Ship of Fools: Post-truth politics, post-truth society

Thread: Post-truth politics, post-truth society Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030564

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

This is a term that has been bandied about over the last few years, and they somewhat puzzle me and worry me. I have had some interesting insight from The Last Leg (I have to get my insight from somewhere).

Post-truth politics - I think this means that politicians lie. in fact, I think it means that we accept that, in a campaign, politicians can say what they want, promise what they want, because the truth doesn't matter. Personally, I try to check facts, but I know a lot of people don't. More worryingly, a lot of people actually believe what they say (as long as they agree with their politics).

The biggest problem is that it comes down to personality, and I am not convinced that this is a positive move. Somewhere, I think there should be a place for truth in politics. And I think politicians should be held to their promises, especially when people vote for these promises.

But the idea of a society where truth is not valued worries me more. I can accept the post-moodernist rejection of the big over-arching truths, I can accept that there is no single truth, and that people can hold their own truth, their own understanding.

But a society where truth is irrelevant - is that valid? In fact, what does a post-truth society mean?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

When did we have a truth society?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I believe that it is all to do with the fundamental neo-liberal lie, which is that the capitalist economic model functions perfectly in all situations.

The way it has been applied to politics is that the "purchasing" decision is instant, and based on the labels attached to the candidate/party/policy. Both left and right are guilty of this: the left-wing version is whether a candidate is a feminist/pro-LGBT+/pro-immigrant/etc. There is no interrogation of the candidate or of the labels they wear; if the right platitudes are spouted, then the label is attached, and the candidate passes that level of scrutiny. Likewise on the right: vocalising support for hardworking people/families/the little guy/the current trope of previous privilege suffering sudden deprivation.

In all cases, there is no interaction with the candidate - the instant circulation of information on social media precludes it, and little exchange of perspectives with those who disagree, because of the hypostatic model of that same social media. And the selection is set in concrete, for that self-same reason.

Relationship is the only cure, and is the element of life which has suffered most as a result of the saturation of western societies in a constant deluge of paranoia.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When did we have a truth society?

Probably never. But this ties in to what, imho, os the wider issue. Mary Midgley wrote a book a while ago called The Myths We Live By where she examined the various narratives that shadow our worldview.

One of the myths that the idea of "post-truth" taps into is the myth of the golden age. It's the myth that things aren't as good as they once were and that we should strive to restore things to their former glory.

It's used by both liberals and conservatives ("make America great again"). It appeals to an emotional core within people that transcends rationality and as such is both powerful and dangerous.

It's interesting to see that the liberal use (post-truth society) arises as a reaction to the conservative use (nostalgic nationalism).

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When did we have a truth society?

Most, if not all of us live our lives around lies and happy deceptions. The truth, if any one even knows what that is, would truly be too much to bear.

If we are talking about recent events over the pond then it seems the majority of voting Americans would rather have an honest liar rather than a dishonest one.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No change there then! Church history is full of reformations, revivals to golden age truths once delivered. There's no truth in any of it. Everything but. Just rhetoric.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When did we have a truth society?

I think we have had a society where truth is valued. Where politicians would be embarrassed if they were caught in a lie. That has changed.

I am worried that we are in danger of a society where you can believe that the world is flat, and promote that idea despite the fact that it is demonstrably false. And reject anyone who disagrees.

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When did we have a truth society?

To my mind, we have become a "post-truth" society (politically at least) because being seen to tell the truth now seems not to matter any more than actually telling the truth.

During the Brexit campaign, various politicians were caught making statements that were outright lies but, after admitting they were untrue, carried on making the same statements.
Leave: We send £350M per week to the EU. It's a disgrace - we'll spend that money on the NHS.
Everyone: No, we don't send nearly that much to the EU.
Leave: Well, no we don't but we send £350M a week to the EU. It's a disgrace - we'll spend that money on the NHS.
Everyone: So are you going to spend £350M extra on the NHS.
Leave: We didn't say we would.
Everyone: Umm... yes you did. Here's the video proving it.
Leave: No we didn't.
Everyone: Umm... WTAF?

