And the notion of post-truth originated on the Left, philosophically at least with Po-Mo's like Foucault who equated 'truth' with power. I don't agree with that extreme view, but I will admit the bit of 'truth' it contains and not dismiss it and assume that truth isn't often tough to pin down. I do believe there can be multiple 'truths' or perspectives which can uncover different aspects of a given thing. That doesn't mean there's no truth, or that it's entirely arbitrary, but in the arena of politics especially opinion and perspective can be shaped through discourse. You'd at least acknowledge that, wouldn't you? If we do acknowledge that, and the further idea that politics is largely about power and influence (often masked behind notions on justice), then cynicism and vigilance become justified.

I think you're actually worried about moral truths Trump is terrible or wrong. Your posts have been mostly directed at downplaying the moral opposition to Trump (e.g. "the other side is just as bad" ) more than anything else. I think it's a but deceitful to be honest.

How can one respond to specific moral objections to Trump with allusions to how the other side have done dishonest or bad things? No doubt all sides of politics fail on this measure, but is it the one people are objecting to Trump on? Not really. They are taking issue with specific actions of the Trump administration.

I don't think saying, for example, "we're killers too" addresses these objections. In a way, it might be true, but it misses the point of the objection. US drone strikes or black op operations are not the same as locking-up or killing local journalists. No doubt there is a case to mount they are both immoral, but that doesn't make them the same.

The media is not composed of an 'objective' and disinterested group of people who simply state facts. Its members have biases and preferences--be they from the Left or the Right--and we should therefore be suspicious of the attempt to portray truth as a simple matter. — Erik

In the US, there is a long standing tradition that the media reports things as they see fit to report them. It's called freedom of the press. Political biases exist, left/right etc.. They are expected and they are recognized. It appears like Trump now wants to dictate what the media should and should not report, but that is completely contrary to freedom of the press.

But it's not that specific evil acts committed are, or have been, on the 'same' level, but rather that the perception that the US is the 'good guy' and always fights for freedom and justice and democracy is largely a myth. I wish this weren't the case. The relevance of this, as I see it, is that Trump, the man rightly accused of being a pathological liar, actually told the truth on this important topic. And when he did so, the defenders of 'truth' and 'facts' came out and tried to spin the old deceptions. It was a bit ironic. Again, this analysis of Trump's is not typical right-wing claptrap, but more aligned with radical leftist critiques like those found in Chomsky, Zinn, et al.

I would add further the massive deception propagated by many in the mainstream media that IF you voted for Trump you must be a racist, sexist, xenophobe, etc. That's a subtle and sinister form of psychological manipulation. There were many issues that motivated people to vote for the guy (including those mentioned for some), and reduce these to some perceived moral failing was a dishonest attempt to deflect attention away from the massive accumulation of wealth and power amongst a small percentage of Americans over the past 30-40 years. Not ALL media ignored factoring in real economic (and other) issues, but many did. And yeah I'm going to be accused of a sort of paranoia bordering on insanity here, but do the lower and middle classes own the media and try to control the flow of information?

Agreed. But I say we should also admit that Trump's lunacy has stirred up a corresponding willingness to twist 'facts' amongst many media members. He's shaken things up to such an extent that the old rules no longer seem to hold. Some reporters have even admitted as much lately, suggesting that any feigned 'objectivity' in reporting on Trump should give way to an impassioned defense of our democracy that he's threatening. That's the sort of honest partisanship that I admire.

Not in the context of the criticism of Trump's actions. There it amounts to equivocating America (press freedom) with Russia (suppressed press). As much as the defenders might be spinning old deceptions, they are also right about Trump ignoring the distinction and value of a free press.

Trump didn't come out and make an announcement of all the terrible things the US was doing around the world. His comment was deflection of criticism of Russia's local human rights abuses and suppression of the press. He might have told to truth, but it was to hide one he didn't want people to notice.

Well, when Trump proposes to implement policies designed to prevent the free press from doing it's job, and starts jailing dissidents, or worse, having them killed, then I'll be the first person to admit my mistaken belief that he's been subjected to a level of hyperbole and double-standards unmatched in recent history.

I'm not going to defend Putin. My concern at this stage is with my country, more specifically, with the many problems and issues we're facing. The deflection here is partly coming from the media in their attempt to equate Trump with Putin, or Hitler, and the motivation for doing so being in part to withdraw attention from the very (oligarchic) interests which have decimated the working class, and which he's claiming to combat.

And for me this last one is the biggest fear, i.e. the legitimate grievances of the lower and middle classes will be associated (and discredited) with the person of Donald Trump. I do see that as the preferred tactic of the vested 'establishment' interests at this point: associating any criticism with racism, or tyranny, or the buffoonery of Trump, etc. So I think it's important for us to make that distinction between Trump and the average Americans who voted for him, and who've been fucked over. I will also readily admit my own background being from a lower-middle class family, and not pretend that this doesn't influence my perception of things.

