You've not been paying attention.


PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?

PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?

These things have been happening for thousands of years. Again, this doesn't point to a post-Truth world

John Harris
You've not been paying attention.

Yes I have, you've been reading things wrong.

From the start I have said that we do not live in truth but in belief. The difference is the pace of change.

↪John Harris
From the start I have said that we do not live in truth but in belief. The difference is the pass of change.

Sorry, you haven't proven any of that and you're wrong.

You are not bothering to engage with the argument.
Me four hours ago...
"For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth. This has very little to do with objectivity, and everything to do with control of the people by the state. In the presence of 'democracy', where the potential for the state to control things more literally, the powerful have managed to use technologies and ideologies of power over the centuries; church, morality, monarchy, aristocracy. divine right of kings, nationalism, racism,... For the moment, at least, the Internet and social media have revolutionised communication, and the rich and powerful media is n decline unable to keep up with changing social realities.
You ought to be able to see from short list above that NONE of the techniques of control are "objective", and yet the established power has promoted these things AS IF THEY ARE objective. Ask any churchman about the objectivity of morality!
PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods."

BUT SINCE YOU CAN"T READ - I'll stop answering your idiotic responses TROLL moron.

I am engaging it and you're wrong right from the get-go when you say: "For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth." The establishment has always promoted things as objective that werent and sought to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. So we dont' live in a PT world

My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.

My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.

That only matters if you embrace the dictionary's definitions of evidence and justified. You havent done so. So, I still stand right on the matter. And there is no definition for "sufficient reason to believe."
You have to provide that definition yourself. Again, you've failed to do so, proving me right again.

Thanks, man.

You're not making any sense. I didn't write what you've just quoted me as having said.

Edited to add..

Originally the post directly above this one quoted me as having said something that I did not. That misquote follows directly below...

"So, you still can't provide definitions for evidence, being justified, and what counts as sufficient reason to believe, as you said people must be able to do."

That adds the necessary context for understanding what's at the beginning of this particular post. Since then, Sand has corrected the quote. At least, at last check...

My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.

You're not making any sense. I didn't write what you've just quoted me as having said.

I made perfect sense, and your memory is terrible. You said "sufficient reason to believe" right below:

↪creativesoul

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.

You already wrote that nonsense and I've already responded:

That only matters if you embrace the dictionary's definitions of evidence and justified. You havent done so. So, I still stand right on the matter. And there is no definition for "sufficient reason to believe."
You have to provide that definition yourself. Again, you've failed to do so, proving me right again.

Thanks, man.

And that still stands true. You have both failed to embrace the dictionary's definitions and failed to provide your own. So, we're done and I'm not reading any more of your posts that just continue to prove me right.

We've come full circle...

I wrote:

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

Sand replied:

And yet you've continually proven yourself to not have a clue about any of those things. Feel free to define them and prove me wrong. We both know you can't.

If defining them proves you wrong, then anyone capable of copying a dictionary could prove you wrong.

We both know I can.

You're working from an utterly inadequate criterion for what counts as proving you wrong.

Any interested reader can easily browse through another author's comments on this forum, and after doing so can draw their own conclusions regarding whether or not that member has a clue what they're talking about when discussing evidence, being justified, and/or warrant.

Anyone can provide definitions. That only requires knowing how to use a dictionary.

Clearly you can't since you can't provide either the dictionary definitions or your own, even when you're free to do so.

...And yet you can't even define it...

To the above, I wrote...

My participation on this forum serves as more than adequate evidence to warrant the reader's conclusion(s) that I know how to use a dictionary. Concluding otherwise is unjustifiable for it requires thinking/believing that it is possible to produce my writing while not knowing how to use a dictionary.

...then this reply followed...

Now this made no sense at all since nobody accused you of not using a dictionary.

Really now?

:-}

Here again...

It seems apparent that there is a need in this world of ours to be able to effectively discriminate between competing viewpoints and/or narratives in terms of which parts of which ones are true and what makes them so.

Sand could've easily acknowledged that he was working from an inadequate criterion for what counts as proving him wrong(about my cognitive ability none-the-less), and then some progress could've been made... perhaps. Maybe not.

There's another bit of irony here...

That sort of doubling-down upon clearly false and/or mistaken thought/belief is precisely what most of Trump's ill-advised statements and behaviours grow into.

A sheer refusal to admit being wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It seems apparent that there is a need in this world of ours to be able to effectively discriminate between competing viewpoints and/or narratives in terms of which parts of which ones are true and what makes them so. — creativesoul

google 'After Virtue' by McIntyre, if you're not familiar with it. The wikipedia entry on same is decent enough. It's on the large pile of partially-read books on my desk.

A sheer refusal to admit being wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. — creativesoul

One of the stories in Slate last week, is that every day, one of Trump's aids brings him a folder, with screen shots, excerpts, and snippets from the media - but only positive stories are allowed. Things that show Trump being the great leader he is in his own mind. When he sees things that contradict that, he gets angry and is even known to shout at the television.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/trump_is_the_bubble_president.html

'The fool that knows he is a fool - at least in this he is wise. The fool that thinks he is wise - this is the real fool' - the Dhammapada.

The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally.

