Here is the difference with Trump; despite his comments being shown to be false, they are repeated and acted on. Truth no longer plays a part in the dialogue, nor in the actions they entail.

Again, that's not a significant difference from other presidents. Joseph Wilson has shown that Saddam had no access to uranium or WMDs but George W. Bush's lies about them were acted on and 4000 Americans died, as well as more than a half a million Iraqis died.

Obama told us that he wasn't having the NSA/CIA monitor our phones, so we all proceeded with our phone calls as if they weren't, and it turned out they were.

Bill Clinton over-exaggerated the threat of gang violence in black neighborhood, leading to the enactment of a racist crime bill sending hundreds of thousands of young black men to jail for non-violent drug offenses.

Trump is scum, but to present him as this mendacious, toxic counter to the honest presidents causing no damage with their dishonesty before him is inaccurate.

You might disagree, but to my eye there is a difference not just in degree, but in kind, between the lies of previous presidents - which I do not deny - and the ubiquitous disregard for truth that is evident in the present administration.

I'll agree with degree, because Trump is so stupid he doesn't even know how to lie or not to lie for his own long-term benefit. But I won't degree in kind since, as bad as Trump is, he hasn't gotten Americans and over a million others killed in a war that cost this country trillions, like Dubya--still the worst American president ever--did.

Give him time.


It's difference in kind because it is not occasional; the lies are presented even for trivialities like the inauguration; or speaking to boy scouts.

I don't see it happening as, so far, he's proven to be much less of a hawk then Dubya, and less of one than the elitist hawks Obama and Hillary Clinton. He's not tied to the oil industry like Bush and seems far more interested in making as many corrupt bucks as he can than pushing an imperialist policy.

In fact, it's mostly centrist Democrats and War-hawk new sites like CNN, MSNBC, WaPO and NYT who have been pushing for more war against Assad and more disastrous training of "rebels' who have greatly turned out to be ISIS or Al-Qaeda. They are also the ones pushing for brinksmanship with Russia with Democratic congressmen even being so reckless as calling the supposed hacking of the election an act of war. So, Trump, as awful as he is has not been the one pushing for brinkmanship this last year.

Why is my viewpoint vile? Because I admit the truth of the world? I didn't say I support those activities, quite the contrary. But unlike many of the hypocrites in this world, I am actually against them. Let's not forget that time when you asked me what's wrong with promiscuity.

You really do live in an alternate reality. — Michael

No, but unlike some people I don't have to hide from the truth. It seems that you want to pretend you live in a different world than you actually do.

Yeah, you are right, Not a problem, hey?

Lol. What did I tell you?

Not a problem, hey?

I never said Trump was no problem...but straw-man away.

Sanctions won't work even if China would allow that. Clinton probably wouldn't be in this situation, but if she was, she would have no problem doing the sane thing...talk to them.

Mongrel, a reply of yours, to this thread was posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Beyond_Bullshit_Donald_Trumps_Philosophy_of_Language

I just want to say something in earnest here. My impression is that you don't actually believe Trump was elected because Americans, suffering from a pomo fascination with the word discourse, failed to properly assess him.

From the OP onward I've been sniffing bullshit. Didn't you just want to poke at Landru? That's what Trump does. Speech is a tool for expressing aggression.

Why shouldn't I see this thread as a curious case of hypocrisy? I'm not poking at you btw. I'm asking.

my eye there is a difference not just in degree, but in kind, between the lies of previous presidents - which I do not deny - and the ubiquitous disregard for truth that is evident in the present administration. — Banno

Trump surely puts lying into a whole new dimension, basically that lying simply doesn't matter at all.

The usual way is just to pick the facts that help or advance your agenda and forget deny facts that are against your agenda. That's the typical way politicians work... to avoid straight out lying.

Then there are the lies that can hypothetically be true, like the lie before the Iraqi invasion that Saddam Hussein still had "a vast ongoing WMD program" even after Operation Desert Fox. You can get away with that kind of lie simply by saying "one didn't know back then". Blame "bad" intel.

How Trump is different is that there isn't some agenda, some reason to twist truth, but everything is just rhetoric, objective facts don't exist. Lying doesn't matter as the rhetoric is much more about emotions and promoting an ideological view. Everything is subjective and basically a statement. With Trump, everything is about himself, the petulant, ignorant and mentally lazy narcissist. Someone who basically lacks the basic leadership skills that a President would need.