We have seen precisely the same sort of thing in the US campaign. Even when it has been publicly proven that something Trump said was a lie, he carried on saying it.
Trump: I was never in favour of invading Iraq/Libya/Anywhere-Elsia.
Everyone: Yeah, but here's the interview in which you say actually say you are in favour of the invasion.
Trump: I was never in favour of invading Iraq/Libya/Anywhere-Elsia.
Everyone: Umm... WTAF?

It's not so much that our politicians are telling lies any more than politicians have always told lies. It's more that; when shown to have been lying, there is no shame and no back-tracking; rather they keep repeating the same lies. We are, perhaps, used to politicians "spinning" the truth to their own ends, but there has at least been a kernel of truth to be spun; we seem to have entered an age in which they just lie and, when proven to be lying, carry on telling exactly the same lies.

I concede that it is the thing I find most bemusing about modern politics; I just can't imagine anyone being caught lying and not being shamed into stopping the lies. Call me old fashioned...

Posted by mrWaters (# 18171) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

During the Brexit campaign, various politicians were caught making statements that were outright lies but, after admitting they were untrue, carried on making the same statements.
Leave: We send £350M per week to the EU. It's a disgrace - we'll spend that money on the NHS.
Everyone: No, we don't send nearly that much to the EU.

Actually UK does 'send' 350M per week to the EU, however most of that money goes to build stuff in the UK like roads, bridges and other assorted projects. That was a perfect lie. Technically true but completely dishonest. One has to see a certain beautiful elegance to such an ugly lie. Yep, sometimes I'm weird.

We can all quote plenty of very popular lies. However if something is repeated enough times it goes into the overton window and currently US president elect is figuring out how to build a ridiculous wall.
As some you you may know in 2010 there was a plane crush that killed President and quite a few other officials of Poland. Large section of the population can't accept that pilots just misjudged the situation. A few years back one of the newspapers printed a story that the lab found TNT on the wreck. The story was immediately disproved and both the author, his editor and editor-in-chief were fired subsequently. However this was repeated so many times that large part of population thinks of it as the truth that has been "suppressed by the oppressive government".

There are plenty of other examples of this thing that is basically another reality. People tend to like being right and so they group with people that think like them. They reinforce the lie between themselves. Suddenly I start to reevaluate the postmodern idea of truth. Doesn't it suddenly seem like there is no truth but only points of view? The lies are becoming truths for large numbers of our fellow men and they treat truth as a lie. So we divide into camps of people who agree on which truth is their truth. No more absolute truth.

[ 13. November 2016, 12:04: Message edited by: mrWaters ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

...and MrWaters makes my point for me.

We have completely forgotten, individually, collectively, socially, politically and in all other respects that we can only inhabit one reality, and that is collective.

We cannot continue simply to destroy each other's reality or to posit our own virtual version of nirvana; we need to get on with building a viable reality for each other, since only that way will we end up with something viable for ourselves as a byproduct.

The rule of ego is death.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

There does seem something different, like Misha describes.
It's no surprise that politicians and media lie. It's no surprise that (say) right-wingers and left-wingers have different bias's, and that some aspects of truth are subjective (the amount EU costs/brings)
Had they used one of the other figures it would have been fineish and would actually have made a point to debate with! (actually that might have been why it was so successful, a kind of Mortons fork, if engaging with is membership worth it, the 350m figure stands, if engaging with the 350m part, then even when argued down you haven't justified what we get out)

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I concede that it is the thing I find most bemusing about modern politics; I just can't imagine anyone being caught lying and not being shamed into stopping the lies. Call me old fashioned... [/QB]

[edit-to respond to xpost MrWaters IIRC the 350m was really pushing it as it included things that were discounted at source and never sent. The figure that included roads etc was still high (unsurprisingly) ]

[ 13. November 2016, 12:20: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Actually, mrWaters, what you are describing is hyperreality, where reality is hidden by the way it is presented. That has been around for a while, particularly clearly shown in the Middle East conflicts, where all places you could get information from were presenting a particular view of the information.

