Probably it was only a matter of time before the practice of "political spinning" found its way into every crevice of our little world.

Request for 2017 and every day: Gimme some truth.

(i know, i know... what IS truth? Maybe starting with one foot in the vicinity of "facts" and the other foot planted in "good intentions" is a decent start. ;) )

There are sides to the post-truth (Colbert said it's almost two words, a weak word with a hyphen) world: Political, journalistic and public. All sides seem responsible in our world that revolves around the internet.

Many online news outlets troll readers with clickbait, catchy headlines that are meant to grab the readers attention but very typically have little to say. Sponsored articles are put in with their reported stories. Stories which, one would expect to be unbiased, express the writer's bias. Photos/video that magnify traits in ways that are out of proportion to reality.

The best example of a post - truth political candidate is Donald Trump who has twisted truth around so much that the public is no longer fazed by his misuse of it. His sincerity is a type of American mythic truth. The public's unconcern with his antics annoys journalists intensely and leads to an escalation of words and more media exposure for DT.

The public has increasing access and powers on the internet. Presenting views on the internet is as easy as my typing. The algorithms control what achieves page status(which can be problematic; search for abortion clinics and most google results end(ed) in anti-abortion crises centers). While in the past splinter groups were confined to locales, with the advent of the web and social media these groups have found new international audiences. Groups like ISIS were able to effectively recruit over the internet.

The public wants to be entertained on-line. They are more interested in a great dramatic conspiracy theory over what is truthful, the prurient over the pure and fake news that angers (like the PM of Pakistan's threat of nuclear retaliation for any action by Israel over a fake news report a couple of days ago), that drives their presence forward.

I don't like how they use the word truth to define something that is a falsehood, even if there is a "post" before it.

The term Post-Modernism denotes something after Modernism. But truth is an absolute that isn't a period in time and remains unchanged, yet our perception of it changes as it is multitudinally appercepted.

Seems more like a meme-title than a fucking word. Stupid oxford.

But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail. — Banno

And we're in the the box seat to watch it happen. Unfortunately.

Here's a story.

The end of the Cold War removed all challenges to capitalism, and politics in many places became less the forum for fundamental disagreements over the structure of society, and more a matter of management. Thus a managerial political elite came to dominate, personified by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, also exemplified by the increasingly powerful European Union. For managerial politics there is no argument over how things are to be arranged economically: capitalism has won, and we should let the capitalists get on with it. This supposedly is grown-up, truthy politics because these policies or non-policies are backed up by expert economists who apparently know best about how society should operate.

But governments can be more active in other areas: people can still be managed, nudged, and punished for what they say and think. And here too, governments can appeal to experts--in psychology, sociology, and so on--to justify this, against which there can be no legitimate argument. That's the point of experts: to take the politics out of politics.

But things didn't carry on smoothly in the way these technocrats hoped, and as well as the continuing economic stagnation that none of the neoliberal economic experts ever managed to do anything about, there was a major economic crisis that none of them predicted. People have suffered, and managerial politics has nothing to say to them. The experts have nothing to say to them. Working class people know this, and in the political vacuum we see the rise of Le Pen and Trump.

The talk of "post-truth" politics is anti-democratic whining from a short-sighted managerial elite who see things slipping away from them and don't know what to do about it.

Objective facts can be changed, and therefore changing them is deciding what the truth is. I see nothing wrong with post-truth, it's merely the logical conclusion of the identity of truth and empirical reality that happened after the advent of post-modernism. Truth no longer corresponds to a metaphysical reality, which no physics could ever change or alter, but to the reality of physics itself.

But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail. — Banno

I think the real issue is that people, in general, don't even care about 'truth', however presented or formulated.

Truth keeps on changing and evolving and barely anyone has the audacity to speak of The truth unless they want to be thought of as crackpots and nutters.

More like "the truth (whatever that might be)" is irrelevant. Many objective facts cannot be changed at all. This, however, doesn't mean they are relevant to a particular instance. Is, for example, a truth of atheism relevant in the Sunday morning church service? No, it's just tone-deaf harassment of theists trying to practice their culture. Sometimes "the truth" is not needed.

Post-modernism has not taken out truth or even the concept of "the truth (people still use that to say they are right all the time)," but the link between metaphysics (necessity) and truths in the world (physics). The world always has the power to defy what is thought to be "The Truth."

Truth no longer corresponds to a metaphysical reality, which no physics could ever change or alter, but to the reality of physics itself. — Agustino

Indeed. It's not exactly new either. Truth has always worked like that, we just didn't recognise it so well. A bemoaning of "post-truth" politics could well be found in any instance where the world does something different to a perceived metaphysical reality. I mean how could anyone deny the truth of the King's divine right? Or the truth of Church's authority? The truth is obvious, how could people have become so ignorant/deranged/demonic as not to recognise it?

"Post-truth" is more like "What do you mean you reject my understanding of what world necessarily is/will be?" It's mostly about complaining someone didn't think or act like in away you thought was necessary.

This is not to say people are wrong that truth as been ignored. In many cases, that happens, particularly in the quest for rhetorical victories in political conflict, but that's always a question of a specific issue. It's not that society somehow stops thinking in terms of truth. In any of these instances, people are just ignoring particular truths which are important.