Yet with Trump supporters any kind of talk about facts is either for or against Trump. Hence accusing of Trump lying is for them just a method of attack from the liberals/Hillary supporters/Deep state or whatever they hate in their concocted alternate-reality. Trump supporters remember well how their candidate was laughed upon and took it as ridicule of them and hence have no incentive to look at how inept Trump has been on the job (no repeal of Obamacare, no wall even with the GOP holding both houses of the Congress). Because that kind of focus, just as checking if Trump lies, is in the post-truth World just playing into the hands of your enemies, the evil Obamas and Clintons of the World. Everything is just rhetoric that plays to one's emotions.

After all, "post-truth" means after truth, which logically implies that lying or telling the truth doesn't matter.

Trump surely puts lying into a whole new dimension, basically that lying simply doesn't matter at all.

The usual way is just to pick the facts that help or advance your agenda and forget deny facts that are against your agenda. That's the typical way politicians work... to avoid straight out lying.

No, politicians straight-up lie all the time. They lie in campaign promises they know they will never keep, they lie about their opponents, they lie about the influence lobbyists and big donors have on their decisions. They also make straight up lies on policies with huge ramifications

George. W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussain having WMD's, leading to a disastrous Iraq War.

Obama straight-up lied about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones when he knew perfectly well they were absolutely doing so.

Reagan lied to the country about taking money from Iran weapons deals to finance the horrendous Contas. You have a bit of a naïve view of politicians, I'm sorry to say.

Then there are the lies that can hypothetically be true, like the lie before the Iraqi invasion that Saddam Hussein still had "a vast ongoing WMD program" even after Operation Desert Fox. You can get away with that kind of lie simply by saying "one didn't know back then". Blame "bad" intel.

No, these lies couldn't hypothetically be true, anymore than Trump's lies, since Bush and company knew damn well they weren't true, and he continued to send Americans to die and kill many Iraqis. The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad.

How Trump is different is that there isn't some agenda, some reason to twist truth, but everything is just rhetoric, objective facts don't exist. Lying doesn't matter as the rhetoric is much more about emotions and promoting an ideological view. Everything is subjective and basically a statement. With Trump, everything is about himself, the petulant, ignorant and mentally lazy narcissist. Someone who basically lacks the basic leadership skills that a President would need.

Oh, Trump has an agenda; it's to get Trump as rich as possible by the time he's done or is kicked out, which won't bum him out too much, since he clearly doesn't enjoy the work. But if you see this as inherently worse than having an agenda of destroying countries and bombing people for Oil and our weapons sales allies as Bush and Obama did, I'd like to hear that explanation. Obama and Bush have left hundreds of thousands (and millions in Bush' case) of bodies in their wake.

Because that kind of focus, just as checking if Trump lies, is in the post-truth World just playing into the hands of your enemies, the evil Obamas and Clintons of the World. Everything is just rhetoric that plays to one's emotions.

After all, "post-truth" means after truth, which logically implies that lying or telling the truth doesn't matter.

We've always had a post-truth (or non-truth) world. Before the Civil Rights movement, people thought it was the truth that Blacks were inferior and deserved terrible treatment. Many still do. Even in this millennium, people calling themselves liberals thought it was the truth that Gays didn't have the right to marry or to be served in businesses held by religious people. And that's not even mentioning all the lies told by politicians and regular people. Trump is terribly dishonest, but you're acting like we were honest saints before; we weren't.

My impression is that you don't actually believe Trump was elected because Americans, suffering from a pomo fascination with the word discourse, failed to properly assess him. — Mongrel

In my defence, Trump is not mentioned in the OP. I think his election has more to do with popular fascination by a sociopath.

From the OP onward I've been sniffing bullshit. Didn't you just want to poke at Landru? That's what Trump does. Speech is a tool for expressing aggression. — Mongrel

An "I told you so" to Landru was indeed behind the OP. It's kinda nice to have a philosophical debate played out in the real world.

Make of that what you will.

You neatly set out the difference in kind that cannot see. I quite liked your point about deniability.

No he didn't and the fact you can't articulate them helps prove it.

I guess I misunderstood from the beginning then. I don't see the change you've spoke of. Maybe it's more prevalent where you are?

Trump is terribly dishonest, but you're acting like we were honest saints before; we weren't. — Thanatos Sand

So, everything is already so f***ed that there's no use complaining about how f***ed Trump is.

The fact that you put all of your opinions in bold face just makes it seem like you're shouting at everyone, which is also the tone of your posts. (I know this will elicit more vitriol, but I'm feeling charitable.)

No, politicians straight-up lie all the time. They lie in campaign promises they know they will never keep, they lie about their opponents, they lie about the influence lobbyists and big donors have on their decisions. They also make straight up lies on policies with huge ramifications — Thanatos Sand

Yeah, they might even know that they are lying, but the real thing is if something can be shown as a lie. A lie we can see is a lie that is knowingly and purposely made. If I promise to do something, but I am not successful in doing it, am I a liar? If I quote one batch of economists and not others, mention certain facts but not other, am I lying? If we are making forecasts about the future and choosing what would be the optimum policy for the best outcome and then the future is totally different, were we lying when making the forecast and picking our actions?