That is not 2uite the same as a situation where lies are presented as fact, by people who know they are lies, and don't care, because they are what people want to hear, and their political ideology is important - it is more important that they win the argument than that they present the truth.

TBH, we have seen this in Christianity for a long time. Some of the more fundamentalist groups present their version of Christianity as if it is the only truth, while knowing that others do not agree with this, and present different approaches. Subtly, they are lying because they believe their narrative to be so important.

But it is wrong and oppressive.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

From 1984

Winston Smith. Freedom is the right to say 2+2=4. If that is granted, everything else follows.

O'Brien. And if the Party says it equals 5?

(Later, after being tortured)

Winston Smith. 4, 5, whatever you want it to be. Only please stop the pain.

That's the danger of a society which thinks that truth is a matter of opinion. Ultimately, the threat is to hard won freedoms.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sad thing is, neither torture or pain are necessary and the distortions are all the greater. 2+2 equals marmite. It isn't merely a slight deviation from reality, but a complete departure.

[ 13. November 2016, 17:19: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
I concede that it is the thing I find most bemusing about modern politics; I just can't imagine anyone being caught lying and not being shamed into stopping the lies. Call me old fashioned...

This is part and parcel of the crap I've seen in my personal life in the past ten years. First came a woman who was caught accepting bribes to slander us despite having signed her freaking NAME to a paper swearing precisely the opposite; when confronted with the paper, she said: "Well, sure, I signed it. Why does that matter? It's just paper."

Then came the boss who (when caught lying and slandering) said: "But everybody plays the political game. You should learn to play it too, or you'll be caught out. What's wrong with you?"

What the Actual Fuck is the only possible response. I'm getting tired of having my jaw hit the floor in both private and public arenas.

[ 13. November 2016, 17:22: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

People are voting for a narrative. Detail is relatively unimportant to them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
People are voting for a narrative. Detail is relatively unimportant to them.

This. Something the left in this country (maybe in the UK too) has steadfastly refused to realize.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It is true that lies are seen to be so commonplace as to be expected: in politics, in the media, in the workplace, in most areas of life, even within relationships.

People really want honesty and integrity, while at the same time wanting to hear what tickles our ears.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
People are voting for a narrative. Detail is relatively unimportant to them.
This. Something the left in this country (maybe in the UK too) has steadfastly refused to realize.

That's pretty good. About the UK as well. 'The political elite have ignored us. This is our chance to show the bastards'.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Yes, it certainly is about narrative, but it is more than that. Brexit and Trump are examples of votes where the facts don't matter where everyone is aware about certain things and yet it makes no difference to the outcome.

In fact a better description is that we're into post-logic territory. Western political systems are more-or-less based on the idea that voters vote in their best interests having considered the platforms put to them.

But that doesn't explain the rise in support for UKIP amongst traditionally Labour voting people. UKIP are to the right of the Conservatives, they have absolutely nothing to offer Labour voters, it is almost impossible to see what low paid, unemployed and zero hours workers could see in their agenda which is of benefit.

But like all fascists, UKIP isn't offering a platform which is actually of benefit to the masses and instead is only benefitial to a tiny elite from which they gain funds and pick candidates. What they're offering is a dream - the dream that picks on people and says that it is "them" who are to blame for the ills of society, that it is "it" (the EU) which is causing funding shortages, that it is speaking from a position at the edges of the political mainstream and that any dissent is treacherous.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... The biggest problem is that it comes down to personality, and I am not convinced that this is a positive move.

Of course it isn't a positive move. It has nothing to do with personality. Nor, Thunderbunk, (see below) has it anything to do with bandying that meaninglessly vague epithet 'neoliberal' around. It is straightforward theological issue. Our God is a God of truth. Because he is 'I AM', rather than 'I may be', that means that however limited our understanding of it may be, truth is ultimately objective. We are obliged to respect, desire and aspire to being true, honest etc. It is part of 'whatsoever is of good report'.

quote:
Somewhere, I think there should be a place for truth in politics. And I think politicians should be held to their promises, especially when people vote for these promises. ...

