Such information often comes from the quickly-growing number of fake news sources.
Um, fake news sources, like the New York Times have existed for at least a century and probably for as long as news existed. If anything is different in 2016 it’s that it’s becoming easier to check them and find out that their false.
Without intervention, these outcomes will most likely grow worse over time, as future politicians learn from the results of the 2016 election season and double down on this strategy of lies and manipulation.
Um, the candidate of lies and manipulation lost.
In this case, the commonly-shared resource is trust in our political system and a basic expectation of truth-telling, together with a strong expectation that politicians will back away from lies when called out. We have seen this resource gobbled up in the 2016 election season by the Trump campaign.
Um, I thick your confused here. It was the Clinton campaign that was doing things like encouraging BLM with misleading statistics and outright lies.
It’s probably counterproductive to discuss object level politics. I kind of half-agree with you actually, but still, I can imagine this comment thread turning into an unproductive one.
I think it suffices to say that Gleb_Tsipursky has something of an anti-Trump political angle in the post (which may or may not be objectively correct), and agree to disagree as much as is possible on the object level.
It’s probably counterproductive to discuss object level politics.
So how do you propose to make politics more rational and better correspond to truth without discussing which policies are in fact rational and which political statements are true?
I think it suffices to say that Gleb_Tsipursky has something of an anti-Trump political angle in the post (which may or may not be objectively correct), and agree to disagree as much as is possible on the object level.
Well, I mean you could argue that he is looking for a Trump supporter who likes good epistemology to join his team so that their biases would cancel out?
But you’re right, it’s shaky ground.
So how do you propose to make politics more rational and better correspond to truth without discussing which policies are in fact rational and which political statements are true?
I’d probably start by making a new post called “Object-level contemporary political discussion open thread”. I wouldn’t do this because I expected a successful resolution, I would do it to contain the mess somewhere away from meta-level discussion.
I am comfortable with saying that my post is anti-post truth politics. I think most LWs would agree that Trump relies more on post-truth tactics than other politicians. Note that I also called out Democrats for doing so as well.
I agree with this view. His abuse is more blase, that’s definitely true.
Brash man with a working-class NYC disposition: “Obama literally founded ISIS” or “Obama is secretly a Muslim”
Sensible people everywhere recoil and roll their eyes. Understanding why that’s absurd is pretty easy. The people who make those arguments aren’t exactly an intellectual class, and currently lack an intellectual ‘ruling caste.’
Refined person with an articulate tone of voice, and an Ivy league law degree: “Women are oppressed everywhere, and currently make 70 cents on the dollar of what a man makes.”
Not horrific, stated by a well-educated person. Sounds reasonable, based on ‘real research.’ Comes from a sense of seemingly genuine concern and outrage for an injustice.
I used to take the stance that the first was much worse, as it is more brash and shameless. I’m not sure anymore how to measure these two against each other. I have, absolutely without a doubt, been mind-killed on this specific topic, because I personally hate charlatan lawyers who think they have the right to tell me how to live my life.
Women are oppressed everywhere, and currently make 70 cents on the dollar of what a man makes.” based on ‘real research.’
And most disgusting of all, probably doesn’t get counted as a lie. This is the problem I have with Gleb’s claim about Trump lying more—the SJWs have found ways of lying that are not technically lies.
is it the post-truth world where true facts are lies because of reasons?
The false statement is “… therefore to be fair we should multiply every woman’s wage by 10⁄7.” Instead of something like “… so to promote equality we should stop discouraging fort grade girls from studying math.”
Those look like not-even-false claims because they almost are.
Agree that the attempts to rid academia of conservatives are bad.
Can you be comfortable saying that Trump lies more often, and more intensely, than prominent liberal politicians; usually does not back away from lies when called out; slams the credibility of those who call him out on lies; focuses on appealing to emotions over facts; tends to avoid providing evidence for assertions (such as that Russia was not behind the hack), etc.? This is what is meant by post-truth in Oxford Dictionary definition of this term.
The problem I have is a measure problem. How are we measuring lies? If I say that whales are fish and then I say all birds can fly, and you say the holocaust didn’t happen, that’s 2 for me and 1 for you so I’m a worse liar?
relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief
Note, the implicit inference that such circumstances are more common now than in the past, when this is almost certainly not true.
I didn’t realise the term “post truth” had a precise, official meaning? Anyway I would still say there is a bit of an issue measuring lies, but I definitely concede the point that Donald is very, very far from a truth teller.
Can you be comfortable saying that Trump lies more often, and more intensely, than prominent liberal politicians
I’m not sure about The_Jaded_One, he seems to be willing to assert false things under peer pressure. However, that statement is in fact false. Where by “false” I mean it doesn’t correspond to mapping to external observable reality. Specifically, I mean that Trump’s statements tend to map to reality better than those of liberal politicians.
I would only agree that every major political party uses post-truth rhetorical methods and it is sad that each of them does. If you want to propose a unit of measurement for truthiness I’d consider comparing them.
I am comfortable with saying that my post is anti-post truth politics. I think most LWs would agree that Trump relies more on post-truth tactics than other politicians.
Are you comfortable providing actual evidence for the claim that “Trump relies more on post-truth tactics than other politicians” or are you trying to argue for an epistemology of truth based on whatever the consensus by “experts” is?
I think it suffices to say that Gleb_Tsipursky has something of an anti-Trump political angle in the post (which may or may not be objectively correct)
It is quite important to note here that “an anti-Trump political angle” need not be pro-Obama or pro-Hillary. We should be careful not to fall for the all-too-common trap of hyper-factionalization and ‘politics as usual’!