Not sure where you guys are from, but it's extremely difficult for many of us here in the US to live a decent life. I'm not at all materialistic (I do practice what I preach in this regard), but to rent an apartment, get health insurance, buy food, pay off student loan debt, etc. makes one feel hopeless. I have a decent-paying job (not great, but not horrible either and above the average) working 50 hours a week, and it's still incredibly hard. Contrast that average case with the wealth and affluence of a certain small segment of American society and yeah, it's seems like the system has been rigged.

You guys can keep harping on how much better or morally superior the US is to China or Russia, but the fact remains that the richest .01% of the population here (around 16,000 people) own as much wealth as the bottom 256,000,000 Americans combined. Spin that however you'd like, but in my estimation that's an unjust and completely untenable arrangement. I'll end the rambling and whining and let you all get back to attacking Trump as the biggest threat to the existing world order.

I finally have a little bit of time to address some of these very interesting points you brought up.

I don't think that the practise of criticizing is as clear as you make it sound. To take your example, one can simply say that the dish is lacking something, "it doesn't taste the way I think it should", without even being capable of identifying the exact problem. There is no clear idea of "how it should taste", or of what is needed to make it taste that way. To determine that something is missing, and to determine what it is that is missing are two distinct procedures. It is the same in the example of sickness, the person who is sick may be able to say "I am sick", without having any capacity to diagnose the illness. — Metaphysician Undercover

I continue to think that in each of these cases the understanding takes its measure from some notion of wholeness or completeness, regardless of how difficult this may be to pinpoint or articulate. The acknowledgment of privation is what seems to motivate criticism of any sort from the get go. A general awareness of an absence (dish doesn't taste right) and a diagnosis of its specific cause (too much salt) seem precursors to the ultimate goal, which, at the very least, would appear to be the bringing about of an improved condition, i.e. something 'better'. We may obviously get stalled at some point in the procedure, even the first as you pointed out, but we rarely content ourselves with remaining at that stage if we can avoid it. It rather appears as though the entire process is guided in advance by our understanding of things like optimal health or a tasty dish, and if we were completely lacking in some vague notion or intuition concerning these things, then we wouldn't even be able to say that we were sick, or that a dish was somehow off.

Applying this to criticism of Donald Trump. We feel strongly that he's bad for America (general awareness), and the reason for this is a combination of his abrasive and deceptive personality along with xenophobic and reactionary policies (specific). We're motivated to criticize him because we care about our country, and we feel we should be led by a president who embodies great moral character and a more compassionate and inclusive vision of this nation. We feel that vision is consistent with our founding principles (even more specific) whereas those of Trump are not. Again, the last movement would actually appear to guide the criticism from the start. In any case they appear to be intertwined, as my 'cynicism mixed with romanticism' description was trying to convey. So yeah, I guess I'll double down here for the moment until I feel that criticism need not include any notion at all of privation or possible improvement.

The matter is this. Moral principles are very difficult to understand logically. Values must be grounded in ends. The end is what makes the value a "true" value, it is validated by the end. Ends must be clearly defined, or principles laid out whereby an end may be determined as good or bad, or else there are no true values whatsoever. You say "truthfulness is a value", but you do not support that logically, with reasons why truthfulness should be valued. Without these reasons, the claim is hollow. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, so truthfulness should be valued not as an end in itself, but because it contributes to the building up of trust and legitimacy in society, which in turn serve as the foundation for the ultimate end, which is social order and stability. Actually an even greater end would be the happiness of the individuals who make up that society. When trust is eroded through the use of lies by political leaders then legitimacy withers away, and when legitimacy is lacking then social stability is threatened. Without social stability then other ends, like economic prosperity, seem unattainable. If we start by positing individual freedom as the ultimate end or goal, then it would seem like something more akin to an anarchic 'state of nature' would be preferable, with an overemphasis on public security and stability threatening freedom and autonomy. Either way though I don't see how truth-telling could be disadvantageous to the social order. I'm sure you'll have plenty of counter-examples.

Now of course the likes of Plato and Machiavelli and Nietzsche (in other words men much smarter than myself) extolled the efficacy of lies and deception, and precisely in the name of order and stability. But even they felt there must at least be the appearance of truth. Why is that? Why the human proclivity against being lied to? I'm not sure. For me I feel it may have a lot to do with pride and ego. The fact that you lied to me makes me think you don't respect me, that you'd like to manipulate me for your own nefarious ends, etc. I recall the experience of my own enthusiastic patriotism giving way first to sadness and then to anger. I was lied to. I was ready to go join the military and possibly give my life for these noble ideals and lofty values I'd imbibed since childhood (through schooling, movies, etc.), and then to find out they were largely bullshit? That was a pretty devastating experience.

Anyhow I feel that much of the righteous indignation from those on the Left over Trump's habitual lying can be traced to the sense that he has zero respect for anything they value, and that he'll gladly lie in order to roll back any prior achievements won by progressives. So it's not his lying per se, but the aim of his lies which is the more important issue. Obviously those on the political Right (generally speaking) will rationalize away Trump's lies (@Agustino), or, more likely, refuse to even acknowledge them as such. If the roles were reversed and Hillary were in office, then the situation would be the opposite--like the Tea Party's unrelenting attacks on Obama-- and we'd have one side failing to see lies as lies and the other seeing almost everything as a lie. Look where we're at with this right now. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that violence and chaos are likely to come about more and more in coming weeks, months, years. There's a complete lack of trust, a sense that our government is illegitimate, and intimations of civil war sometime in the future as this nation hardens into two hostile camps with radically different worldviews.

