So, as result of the centuries long contentious debate over what truth actually was, there were some folk who were fed up with the seemingly useless task, so they began setting out how to talk and think about things without using the term...

Those ways of talking became more and more common...

Post-truth.

"Some folk" doesn't even come close to constituting all folk or even most folk.

So, no Post-Truth.

What would anyone attribute this failure to?
— Posty McPostface

The fact that the Western powers are humane enough not to have reduced the nation to ash anytime in the last 40 years or so.

The Western powers are far from humane. They joined with America to effectively destroy Iraq and kill millions of Iraqis, leaving the nation a disastrous training ground for ISIS. The United States alone have contributed to murderous coups in countries like Chile, where they--the CIA--oversaw Pinochet's death squads that murdered tens of thousands. They--and the CIA--contributed to murderous coups in Honduras and El Salvador as well. That doesn't even mention what they did to Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos with their carpet bombing and use of horrid weapons like napalm. And now Trump is continuing Obama's shameful bombing of Syria and Yemen.

That is far from humane activity.

Sure, and that's a great combination of having no financial incentive to try and cower NK--the military's main purpose is to keep banks and corporations rich--and no reason to think doing so would be successful.

Exerting military power over or making specific military threats to NK doesn't bring the profits shamefully toppling regimes in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Libya does.

This is a Slate opinion piece by a journalist with a B.A. It doesn't establish anything.

And even the author says this: "As president, Trump has pursued this mission with gusto. That doesn’t mean he has served Putin deliberately; I doubt he has."

Your longer posts are usually where the assertions and insults become more strident. Why would you need to use bolding to differentiate your comments from others' when the format of quoting and responding does the job perfectly well?

Again you fail to back up your erroneous negative claims about me. So, at this point, you're just trolling. And the format doesnt' do the job perfectly well because the separate quotes aren't well-delineated.

If you are genuinely blind to the poor character of your "engagements" with others on here then I can only feel for you and suggest that you try to develop a little more self-awareness.

No, the one who needs more self-awareness is you, since you fail again to back up your erroneous claims against me. If you are genuinely blind to the poor character that shows of you, I can only feel for you and suggest that you try to develop a little more self-awareness.

Paying some heed to the many similar responses others have made to you about this would be a good first step.

This sadly presumes a small group of people must be right because they agree. Using your poor logic, a thousand klansman must be right since they are all in agreement. Paying some heed to the fact you sadly miss this, have been trolling me, and are completely biased in the matter would be a good first step.

There is great disagreement about many of these freedoms:

Freedom of religion: Many people believe their freedom of religion should allow people to break civic laws, like Christian Scientists believing they're allowed to kill their kids by denying them necessary medical treatment. Many, like myself, believe they don't.

Freedom of speech. Many believe their freedom of speech allows them to call people racial or homophobic epithets anytime they want, including at work, whether they are boss or employee. Many also feels their freedom of speech should allow them to sexually harass people or make intimidating death threats or verbal assaults. Many, including myself, don't agree with any of those arguments.

Freedom to move around and meet others: Many believe private property is a nuisance and they should be able to move through all private property freely. Many, like myself, disagree with that.

Freedom of choice in how to function in society: Many, including prostitutes, pimps, drug dealers, hit-men, and con-men believe in that freedom. Many, like myself, believe that freedom needs to be curtailed if we are to have a society.

Since I only use the boldings when my longer posts require them (or rarely when I'm pointing out an interlocutor's particular post), and you haven's shown otherwise; and you haven't shown they appear when my "assertions and insults become more strident;" or even shown that I made those strident assertions and insults; I don't find your claims compelling at all.

In fact, until you back up those erroneous claims, they're just not compelling, period.

If you misuse "conscious" that way, it renders the word useless, since nothing is now not conscious.

Sure, freedomis ultimately a fuzzy word, like all others, but surely you agree at least that there are some basic aspects of "freedom" that few would like to give up?

You seem sure of this. So go ahead and name them.

people all have their owndefinitions of freedom
— Thanatos Sand

So we can't discuss "freedom"??!!

I never said that. Stop straw-manning me.

