Not that much different, since Hillary voted for the Iraq war, and pushed disastrous coups in Honduras, Libya, and Syria, where she wanted a deathly No- fly zone. She also, unlike the superior candidate Sanders, was pro-fracking, anti single payer, anti-living wage, deaf to the Lakota at DAPL, and decidedly Pro-banks.

Both Republicans and centrist Democrats really love candidates who love to kill foreign brown-skinned people and don't give a damn about the Poor

Couldn't we also point to the Dems failure to do anything of significance to prevent the dangerous concentration of wealth and power that emerging monopolies (e.g. Amazon, Google..) represent?

Saying that X is very bad, does many if not most of the same things as Y, and is therefore inadequate (thus why I opposed Hillary Clinton and supported Bernie Sanders), doesn't mean that Y can't be significantly worse than X. Listing a bunch of bad things done by X is not an argument against "Y is worse than X", it's bad reasoning.

It seems perfectly reasonably to list these things within the context of this discussion on whether or not we're in a post-truth age. The topic was not originally intended to be about Trump but rather about a wider social phenomena; one which apparently began in academia and has continued to spread throughout society.

This phenomena may have culminated in Donald Trump, but it neither originated with, nor was it intended to be confined to him. But it very quickly and predictably moved in that direction here--with perhaps media allies like Breitbart being seen as 'fake news' accomplices.

Quite a few posters have tied their belief that we're only now in a post-truth world entirely with the person of Donald Trump--an argument which clearly implies that the political world preceding him can accurately be described as one dedicated to truth.

Now I definitely agree with your analysis if the point of the debate were to determine which party represents the lesser of two evils for the majority of Americans--or even the world more generally--but we're addressing the distinction between truth and post-truth, and whether or not a sharp break has occurred.

The contention of some (Thanatos most noticeably) is that politicians have lied throughout history, and they have done so egregiously over the past 40-50 years. If this is indeed the case then positing a post-truth political world, especially without making what would seem to be the necessary conceptual distinctions, is a deeply flawed position to take.

That's the context as I understand it. We're talking about these things as they relate to 'truth' vs 'post truth' (a stark contrast) and not with a primary focus on the more nuanced one concerning which party's ideas and actions have been, let's say, less detrimental to the average American.

And it's Thantos and I who are suggesting that this particular discussion on truth vs post-truth needs more nuance than that simple dichotomy would have us believe. I think he's shown it's an oversimplified contrast with his numerous examples of deception, outside influence (money and corporate power) and intrigue predating Trump which have adversely impacted truth in American politics.

There was no line in which we crossed to enter a post-truth stage. We have always been hugely consumed by lies, motives to dismiss evidence, inclined towards self-deception, manipulated by propaganda, attracted to superstition, and so on. I think you can sketch out factors in which sectors of the population has gotten better in this respect and worse in others.

There was no line in which we crossed to enter a post-truth stage. We have always been hugely consumed by lies, motives to dismiss evidence, inclined towards self-deception, manipulated propaganda, attracted to superstition, and so on. I think you can sketch out factors in which sectors of the population has gotten better in this respect and worse in others. — Saphsin

(Y)

Yeah no argument from me here since that's the exact position I've taken from the start.

There used to be a time when more (secular)folk had a clue what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

There used to be a time when more (secular)folk had a clue what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

And since you haven't shown you have such a clue, you're griping about yourself.

Media puppet.

Thanks for confirming what I posted above and suspected about your thinking "abilities."

Would you agree that Truth is relative to the beholder? An oppressor has a different truth than the oppressed, yet a truth they hold nonetheless. The oppressor may believe that he is doing all good, and the oppressed may believe that they are being treated unfairly

Suppose I tell you my height is 6 ft tall.
How is that fact just an interpretation? — m-theory

Because you have to interpret what 6 foots means, you have to interpret what the visual image of you are.

There is observable phenomena, and the repeatability + logic = it's fact. — intrapersona

If you can't know that there is or is not objective truth then you can't claim that something is or is not objectively true.

You can only say that you don't know. — m-theory

would you agree with me that truth and fact lie parallel on the same spectrum?

Revised below

Would you agree that Truth is relative to the beholder? An oppressor has a different truth than the oppressed, yet a truth they hold nonetheless. The oppressor may believe that he is doing all good, and the oppressed may believe that they are being treated unfairly

No, it's not. Otherwise what Holocaust deniers are saying when they deny the Holocaust happened would be just as true as what those saying it did happen are saying.

If that is the case, then you can't fight fact with truth, but you can fight truth with fact. I would say that this argument is much like my argument about the brain/mind. The mind rests inside the brain, holding your character, emotions etc. You can't hurt the physical brain through the mind, but you can hurt the mind through the physical brain.

16
and if that is the case, then you can't fight fact with truth, but you can fight truth with fact. I would say that this argument is much like my argument about the brain/mind.

No, it is not the case, and there are no facts without truth. Sorry, but the Holocaust happened. That is the Truth, and those denying it are making untruthful statements.

I like what you're saying here

the Holocaust happened. That is the Truth, and those denying it are making untruthful statements. — John Harris

however, would you agree that for someone in China during the Holocaust, their truth is that they are not experiencing the Holocaust, however, the fact is that there is a holocaust going on. Fact does not change, however, my truth is that because I look a certain way, I am treated a certain way. You may look different and are therefore treated differently, but when we come together and tell the stories about how we are treated by the same individual, our truths are different, I would closely relate truth to the experience, but I'm not saying that I am relating them or saying that they are the same thing.

I'm going to go another step and say that truth is present when fact is not sufficient.

If you could travel back in time and ask for the definition of "truth" you would probably get different answers in different historical periods.

In other words, it is not something concrete and external like rain. It is a concept that depends on cultural context for meaning and application.

At least that is the way that I see it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I like the way this dude puts it

however, would you agree that for someone in China during the Holocaust, their truth is that they are not experiencing the Holocaust, however, the fact is that there is a holocaust going on

However, wouldn't you agree that's irrelevant since that person in china's experience does not determine the truth of the Holocaust. If that were true, someone in China not knowing you exist would make you not exist.

Fact does not change, however, my truth is that because I look a certain way, I am treated a certain way.

Fact does not change your truth isn't Truth and isn't always true. So what you think is rarely relevant to whether things are true or not.

You may look different and are therefore treated differently, but when we come together and tell the stories about how we are treated by the same individual, our truths are different, I would closely relate truth to the experience, but I'm not saying that I am relating them or saying that they are the same thing.

What you're calling "truths" aren't "truths." They're opinions.

John Harris I'm going to go another step and say that truth is present when fact is not sufficient.

Not always.

So how would you define truth?

Truth is the essence of what is true.

Yes, but that doesn't reveal anything. Its a truism.

No, it's not. It's like saying euphoria is the extreme of happiness. Would it clarify things any further if I said Truth is what marks real events, things that actually existed and exist, and accurately describes the condition of present and past things?

No, it's not. It's like saying euphoria is the extreme of happiness. — John Harris

Is that the truth? Or is that fact?

What do you mean by truth and what do you mean by fact?

Why are you here? is it to disagree with peoples truths? Or to show the facts?

How you define something is in the eye of the definer, even words, some words have many definitions. Some truths are can be seen different facts

I asked you a question. What do you mean by truth and what do you mean by fact. I can't answer your question until you tell me that.

So, why are you here? To continue a discussion or just to argue?

I see truth as discernable and fact as measurable