That should be a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yes, it certainly is about narrative, but it is more than that. Brexit and Trump are examples of votes where the facts don't matter where everyone is aware about certain things and yet it makes no difference to the outcome.

In fact a better description is that we're into post-logic territory.

Yes. I think there is a good example on another current thread.

Martin Saunders' critique of Bill Johnson

What is startling is that Saunders' critique, which is written from quite a conservative viewpoint, nevertheless earned him a vociferous and largely hostile Twitter feed, which seems largely to have been based on 'how dare you be so disloyal to one of our favourite sons. You're letting the side down'.

mr cheesy, I sometimes think people who are ostensibly nonconformist have completely lost sight of our roots in dissenting on grounds of principle and conscience.

And that's the thoughtful ones. I don't know what to make of folks who don't seem to think at all, who are happy with slogans and shouting.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... The biggest problem is that it comes down to personality, and I am not convinced that this is a positive move.
Of course it isn't a positive move. It has nothing to do with personality. Nor, Thunderbunk, (see below) has it anything to do with bandying that meaninglessly vague epithet 'neoliberal' around. It is straightforward theological issue. Our God is a God of truth. Because he is 'I AM', rather than 'I may be', that means that however limited our understanding of it may be, truth is ultimately objective. We are obliged to respect, desire and aspire to being true, honest etc. It is part of 'whatsoever is of good report'.
quote:
Somewhere, I think there should be a place for truth in politics. And I think politicians should be held to their promises, especially when people vote for these promises. ...
That should be a statement of the bleeding obvious.

I'm sorry Enoch, but I think your comment is a further example of the illness I was referring to. You seem to have reacted to the label I used, and not realised that the rest of what I was saying directly supports your point.

We have become obsessed with labels, to the point where they have entirely obscured what they are attached to.

Of course we can only inhabit a single space, and that requires a commitment to the discovery and inhabitation of a single, shared truth.

It's just that this thought is terrifying, because I've got to share it with people with whom I fundamentally disagree, some of which seem to want to kill me, or at least wish I existed only in a place where they can be oblivious to me. I, of course, have no such feelings about anyone (!!??!!!)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Thunderbunk, I agree with a lot of the rest of your post. It was specifically claiming that this was a symptom of 'neoliberalism', whatever that is, or capitalism, or for that matter, 'the purchasing decision'. I do, though, agree with you, and deplore, the tendency in some circles to conduct serious debate as though it were a succession of sales opportunities, the object being to clinch the deal at whatever price, rather than inform and persuade.

I attended a training session recently where some of what would otherwise have been helpful and valuable material was diminished by being presented that way. But that is a digression, unless it is encouraging people to ignore the key question whether what is being presented is true or false.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Part of the problem here is that an awful lot of the issues that arise in society and politics are subjective.

Take abortion - what is the "truth" about whether it should be allowed or not? There isn't one, there are just opinions and beliefs.

Gay rights? Same answer. Feminism? Same answer. Immigration? Same answer. The EU? Same answer. The free market? Same answer.

Should society work for all its members or just some of them? Same answer.

As Sarah G said, it's the narrative that matters. When the subjective issues are so massive, a few relatively piffling objective ones like what people said in the past seem quite unimportant.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

So the question must surely then shift to "who are the storytellers" who are telling the narrative?

"The media" is a pithy answer, but which seems overly simplistic. The television channels and newspapers are not (I don't think) conjuring their narratives out of thin air. They are tapping into a more underlying zeitgeist which appeals to people who already leaning to that particular way of thinking, giving articulation to what may have previously been a more nebulous feeling/suspicion.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
So the question must surely then shift to "who are the storytellers" who are telling the narrative?

Or maybe just "how can we convince people that our narrative is better?"

