I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the act against the "instrumentalization of migration", where Finland cut the rights to asylum seekers if pressured by a state actor (read Russia) allowing and assisting people to seek asylum in Finland? Well, as some Finns are quick to bow to direction where power is (and thus show their arse to the opposite side), someone wrote here that perhaps Finnish border laws are seen positively by the Trump people soon populating the political offices in Washington DC.

If you refer to what larger problems Finland has avoided (and have been issues close to constitutional law), then it's different. I think the real issues that Finland has avoided is authoritarianism and ethnic conflict. In the 1930's right wing extremism basically rallied up by fear of communism didn't result in authoritarianism that many Eastern European countries descended into, but the democratic system prevailed. In fact the 1930's saw the social democrats coming back to power (as the party's left wing had made the bid to join the Russian Socialist Revolution in 1918). The other notable thing that didn't happen is that there wasn't any ethnic conflict between Swedish speaking Finns and Finnish speaking Finns. The reason is obvious from this: the Swedish speaking considered themselves Finns and didn't relate or yearned for Sweden and only the far right talked about Swedish speaking Finns as being Swedish. Then also Sweden, which had for a moment occupied the Åland Island didn't at all have any desires for Finnish territory, hence the old country that we had been a province to accepted us as independent neighbors. And now the relations are very warm between the two.

I don't disagree with your analysis of the relative roles of distrust as pertains to enemies in the Truth vs Post Truth eras. My point is that among those who share the same conclusions, say party members and party leaders, shared ideology trumps adherence to the Truth (meaning the generally accepted Truth, not ideological Truth). Thus the rise of QAnon believers etc among party leadership.

I mean you’re turning inquisitorial, Tim. The winds of narrative aren’t blowing your way so while you sound off on your censorial feelings you also seek for other’s punishment instead of revising your own technique. No one is buying what you’re selling.

The post-truth canard might have some weight if those who claimed to possess it really did. But a Post Truth Era implies that there was a Truth Era, and there never was one. Rather, it is because the commissars of the truth era lied that these people don’t believe their brand of political education anymore. We’re post-legacy media; we’re post expert; we’re post-official word, maybe, but not post-truth. Whoever had it is losing their monopoly on what is true and false and that’s a good thing.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Why should we care if people lie and are dishonest? This merely provides a challenge which will be adapted to. One should only trust what should be trusted. Its quite silly to say that the world should change to be entirely truthful, when in reality you need just change how gullible you are.

An entirely truthful world would only ignore the problem of irrationality and gullibility that prevades through humanity.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I cannot think of any way to respect your comment. — tim wood

If you find my comment disrepectful, its not because of the way I worded it. You merely conflate "respect" with "agree", which we dont.

A society which values "truth" as the opposite of "post-truth", is fundamentally a society which forces conformity and crushes disagreement, and thus is a dogmatic society which is inevitably flawed and unable to change. A skeptical society where individuals learn to discern truth from lie, in their own lens, will always be healthier. Adversery breeds Strength.

The reason I ask why we care, is that the only reason you care is because people dont accept your conception of truth, and dont value you with their framework to be honest with you. This has nothing to do with society, you simply wish to force your idea of truth upon others and consider political violence a potentially viable tool to do so. You are the parasite.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

One should only trust what should be trusted.

I don't disagree, but what distinguishes the Post Truth era is which entities qualify as "what should be trusted".

I dislike if a lie affects me negatively, otherwise I might not care or I may even like the lie. Value only has meaning when attached to a perspective, it doesnt exist independent of me. A surprise party is good, a cheating partner is bad, there is no contradiction.

what distinguishes the Post Truth era is which entities qualify as "what should be trusted". — LuckyR

There is no such thing as a ‘Post Truth’ era, except as a fabrication of the media based on partisan politics. Ideological combatants throughout history have accused each other of falsification.

I'm not an American, but do you think there has been an increase in deceptive behavior from politicians in recent times?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I recommend meds and a program of therapy. And that you wear a warning label. — tim wood

Calling people mentally abnormal because they enjoy surprise parties is quite ironic.

Post Truth will really have it's day in the sun on Trump's Day One, when he pardons all those who had been criminally convicted for the January 6th outrage, and then commences to gaslight the nation that they had been imprisoned due to the weaponisation of the Justice Department.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Apparently Capitol police are not happy about the prospect of J-6 pardons.... — tim wood

can you blame them? The whole US public sector is alternately furious and terrified of what is going to happen. The EPA will be gutted, the Justice Department will have waves of firings. Anyway, I'm going to stop posting about it, I have to try and get it out of my mind.

↪Joshs I'm not an American, but do you think there has been an increase in deceptive behavior from politicians in recent times? — Tom Storm

No, just an increase in polarization.

