I think the problem is far deeper actually. Today, someone told me that terrorism had been going on for hundreds of years, citing Vietnam as proof. 'Terrorism' USED TO MEAN a soldier dressing up as a civilian and sneaking into a civilian place to kill people. Now it means whatever the hell you want.

People now use words to describe whatever they decide they mean, accepting no authority over their own opinion. It has got so bad, it is impossible to communicate any more, and yesterday I terminated my philosophy blog. It has got that bad.

Your reply isn't responsive except to defend against a perceived ad hom attack against the CBO as obscure, which really wasn't at all my point. The point is if the courts and media are fair game, everything is. The CBO isn't a great protector of American freedom like the press and the courts and it holds no sacred place in American history.

I'm not defending your friend's statement about Vietnam, but terrorism has in fact been going on for 100s of years. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_terrorism&ved=0ahUKEwjn-6SU7tDSAhUp34MKHbJvD-cQFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNH6S1kk9Vlac3RMTwi8gJkZrOvaNA&sig2=Dx-C2zGmeB-FsUA36PTdSA.

I'd also point out that the variation in usage of the term "terrorism" over time (to the extent it has) only means that it shares a trait that many words do and it's not a sign something is wrong.

And where's the evidence of bias in the CBO? The problem is not any particular agency having immunity against charges of bias if they happen to be true, but Trump’s using of the concept of "bias" as an attempted form of immunization against all criticism, and against the dissemination of any facts he doesn't happen to like. You've presumably noticed that tendency?

They're not 'fair game', and your argument simply capitulates to the notion that everything really is a matter of opinion. — Wayfarer

If they're not fair game, why do the liberals attack conservative justices and FoxNews? Even Obama struck at the Court. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettling-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html?utm_term=.645ad4aec527

criticism is one thing, outright mendacity is another, especially when calculated to damage democratic institutions.

Bernie Sanders in the Guardian:

He charged Trump with devising a conscious strategy of lies denigrating key public institutions, from the mainstream media to judges and even the electoral process itself, so that he could present himself as the sole savior of the nation. The aim was to put out the message that “the only person in America who stands for the American people, the only person in America who is telling the truth, the only person in America who gets it right is the president of the United States, Donald Trump”.

And where's the evidence of bias in the CBO? — Baden

You can Google "bias at cbo" as well as I can for historical claims of bias by both parties.

You've presumably noticed that tendency? — Baden

Of course, but he didn't create this problem. He simply identified it and exploited it. Both sides have fostered an us versus them attitude, and so absolute skepticism of criticism has been the result.

The Sanders quote is ironic. The liberals, not the right, have denigrated the electoral process itself by openly proclaiming Trump's election invalid. John Lewis attacks the integrity of the electoral process, and the left's response is that it's shameful to attack John Lewis for saying that.

I was enjoying this conversation until I got to Colbert being quoted as authority, at which point I couldnt take it seriously any more. — ernestm

That seems to be how people feel about Trump these days.

I think Trump genuinely believes the things he says, some of which may not in fact be true — Thorongil

He speaks untruth he genuinely believes in. — Thorongil

Maybe, maybe not.
(Maybe Trump is just biased towards confirming whatever suits him, maybe he has high-up staff feeding him information confirming whatever suits them, ...)
What would that say about what he bases decisions on? We're not talking just deciding what to have for supper.
Either way, wouldn't you normally expect leaders in high places to be reliable, well-informed and honest?
That would be my normal expectation anyway, but doesn't seem to be the case for Trump.
Everyone makes mistakes, yet public leaders are supposed to learn from them, to lead by example, perhaps like a role model or something.

People now use words to describe whatever they decide they mean, accepting no authority over their own opinion. It has got so bad, it is impossible to communicate any more, ... — ernestm

Those people are not describing anything, they're prescribing or pushing their own arbitrary meanings, typically whenever it suits them. For example, when a redefinition of a word saves them from having to admit a lie, or from changing their opinion or ideology.

Throughout history ideologues or liars have relied on the possibility to define or redefine the meanings of words as it suits them.

So, this phenomenon that some call "post-truth" is probably as old as our language, or older even considering the fact that also some animals who don't speak a language can act deceptively as a means to benefit from it.

Wonder why Trump loves the Russians so much... he's probably not compromised though... probably not.

Trump met Putin in college. After a year of making fun of his name, Trump began to fall for that melancholia disguised as Christian mysticism so typical of Slavs.

Trump began to fall for that melancholia disguised as Christian mysticism so typical of Slavs. — Mongrel

Really? Trump does not seem melancholic, just hilarious.

Opposites attract.

The liberals, not the right, have denigrated the electoral process itself by openly proclaiming Trump's election invalid. — Hanover

Lewis said Trump was not a legitimate president, because of Russian interference in the election.

What a lot of people have said is that Trump is an unsuitable person to hold the office, as he has never held public office previously, exhibits many major characters flaws, and lies continually, all of which remains the case.