Truth! .. its the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of truth as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of truth is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which truth is the halo

The net and the social media are actually very effective tools of disinformation and for there to emerge this "post-truth" post-factual era.

It's totally wrong to assume that with the internet the people are free to get information and that this is an obstacle to governments. First, the net is quite easy to control and observe. Then as it easy to handle with Computers themselves.

And the distrust to one's officials and the mainstream media just opens up a splendid environment for pure propaganda. Propaganda that is to one's liking, that is.

What's more, how can someone know what the truth is when fed all of this propaganda and manufactured consent throughout their lives?

The only option in my search for answers about issues was to resort to Chomsky and other like-minded intellectuals.

Has anyone seen the documentary mentioned around here, called "Hypernormalization" by Adam Curtis? I found it to be quite eye opening.

What's more, how can someone know what the truth is when fed all of this propaganda and manufactured consent throughout their lives?

The only option in my search for answers about issues was to resort to Chomsky and other like-minded intellectuals. — Question

You can fool some people sometimes, but not all people all the time. And when there is evident cencorship, evident manipulation, people become extremely sceptic, those that have interest in politics in general

And notice one thing with Chomsky. When I looked (and here it's actually better to look than read) at one of Chomsky's last documentaries shown in popular media Requiem for the American Dream you do actually notice how close it comes to some loony Alex Jones.who's new a propagandameister for Trump. Both talk about how the elites are basically against the ordinary people.

Just look at Trump's last campaign ad.

So it shows Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as the villain, yet Trump happily has appointed now two people from Goldman Sachs and has the wealthiest administration ever with him. What you say and what you do can be totally opposite things in an post-truth world.

Best use of facts in the post-truth world is just to take those when you take real facts and just bend them to your liking to get your agenda through, which might be totally opposite what you say.

The thing is that it doesn't matter at all. Once somebody has voted a politician and liked him or her, the last thing people are going to be is critical of him or her once in power. It would make them look bad, hence they defend their politician and simply choose to be in denial once it's evident that the candidate and the leader have basically nothing in common in actual policies.

If they added it to the dictionary, it must be regularly in use, no? I thought that was a criterion for the admission of new words. The thing is, though, that I've not really seen anyone using "post-truth." Is there some milieu I don't pay much attention to where it's a popular term? LitCrit papers or something maybe?

Yes, I tend to agree with everything you've just said. Is this all an issue of the population or something more explicit like not having some incentive for not bullshitting or lying?

The same thing was going on before spin-consciousness. We just weren't as aware.

But it's ancient. The Romans peddled propaganda. Facts are for historians.

Objective facts can be changed, and therefore changing them is deciding what the truth is. I see nothing wrong with post-truth, it's merely the logical conclusion of the identity of truth and empirical reality that happened after the advent of post-modernism. Truth no longer corresponds to a metaphysical reality, which no physics could ever change or alter, but to the reality of physics itself — Agustino

Objective facts can't be changed, only the interpretation of them can. At least as far as physicalism is concerned.

It should rather be called anti-truth. Saying post implies there is some kind of time limit to truth, lol.

If they added it to the dictionary, it must be regularly in use, no? I thought that was a criterion for the admission of new words. The thing is, though, that I've not really seen anyone using "post-truth." Is there some milieu I don't pay much attention to where it's a popular term? LitCrit papers or something maybe? — Terrapin Station

It's used in politics mainly https://twitter.com/hashtag/posttruth

Objective facts can't be changed, only the interpretation of them can. — intrapersona

There. I just changed the objective fact that there was no reply to your post. How bout that?

Whut? but there was a reply/? Prove to me facts aren't just interpretations.

There are two distinct ways in which the word truth is used.

When you believe something is true because there is strong evidence and or good reasoning to support the claims.

And when you believe something is true because you lack any doubt about that belief.

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

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.

No I measure 6 ft.
I don't interpret it.

The facts which are at issue in these matters are usually considerably more complex than simple measurements. Has human activity caused global warming? What kinds of consequences will raising interest rates, or increasing the budget deficit, have? Did your charitable foundation use donated money to build your statue? Does your campaign manager have ties with the Russian government?

And so on.

All of these are complex questions, which can be made subject to a great deal of 'spin'. Not 'how tall is person X'.

You can decide that facts don't conform with your world view sure, but measurements are measurements.

I enjoy a good tragedy.

spin and bullshit are distinct.

One puts spin on a ball to control the direction it heads when it bounces. One puts spin on a truth in order to control its direction. To do so one accepts the truth.

But the bullshiter neither accepts nor rejects the truth. They say what suits their need.

I post truth all the time!

The recent obsession with 'post-truth' is a media-manufactured panic and strikes me as incredibly, incredibly naive. The idea that politicians have ever told the truth, even as an ideal, is something I just can't believe that anyone believes. And the majority of discourse is just idle talk that has no pretensions to truth and doesn't connect with any sort of reality because it's not supposed to. That includes political opinions. Every good propagandist knows this, and always has.

It is, and I mean this in the most literal and ingenuous sense of the term, a buzzword.