This is what I actually said in response to your post:

"Jake Tarragon
Nevertheless, the desire for freedom is almost universal, and surely you cannot dismiss it so readily as you have, as being unsuitable as a basis for universal morality."

No, it's not because people all have their owndefinitions of freedom, and one person's freedom is another person's imprisonment; so, they don't all desire the same thing.

You cannot dismiss that so readily as you have.

Nevertheless, the desire for freedom is almost universal, and surely you cannot dismiss it so readily as you have, as being unsuitable as a basis for universal morality.

No, it's not because people all have their owndefinitions of freedom, and one person's freedom is another person's imprisonment; so, they don't all desire the same thing.

You cannot dismiss that so readily as you have.

Freedom of choice constitutes far more than freedom from slavery, hence the great variations in people's definitions of the phrase.

Then Obama is certainly malevolent, as well. Since he not only said that, but he actually drone struck and killed a 16 year old son of a terrorist. He also discussed drone striking Assange, a non-violent journalist who exposed American war crimes.
— Thanatos Sand

Again with the whataboutism. You asked for an example of Trump's malevolency. I provided it. What's the relevance of responded with an example of another malevolent person?

It's not 'whataboutism;" it's pointing out the preceding president, Obama, did exactly what you called Trump malevolent for. So, since I assumed you don't consider Obama malevolent, I pointed that out to counter your argument for Trump's malevolence.

But you clearly consider Obama malevolent, too. So, although I disagree with you on the "malevolence" issue, at least you're being consistent.

Sorry, streetlight. I posted before I saw the line

Nah, "malevolent" rarely gets thrown out as a description for Trump, as opposed to Netanyahu or Putin, and you haven't even made an argument for him being malevolent, so even you're not sure.

Feel free to show what he's done that makes him malevolent any time.
— Thanatos Sand

Saying that you should kill the family of terrorists is a pretty malevolent thing to say. And if he's being honest then it shows him to be pretty malevolent.

Then Obama is certainly malevolent, as well. Since he not only said that, but he actually drone struck and killed a 16 year old son of a terrorist. He also discussed drone striking Assange, a non-violent journalist who exposed American war crimes.

↪Erik I basically agree.

Sand is arguably a dickhead, but if folk know he is a dickhead, it's their fault if they get caught.

It's hostile personal attacks like this that make it funny Banno (and others) is talking about me. I've certainly never called anyone a dickhead, and nobody has shown one post where I initiated hostility. Interesting.

I appreciate your comments, Erik, but I'd also appreciate if you could show me where I was initially cranky. I'm not saying you're lying, but I'd just appreciate a point of reference for my own knowledge's sake.

Noble Dust

Treating others poorly makes some folk feel good about themselves.

Then you and Noble Dust must feel really (and undeservedly) good about yourselves...:)

Dear god dude. Your inability to interface charitably with literally anyone on this forum who you, to just one tiny degree, disagree with, in one tiny possible way, is absolutely disgusting. I literally can't comprehend how this is possible, other than the possibility that you're just willingly trolling us all on purpose to prove some kind of point, in a theatrical way. The fact that you just insulted Wayfarer after he offers a word of wisdom, take it or leave it...is just too much. You don't even realize the depth of the wealth of wisdom that you just absconded; a wealth of wisdom that you, like anyone else here, could have benefited from so profoundly.

Dear god, dude. You just made a bunch of personal attacks on me, and you didn't back up a single one. So, you're just sadly trolling with rage and vitriol. Since this is the second time you have done that to me, I will no longer read a single one of your posts.

And I'm the one who is actually calling out your bullshit, now.

I have no reason whatsoever to think/believe that you're speaking sincerely Sand and every reason to conclude otherwise.

Actually, you have every reason to believe I'm speaking sincerely since you haven' shown in any way that I haven't been doing so.

I've no further interest in addressing you

My favorite sentence of yours by far.

Creative is setting the problems within the current society that is being called "post-truth", and he doesn't care what you call it...

Except Creative is erroneously describing our present condition by either directly using the term "post-truth" or by erroneously saying we live in a world others call "Post-Truth."

I'm not impressed with your para-consistency.