So here is an example of criticism without an alternative proposal. I can criticise the mores of our society. I can say truth is becoming devalued. I can say that the entire moral structure, which was upheld in days long past, by the church, is becoming devalued. I can say that we take morality for granted, as if it is some naturally occurring thing, through the forces of evolution, and we've lost track of the fact that morality is really created artificially, requiring effort, strength of will. In our society we just assume that people will instinctively act morally, we have evolved to be like this. I have absolutely no idea or proposal for how to fix this. That's way beyond me. I can see a problem, and analyze it. And as I alluded to in the last passage, I can claim that it has to do with a loss of the philosophical mindset, but this is just deferring to a further problem. All I am doing here is working to identify the problem, similar to what Socrates did. I am providing no suggestions for resolution of the problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good points, but again, there seems to be an implicit understanding of an end (some general good) at work in the criticism. You want to fix the problem even if you're unable to. That desire for a better society--which is afflicted at the moment with rampant deception and the overall breakdown of morality--would appear to drive the criticism. The intuition that something's gone awry gives way to a diagnosis suggestive of possible solutions. Moral actions are good. Truthfulness is good. These are prerequisites of a stable society, in which other goods like freedom and the creation of wealth can thrive. You know, the old 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' themes which serve as this country's stated principles, and the securing of which is the sine qua non of government. How about start being honest? And start behaving morally? Those would be possible solutions in light of the criticisms, and I'd imagine one could offer a pretty compelling argument as to why these would be conducive to the public (and individual) good, as understood and outlined in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Regarding the example of Socrates, which I acknowledged to be a really good one (and still think so), well, even he seems intent upon bringing about some 'improved' condition in his interlocutors. He may not leave them with specific knowledge concerning things like justice, or love, or friendship, or even 'knowledge' itself, but at the very least they've been disabused of the notion that they know what they don't know. That could subsequently lead one to a state of humility characterized by an awareness of their ignorance, and this is vastly superior to an arrogance grounded in unwitting ignorance. This shift represents an improved condition of the soul, which has grown in wisdom if not in knowledge, and what could be more important than that? Clearly many feel the opposite is the case and that 'ignorance is bliss,' or some such, and that even the strongest, the most able, the most courageous among us conceal certain things from themselves out of necessity. Incidentally, this would translate well into a government's role in society being in part to shield citizens from unhelpful or even 'deadly' truths; I know many neocons inclined towards this opinion. It's definitely a timely topic right now in this 'post-truth' age.

I continue to think that in each of these cases the understanding takes its measure from some notion of wholeness or completeness, regardless of how difficult this may be to pinpoint or articulate. — Erik

OK Erik, I'm willing to compromise on this point. I agree that there is always some sort of overarching idea, or notion of "better", even if its just some vague feeling (like in the case of the unsalted dish, when it just doesn't taste quite right), which inspires one to be critical. The problem is that this notion, idea, or feeling, "it could be better", is often very vague, and sometimes we have no idea where it comes from, or what is causing it. It may simply be a feeling of being dissatisfied, and it could result from something as simple as being bored. I am bored, so I think that things could be better, so I am dissatisfied with the way that things are around me, and I am critical. Being critical relieves my boredom and makes me feel better, so I continue to be critical.

But let's put this into the perspective of morality and ethics. I believe that in moral training we are taught to guide ourselves toward good goals, honourable ends. It is by having such honourable ends that we avoid acting badly. If one's goal in life is to have a respectable career, and be a respectable part of society, then this individual will be less likely to carry out immoral acts, or get into trouble with the law etc.. You could call it a type of "trickle down" within the human psyche, if one's overall, top priority, long term goals in life, the most important things in life, are good and consistent with strong moral principles, this acts to guide all the lower level goals such that they are consistently moral goals.

Now what about this vague notion or feeling, "it could be better"? Here we have no clearly defined long term goal, no guiding principle, and therefore no guarantee that the "better" which is referred to here is consistent with any form of morality. See we have a vague notion of "better", with no defining characteristics, and therefore no way of knowing whether this "better" is morally better or not. If, when we have this vague notion that things could be better, and this becomes important to us, and we start to criticize and attack the status quo, with intent to dismantle, having nothing defining this "better", there is a high risk of becoming wayward. The status quo is attacked with nothing to replace it with. If there is no defining elements of "better", then one's course of action will change from day to day, as that individual seeks through trial and error to determine exactly what "better" is.

