Post-Truth Society

in #informationwar6 years ago

We live in times where the tales told by our politicians seem to grow ever taller, while both our memories and tempers keep getting shorter and shorter; a dangerous and potentially explosive mix.


post_truth.jpg
Image by Mike Licht - source: Flickr

Post-truth: Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.
source: OxfordDictionaries.com

Two years ago, in 2016, the word "post-truth" gained the Oxford Dictionaries word of the year award. I believe that 2016 will eventually be written about in future history books as the year when truth died officially. The truth doesn't matter anymore and that fact was celebrated with an appropriately little-known award. In a world where truth is seen as an inconvenience at best, you don't want a big reward to celebrate its death. Some other contestants that year, the year of "brexit" and Trump, were "alt-right", "Brexiteer" and "woke"...

The concept of post-truth has been in existence for the past decade, but Oxford Dictionaries has seen a spike in frequency this year in the context of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom and the presidential election in the United States. It has also become associated with a particular noun, in the phrase 'post-truth politics'.
source: OxfordDictionaries.com

To illustrate how deeply we are into the era of non-truths here's some quotes from Karl Rove, U.S. President George W. Bush's senior adviser and chief political strategist:

  • "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
  • "Once again the powers of light and good have triumphed over the media!"
  • "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."


Karl_Rove_Empire_Faces_of_Evil.jpg
create our own reality - Karl Rove - source: FotoVision

Well, I'm sorry Karl, but may I remind you: you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Who was it again that said "reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it"?

But that's part of the problem. We act according to our core beliefs and based on emotion rather than facts. And yes, in this age of the self large groups of people actually believe there is no truth, only your personal interpretation of the truth. This irrational and anti-scientific sentiment is further fueled by our natural adherence to a certain degree of confirmation-bias, and the tactics used by the mainstream media.

One of the signs that "newspeak", as invented by George Orwell in his brilliant book 1984, has firmly taken root in modern society is the way the term "fairness" has taken on a new meaning through the years in newsreporting. Here's a defenition of the "fairness doctrine" in US media:

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 [...] It established two forms of regulation on broadcasters: to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views. [...] In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
source: Wikipedia


fakenews.jpg
Image by geralt - source: Pixabay

This is all just to ensure the democracy works. Without fair, unbiased, factual representation of events, the democracy can not function. Between 1949 and the early 1980s, the standard for both press and television was fact checking and to give statistically representative airtime to opposing or differing views on public affairs.

Fairness in news-reporting nowadays simply means to give equal time to both sides of any subject. To give an example, imagine a debate about whether evolution is true or not, where equal time is given to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and creationist Ken Ham. This seems reasonable and fair: let both sides give their opinion and let the public make up their own minds.

Except it isn't fair. This debate creates the impression, the lie that there's something to debate when there simply isn't. There is no debate between scientists about the theory of evolution. If this debate was represented in a statistically representative manner, Ken Ham would have to debate thousands of scientists who all accept the reality of evolution.

Regardless of where you stand in the global warming debate, fact is that most resistance against climate change politics comes from right wing believers in free markets. Their argument is, although they don't always admit this, that measures to combat global warming constrain markets and hinder free trade and their right to more profits. Capitalism and free markets are so much part of their core beliefs, their world-view, that their confirmation-bias (as anyone's) makes them incapable of admitting to truths that go against these core beliefs.

Do you all realize that the war in Afghanistan has been going on for 17 years now and that it is therefore the longest war waged by the US since it exists? And that it's had that dubious distinction since 2010?

The Afghan war was enormously popular when it began on a fall Sunday eight and a half years ago. Less than a month had passed since the September 11 attacks, and President Bush could draw on deep wells of support when he ordered air strikes against Kabul, Jalalabad and the Taliban stronghold at Kandahar.
source: ABC News - June 7th, 2010


quote-roger-ailes.jpg
source: AZ Quotes

Constant war, bombings, destruction and loss of innocent lives in the Middle East, going on for almost 18 years now, all based on lies. The Afghan war was shock doctrine at its finest:

This [shock therapy] centers on the exploitation of national crises to push through controversial policies while citizens are too emotionally and physically distracted by disasters or upheavals to mount an effective resistance.
source: Wikipedia

Every crisis creates an opportunity is what these people believe. And we now know that the war against Afghanistan was prepared long before the attacks of September 11th 2001, as part of a plan to lay oil- and gas-pipes through the country. All of the conflicts in this area are based on lies. How come there's still people who believe that Saddam had weapons of mass-destruction? Another lie to base another war on. I remember a story that also played against a backdrop of perpetual warfare: 1984 by George Orwell.