I've been entirely consistent. I'm not impressed by your lack of consistency or your inability to effectively make an argument or counter others'

Thanatos Sand But since this is a philosophy site, you might consider what would occur if we were in a post-truth society. — Banno

The problem is neither you, nor anybody else, has been focusing on a "post-truth" society as a hypothetical, but as a present condition. You do that with your post here:

Define the problem
— creativesoul

Can a post-truth society last?

Or join me, in arguing that the very notion of a post-truth society is incoherent.

I've been doing this for a while. Others, particularly Creative, have been insisting its both coherent and descriptive of our present condition.

And yet you just replied. And I wasn't "playing;" I was just responding to your erroneous comment.

Can a post-truth society last?

Since we're not in a "Post-Truth" society, that cant' be the problem

Janus
There does seem to be some strange compulsive schoolyard insult syndrome going on: "You're a troll and an idiot", "No, you're the only troll and idiot", "No, you are..." and so on.
— Janus

That sort of thing.

Not really, more like one person erroneously calling someone a troll because they can't counter their arguments and the accused correctly noting that behavior is itself trolling.

1. There is never just one problem; there are always many that are never neatly tied together.

This presupposes knowledge of all the problems. We do not have that. What we do have is a list of all the things that we think/believe are a problem.

I say that we start there.

No it doesn't. It shows knowledge of previous reality. To assume there is just one problem or many neatly tied together presupposes both knowledge of all problems and shows no knowledge of previous reality.

2. A single problem can never be identified or reduced into full clarity as what that problem is and what exactly constitutes and contributes to that problem can never be fully discerned or agreed on.

If this is true then it is false. If this is false then this is true.

The liar all over again.

Not only did your irrelevant quip not address my argument, it was nonsensical. We cannot have a discussion if you don't address what I wrote.

↪Thanatos Sand there are none so blind as those who will not see

You just described yourself perfectly, and thanks for showing you can't show how Trump is "malevolent."

Nah, "malevolent" rarely gets thrown out as a description for Trump, as opposed to Netanyahu or Putin, and you haven't even made an argument for him being malevolent, so even you're not sure.

Feel free to show what he's done that makes him malevolent any time.

That's your subjective opinion--about his malevolence, not his incompetence--that doesn't counter anything I said. When he actually matches the horrors of Dubya and Reagan, then we can put him up with them.

No he's not a whole other level of awful:

1. George W. Bush sent thousands of Americans to die in an Iraq War (he knew was bogus) that left millions of Iraqis dead, and he signed off on the torture of thousands more of Iraqis. That's downright inhuman and evil

2. Ronald Reagan spent 8 years destroying the many New Deal social programs from Welfare, to Medicare, to Social Security, to public education, and he started a heinous "war on drugs" that left millions of non-violent offenders in prison, and he stopped AIDS research because he considered it a Gay disease.

Sorry, Trump sucks, but he hasn't done anything like those two's horrors yet.

One of the nuggets I picked up over lunch-time reading is that the total percentage of the electorate that thinks Trump ought to be impeached, is a greater number than those that think he's doing a good job.

This is all irrelevant since we don't impeach presidents on popular opinions.

It's not a matter of policies. If for instance Pence became President, then his policies would presumably be very conservative and objectionable on political grounds. The problem with Trump is that he is completely incapable of the job he's been elected to. It's a different kind of problem.

Of course it's a matter of policies. Those are what actually hurt people and those are what we can fight...even if Pence takes over. If you don't think those harmful policies are the problem, you're no better than a Trumpy who just doesn't like Trump personally, since you're apparently fine with those policies as long as they're done capably. Unreal.

The problem under discussion in this particular thread is that the most powerful nation-state on the planet has elected a mendacious narcissist with no record of public service and no apparent administrative ability as its leader.

We definitely had that under Dubya (who a lot of centrist Democrats love for some disturbing reason), and pretty much had it under Reagan, too. The problem Is not him as a person, it is his horrific policies, some which are continuations of Obama's. Those policies:

1. A racist immigration policy that could resurface in another form
2. The stripping down of the EPA
3. The cutting of progressive policies like free heating funding for poor elderly
4. The assault on public education under Devos
5. The continuation of Obama and Hillary's shameful alliance, business partnership with Saudi Arabia
6. The continuation of Obama and Hillary's shameful war on Syria and Yemen.