This is exactly what we find in Donald Trump, the expression of dissatisfaction without any clearly defined goals as to what this "better" is. Because there is just a vague notion there, that things should be better, the means for achieving this "better" can change from day to day. This is why he appears to be "deceptive", having "reactionary policies", without "great moral character". He is lacking in that clearly defined long term goal, which we all must adopt in order to guide our shorter term goals, making us respectable parts of society. Deception is when we hide our true goals from others. The person who holds no true goals will appear to be hiding one's true goals. Reactionary policies are policies which are not guided by any long term goals. And "great moral character" refers to the individual who has clearly defined long term goals which are consistent with excepted moral principles.

Okay, so truthfulness should be valued not as an end in itself, but because it contributes to the building up of trust and legitimacy in society, which in turn serve as the foundation for the ultimate end, which is social order and stability. When trust is eroded through the use of lies by political leaders then legitimacy withers away, and when legitimacy is lacking then social stability is threatened. Without social stability then other ends, like economic prosperity, seem unattainable. If we start by positing individual freedom as the ultimate end or goal, then it would seem like something more akin to an anarchic 'state of nature' would be preferable, with an overemphasis on public security and stability threatening freedom and autonomy. Either way though I don't see how truth-telling could be disadvantageous to the social order. I'm sure you'll have plenty of counter-examples. — Erik

Since I've defined deception in relation to an individual hiding one's true goals, then consider truthfulness as the opposite of this. Truthfulness is a willingness to express one's true goals. It happens amongst people who trust each other. If I trust you, I believe that telling you the truth about what I am doing is beneficial, because you will only help me in fulfilling my goals. And if you think my goal is problematic, you will tell me the truth about this. Now let's remove the "true goals" from this scenario, go back to this idea of a vague notion of "better". If the person has no definable goals, just a vague notion of "better" where is truth now? Is there any such thing as truth now? Truth only exists in relation to one's goals, and if there are no clearly defined goals, then there is no such thing as expressing oneself in a way which is consistent or inconsistent with one's goals. Truth is just as vague as one's goals. Now there is no issue of whether truth-telling is advantageous, or disadvantageous, because under these conditions there is really no such thing as truth-telling. One cannot clearly express one's goals because that individual does not even know clearly one's own goals. Nor is there such a thing as lying. There are no clear goals to maintain consistency with, and therefore no truth or falsity.

But to maintain consistency with my concession, my compromise at the top of the page, I'll admit that such complete lack of goals is impossible, and therefore a complete lack of truth and falsity is impossible. However, a very vague overall goal, with very fleeting intermediate goals, which change from day to day due to the vagueness of the overall goal, is not conducive to any type of coherent "truth" .

You would say that it is intuitive to believe that there is a truth and falsity concerning any incident. But in reality we each observe from our own perspectives, and describe according to how we observe the incident. Each of these personal, subjective observations may be "a truth" even if they describe the same incident differently. If you and I share the common goal of understanding the incident, we will share our observations, work out incompatible aspects to establish consistency, and each grasp a fuller understanding of the incident. But if we do not share this goal, we will each cling to our own observations as "the truth", despite the fact that there will inevitably be contradictory aspects. So without the common goal, there is only this subjective truth. That's why real truth is based in trustworthiness, and this relates to one's goals and intentions.

Now of course the likes of Plato and Machiavelli and Nietzsche (in other words men much smarter than me) extolled the use of lies and deception precisely in the name of order and stability. But even they felt there must at least be the appearance of truth. Why is that? Why the human proclivity against being lied to? I'm not sure. For me I feel it may have a lot to do with pride and ego. The fact that you lied to me makes me think you don't respect me, that you'd like to manipulate me for your own nefarious ends, etc. I recall the experience of my own enthusiastic patriotism giving way first to sadness and then to anger. I was lied to. I was ready to go join the military and possibly give my life for these noble ideals and lofty values I'd imbibed as a child (through schooling, movies, etc.), and then to find out they were largely bullshit? That was a pretty devastating experience. — Erik

I believe you have brought up a very good point here. You have stated that truth is useful toward social order and stability. If you notice in my other post, I validated truth by referring to knowledge. Truth is useful for the production of knowledge. In this way, I would argue that social order and stability are also useful for the production of knowledge. So I have placed "knowledge" as the higher good than order and stability.

Now consider the consequences to your paragraph if "knowledge" is placed as the higher good, higher than social order and stability. Social order and stability are required for the sake of increasing knowledge. The "royal lie" of Plato is required for the purposes of social order and stability. However, inherent within the nature of the human being is the desire to know, this is what makes the human being a philosophical animal (philosophy is the desire to know), and ultimately a "rational animal" as Aristotle said. So in telling the royal lie, the natural desire to know is thwarted, deceived, for the purpose of social order and stability. That's why the lie must be hidden. The one's being lied to still have the natural philosophical desire to know, and this accounts for the proclivity against being lied to, as well as the need to create the appearance of truth.