No, these lies couldn't hypothetically be true, anymore than Trump's lies, since Bush and company knew damn well they weren't true, and he continued to send Americans to die and kill many Iraqis. The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad. — Thanatos Sand

Actually, just how the White House pushed for the Iraqi invasion is quite well documented. And as intelligence paid a role, then it's quite logical that there allways is possible that something is missing.

For instance, if it wasn't for one incompetent Syrian official having secret data on his laptop outside of Syria, basically the Israeli intelligence wouldn't have known of the Syrian nuclear weapons program that they later destroyed. Reason was that Syrians were extra carefull of having anything electronically out of the project. Hence the possibility of Saddam having a WMD Project was there, even if actually very improbable.

Besides, politicians quite often start to believe their own ideas that help their agenda. These ideas you would call lies.

I think a lot of folks here have turned this into an analysis of the President of the United States. The OP explained he didn't mean to focus on that, but rather on this "post-truth" world some are experiencing.

If I falsified documentation on my job, I would be in danger of losing my job and my license (permanently). Honesty is taken very seriously where I work. On a larger scale honesty is important because hospital fraud will likely result in withdrawal of Medicare funding. No hospital in America can survive without Medicare.

So how is it where you live? Is there tolerance of fraud?

How about Finland? Is honesty important in the Finnish society?

So, everything is already so f***ed that there's no use complaining about how f***ed Trump is.

I never said that. Your reading here is just awful.

The fact that you put all of your opinions in bold face just makes it seem like you're shouting at everyone, which is also the tone of your posts. (I know this will elicit more vitriol, but I'm feeling charitable.)

The fact you can't grasp I put my opinions in bold face in long posts so to demarcate my posts from my interlocutors is unimpressive. And the only angry, shouting tone, and only vitriol, has been in your post above, so, you've been a shameless hypocrite, as well.

*

Yeah, they might even know that they are lying, but the real thing is if something can be shown as a lie.

No, the real thing is the politician lied.

If I promise to do something, but I am not successful in doing it, am I a liar?

I explicitly mentioned politicians who make promises they know they can't keep. So, you are straw-manning me, which doesnt' make your arguments look good.

If I quote one batch of economists and not others, mention certain facts but not other, am I lying? If we are making forecasts about the future and choosing what would be the optimum policy for the best outcome and then the future is totally different, were we lying when making the forecast and picking our actions?

This is a pointless ramble that doesn't address anything I said. So, far you've just wasted your time, as you haven't addressed my post at all.

No, these lies couldn't hypothetically be true, anymore than Trump's lies, since Bush and company knew damn well they weren't true, and he continued to send Americans to die and kill many Iraqis. The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad.
— Thanatos Sand

Actually, just how the White House pushed for the Iraqi invasion is quite well documented. And as intelligence paid a role, then it's quite logical that there allways is possible that something is missing.

Actually, it's well documented Bush and company knew there were no WMDs and pushed the lie anyway and got thousands of Americans killed and millions of Iraqis killed. The fact you're fine with that is shameful.

For instance, if it wasn't for one incompetent Syrian official having secret data on his laptop outside of Syria, basically the Israeli intelligence wouldn't have known of the Syrian nuclear weapons program that they later destroyed. Reason was that Syrians were extra carefull of having anything electronically out of the project. Hence the possibility of Saddam having a WMD Project was there, even if actually very improbable.

This is irrelevant nonsense. the mere possibility a lie may be true doesn't mean the lie wasn't a lie. Theres a mere possibility you may be a murderer, that doesn't change the fact that if I told people you were one, I'd be lying.

Besides, politicians quite often start to believe their own ideas that help their agenda. These ideas you would call lies.

Yeah, and that could apply to Trump, too. So, you obviously think he's like the rest.

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

Trump is simply a manifestation... and a gnarly one at that.

When it is the case that a listener does not know what it would take for a claim to be true, then s/he is 'at the mercy' of a speaker who is most the convincing, despite whether or not their speech is coherent and/or true. Those in the real world who do not care about some group and/or community of people have no business having power over them. If those in power know that most folk do not have a clue what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and they do not care about some group and/or community of people whom they have power over, then we're in trouble...

That's about where the US is at the moment...

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

This has never not been the case.

Glad we agree.

X-)

Me, too, but I'm surprised you agree with me that we're not in a Post-Truth world, but in the same non-Truth world we've always occupied.