'Post-truth' is a system the US establishment has created, which might indeed be described as such. Trump moves within that system, but he isn't the cause or even a principal part of the problem.

When you analyze the modus operandi of the US empire since the end of WW2 and especially since the end of the Cold War, it contains a huge amount of propaganda, information operations, etc.

The US, being a peripheral power, realized they weren't going to dominate the world either through economic or military power, so they devised something different: dominating information flows.

Eventually this poisons information flows to such a degree that no one trusts a word from anyone.

So what to do?

There's nothing to be done. Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback, and the US establishment has squandered all of it, both domestically and internationally.

The only thing that's left to be done is to bite the bullet.

You act as if this is your first election.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SleazyPolitician

Q. “How do you know a politician is lying?” A. "Their mouth is moving."

Or day on Earth, frankly. :smirk:

You're dealing with ingrained human nature, to benefit oneself over that of another. Deception and unscrupulous behavior is a form of survival. You can't honestly tell me if there's one dose of medicine that doesn't belong to you, that you have means to procure, and there's two sick children, one being your own and the other being a stranger's, you'd "do the right thing", even if said medicine belongs to said stranger. Go ahead, lie to us. :smile:

You have a great point, it's an ancient debate indeed. We love to take the moral high ground and insist anything to the contrary will lead to the destruction of society itself- until push comes to shove and it's you or yours on the chopping block of life. Sadly, such is the way of the world.

By "truth" I mean to refer to people who are honest and who value, care about, truth and honesty. — tim wood

By "truth" you mean people who care about truth?

I'd say an OP which cares about truth would have a more truthful first sentence. :grin:

By "truth" I mean to refer to people who are honest and who value, care about, truth and honesty.
— tim wood
By "truth" you mean people who care about truth? — Leontiskos

Is that what I wrote? Try reading. If English is a challenge, get help.

I feel your pain, like half of America and about 90% of Australia, I'm vastly dissappointed by the re-election of DJT, although I will stop posting about it as it serves no purpose other than sounding off. But one of the very many regrettable things about it is that it bakes his mendacity in to the highest levels of public discourse. He's said he's going to purge the bureuacracy of those who have expressed critical opinions about him and the January 6th atrocity, and so on.

Us ordinary citizens can't do a lot about that, of course, but the only antidote to lies is truth and the hope that others will heed it.

You act as if this is your first election
You're dealing with ingrained human nature, to benefit oneself over that of another. Deception and unscrupulous behavior is a form of survival. — Outlander

Nope, Truman v. Dewey. Eisenhower v Stevenson the first when I had an opinion. Am I correct to understand your comment as your being unable to tell the difference between, in this case, American presidents?

I try to distinguish between kinds and levels of lying. At some degree, the lie becomes dangerously toxic. Trump in my opinion is about six or more standard deviations from any mean in terms of the danger and toxicity of his lies, and what they have caused and may well cause. His are no more "human nature" than are certain diseases and criminality. That is, by far most people do not have the disease of extreme mendacity. On the other hand, a lot of people are stupid, apparently more than half of American voters.

Moreover, how did the American public react when Bill Clinton's affair was uncovered? Some thought he was a national disgrace, a "pig", per se. Others found him more relatable as a result and proof of democracy's function that the most powerful man in the world is "just like us", imperfect, prone to temptation and folly, and is not in some untouchable near-godly class. What about when the order to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given? Some consider that the worst atrocity against human life in history, rivaling if not surpassing the Holocaust.

It goes back to an ancient school of thought, a near-primal division, a form of culture and indeed "religion". Do we accept that we as human beings are imperfect and not only capable of horrors and sleaze but prone to them and in fact happier when we engage in these things and any sort of "morality" or piety is a lie that will inevitably collapse in on itself and serves as nothing but hindrance to human potential? Or do we realize that, like children, we have natural faults and tendencies that need to be corrected, perhaps constantly, so that we can reach a true and greater purpose and contentment as not just a society or civilization but as a species writ-large?

It's easy to have one's morals and values spun around and turned on their head by even a single isolated incident such as a heinous murder or debilitating accident, say in the course of being a good Samaritan and helping a stranded motorist, but should single isolated incidents or persons really serve as permanent indicators and premonitions of the entire future and destiny of mankind? I think not. They can certainly dramatically alter a particular society's zeitgeist overnight to the point it becomes unrecognizable, but I'd humbly suggest such an event does not dictate the declaration of a society let alone a world being "post-truth".

As far as Trump specifically, I've noticed he seems to moderate his actual behavior a bit better when he's actually in office as opposed to campaigning. He's an entertainer first and foremost, which seems to go hand in hand with politics. People have a tendency to be frustrated and like to hear their frustrations being echoed by the highest levels of power. Pandering 101. Additionally, there's an unfortunate bias among most people where we tend to believe if a person is being aggressive or callous it equates to being truthful. Which makes sense as the average person deals with a plethora of problems and frustration in their daily lives (work sucks, bills too high, goods and services too expensive, etc.) and they themselves often view their own instances of politeness as obligatory and not genuine. Like many things, only time will tell. Hope I'm right.