But take a moment to recognize what has been done in the employment of this principle. What Plato does is create distinct classes. The highest level maintains the pure goal of knowledge, the philosophical desire to know. In the next level this pure goal is subdued with the royal lie, such that they do not seek the higher goal. Their goal is social order and stability. This second class is the class of the nobility, the guardians of the state. The second class rules the third class, which are the commoners engaged in the various acts of production and manufacturing etc., while the upper class is involved with the highest good of contemplation, education and the desire to know.. Notice that the lie is used at the very top level, by the top class, to maintain order within the second class, the policing, or military class. It hides the true goal, or intent of the upper class, (which is what deception does) and this is pure knowledge, making the second class believe that they have the highest goal, maintaining social order and stability. But that illusion is only created by suppressing the philosophical desire to know through the means of the royal lie. The second class must make the third class believe that they are involved in the highest goal which is the production of goods.

Anyhow I feel that much of the righteous indignation from those on the Left over Trump's habitual lying can be traced to the sense that he has zero respect for anything they value, and that he'll gladly lie in order to roll back any prior achievements won by progressives. So it's not his lying per se, but the aim of his lies which is the more important issue. — Erik

So if we take this model of government, the one laid out by Plato in The Republic, where the rulers lie for the good of the subjects, we can extend it toward other governments. In Plato's republic, the lie was to facilitate the upper class in its quest for knowledge, this was supposed to be the best government. Now we can keep the lie in the model, but look at different goals of different governments. A colonialist or imperialist government would lie to the subjects, hiding the true motives behind its activities. A capitalist government might lie to hide the true motives behind its activities. We can look at documented cases of the recent "communist threat", and see how the threat of nuclear war, and such disastrous calamities were propagated in an effort to protect capitalist holdings in other countries with less stable governments. The goal of particular members in the US government might be to protect certain companies, which they hold interest in, with large capital holdings in countries which may fall to communist revolution. Lies, or "alternative facts", which hyped up the danger of communism, were encouraged, in order to justify military intervention.

The point is that the lies which the governing members tell, are directly related to hiding the true goals of such members. If we assume a situation now, where the goals of the governing party are vague, fleeting, and changing from day to day, then the lies which they serve up are just as vague as the truths which they offer.

There's a complete lack of trust, a sense that our government is illegitimate, and intimations of civil war sometime in the future as this nation hardens into two hostile camps with radically different worldviews. — Erik

When you have no way of distinguishing a lie from a truth, "a complete lack of trust" is inevitable. And that is the case when there are no clear goals. Being truthful in politics is disclosing your goals in a clear and coherent manner, to be understood by others. When there are no clear and coherent goals, then disclosing the goals in a clear and coherent way is impossible. Any expression, or disclosure of "a goal", could be equally true or false, and there is no way to tell the difference because there is no clear "real" goal behind that expression, to validate the truth or falsity of the expressed goal. Any person without clear goals is a person without a moral compass, and that person undoubtably inspire a lack of trust.

In summary then, I have moved from my position of someone being critical, and having a complete lack of notion for a "better" situation, to accepting that one must have at least a vague notion that a "better" is wanted. But if in politics, being truthful is inherently tied to accurately disclosing your goals, then having vague fleeting notions of "better" is really not much different from having no idea of what "better" is. You seem to suggest in your closing paragraphs, that when someone has such a vague notion of "better", then they will naturally proceed towards determining a moral better. What supports this assumption?

Suppose a person is very critical, is dissatisfied, and believes that things should be better. That person has no clear idea of what "better" is. Why would that person turn to morals, and decide that "better" is to be morally better. Unless the person studies philosophy, that person would probably not realize this. So that person is critical and dissatisfied for whatever reasons we do not know. But we can infer that whatever it is which is making the person dissatisfied, relief from this dissatisfaction is what the person will consider as "better". So there is no reason to believe that the person would turn to a moral "better", the person will naturally turn to whatever relieves the dissatisfaction. And the dissatisfaction could be caused by all different kinds of things, including mental illness, in which case the person might try anything and still not be satisfied. Or, it could be something simple like my example above, boredom. In this case the person might stir up the pot, to relieve the boredom. There is no reason though, to believe that the person who is dissatisfied, and looking for something "better" will move toward what is morally better.

You hate Donald Trump, and rightfully so, but this has blinded you to the propaganda you're being fed. — Erik

I don't know how that meme has managed to get hold of someone so intelligent, articulate and concerned, but the fact that it has is one of the scary things about it.

I have not, incidentally, expressed any hatred of Donald Trump in this thread. What I have said is based on published accounts of lying, dissimulation, intimidation, and Trump's demonstrable absence of understanding of the basic elements of democratic governance and constitutional law. This can be stated without any emotion whatever as it's simply a matter of fact, for which further evidence accumulates each day.

Trump is not a liar, or at least he does not give off that impression. To lie is to intentionally deceive, whereas I think Trump genuinely believes the things he says, some of which may not in fact be true. Being wrong does not make him a liar, though.

He is a bullshitter, and bullshit can be used as a control technology (like obscurantism in religion, art philosophy and so on).

Whatever we/you think and echo-chambers postulate, has little bearing on the comets/asteroids.

The Internet age has created a false democracy, where people say, ‘That’s my opinion,’ as if all opinions were equal.

