the insanity defense in court when the defendant is obviously insane. The defendant is insane and "in need of support" until they're sitting in front of a judge, then they're suddenly not

But of course, this doesn't contradict the general point you're making

[maria2]

True. I guess my point is that those who fear for a loss of truth are generally mistaking malicious pretext for ignorance.

[mint2]

One only has to look at the Russian invasion based on “de-nazifying” Ukraine or global warming denialism or big tobacco spending decades obfuscating cancer or or or four thousand other post truth things to see that good people ignoring and being okay with lies leads to bad things.

[maria2]

You’re fighting a pointless war.

[a_t48]

So, what? Give up, grin as the world burns?

[nisegami]

No, we learn how to adapt to a world where truth is not relevant.

[mint2]

It’s better than Surrendering to lies

[maria2]

That’s the thing. You’re not surrendering to lies. You’re just choosing not to play.

[tomatotime]

If someone tells you the wine you had was poisoned, is it not important if that is a lie or the truth? I imagine it would.

[maria2]

Would it? If you tell me you poisoned my wine I wouldn’t give it a single thought. Or is there more to this analogy that you’ve neglected to mention?