We've actually allowed the world to be shaped by the lies that are repeated over and over again, until people believe them. "The truth is whatever the people will believe", a quote from Roger Ailes, ex-Chairman and CEO of Fox News. Now the time has come to find our way back to the inconvenient truths that are our shared reality. And be aware that there's also a fair share of fake-news to be found in alternative media and on the internet. But at least there we have a chance to be confronted with truths and facts, whether they're convenient or not.


BOMBSHELL Documents Expose The Secret Lie That Started the Afghan War

Above is a reminder about how the "war on terror", effectively the successor to the "cold war" to benefit the interests of the military industrial complex, started 17 years ago in Afghanistan. In closing I'd like to advice you that this is only my opinion on the facts as I understand them. Take everything you hear or read, including the contents of my inconvenient blog, with a large grain of salt and try to discern for yourself facts from opinion.

It's my opinion, dear readers and fellow steemians, that you should return here tomorrow ;-) Until then, keep informed and keep steeming!


wave-13 divider odrau steem

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>Free Speech vs Reddit
Three Billion HeartbeatsLove & Hate
Time, Space & Common SenseThe !pancake Earth
Remember The Lemmings!From Not PC To Cellos And Star Wars

wave-13 divider odrau steem
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!
Helpienaut_post_banner_02-01.png

I am a proud helpinaut! @Helpie is looking for new members! Helpie has been growing nicely and we are always on the lookout for new valuable members. We are very supportive and community oriented. If you would like to be scouted for @helpie , please drop a comment on THIS POST or contact @paintingangels on discord at paintingangels(serena)#3668.

wave-13 divider odrau steem
Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:

Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO

Sort:  

Good stuff, thanks. Have some different thoughts on evolution and climate change. Certainly things evolve but there are different and interesting takes on how, and some things aren't so easily explained by evolution. Valid questions exist, such as the fact that DNA has not changed, not evolved one single bit in 3.5 billion years. F. Crick, discoverer of the double helix, has said that it could not have come about from the soup of life. I, for one, am not willing to close my eyes to possibilities of God or aliens, and firmly believe that western science needs to 'evolve' by allowing for a more spiritual awareness.

As far as the climate change thing goes, I think we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of a debate whose parameters have been defined for us. I think this goes for evolution as well, it's as if the group you belong to defines your stance. To wit, only religious right kooks deny evolution or climate change and all intelligent, rational thinkers believe in them. I believe there to be many serious and qualified scientists who are not so certain as to iatrogenic carbon induced global warming. And there are factors like solar radiation, ozone depletion, chemtrails, and possible climate control efforts by the military that should be considered and studied.

Thanks so much for this well worded response: I'm truly flattered @dashr :-)

I, for one, am not willing to close my eyes to possibilities of God or aliens...

Neither am I. And neither is any true scientist, however loudly they rage against religion and publicly claim to know truths no one can know for sure. All science can say on this subject is that there's no reason to believe in God. God just isn't part of any equation, unless you want to invoke a "God of the gaps"; imagine some all powerful being where knowledge and understanding breaks down. Through the ages we've had ever fewer needs for some God or miracle to explain events. When we couldn't explain how someone got sick, it was God and not the germs. Maybe we're not supposed to know everything, but somehow "I don't know" is an answer most people are uncomfortable with. We fear what we don't know. I therefore see no reason to believe in God, but I don't close my eyes to the possibility that there someday will be a reason to do so.

As far as the climate change thing goes, I think we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of a debate whose parameters have been defined for us.

This one is much simpler in my mind. I don't really care who's right or wrong in this debate. The arguments are false on both sides; as @soundwavesphoton mentioned in his reply, science doesn't have the tools to make a definitive judgement on AGW. And the newspeakly named "climate deniers" are are eager to point out this fact. But... We do live in the sixth mass extinction. Since we started using our brains to adjust the environment to our needs and wants instead of us adjusting to the environment, species of plants, insects and other animals have been dying out at speeds not before seen since the comet that killed the dinosaurs.

And we simply don't need to be as wasteful as we are now. On the contrary: we're technologically perfectly able to show at least some respect for spaceship earth. We don't however, only because we're addicted to an economy that runs on egotistical wastefulness. So even when in doubt, as I am, about the exact causes and ultimate effects of this period of climate change, showing more respect for our home is simply the right, the moral thing to do.

I had to chuckle at the irony in my response to you: I'm so accustomed to facing the polarized view point that I assumed that was were you were coming from. Trapped by the trap I suppose!