In age of misinformation, Denial exposes dangers of a false democracy (The Globe and Mail)
Johanna Schneller
Oct 2016

Conspiracy theories are considered to belong to false beliefs overlooking the pervasive unintended consequences of political and social action. Social media fostered the production of an impressive amount of rumors, mistrust, and conspiracy-like narratives aimed at explaining (and oversimplifying) reality and its phenomena.

Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation. (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)
Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation (Public Library of Science)
Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Michela Del Vicario, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, Walter Quattrociocchi
Aug 2015

One of the many infuriating things about Trump is that he now uses the most powerful bully pulpit in the world to harangue everyone about 'fake news' and 'false facts'. Today's news is that he has excluded a number of media outlets from the White House briefing. He has called the media 'the enemy of the state'. But he continually lies. During the campaign, PolitiFact, a non-sectarian fact-checking organisation, showed that Trump routinely lies, exaggerates and distorts. Now he is President the same behaviour continues. And what he decries as 'fake news', is actually the efforts of media organisations to document his continuing mendacity.

So here we have a proven and demonstrated liar, calling the press liars, for showing that he's lying. And to make matters worse, there are plenty of people who will dispute even that.

there are plenty of people who will dispute even that. — Wayfarer

Like me :P

Today's news is that he has excluded a number of media outlets from the White House briefing. — Wayfarer

Well to be honest, what would you do if you were DJT, and you were trying to implement your program and the press was harassing you continuously? Wouldn't you exclude them from covering you? They are slowing down and interfering in the work you're trying to do, it's normal to stop them from doing that.

Trump is not a liar, or at least he does not give off that impression. To lie is to intentionally deceive, whereas I think Trump genuinely believes the things he says, some of which may not in fact be true. Being wrong does not make him a liar, though. — Thorongil

He may have genuinely believed trivial falsities like his inauguration crowds were the biggest ever or he had the biggest electoral win since Reagan etc. Although I doubt even that. In these cases, it's more likely he didn't care whether what he was saying was true or not and was just bullshitting. But there's no question now that he is deliberately lying. I mean, do you think he really believes that all these press stories criticizing him and his team are "fake news"? Give me a break. It's clear his definition of "fake news" is any negative story about his administration, and he's making a deliberate and calculated effort to undermine the free media because being a narcissist he cannot stand being criticized. And the zeal with which he is doing this is absolutely without precedent. So, it's highly ironic that the same Republicans who regularly accused Obama of acting like a dictator because of a few executive orders are now lining up lemming-like to follow Trump off the cliff into tyranny.

This isn't an accurate portrayal. The press isn't leaving Trump alone either, and continuously treats him unfairly and even disrespectfully. I see what he's doing as an adequate response to the press.

do you think he really believes that all these press stories criticizing him and his team are "fake news"? — Baden

I think he believes a lot of the stories about him are fake news, about which he is right.

So, it's highly ironic that the same Republicans who regularly accused Obama of acting like a dictator because of a few executive orders are now lining up lemming-like to follow Trump off the cliff into tyranny. — Baden

I grant you that the executive branch has too much power and certain Republicans are hypocrites, just as the Democrats are. I'm not a fan of the executive order and would rather laws be passed as they were intended to, by congress. However, I think it absurd to suggest that we're heading toward tyranny.

Personally I think "post-truth", quite ironically, doesn't even refer to Trump, but rather to the media itself. The media is post-truth - what they report - most of them - has nothing to do with reality, it's like the media has created a fantasy world that people live in. I think the danger is that the rate at which false information spreads is accelerating compared to the rate at which true information spreads - and so, while it looks like we're becoming freer and have access to more and more true information, in practice it is quite the opposite.

But of course, if you're one of those people who listens to CNN, and who is glued to the narrative advocated by the liberal-progressive-hedonistic establishment of the media, Hollywood and Academia, you'll probably disagree with me, for the simple reason that you take your sources - the aforementioned organisations - as speaking the truth to you. I don't. So no point telling me what the media says to prove that what the media says is true - that would be quite circular, and I can care less.

I think it's important to distinguish 'irony' and 'falsehood'. It is indisputable - beyond debate - that Donald J Trump frequently lies, dissembles, exagerrates, and engages in other falsehoods.

The characterisation of anyone who draws attention to this as a 'liberal' and therefore 'corrupt' is another element in the actual conspiracy to subvert democracy and fundamental human rights.

The tendency to promote a fantasy view of life - that Trump can 'bring the jobs back' and 'make people safe' - and then accuse anyone who points out the falsehoods involved of 'living in a fantasy world' is another example of dissembling and falsehood.

I read NY Times and Washington Post online. There are many of their editorial views I differ with, many of the assumptions they make, I don't share. But they also do report a considerable amount of factual information, their depiction as purveyors of 'fake news' is blatant propoganda, and another lie, something which has even been stated by Trump's traditional allies at Fox Media (after which, Trump lied about having actually said it.)

This thread has been interesting, in showing that the cause of bullshitting can be a narcissistic personality.