I too feel your pain (I'm still reeling from the election), but I can't take your proposal seriously. Or . . . OK, if some legitimate U.S. authority is miraculously empowered to set up a series of Truth Trials, a la Nuremberg, and if they hand down death penalties for the likes of Trump, I might be persuaded that this was "reasonable and appropriate." Maybe. But otherwise, no. I believe honesty is part of an array of virtues that includes tolerance, compassion, nonviolence, democracy, and respect for law. We don't get to pick which ones we like.

By "post-truth" I mean to refer to liars and parasites who neither value nor care bout truth and honesty. — tim wood

I think the problem is more pernicious and extends beyond liars and parasites. Post-truth is cynical nihilism. On the one hand, the doubt or denial that the truth exists, and on the other, the rejection of the value of truth. Instead of truth there are versions of things to be accepted or rejected. Instead of just facts, there are "alternative facts", which in truth are alternatives to facts.

There is also the assumption that what believes is the truth. Evidence is rejected because it must be false because it contradicts the beliefs held as truth. This might be called patriotic nihilism.

Us ordinary citizens can't do a lot about that, of course, but the only antidote to lies is truth and the hope that others will heed it. — Wayfarer

From our friend the internet:

"Guard geese have been used throughout history, and in modern times. In ancient Rome, geese are credited by the historian Livy for giving the alarm when Gauls invaded (see Battle of the Allia).[9][10][11] Geese were subsequently revered in the supplicia canum annual sacrifice, and the Romans later founded a temple to Juno, to whom the geese were considered sacred."

Geese cackle. They also attack. I don't know that any individual attack is appropriate. But we may most-of-us be under a positive obligation to cackle, as long and as much and as loud as needed - calling for truth, calling out the lies.

But we may most-of-us be under a positive obligation to cackle, as long and as much and as loud as needed - calling for truth, calling out the lies. — tim wood

Now you're talking! More cackling, less violence.

I think "bullshit" provides a better tool for analysis here than "post truth". Bullshit is what folk say in order to get what they want, regardless of truth. "Post truth" suggests we are done with truth. With bullshit, there are still truths, they are just denied for expediency. The truth will out: global warming will not go away because the GOP denies it's reality; tariff will fuck more than just the 'mercan economy; appeasing Putin will not end well.

What about when the order to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was given? — Outlander

Clinton and the atom bomb. It would be nice if you were both better informed and better educated. Clinton fooled around. Not nice, also not uncommon. Can we think of another? But Clinton by most measures was a pretty good president. And the bombs. But even Japanese acknowledge they represented a net savings of many, many lives over invasion. And the US warned the Japanese specifically. But they required to be shown, and even after the bombings, some Japanese militarists were still unwilling to surrender. So none of this is on point, or relevant to any point. Nor can I detect any other point in your post, accept as an apologetics for a sick and dangerous man.

You're dealing with ingrained human nature, to benefit oneself over that of another. Deception and unscrupulous behavior is a form of survival. — Outlander

So is trust. Those who indulge in deception as a matter of course will be rejected for the commonweal.

Nice.

"Post truth" suggests we are done with truth. With bullshit, there are still truths, they are just denied for expediency. — Banno

I think this crystallises it.

I think the problem is more pernicious and extends beyond liars and parasites. Post-truth is cynical nihilism. — Fooloso4

:100: As cynical nihilism, post-truth might even be in a perverted sense a principled stance. But I doubt any of our current American crop of post-truthers is capable of principle - or any other principle than a diseased self-interest. If you can think of any, I'll accept correction.

I'm evolving to a belief that as they try to subdue opposition in waves of lies, we best return by insisting on truth and challenging the lies. This is work, demanded by imperatives of history, and not easy. But better than war.

:100: Seconded.

Americans are being shafted.


OECD Doc

Trouble is the only narrative being used to explain this to them is the muddled myth of migrants and inflation. Bernie Sanders is correct.

Hi. I'm not really suggesting any kind of truth commission, although I also think there is substance in the idea. And to be sure, our free press should provide something of that function, which they do. You may recall some years ago a video of an American v. Dutch journalists - I find it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thIRJLsnIxY

They refused to accept his lie or to let him off the hook for it. That we need across the board. We should have started with his claims that his first inauguration was "larger" than his predecessor's first. An obvious and absurd lie.

