Famous 2016 examples include…

-Brexiteers promising to give £350m a week to the NHS.
-Donald Trump saying he was going to build a wall on the Mexican Border and get the Mexicans to pay for it.

Ah! I think that’s the issue. On here they have a different name.

My farts don’t smell 😉

Never heard that phrase before this thread, that I can remember….

It sounds like something a politician would say when they are trying to back pedal on a lie…..
Similar to the politicians admitting to telling an untruth, but it wasn’t a lie….it was an untruth….

so in fact he’s more than qualified

I didn’t say ‘qualified’ I said ‘fit’; they are two different things entirely. It’s genuinely difficult not to conclude that he’s suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder given the stuff he comes out with. For example, I think Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes speech was also a good example of childlike behaviour, but Trump is President Elect, he really shouldn’t have even given credence to her comments by deigning them with a response and by doing so he reduces himself to infantile, playground like behaviour.

So ‘post truth’ basically means Lying then?

No it’s more nuanced than that and as a ‘process’ it applies more to the voting public than the politicians.

Post truth, as a process, is manifest when the public choose to behave, act or vote in a way that is in direct contradiction of empirical evidence because of personal beliefs and values; their ‘weltuschang’ if you like.

Don’t even know why it’s a word, it doesn’t make sense. What’s a ‘post truth’ literally mean then, ‘after truth’ or something? Load of b*ll*cks

Idiom innit? dun’t need to make sense. No idea who coined it, but I know what it’s generally accepted to mean, as others have explained.
I believe also related to Gove’s “people in this country have had enough of experts” ie a good portion of the public don’t want facts, they want rhetoric.

Is using all-year when all-year is just 11 days an example of post-truth?

The suggestion that there is any empirical evidence is often the biggest lie or should I say post-truth?

is manifest when the public choose to behave, act or vote in a way that is in direct contradiction of empirical evidence because of personal beliefs and values

I don’t think the voting public has ever acted in any other way, post truth is a spin being peddled as a self deception to explain this to groups of self interested “opinion-formers and disseminaters”

Take the events of 2008 as an example, ask anyone in the street, and they’ll tell you that “someone” needs to go to jail…no one ever has, the public are aware of this, and every time some politician or economist or commentators tells them why it hasn’t happened, it goes in one ear and out the other of the public, as they know full well they’re picking up the tab, NOT the bankers or politicians who are carrying on as if nothing happened. Post truth in this example is the realisation by politicians that this effect/belief is out there, and that their words and explanations are having little or no effect on how people vote.

I agree with you about Trump, he clearly isn’t “fit” for office, scarily I tend towards the belief that “we ain’t seen nothing yet”

If I’m at work, I’m doing work.

I just don’t believe this thread.

Post-truth is just another insult to undermine others.

My choice was the truth, you chose to believe a lie.
Said by both sides as per usual 😀

I don’t think the voting public has ever acted in any other way,

I think you’re right and I agree that the concept of ‘Post Truth’ is not remotely new.

So I think the fact that the phrase has come to prominence now is more a reflection of the dawning realisation of the process rather than its emergence as a new phenomenon and the fact that its impact has been more gravely or more surprisingly felt.

post truth is a spin

I don’t think it’s spin, just giving a name/acceptance to something that’s always happened, politicians lie and a lot of the public don’t seem to care. Nowadays with info so easily to hand people should be able to call bullshit more often (admittedly on the net you need to filter out a lot of garbage) but it’s still going strong.

a MTB component, after being plucked from a CNC machine in China and packed by sleep deprived weeping children and shipped out for $15.00 should cost $700.00 retail !!

There is something new happening, or at least on a larger scale. Personally I think social media has played a big role in reinforcing people’s prejudices and diluting objectivity in public discourse – though that’s not the whole story of course.

Do have a listen to that radio doc I linked, it’s honestly very interesting on the subject.

There’s probably scope for another one on why people get so hostile at a term they haven’t heard of and don’t understand.

Ebikes are out to eat your children

There’s probably scope for another one on why people get so hostile at a term they haven’t heard of and don’t understand.

Ooo, get her!!

politicians lie and a lot of the public don’t seem to care

DONK, in many ways I think the public don’t care because they know they’re being lied to. I think post truth is a reflection on that phenomenon by a media that’s convinced itself it’s at the heart of the action while all the time the public have their own agenda (getting on with their lives). The public might align itself with the Tories/Labour/Libs occasionally, or through various individual policies, but as a rule, I think the MPs are kidding themselves, and always have been

Spending time on here makes me more efficient at my job

When at home …. dogs wearing bandanas can talk human.

“Thanks for the walk….. I love that lamp post at top of the road. Can we return home via it tomorrow? I like leaving it til last.”

The problem is that when ever any public figure actually tries to tell the truth they get shot down and drowned out by a liar with more money.

The public are so used to the constant lies peddled by politicians that they just go along with the process of our political system and can’t be bothered to change it.

They just see politics as Tory v Labour and every now and then a few of them realise theres more to it than this and gather a bit of momentum but ultimately the money men come in a close the doors again. So the process carries on as it was.