However, I think it absurd to suggest that we're heading toward tyranny. — Thorongil

I'm not talking about a full-blown tyranny as he won't get that far (though not for want of trying) but an attempt to destroy all media that is critical of the government is tyrannical, and he's got most conservatives right behind him.

I think he believes a lot of the stories about him are fake news, about which he is right. — Thorongil

Now he's even got you believing it, someone who is normally quite rational. Do you know what fake news is? It's news that is entirely made up. Like the story about Hillary Clinton running a nefarious business from a pizza parlour. It's invented, fictional, stories. And now Trump has you believing that the mainstream media is deliberately inventing fictional stories about him (and it's mainstream media outlets he has specifically targeted and named as "fake news"). How sad. But if you really believe that "a lot" of these stories about Trump and his administration are fake, name some of them. Name them, name the outlet and tell us how you know they are fake.

(It's all deliciously ironic, of course, as Trump himself relied on National Inquirer conspiracy theories to discredit Ted Cruz (like his the one about his dad being involved in the JFK assassination). Now that was fake news and Trump knows it. Are your ideological blinders so effective you can't see that he's accusing real news outlets of making up exactly the same kind of stories that he uses himself to discredit opponents? And he is doing it deliberately, making him a stone cold liar. If you can't figure that out, you really are lacking somehow - although I think you can but just don't want to admit it.)

Personally I think "post-truth", quite ironically, doesn't even refer to Trump, but rather to the media itself. The media is post-truth - what they report - most of them - has nothing to do with reality, it's like the media has created a fantasy world that people live in. — Agustino

This isn't the Alex Jones Youtube channel, it's a philosophy forum, and it's this kind of low quality thoughtless statement that makes people put you on their ignore list.

But OK, let's put that aside for a moment, and take you at face value. Let's presume you really believe that most of what news outlets such as CNN report has "nothing to do with reality" and is creating a "fantasy world".

Here are some random headlines from CNN today:

"Democrats elect new leader"
"Trump to miss WH correspondents dinner"
"Man drives vehicle into pedestrians"
"Fleeing civilians killed by landmines"
"Suicide attack kills dozens in Syria"

So, your claim, according to the words you wrote, would be that most of this never happened. It has nothing to do with reality, it's "fantasy". These journalists didn't learn to report news at their colleges and universities, they just sit at home making stuff up, or what?

So, did or did not Trump decline to go to the WH dinner? Did or did not a car drive into pedestrians in Germany? Were or were not dozens killed in a suicide attack in Syria? Etc. If your answer is "yes" to these questions, then guess what, this is not "fake news", CNN is reporting reality. If your answer is "no" then on what basis? And what would convince you are wrong? Do you need to see the TV footage of these events or what?

Note that I'm not denying that the mainstream media is selective and biased in its reporting. I've been saying that for years, but that's a different issue. They are not just making things up and "creating a fantasy word". That's not how mainstream journalism works. They report reality (albeit selectively and with their own slant), because if they don't, they get caught, discredited, and have to apologize. And if you want to claim otherwise you need to provide evidence for your claim or look like a fool.

(Cue evasive answer...)

Name them — Baden

From a recent article I read:

Fake news proliferates. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative Elijah Cummings recently attacked departing national-security adviser Michael Flynn by reading a supposed Flynn tweet that was a pure invention. Nor did Trump, as reported, have a serious plan to mobilize 100,000 National Guard troops to enforce deportations. Other false stories claimed that Trump had pondered invading Mexico, that his lawyer had gone to Prague to meet with the Russians, and that he had removed from the Oval Office a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. — sure proof of Trump's racism. Journalists — including even fact-checker Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post — reposted fake news reports that Trump's father had run a campaign for the New York mayorship during which he'd aired racist TV ads.

I would add the hysteria surrounding the travel ban as well, which the media claimed was a "Muslim ban."

I'm not talking about a full-blown tyranny as he won't get that far (though not for want of trying) but an attempt to destroy all media that is critical of the government is tyrannical, and he's got most conservatives right behind him. — Baden

I see no evidence of this. There hasn't been a more widespread and viscous campaign on the part of the media to slander and destroy a candidate than this past election cycle. Trump has no control over the truly massive deluge of hate and vitriol aimed at him for almost two years straight, which shows no sign of letting up.

real news outlets — Baden

What, like CNN? NYT? They are news outlets, I'll give you that, and until recently I read the latter everyday for my primary source of basic news, but they are quite clearly biased and on the left (I switched to the BBC, which is less revolting in its articles and headlines than the NYT has become in the last year or so). And no, just to pop the caricature balloon that Wayfarer likes peddling about the other side, I don't watch Fox News. I haven't watched more than an hour of that channel in my entire life, and most of that time has come from seeing it in dining halls and doctors offices.

The tendency to promote a fantasy view of life - that Trump can 'bring the jobs back' and 'make people safe' — Wayfarer

Well let's see. You could have egg on your face if the economy does significantly better under Trump than under Obama, which I see as likely, depending on what he follows through with.

I read NY Times and Washington Post online. — Wayfarer

What a shocker....