I beleive what is happening now is different than in the past because of social media. Now people with any particular view can find others to validate it regardless of its sensibility. They remain immune to any fact or rationality contrary to their position because they can find many others believing the same falsity. They then mutually reject any authority or academic qualification over their own opinion, and as I state, are not even open to discussing it. They simply ban or ridicule anything different to their agenda.

The aggregate of these micro communities create hostile dichotomies in society which do nothing but attack and blame the other side no matter how inconsistent each side's view is, because as I say, the discrepancies in rationality dont matter any more.

(Y)

It became relatively easy to find others to validate shared views already in the 19th century, when a lot of people moved into the cities. Now, would the way contemporary social media propagates opinions have a greater impact, and somehow reduce people's respect for truth? I don't think so. Most people respect truth, especially when they depend on it, e.g. at the doctor's, when buying groceries, or when they agree to do work for a certain salary, and so on.

David Brooks argues that Trump's presidency is an example of Anti-Enlightenment thinking.

anti-Enlightenment thinking is... back in the form of Donald Trump, racial separatists and the world’s other populist ethnic nationalist movements.

Today’s anti-Enlightenment movements don’t think truth is to be found through skeptical inquiry and debate. They think wisdom and virtue are found in the instincts of the plain people, deep in the mystical core of the nation’s or race’s group consciousness.

Today’s anti-Enlightenment movements believe less in calm persuasion and evidence-based inquiry than in purity of will. They try to win debates through blunt force and silencing unacceptable speech.

Good point jkop. The fact is people can easily find find reinforcement for hostile, violent, socially unacceptable views now, which would rapidly have been terminated in real-world scenarios, but which now can build impetus in anonymity until the group reaches critical mass. During the process, they create their own interpretation of world events which is published as 'fake news,' then they rapidly share it as propaganda to substantiation for their opinions. After that, they can organize to gather at some rally, when previously they would not have been able to find each other. Political parties have figured this out and now refer to it as 'new grass roots organization on the Internet.' The KKK would be a better historical analogy.

Today's installment - Trump didn't really mean that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, because the presidential tweet put scare quotes around 'wiretapped', according to spokesman Sean Spicer.

IN a post-truth world that is the only kind of truth we're going to get, I expect.

("Hey I said "PUSH" the button, moron! You acted like there were no quotes!')

Yeah it is ridiculous isnt it.

Today Al Gore appeared on PBS calling for 'reason.' I posted this. I expect no result any more. It's kind of like a chicken with its head cut off still running around.

-----

While Mr. Gore may be admired for his optimism, this problem won't be 'solved by the Internet,' because the new proposed tools to isolate 'fake news' don't stop social media making the problem worse again. While I doubt others will have much to say on it, I publish it here in the hope that Mr. Gore himself consider the problem, there being very few others of real importance embarked on the same admirable course he has chosen.

I also have been following this trend for the last ten years, and when I first predicted that Tea Party ethics would take over the government, academics scoffed at me. Last year they were no longer scoffing. So I will explain what I have observed.

For a while, the Internet was a fantastic innovation, as people with particular obscure interests could find each other, in ways previously impossible. But other corollary assemblages formed. People with *any* particular view could find others to validate it, regardless of the view's actual sensibility. People easily found reinforcement for hostile, violent, socially unacceptable views, which would rapidly have been terminated in real-world scenarios, but which built in impetus, safe in anonymity, until the group reached critical mass. Then they organized to gather at some rally, when previously they would not have been able to find each other. Political parties figured this out and now frequently refer to it as 'new grass roots organization on the Internet.' These very powerful political groups are loosely associated, and the formal components can claim detachment from the more aggressive elements, but in tandem they form an increasingly unstoppable force. Now they will simply hijack any tools to filter out fake news and bend them to their agenda.

Also, I should add, these new tools to filter out fake news are not new ideas. I for one started asking for them 5 years ago. They are now too late. The agenda of those wishing to control public opinion in this way has since continued to grow in power, the power groups are now established, they have no ethics, and they have no hesitation in inciting corruption for their own power, which they then deny on their own fake news systems.

In concert, they remain immune to any fact or rationality contrary to their position, because they have gathered many believing the same falsity. They then mutually reject any authority or academic qualification over their own opinion, and they are not even open to discussing it. They simply ban or ridicule anything different to their agenda, and support each other in doing so.

The aggregate of these micro communities creates hostile dichotomies through the midst of society, across which each side does nothing but attack and blame the other side, no matter how inconsistent or directly wrong each side's view is on any one particular point, because, the discrepancies in rationality don't even matter. There is no real interest any more in understanding what MIGHT be true, and what that would mean; instead there is only a continually mounting pressure to say that everyone outside one's own camp is wrong, accelerating into some future mutual assured destruction.