The words "for them" are implicit on the end of that statement, but as they also speak to one of the most important conflicts between narratives that there is*, I left them off.

.

*= namely, the conflict between "what's best for me regardless of the impact on others" and "what's best for others regardless of the impact on me".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

*= namely, the conflict between "what's best for me regardless of the impact on others" and "what's best for others regardless of the impact on me".

No, it is what is perceived to be a benefit. Too often the spinners of rhetoric are able to convince people to vote against their own interests.
Convince people the sky is falling, point to an "other" to blame and you own their vote.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@mr cheesy. Post-logic territory? As in the OP, when were we ever in logic territory?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Isn't the problem here that democracy doesn't really work ?

That what people want is hope for the future, and what people care about is complicated stuff about the economy that nobody understands ?

If everybody knows that whoever promises most will win the election, then there's no point in standing for election unless you"re prepared to promise a rosier future than the other guy does.

So there's an inflation of the currency of promises from spinning into outright lies.

Admitting that campaign promises aren't intended to be taken seriously - or as one Irish politician put it, you can campaign in poetry but you have to govern in prose - becomes almost an act of honesty.

Truth is that there are hard choices. Between the economic benefit of closer ties with Europe and the accompanying loss of sovreignty and pplitical accountability. Between our aspirations for some level of growth in our private spending and some level of growth in our public spending.

Choices which democracy as we know it is ill-suited to making ?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Democracy is the worst political system around. Except for the rest of them.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

No, democracy is wonderful. It's just that we don't have a democratic process where some votes count more than others. The UK and the US both proclaim democracy, while having systems that are very undemocratic.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

I remember going to a football match where my team - Exeter City - were losing to Dagenham and Redbridge, a non-league team in the Second Round of the FA Cup. At one point the Daggers started singing about going to Wembley. Now there was no likelihood that the Daggers were going to get to the FA Cup Final. But singing about it was a tribal signifier that they were Dagenham fans and that they were pleased with the result.

Much the same, I think, is going on with claims about a wall or £350 million to be spent on the NHS. It's simply not true and the people making those claims know this. But they are tribal signifiers about whose side you are on. I suspect that most Trump voters or Brexit voters know that their candidate will not deliver. But they don't care. It's about sticking it to the other lot, and, to be fair, they have achieved that.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

*= namely, the conflict between "what's best for me regardless of the impact on others" and "what's best for others regardless of the impact on me".
No, it is what is perceived to be a benefit.

I'm talking about people making subjective judgements and you're arguing against me by pointing out that they're subjective?

quote:
Too often the spinners of rhetoric are able to convince people to vote against their own interests.

Against what you think are their best interests. Apparently they disagree.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Against what you think are their best interests. Apparently they disagree.

No, sorry, it isn't a subjective opinion that unionisation is good for poor and struggling workers.

It isn't a subjective opinion that UKIP is rightwing and wants to restrict unionisation and things like the NHS.

If working people who would benefit from an increased welfare state and increased unionisation are voting for UKIP then they're not voting in their own interests.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Could this possibly be the fault of a putative decline in teaching critical thought to the young ones across the Western World?

Damn, it's attractive to think so, but there are more than a few inconvenient facts in the way, I suspect. Did the young vote for Trump and Brexit?

Still, I'd need more than one fact to stop me saying that we need to beat Liberalism into the hide of school children. It's too awful to resist.

I really think that its all about the fear. If you can put the fear on people, they will do whatever you want on a macro level, as long as they think the cruelty you posit as policy will keep them safe. I reckon critical thinking goes out the window when you are frightened.

On a personal level, thinking goes out the window when I am stressed, and the older I get, the more stressed I become.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, sorry, it isn't a subjective opinion that unionisation is good for poor and struggling workers.

Of course it bloody well is. Not least because what "good" means in this context is a subjective opinion in and of itself.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]Of course it bloody well is. Not least because what "good" means in this context is a subjective opinion in and of itself.