This truly is vile.

Trump finally denounced the KKK and their White Supremacist cohorts for their actions in Charlottesville yesterday, but he tweeted nothing about it and he tweets about everything.

Instead last night he retweeted Jack Posobiec tweet from Saturday night:

Meanwhile: 39 shooting in Chicago this weekend, 9 deaths. No national media outrage. Why is that?

Jack Posobiec is an American alt-right, pro-Donald Trump Internet activist and conspiracy theorist known primarily for his controversial comments on Twitter. Wikipedia

Trump denounces alt-right movements but then he marginalized the events in Charlottesville by contrasting them to the horrific, but not ideologically inspired, violence in Chicago. I think this legitimizes the alt-position and provide it with a kind of Pyrrhic victory.

Compare this to Obama's tweet on 8/12 where he quoted Nelson Mandela: [tweeted part in bold]

"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite," read the tweet, quoting a line of text from Mandela's autobiography, "Long Walk to Freedom."

Twitter noted that Obama's tweet was the most liked tweet they have ever recorded since starting, with 2.5 million likes and climbing.

Well, since the above post was written, Trump went feral again, this time in his own foyer, and showed the world his true colors (again, as if we haven't seen them enough).

More pandemonium - the Trump Business Advisory panels all jump ship, various Republican luminaries issue condemnations,. there's uproar around the nation and the world. But, as Trump said in the campaign, he could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone dead, and get away with it.

And this appears to be true.

The utter ineptness of this petulant old man to be president is evident and it is something that cannot change. He is on the path to be the most disliked leader ever. The only thing giving him support is that the economy is quite independent from the political realm and the economy hasn't yet stalled. The falling popularity among republicans will make him to embrace the only one's cheering him: racist neonazis. In the next elections he truly will need Putin's help. Luckily, the extreme-right is what Russia supports (to destabilize the West).

America's Cultural Revolution

Regarding the monuments:

Many of these memorials were dedicated in the early 20th century, decades after the Civil War, and have some relationship with campaigns to promote and justify Jim Crow laws in the South.The year 1911 saw the largest number constructed, which was the year of the semi-centennial of the Civil War. Memorials were dedicated on public spaces either at public expense or funded by private organizations and donors

Wikipedia

They belong in museums, not as public affronts to black people (15% of US population) who were oppressed before and after the Civil War. The argument that many of the United State's founding fathers were slave owners is shite,

Washington and Jefferson did not betray this country, Lee, Jackson and others did, and were traitors, and these statues are mockeries. Put them out of sight, in museums where they can be viewed for what they are.

American youth are showing the rest of the world that it is possible to honor and respect folk who are different.

So...

An atheist, an agnostic, a buddhist, a jew, a muslim, a hindu, and a christian all walk into a bar and sit down. After a while they drink, talk, and quickly become friends...

If you're waiting for a punchline... don't, cause it ain't a joke. That's just what happens when you're not an asshole.

X-)

Except for Muslims and Buddhists generally won't 'walk into bars' - but never mind, I get the gist.

T's angry speech at his regular ego-inflation event - this time in Phoenix - again 'takes aim at the media'. If you don't like what's in the mirror, blame the mirror. 'Stupid mirror! Can't you see how ugly you're making me!'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41020779

He said reporters had misrepresented his "perfect" words in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, where Heather Heyer was killed after a car ploughed into a crowd of people protesting against far-right demonstrators including neo-Nazis.

He accused "truly dishonest people in the media and the fake media" of "trying to take away our history and heritage" because, he said, they "don't like our country".

He quoted his own initial public response to what happened in Charlottesville.

"This is what I said on Saturday: 'We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia,' - this is me speaking. 'We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence.' That's me speaking on Saturday, right after the event," he said.

But what he actually said on 12 August was: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides."

Accusing the media of misrepresenting his words, and then misrepresenting his own words by leaving out the key part that the media was condemning.

Buddhists generally won't 'walk into bars' — Wayfarer

:s why not? I think "buddhists" in the West definitely walk into bars quite frequently.

Accusing the media of misrepresenting his words, and then misrepresenting his own words by leaving out the key part that the media was condemning. — Michael

About which he's still not wrong. Many sides were to blame. This controversy has fast become a farce:

I took a week off from the milieu of political insanity to go out amongst the normals and chalk up another huge trial victory, and when I got back I was stunned - stunned! - to find that a consensus had formed that Nazis are bad. Beforehand, I had no idea where the establishment stood on Nazis, but now it's crystal clear. They hate Nazis because Nazis are bad. Everyone from CNN to Mitt Romney hates Nazis. I couldn't be prouder of an establishment that takes that kind of tough stand. They're going to hate Nazis, and they don't care whose jack-booted toes they step on!

I also learned that if you hate Nazis for being bad, you're not allowed to hate anybody else who’s also bad, because Nazis are so bad that you have to devote all your hating capacity to hating Nazis such that there's no room left to hate anybody else. Those hammer and sickle flag-carrying Communists? Well, you must love the Nazis if you hate them, because you have got to hate the Nazis with all your mind and all your heart since, as we learned this week, Nazis are bad. I'm so glad that our moral betters have this all figured out.