I would be open to discussing solutions, but just as 10 years ago, there are still insufficient people taking this problem seriously enough, even though it is now graced with the popular moniker as a new 'post-truth ' era In the general and massively increased noise of scoffing and denial, it is no longer so easy to find people with the same concerns as it used to be, if the concerns are not the ones which everyone else considers most important. So it now appears to me, the schisms and lack of concern for reason are permanent, at least for my own life. It seems to me there is no existent force to change it, unless people take this problem seriously enough and take real steps to correct it throughout society, starting with our education system.

you write very well Ernestm.

Have you checked out ernest's 60,000 word essay on natural law and the social contract?

lol. I really should finish copy editing that.

Due to others asking to read this, its now posted on my blog. the only real difference is a quote from mein kampf as substantiation.

http://www.yofiel.com/writing/essays/dialog

Everyone knows that Trump completely torpedoed Republican healthcare policy by saying (in the heat of the moment during the campaign) that he was going to replace the Affordable Care Act with something even better - more coverage, cheaper, and nobody worse off.

Everyone also knows that this was patently untrue, as neither Trump nor anyone else in the Republican party had either the means or the will do do that.

So now they've come with their Repeal and Replace bill, it is being opposed from all sides. But the thinking is now that the GOP actually knows this bill is doomed to failure, and as a result, that the whole health insurance market will collapse in a heap. And what does Dear Leader have to say about that?

“Let it be a disaster, because we can blame that on the Dems,” Trump told governors two weeks ago, summing up a thought he’s expressed repeatedly.

The news from the first draft of the budget - it eliminates many of the programs that directly benefit the people who voted for Trump in the first place.

It slashes the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department, along with many other publicly-funded programs, while allocating large amounts of money to the Mexican Border Wall and defense. And it does all this, while doing nothing whatever about balancing the budget.

Here's hoping that sooner rather than later Trump's constituency realises they've been conned.

In Defence of Post-Truth
Steve Fuller
Mar 2017

Name-drops: Aquinas, Bacon, King James I, Newton, Kant, Nietzsche, Hans Vaihinger, Popper, Frank Ramsey, Sellars, Hawking
Can't help but wonder if all Fuller's historical snippets are "post-truth", "pre-truth", not really anything in particular, or something else.
I'll just quickly classify as "roughly nonsense", "maybe entertainment", or just some words (partially strung together incoherently), like a theme, a genre, of language reduction, a kind of literature that's never about anything other than literature, sort of self-trapped. :)

I'll just quickly classify as "roughly nonsense" — jorndoe

I was going to say, steaming pile of manure, but I thought it might be rude.

Meanwhile, on the Trump front - Monday's testimony from Comey and others is very damaging to Trump. Anyone following the story really should listen to this testimony. It paints the picture of repeated contacts between Trump campaign personnel, various Russian intelligence and business leaders, and also a contact associated with Wikileaks.

What's really depressing, though, is the 'accepted wisdom' that no matter what is said about Trump - even the possibility that his campaign team actually committed treason, even the fact that he blatantly lied about his predecessor and then refuses to back down - that it doesn't matter. That is what is truly scary, depressing, and 'post truth'. Why? Because even when the truth is established, it doesn't matter. There are enough people willing to overlook the truth, out of loyalty to their supposed hero.

This thread has been quiet for a month, but the subject has by no means become less relevant. Trump demonstrates on an almost daily basis his complete disregard for truth. Truth, for Trump, is first and foremost whatever suits his purposes for the duration of a particular conversation. It might be convenient to say that NATO is obsolete in one context, and then convenient to say it's not in another. Which is the truth? It doesn't matter. And that's what is so scary about Trump - it's really a deep deficiency, a fatal flaw in character, in the man who has been elected as de facto 'leader of the free world'. 'What really happened'. 'what really matters', 'what is the case' - all of these are subordinated to whatever purpose Trump happens to be considering at that moment.

New presidents typically grow into the job, but Trump remains a bully and a charlatan. In my career, I’ve never known a national politician as mendacious, ill informed, bombastic and dangerous as Trump. His tweets are as immature as ever, and The Washington Post calculates that he has issued 452 false or misleading claims since assuming office, churning them out at a rate of more than one every six hours around the clock (no wonder he seems so busy!) — Nicholas Kristof

I don't know if Trump is a symptom or a cause, although I suspect the former. Only a profoundly confused electorate could elect someone so manifestly incapable of doing the job he lucked into, and then continue to stand by him when his manifest incompetence and mendacity become more obvious every day.

Trump continues to accuse the media of producing "fake news," but, as he never seems to actually refute anything that the Washington Post, New York Times, and the rest of his frequent targets say, I have come to understand that, for Trump, "fake news" = news he doesn't like.

(Though this is old news at this point, one is reminded of GW Bush accusing Gore of promulgating "fuzzy math" when Gore was poking holes in Bush's economic ideas. Bush, of course, never seemed to get around to explaining exactly what was fuzzy about it. The scary thing is that, as compared to Trump, Bush looks like Abraham Lincoln.)