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.
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!