Um, fake news sources, like the New York Times have existed for at least a century and probably for as long as news existed. If anything is different in 2016 it’s that it’s becoming easier to check them and find out that their false.
Um, the candidate of lies and manipulation lost.
Um, I thick your confused here. It was the Clinton campaign that was doing things like encouraging BLM with misleading statistics and outright lies.
..
It’s probably counterproductive to discuss object level politics. I kind of half-agree with you actually, but still, I can imagine this comment thread turning into an unproductive one.
I think it suffices to say that Gleb_Tsipursky has something of an anti-Trump political angle in the post (which may or may not be objectively correct), and agree to disagree as much as is possible on the object level.
So how do you propose to make politics more rational and better correspond to truth without discussing which policies are in fact rational and which political statements are true?
And yet he claimed his project is “non-partisan”.
Well, I mean you could argue that he is looking for a Trump supporter who likes good epistemology to join his team so that their biases would cancel out?
But you’re right, it’s shaky ground.
I’d probably start by making a new post called “Object-level contemporary political discussion open thread”. I wouldn’t do this because I expected a successful resolution, I would do it to contain the mess somewhere away from meta-level discussion.
I am comfortable with saying that my post is anti-post truth politics. I think most LWs would agree that Trump relies more on post-truth tactics than other politicians. Note that I also called out Democrats for doing so as well.
Personally I think that Trump abuses epistemology in different ways than the left/PC establishment, rather than more.
For example, how much weight do we put on very successful liberal attempts to rid social-science academia of conservatives? Is it worse to lie about global warming, or to attempt to purge a universities of all academics who are conservative, so that every paper that comes out of academia has a liberal bias?
What is the most common political affiliation of people who work for, for example, the IPCC? Probably quite liberal.
I agree with this view. His abuse is more blase, that’s definitely true.
Brash man with a working-class NYC disposition: “Obama literally founded ISIS” or “Obama is secretly a Muslim”
Sensible people everywhere recoil and roll their eyes. Understanding why that’s absurd is pretty easy. The people who make those arguments aren’t exactly an intellectual class, and currently lack an intellectual ‘ruling caste.’
Refined person with an articulate tone of voice, and an Ivy league law degree: “Women are oppressed everywhere, and currently make 70 cents on the dollar of what a man makes.”
Not horrific, stated by a well-educated person. Sounds reasonable, based on ‘real research.’ Comes from a sense of seemingly genuine concern and outrage for an injustice.
I used to take the stance that the first was much worse, as it is more brash and shameless. I’m not sure anymore how to measure these two against each other. I have, absolutely without a doubt, been mind-killed on this specific topic, because I personally hate charlatan lawyers who think they have the right to tell me how to live my life.
And most disgusting of all, probably doesn’t get counted as a lie. This is the problem I have with Gleb’s claim about Trump lying more—the SJWs have found ways of lying that are not technically lies.
is it the post-truth world where true facts are lies because of reasons?
The false statement is “… therefore to be fair we should multiply every woman’s wage by 10⁄7.” Instead of something like “… so to promote equality we should stop discouraging fort grade girls from studying math.”
Those look like not-even-false claims because they almost are.
...
This smells like a nice motte-and-bailey to me, but I don’t really want to prosecute the debate here.
Agree that the attempts to rid academia of conservatives are bad.
Can you be comfortable saying that Trump lies more often, and more intensely, than prominent liberal politicians; usually does not back away from lies when called out; slams the credibility of those who call him out on lies; focuses on appealing to emotions over facts; tends to avoid providing evidence for assertions (such as that Russia was not behind the hack), etc.? This is what is meant by post-truth in Oxford Dictionary definition of this term.
The problem I have is a measure problem. How are we measuring lies? If I say that whales are fish and then I say all birds can fly, and you say the holocaust didn’t happen, that’s 2 for me and 1 for you so I’m a worse liar?
I’m going with the official definition of post-truth here, and am comfortable standing by it.
Your linked definition of ‘post-truth’ is:
Note, the implicit inference that such circumstances are more common now than in the past, when this is almost certainly not true.
I didn’t realise the term “post truth” had a precise, official meaning? Anyway I would still say there is a bit of an issue measuring lies, but I definitely concede the point that Donald is very, very far from a truth teller.
Agreed with the issues around measuring lies, and noting the concession of the point—LW gold to you for highlighting the concession.
I’m not sure about The_Jaded_One, he seems to be willing to assert false things under peer pressure. However, that statement is in fact false. Where by “false” I mean it doesn’t correspond to mapping to external observable reality. Specifically, I mean that Trump’s statements tend to map to reality better than those of liberal politicians.
At this point, I’m finished engaging with you, since you’re clearly not making statements based on reality. Good luck with growing more rational!
I would only agree that every major political party uses post-truth rhetorical methods and it is sad that each of them does. If you want to propose a unit of measurement for truthiness I’d consider comparing them.
Are you comfortable providing actual evidence for the claim that “Trump relies more on post-truth tactics than other politicians” or are you trying to argue for an epistemology of truth based on whatever the consensus by “experts” is?
It is quite important to note here that “an anti-Trump political angle” need not be pro-Obama or pro-Hillary. We should be careful not to fall for the all-too-common trap of hyper-factionalization and ‘politics as usual’!
Calling the New York Times a fake news source is racist since the paper is controlled by the Mexican oligarchy.
Nice, didn’t know that—thanks for pointing it out! Updated slightly on credibility of NYTimes on this basis.