And even if a worker agreed unionisation was in their interests, they might still reason that the benefit they'd receive from UKIP's other policies out-weighed this. Or they might be prepared to vote against their own financial interests on behalf of the greater good, as they see it. Plenty of people on the left do similar - e.g. high earners voting for higher taxes to build a fairer society.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You might be logically correct, MtM, but mr c. is ethically and pathetically correct.

They win.

The working class are underpowered, under-represented and divided along race and other lines without unions. They STILL are regardless of Brexit and Trump.

Which doesn't explain France I realise. But then again, what could!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You might be logically correct, MtM, but mr c. is ethically and pathetically correct.

Or to put it another way, you agree with his opinion. Good for you. But that doesn't make it true.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Against what you think are their best interests. Apparently they disagree.

Despite your generalisations to the contrary, there are some objective measures.
Take health care. Brexit was championed by the sane people who wish to privatise the NHS. Voting in line with them is objectively worse for those who cannot afford private services. It does not matter what said voters' opinions are.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Despite your generalisations to the contrary, there are some objective measures.
Take health care. Brexit was championed by the sane people who wish to privatise the NHS.

I didn't realise that Frank Field, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey and David Owen advocated the privatisation of the NHS.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

To be honest - and speaking as someone who is not at all sympathetic to the Conservatives - I think the 'Tories want to privatise the NHS' line falls into the same category of truthfulness as the £350m per week claim; in that it starts from something that is true ("Conservatives want to increase private-sector involvement in the NHS" / "We spend money on the EU that we could spend on other things") and extrapolates it to a silly degree ("Conservatives want to remodel our health system on American lines" / "We're going to spend our £350m EU contribution on the NHS").

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I think this article gives a balanced picture of the process.
It may not be the immediate revocation that some fear, but it seems inevitable under the current direction.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
People are voting for a narrative. Detail is relatively unimportant to them.

I think it's more than that, or just spin.

Fake news isn't just spin, or distortion of an event. It's downright fabrication that people uncritically take and use as fact.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

If you are a working person in the USA attracted by Sander's message against Wall Street excesses, against plutocrats etc - then it makes no logical sense to instead vote for Trump or Libertarian rather than for Clinton.

The decision you are making there is objectively not a logical one if those are the kinds of things you think are important. In fact by voting Libertarian (who have policies that are the mirror image of Sander's platform) or Trump (who represents the kinds of business practices and the wealthy elite that Sanders is complaining about), you are self-evidently voting against your own preference and interest.

Indeed, there is some evidence that people were not so much voting for Trump as voting against Clinton.

To me this says that at least part of the reason for the Trump win was a victory of rhetoric over logic. Voters didn't trust Clinton so instead voted in the fascist who is by almost any measure considerably worse.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think this article gives a balanced picture of the process.
It may not be the immediate revocation that some fear, but it seems inevitable under the current direction.

Yes, the Tories want to outsource everything. But that is a separate question from whether they want to abolish 'free at the point of use', which is what your comment about being unable to afford private services would imply.

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

And to come back to the OP: post-truth has been declared Word of the Year by the OED.

And a reply to Simontoad:

quote:
Did the young vote for Trump and Brexit?

No, they didn't! [or, to steer away from glib generalizations:] = No, a majority of them didn't. Neither for the one nor for the other. Which in itself is slightly reassuring.

The arguments about democracy in several posts would need a careful and nuanced response, which would take too long. Three of the profound problems with 'democracy' in our societies are: (1) the staggering differences in knowledge between some and others (along several very different parameters), (2) the totally disproportionate and nondemocratic influence of popular media – press or broadcasting, and most recently (3) the way that our use of social media reinforces our preferences and prejudices.
There are other problems as well.
But the alternatives...?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

OK, but the point is not that the Tories are planning to privatise the NHS right now. The point is that the Tory root policies are for private enterprise and outsourcing in the NHS, in schooling etc, against council housing and controlled rents, for limiting labour union rights.