The problems are twofold:

1. There is never just one problem; there are always many that are never neatly tied together.

2. A single problem can never be identified or reduced into full clarity as what that problem is and what exactly constitutes and contributes to that problem can never be fully discerned or agreed on.

Sounds good.

Knowing what the problem is requires - amongst other things - being able to distinguish between competing reports. Reports consist of statements. Thus, the ability to know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is crucial to being able to identify and correct the problem(s)...

This has been a great difficulty for mankind throughout its history...and probably always will be.

↪creativesoul that's like - hey I don't like where this bus is heading. I know! Let's hire someone who can't drive! That'll learn 'em!

We could be having the best, most compassionate, and most visionary candidate--Bernie Sanders--driving the bus, but the DNC had to rig the primary against him for the inferior war-hawk candidate.

Yes, it was, I especially liked the predictable moment when the bolding appears, as usual accompanied by the very plausible claim that it does not represent a raised tone at all but is rather for the practical purpose of distinguishing sandy comments from the others they are responding to.

No, it was bolding to delineate my statements from my interlocutors. But keep trying to foment Augustino's sad, deluded hostility without contributing anything to the forum topic...and such an angry emolji, too.

I'm not reading Augustino's posts anymore, but feel free to actually address my arguments anytime instead of chatting about me. I wasn't aware this was the Gossip Forum.

An OP from today's NY Times: Many Politicians Lie. But Trump Has Elevated the Art of Fabrication.

A few stand outs: the Ordination Crowd lie, the Illegal Voters lie, the Boy Scout Leader's Phone Call lie. But there are many to choose from.

Sorry, but an opinion piece is just that--an opinion piece. It is not evidentiary support for your opinion.

The glaring difference between Mr. Trump and his predecessors is the sheer magnitude of falsehoods and exaggerations; PolitiFact rates just 20 percent of the statements it reviewed as true, and a total of 69 percent either mostly false, false or “Pants on Fire.” That leaves [presidential historian Doris] Goodwin to wonder whether Mr. Trump, in elevating the art of political fabrication, has forever changed what Americans are willing to tolerate from their leaders.

And Politifact is a biased publication that is no arbiter for who has been more truthful or not. Considering George W. Bush was one of the most mendacious presidents we've ever had. Their estimation means little. And considering Goodwin plagiarized on one of her books, her judging truthfulness is laughable.

What’s different today and what’s scarier today is these lies are pointed out, and there’s evidence that they’re wrong,” she said. “And yet because of the attacks on the media, there are a percentage of people in the country who are willing to say, ‘Maybe he is telling the truth.’”

The fact people--on both the Left and the Right--don't believe the media is because they have been shamefully biased in backing specific candidate, have backed every military operation for years, have purposely ignored important stories like DAPL because they were inconvenient, and have told many half-truths, manipulated truths and straight up-lies. So, criticisms of that aren't attacks on the media, they're legit criticisms of a corrupt, incompetent mainstream media.

And people pointed out Bush', Clinton's, Reagan's and Obama's lies too; they're supporters still believed them.

Or - maybe it doesn't matter, because 'all politicians lie', which seems to be the narrative amongst some contributors here.

Nobody said it "doesn't matter," so now the lying one is you. And most, if not all, politicians lie--even those with great integrity like Bernie Sanders. Anyone who believes otherwise is just deluding themselves.

I'm not positing them. My point was that Skepticism doesn't posit them. Take that as part of the definition of Skepticism.

No, I've shown very well, in my last few posts, you haven't said this at all.

Many or most other metaphysicses, including Physicalism ("Naturalism") do need and use assumptions, and do posit, and depend on, brute-facts.

As, clearly, does your personal use of "skepticism."

So, not only have you been trolling your last few posts, your decidedly inconsistent and contradictory personal use of the term "skepticism" has been trolling, a clear avoidance of making an actual argument and facing its criticisms.