- What is your post truth?
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.Posted 1 year agoD0NKSubscriber
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 summats? 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.Posted 1 year ago
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 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”Posted 1 year ago
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.Posted 1 year agoD0NKSubscriber
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.Posted 1 year agochakapingSubscriber
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.Posted 1 year ago
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 beenPosted 1 year ago
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.Posted 1 year agodeadkennySubscriber
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.Posted 1 year agomboySubscriber
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.Posted 1 year ago
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.Posted 1 year agoCharlieMungusMember
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.Posted 1 year agoNorthwindSubscriber
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.Posted 1 year ago
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).Posted 1 year agoeddie11Subscriber
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.Posted 1 year ago
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.Posted 1 year ago
The topic ‘What is your post truth?’ is closed to new replies.