Unfortunately UK politics has now gone downhill even further and it’s not even a two horse race anymore. It’s basically Racists v Scotland, but there isn’t enough Scots to damage them in the polls.

Broken biscuits have no calories in them.

Unfortunately UK politics has now gone downhill even further and it’s not even a two horse race anymore. It’s basically Racists v Scotland, but there isn’t enough Scots to damage them in the polls.

No doubt you got some empirical evidence for this.

No, but opinion doesn’t need to be based on factual evidence does it.

A bit like politics really. Might be bullshit, but it’s my bullshit.

ads678 – Member 
No, but opinion doesn’t need to be based on factual evidence does it.

Exactly, and people forget that newspapers are primarily opinion pieces.

chakaping – Member 
I think you might have misunderstood it a bit.

My understanding is that, in politics, it refers to the way candidates (and Brexiteers) reject the need to substantiate what they are saying and – in some cases – baldly lie to the public.
And, importantly, that their supporters don’t care when these lies are challenged by the media, even seeing it as a reinforcement of their validity.

Well, kind of what I was trying to say. The use of emotive misleading or even lying language to sway opinion, regardless of the actual truth.

Not sure how the prefix ‘post’ really applies. Post used this way means after, and after truth = lies, err not sure that makes sense.

To me it’s a trendy media term to describe the fact that politicians are liars and the general public are idiots, while not offending them as idiots.

We live in a post truth world because truth no longer maters.

That’s about that saddest statement I’ve ever read. There really is no hope if that’s really the case.

But that is pretty much why I have given up on politics and really don’t know if I will ever vote in a general election again.

Unfortunately, as understandable as it is, this:

But that is pretty much why I have given up on politics and really don’t know if I will ever vote in a general election again.

Is part of how this:

We live in a post truth world because truth no longer maters

happens 🙁

Exactly, it’s a silly insult that implies we are moving away from the truth 😀

Now let’s try thinking about the era of truth we will be leaving behind 😯
BS and spin to undermine others choices.

So ‘post truth’ basically means Lying then?

Whilst technically correct, it’s more about the ignorance of the truth than outright lying. The person delivering a “post-truth” doesn’t believe they’re lying, they refuse blindly to accept the evidence placed in front of them that discredits their belief.

Technically they are lying, but they believe their opinion is far more important than hard facts.

The problem is that when ever any public figure actually tries to tell the truth they get shot down and drowned out by a liar with more money.

Bit like internet forums…

Replace “more money” with “a louder voice” and you’re there… 😉

We live in a post truth world because truth no longer maters.

I think it’s more like “who’s truth no longer matters”

The way the truth is presented is more important than the message it delivers. for instance, why don’t many conservative/right wing folk engage with the climate change debate? It could be that framed in the way it normally is, “stop industry burning fuel” “Regulate” “Tax” are all things that are anathema to their core beliefs, hence they reject it out of hand. Framed as a business opportunity or a way of developing new industry, you’d have more hope, but that’s not the language of the Greens or the Left….and so it goes around.

initially surprised that so many here are unfamiliar with the phrase, but on reflection, not so much. It helps to explain much.

So ‘post truth’ basically means Lying then?

post-truth is not the same as lying. When lying, people set out to deceive, they are familiar with the truth and would rather that you believed something else. Their purpose is to mislead. Post-truth is where people are not concerned with the truth, their aim is to say something, anything. Whether it is related to the truth or not is irrelevant, what they are interested in is the reward that it brings, be it fame, money, power. They don’t seek to mislead only to be heard.

So ‘post truth’ basically means Lying then?

If you are genuinely interested, listen to that radio show I shared.

🙂

If you are genuinely interested, listen to that radio show I shared.

I’d much rather ignore that and just carry on believing what I want to belive because it fits my view of the world.

It’s not a new thing.

“All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

Sometimes you’ve just got to Godwin.

I still think there is some fundamental misunderstanding of the term here.

Lying to people, and that audience’s subsequent belief of that lie, is not post truth. That’s propoganda.

Post truth is not the same thing. It is instead the audience willfully chosing to reject the evidence for a thing, and of their own volition, believe something other than what the data either suggests or makes compelling to believe (I won’t use the word ‘prove’ since you can’t really ever prove anything).

My ‘favourite’ is that all our current problems are caused by an apocryphal brown rice metropolitan lefty elite that are said to have got us into this mess and only a swing to right will fix it. As if Cameron, Blair, major and thatcher were some pinko commies and what we need is a man of the people like murdoch, fox or farage to lead us to some sunny upland of shared wealth, more public services and job security.

geetee72, I think it’s deeper than that, I think it’s a self delusional “artefact/construct” dreamt up by the media/commentators/politicians to describe a thing that makes sense of the fact that their liberal consensus politics isn’t working the way it has until this point.

the audience I think has largely always rejected “evidence” and gone for gut, the fact that sometimes gut lines up with evidence is the misrepresentation of the situation that has led politicians to the mistaken belief that what they say has any effect.

Whilst the phraseology is awkward, the concept of post truth is potentially extremely damaging. The best piece I’ve read on it is as follows:

Economist