And maybe you've seen this one from about 13 years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

They refused to accept his lie or to let him off the hook for it. That we need across the board. We should have started with his claims that his first inauguration was "larger" than his predecessor's first. An obvious and absurd lie. — tim wood

Yes! I was also trying to pinpoint when the bullshit began and I came to the same conclusion. He was let off the hook. But the old saying that if you give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves has not applied. Here, if you give them enough rope, it's us who hang...

Geese cackle. They also attack. I don't know that any individual attack is appropriate. But we may most-of-us be under a positive obligation to cackle, as long and as much and as loud as needed - calling for truth, calling out the lies. — tim wood

Depressingly, I feel that hordes of attack geese will not prevail against the might of a corrupted American military-industrial-political complex. (Maybe we could fly into the engines......)

But the old saying that if you give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves has not applied. Here, if you give them enough rope, it's us who hang... — Tom Storm

The point about demagogues is precisely that they turn democracy against itself for their own advantage. That is DJT's MO. If you look at the Wikipedia entry on demagogues, he ticks all the boxes (although the crowd-edited wikipedia has the good sense not to include him as an example.)

The 10 richest people in the world saw their wealth increase by a record margin just one day after former President Donald Trump won the 2024 election, a sign that already wide wealth disparities will likely grow even wider over the next four years due to Trump’s stated economic goals.

According to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index, those 10 individuals saw their wealth rise by up to $64 billion on Wednesday. That’s the highest daily increase among the 10 wealthiest people in the world ever seen in a single day since Bloomberg started tracking those people’s worth in 2012.

For comparison, the $64 billion figure is equivalent to the annual wages earned by 800,000 American households making the U.S. median income of $80,000 per year. — Truthout

World's Richest Man, Elon Musk, is set to become one of the most powerful (and, I bet, most hated) men in the new Establishment. Let's hope he f***s off to Mars, like he said he would.

Well, I never much liked the way the screen in the Tesla looks like an afterthought. No way I'd buy one now.

There’s a market for bumper stickers like ‘I bought the car before Elon went crazy'. Californians, who are one of Tesla's largest markets, and also overwhelmingly Democrat, are appalled by his right turn. But with this victory, he's well and truly ensconsed in the echelon of major world magnates on the scale of Nelson Rockefeller and J P Morgan. Which I think is pretty damn scary, considering his general obnoxiousness. :yikes:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/the-alarm-over-elon-musk-and-national-security-has-yet-to-sink-in-20241106-p5koda.html

Nice thead. We are definitely in the Post Truth era. But having said that, I'm referring specifically to the way obvious lies are treated publicly, not individually. In the past (as now) everyone had their personal appreciation of what they understand to be the truth. What has changed is the way what is commonly understood to be the truth (by a majority of society), no longer serves as a guardrail to moderate publicly spoken opinions.

For example, everyone has a preference of how a society should work. Many in the past, collected observations of society, pondered what "worked" and didn't work, then came to a conclusion based on their interpretation of the "evidence". Now many more folks come to (an expedient) conclusion first, then cherry-pick observations to support that conclusion. In the first scenario, new evidence can change the conclusion, in the latter new conflicting evidence is discarded (just as conflicting evidence was discarded initially) so the (usually self serving) conclusion is never changed.

Similarly, in the past public figures feared appearing to have conflicts of interest, or appearing to behave inappropriately and thus often tempered their behavior and their rhetoric to give the (often false) appearance of fairmindedness. Now public figures know that their constituents likely support their policies regardless, that is they and their constituents share the same conclusion of how society should work, so are willing to overlook impropriety, scandals and (for the purposes of this thread) lying.

↪tim wood I feel your pain, like half of America and about 90% of Australia, I'm vastly dissappointed by the re-election of DJT — Wayfarer

You may want to think twice about that percentage.

https://this.deakin.edu.au/culture/trumps-australia-why-are-more-australians-supporting-trump

:100: That is one mighty interesting post. Well worth the read and I hope everyone reads it. Private standards of truth v. public. Society as it should be v. what some want it to be. The good public servant giving way to the "expedient."

Leading to a kind of slow-motion (but accelerating) working out of the machinery of Kant's categorical imperative. If you're willing to destroy the world for personal benefit, you should not be surprised if one day you awaken to find your own world destroyed. This a lesson taught large by WW2. A milder version being, be careful what you wish for. And all built up upon the most reliably plentiful of materials for a foundation, the human stupidity that breeds like flies and maggots in the garbage of human ignorance.

But yours also suggestive of ways to approach at least individuals. A man who prides himself on personal honesty can be asked why he tolerates a public liar. One who values order, and law, why he accepts chaos and crime. One who has personal standards for how things should be done, why he welcomes corruption and brutality as public methods.

In terms of rhetorical argument, a combination of compare and contrast with the better and the worse.

I'm evolving to a belief that as they try to subdue opposition in waves of lies,

we best return by insisting on truth and challenging the lies. — tim wood

To people who understand nothing that is less than lethal force?