From a recent article I read: — Thorongil

Just to pop the caricature balloon peddled by Thorongil, the 'article he read' is from Victor Davis Hanson, in National Review - who says in the same article 'Trump’s edicts are mostly common-sense and non-controversial'. So, one of Trump's greatest boosters, says Trump is great, the problem is with The Media! What a surprise! Who'd have thought?

The travel ban was drafted in very slapdash fashion - nobody in the State Department or Immigration was actually consulted about it; and no actual terrorist attacks on American soil had originated from a citizen of the countries named in the ban, since 2000. It was plainly discriminatory. That is why, when challenged in the courts, it was immediately suspended, and, note, it has now vanished altogether from the public discourse, while Trump, in usual fashion, goes on to distract the carnival crowds with more outlandish lies, like non-existent terrorist attacks in Sweden.

You could have egg on your face if the economy does significantly better under Trump than under Obama, which I see as likely, depending on what he follows through with. — Thorongil

I assure you, if the economy did better under Trump, I would gladly eat my words, and take back everything I have said about Trump. But there is zero evidence - nothing, nichts, zilch - that Trump has any grasp of economic policy beyond 'what is good for business'. The stock market is booming now as a consequence of the last several years - what it's doing in 2019-20 will be the measure of what Trump sets in motion.

Just to pop the caricature balloon peddled by Thorongil, the 'article he read' is from Victor Davis Hanson, in National Review - who says in the same article 'Trump’s edicts are mostly common-sense and non-controversial'. — Wayfarer

Yes, @Thorongil avoided my challenge. Here it is again more clearly: Reference directly, let's say from the past week or so, some stories from the NYT, CNN or Washington Post, which are presented as real news not just opinion pieces, but are actually demonstrably made up, i. e. "fake news". This shouldn't be hard seeing as you think there are so many of these stories around.

Let's presume you really believe that most of what news outlets such as CNN report has "nothing to do with reality" and is creating a "fantasy world". — Baden

Why would you choose to take what he said that literally and then proceed to offer several articles covering certain events that happened today? Do you honestly think he's going to dispute that they are reporting on real events? But that's never been the issue. It's the manner in which such news is presented. The mainstream media is mostly concerned with bashing Trump. Of course they still do their "bread and butter" news reporting, but if that's all they did, or the manner in which they did it was as neutral and dispassionate as possible, then there would be no complaints.

Just to pop the caricature balloon peddled by Thorongil — Wayfarer

Which was?

The travel ban was drafted in very slapdash fashion — Wayfarer

Yeah, I think it was poorly implemented and ill-thought out as well. But Hanson is right. It makes sense to place some sort of a moratorium on immigration from countries whose populations we have little to no information about and which house large numbers of terrorists. These same countries were being watched by the Obama administration as particularly dangerous.

and no actual terrorist attacks on American soil had originated from a citizen of the countries named in the ban, since 2000. — Wayfarer

So? That doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious about accepting people from those countries.

That is why, when challenged in the courts, it was immediately suspended — Wayfarer

Our democratic system of checks and balances is working as intended?! How interesting, given that Trump is supposed to be a tyrant and the second coming of Hitler.... You'd think he'd have sent that judge to the gas chamber by now.

like non-existent terrorist attacks in Sweden. — Wayfarer

Talk about fake news! When did Trump say this? He vaguely mentioned the fact that Sweden's asylum seekers and immigrants commit more crimes than native Swedes.

Yes, Thorongil avoided my challenge. — Baden

No I didn't.

But Hanson is right. It makes sense to place some sort of a moratorium on immigration from countries whose populations we have little to no information about and which house large numbers of terrorists. — Thorongil

Which could be done, quite effectively, using the current immigration system, visa vetting, and other controls that are already in place.

These same countries were being watched by the Obama administration as particularly dangerous. — Thorongil

Right. But Obama did not have a bona fide right-wing nutjob like Steve Bannon breathing down his neck, eager to show the world what a 'Muslim Ban' really looks like - which is what actually happened.

He vaguely mentioned the fact that Sweden's asylum seekers and immigrants commit more crimes than native Swedes. — Thorongil

Trump was talking about the terrorist attacks in Belgium and France, to his adoring 'mock campaign' audience and he said, quote, 'What about what happened in Sweden last night? Sweden? Who would have believed it?'

Which could be done, quite effectively, using the current immigration system, visa vetting, and other controls that are already in place. — Wayfarer

I'm highly skeptical of this and certainly not going to take your word for it.

show the world what a 'Muslim Ban' really looks like - which is what actually happened. — Wayfarer

No it wasn't. It wasn't a Muslim ban.

So if you're going to correct someone, at least get your facts right, especially in this context. — Wayfarer

You said Trump said that a terrorist attack happened in Sweden. I challenged you to find me the quote where he said this. You haven't come up with one. So I do have my facts right, sweetcheeks.

The notion that Trump is actuallya suitable person and professionally competent to be President. — Wayfarer

Well, he was suitable, because he was elected. However, I personally think Trump is unsuitable to be president, so hey, wow, you're dead wrong again about me.