You can argue about how exactly they're doing that and how exactly they're different to Blairism (my answer is that they're not), but it is fairly clear objectively that those political urges are not shared by the poorest and working people. In fact they can only really be of benefit to people who already have a considerable amount of capital, who have no problem getting private health insurance, who are fortunate enough to live in a catchment of a "good school" or can afford private education, who are in management positions so are not bothered by labour union rights and who can afford to buy property with a mortgage.

If you are poor, in rented accommodation, sick, living in a sink estate, unemployed, low paid etc then the Tories have nothing for you to vote for.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
And to come back to the OP: post-truth has been declared Word of the Year by the OED.

And a reply to Simontoad:

quote:
Did the young vote for Trump and Brexit?
No, they didn't! [or, to steer away from glib generalizations:] = No, a majority of them didn't. Neither for the one nor for the other. Which in itself is slightly reassuring.

The arguments about democracy in several posts would need a careful and nuanced response, which would take too long. Three of the profound problems with 'democracy' in our societies are: (1) the staggering differences in knowledge between some and others (along several very different parameters), (2) the totally disproportionate and nondemocratic influence of popular media – press or broadcasting, and most recently (3) the way that our use of social media reinforces our preferences and prejudices.
There are other problems as well.
But the alternatives...?

A very warm welcome. And an excellent post. Hope you find your membership here to be of value.

I suppose the strategic answer to your question is "it's the worst system - apart from all the others". Fixing those current issues - which unfortunately point in the direction of a Dark Age for thinkers - is pretty challenging. Censorship is no kind of answer. Self regulation by the media and social media seems doomed to failure. Which leaves "Education, education, education" I guess.

But I was impressed by one of Barack Obama's responses at his recent press conference. Something along the lines of "this office has a habit of waking you up (to realities)".

In the end, reality bites. More appropriate to the Brexit thread but I rather like this.

Wake up Boris! You really are talking bullshit. Time for sackcloth and ashes. Not just from you but the other Brexit ministers. Listen to Philip Hammond. You know it makes sense. Even if it is humiliating. But after all, humiliation is not so bad.

[ 16. November 2016, 10:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, the Tories want to outsource everything. But that is a separate question from whether they want to abolish 'free at the point of use', which is what your comment about being unable to afford private services would imply.

Indeed. I find it amusing that such "truthiness" is being used to argue against the concept of post-truth politics!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you are a working person in the USA attracted by Sander's message against Wall Street excesses, against plutocrats etc - then it makes no logical sense to instead vote for Trump or Libertarian rather than for Clinton.

Your assumption is that working Americans were attracted to Sanders' message because it was against Wall Street Plutocrats, rather than because it promised them a better life and more jobs.

Trump also promised them a better life and more jobs. The difference between the two promises is who they said they'd take the resources from in order to make it happen - Bernie said he'd take them from the WSPs, Donald said he'd take them from immigrants and foreigners.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

If you are poor, in rented accommodation, sick, living in a sink estate, unemployed, low paid etc then the Tories have nothing for you to vote for.

I agree, but I thought we were talking about the working class voting Trump, Brexit and UKIP.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

All the same thing. People voting in ways that will almost certainly fuck them.
You two seem to be arguing the equivalent of getting beat about the head with a cricket bat is OK if the recipient of the beating asks for it to be done.
Brain damage is still brain damage.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Marvin's mention of narratives made me think of religion, or at any rate, theism. I suppose this is pre-truth, by which I mean, that theism emerged long before Enlightenment notions of truth and objectivity.

This seems to lead to a strange mix of arguments and faith, faith being not exactly anti-truth, but a bystander to it.

You can then connect this with postmodernism, which ironically, has actually rescued theism from any kind of positivist dunking.

It strikes me then that we have always had post-truth elements in society, (which are also pre-truth), but I suppose politics is meant to be different, (but isn't).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You might be logically correct, MtM, but mr c. is ethically and pathetically correct.
Or to put it another way, you agree with his opinion. Good for you. But that doesn't make it true.

That's another iteration of logic alone. Which is illogical.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I read that "post-truth" has been elected word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries:

quote:
an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0