I think a large part of the equation often gets completely ignored when it comes to post-truth. The "right" is always demonized as idiots and the nuance of their arguments is instantly considered invalid.

For example, I question the models and the solutions of the "climate changers". Even the words "climate change"... is some kind of Orwellian newspeak. Of course the climate changes, constantly... yet these words evoke panic and a need to "do something about it".

It's not simply "free marketeers want unconstrained markets so screw the alarmists".

I think there are very valid skepticisms about the climate computer models because even tiny changes in the initial conditions can produce wildly different results.

The fudging of the data is also very worrisome, but the most alarming thing is the gov wants to tax A BASIC ELEMENT. That is insane brother and should terrify people haha, straight out of a dystopian sci fi book, but it is ok because they have us fooled that this is a "moral" endevour.

If the solution is more government power, I think the right and the left should be very worried. They don't tell us to plant more trees and the corporations and media seduce us with "green" products.

Because I have these opinions, I am considered anti-science, yet it is science that asks for the most skepticism and most of the claims of the 97% of scientists (more orwellian language as an appeal to authority) can be falsified. Yet to even question the 97% instantly puts you in the crazy box.

Thanks for the post :)

Thank you for such an elaborate and eloquent response @soundwavesphoton :-)

A lot of what I could say here has already been said in my response to @dashr, so please read that if you can.

Also I agree with most of the reservations about the AGW propaganda; heck, the mere fact that there is so much hype around it in the mainstream media should make us suspicious abut the truth of it. That doesn't take away though that the so called "climate-deniers" (talk about Orwellian speak indeed) are economically motivated in their narrative. As almost everything is because we made money God. So measures to reduce waste and CO2 emissions are not taken because they hurt the economy. And when we do take measures, we do so within the parameters set by said economy and we end up with something horrible as taxation of an element, like you rightly mentioned. Take this bullshit one step further and we'll be buying breathable air in cans. Taxing polluted air is the same as charging money for unpolluted air. And it doesn't work. And it will hurt the poor most.

Carbon tax is one of those measures by which we can plainly see the shadowboxing that's going on between left and right wing politics. This leftist proposal is a fake solution that will hurt average working people the most. Factories however have been given the opportunity to trade their allotted emission-rights among themselves. So companies that can easily reach a set goal for the emissions, and therefore have a lot of their emission points left, can sell these leftover rights to companies that have a hard time reaching their emission goals. This simply saves those companies money compared to the costs they would have had to pay if they truly had to make the investments to reach a lower emission rate. Again: we pay the prise where the plutocrats escape yet again...

If the solution is more government power, I think the right and the left should be very worried.

This fear of government I've never understood. Look at it like this: if you fear the government you just admit to the failing of the democracy. And this is true: the democracy has failed. Miserably. The answer however is not fear of government but eliminating that which makes the democracy fail. If your government was a true government by and for the people you wouldn't fear them. You'd love them. We don't fear, but even hate the government in its current form because they're the ruling puppets of a plutocracy; a government by the capitalists for the capitalists. You should get angry about the government whether they're right wing or left wing; they're not working for you. But don't fear government in general; instead work to make a better democracy and eliminate (the power of) money.

...yet it is science that asks for the most skepticism ...

Science is skepticism. Or skepticism is a fundamental element of science. To be skeptic about science is to be skeptic about skepticism (wow... try repeating that in fast succession a couple times...) :-) But... it is healthy to be skeptic about scientists; they're as human as you and I and therefore often fall in the same traps as we mere weed-smokers do (yes, there are alternative ways to expand the mind... ;-)). And again the economy, and therefore money and rich people, plays a crucial role here: is someone paid money to say one thing or another? And by whom? Does the doctor prescribe me medicine because I need it, or are there financial motivations for him or her to do so? Why does advertising medicine even exist?

Thanks brother, and please stay skeptic :-)

The term meshes quite nicely with "post-modernism."

Indeed it does brother. Come to think of it: amazing that I didn't even use that term once in this whole post... Thanks, @passion-ground, for pointing out this grave omission on my part ;-)

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

You have my sincere gratitude once again @openparadigm and @informationwar :-) Thank you!

Hi @zyx066!

Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 2.733 which ranks you at #12918 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 13 places in the last three days (old rank 12931).

In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 271 contributions, your post is ranked at #69.

Evaluation of your UA score:
  • Only a few people are following you, try to convince more people with good work.
  • The readers like your work!
  • Good user engagement!

Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.20
TRX 0.13
JST 0.030
BTC 64506.46
ETH 3417.81
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.50