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

Not at all. Vote with your wallet. The question is, whether you're willing to do that.

Education for the ignorant (which includes all of us), and appropriate penalties for liars. "Appropriate" meaning penalties that will strongly disincentivize lying. — tim wood

The blind leading the blind, the blind judging the blind?

You don't see just how authoritarian you are.

I don't disagree, but what distinguishes the Post Truth era is which entities qualify as "what should be trusted". — LuckyR

That's a problem right there: trust cannot be a matter of "should".

Trust requires time and effort on both sides. But many people want to force it, expect it to be unilateral, even that it is someone's duty to trust a particular other.

There is no such thing as a ‘Post Truth’ era, except as a fabrication of the media based on partisan politics. Ideological combatants throughout history have accused each other of falsification. — Joshs

Agreed. And the polarization is due to economic pressures, not ideology.

The way that I think we need to deal with the definition of "post-truth" is that it's not about the perpetrators of lies, manipulations, deception, disinformation or misinformation etc.

It is rather about the inability to decipher them as doing such. — Christoffer

Not at all. It's natural for people to take sides, it's a necessity of survival to do so, and survival takes precedence over everything else. But maladapted idealists don't see this.

The blind leading the blind, the blind judging the blind?

You don't see just how authoritarian you are. — baker

Hopefully I'm taking this well out of context, but it did hit a nerve. So I'm addressing this not to you in particular but as a general reply in respect to the overall thread:

That global warming is a hoax is steadily strengthening as our socially constructed truth. "Drill baby drill" being the general motto, with its great economic appeal.

Authoritarians will label those who value truth to be authoritarian. Tyrants will label those who value justice to be tyrannical. Evil/vice will label good/virtue as evil. Nothing new historically in any of this. Endless power games and mind fu*ks, to not mention worse. And our socially constructed truths rule the day in the short term.

But Nature, the bitch that she is, doesn’t give a shit about our socially constructed truths. Nor about our shortsighted will to conquer as much as we can for our egos’ benefit – everything from others' consent to Nature itself irrespective of means.

Nature is the ultimate authority. Call it authoritarian, tyrannical, evil. This will not change what Nature is and what it does. And our not being true to it - our not corresponding/conforming to its reality – might will just bite every last one of us in the ass rather painfully. Oh, and this irrespective of how one might want to philosophically justify the reality of Nature.

No doubt many will take this to be just one more idealistic and authoritarian opining in a world of relative realities wherein might makes right. Yes, and lemmings never do end up drowning themselves in mass droves on account of their shortsightedness. Not if we socially construct the truth that they don’t.

We have never been and never will existentially be in a post-truth world. And individual societies are aspects of it – "post truth" as individual societies might become – which makes the whole issue of people no longer valuing truth alarming; this, at least, to some. But there’s nothing new in those who value the benefits of dishonesty and corruption greatly tending to champion the dishonest and corrupt - this while disavowing those who don't so value.

If you'd have read and understood what I've posted, you'd know that my use of the descriptor "Post Truth era" doesn't reference "ideological combatants".

A not unreasonable opinion, but as anyone can tell, I was addressing Ourora Aureis' idea, I didn't originate the concept.

Not at all. It's natural for people to take sides, it's a necessity of survival to do so, and survival takes precedence over everything else. But maladapted idealists don't see this. — baker

Not sure I follow your train of thought from what I wrote?

The point I was making is that defining post-truth as merely the means that people use to control a narrative is not really correct. The behavior of people has been the same throughout history, but times with low post-truth tendencies have more to do with the public's ability to see through such behaviors and form a consensus around what is actual, rather than fictional.

In our modern post-truth era, society is eroding this ability to such a degree that it's becoming increasingly impossible to stand up for what's actual, due to an increasing inability for people to understand what is a fact and what isn't, what is a rationally reasoned argument and what isn't.

Post-truth is therefor not so much about the liars, but a time in which the public don't know how to spot truth.

Also lovers of truth and wisdom lie whenever it helps them stay afloat on a sinking ship (or perceived as such). On a shrinking job market, supposedly civilized professionals use their elbows instead of merits. Moreover, many intellectuals claim that there are no truths, not because it is true but because it is a way for them to relativize or arbitrarily dismiss the truth of the words of their opponents. In sports, most participants respect truth. In wars, however, truth is the first victim. People on opposed sides fear truth more than they fear each other!

Agreed. And the polarization is due to economic pressures, not ideology — baker

Across the world we’re seeing the same pattern of a split between social traditionalists living mainly in low density rural areas and social progressives concentrated in densely populated urban centers. This split isn’t caused by economic pressures, since what those pressures are is subject to different interpretations depending on whether one is a traditionalist or a progressive, and the economy is only one of many issues that divide the two groups. For many on the right , social values are more important than the economy.