Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

To think "post truth" is an incredibly dangerous phrase...

92 replies

MoreBushThanMoss · 19/12/2016 22:34

... For media outlets/ pundits/ commentators to be using???

It legitimises what is basically lies and propaganda, by suggesting "post truth" goes beyond truth in at best an ambiguous, at worst a positive way, with the subtle subtext that it could be a better reality....

Egs of "post truth" politics - the election of trump. Brexit. The Assad/ Russian response to Aleppo criticism.

None of these are "good things"- and all are egs of dangerous right wing campaigns based on repressing truth, spreading misinformation and bamboozling the public. So should we be sanctioning this atrocious abuse of power/ media / social media by calling it a symptom of the "post truth" era - or calling it what it is- lies?

Discuss

OP posts:

BillSykesDog · 20/12/2016 12:47

'Truth' is subjective. 'Post truth' is a positioning designed to people who are arrogant enough to believe that they are in possession of the ultimate truth about everything.

WrongTrouser · 20/12/2016 13:07

Can someone give a concrete example of the use of post-truth, preferably UK based?

WrongTrouser · 20/12/2016 13:19

I agree with Bill. This is what I think happens:

Some people put forward opinions, predictions and theories as if they were facts. These are based on the people's experience and place in the world, as much as on rational thought. Other people, who have different experiences and a different place in society see things differently. When this second group challenge the first group, instead of the first group acknowledging that perhaps there are different ways to look at the issue, and perhaps they haven't taken into account different perspectives, they call "post-truth" in an attempt to shut the second group up.

It is actually a deeply anti-intellectual approach, as we have developed the knowledge we have today exactly by people being able to challenge existing thought. It is based on the notion that there is "one truth". Its very Orwellian and I think quite scary.

larrygrylls · 20/12/2016 13:23

'Post truth' assumes that we used to live in an era of truth.

We were always persuaded by politician's lies and, in the old days, they could pick the 'experts' and pay them to say the right things. These days, at least, we can do our own research and come to our own conclusions.

There are some who hark back to an era of centralised control under the guise of a set of experts telling us the truth. So many of the unequivocal truths have been proved untrue, though, that, of course, 'experts', especially in the fields of economics and politics are being doubted.

DJBaggySmalls · 20/12/2016 13:30

Post Truth;
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”,
Oxford English Dictionary.

Brexit was one example from the UK.

MaidOfStars · 20/12/2016 13:56

I think there is a bit of confusion here about what it actually means, TBH.

It's not about whose lies are pushed to the front, who is manipulating, who is the expert we listen to.

It's about the rejection of fact/expertise (as much as can determined objectively, and assuming expert disagreement on what the "truthful fact" is") in favour of something that isn't based, nor designed to be based, on any fact whatsoever.

WrongTrouser · 20/12/2016 14:02

Post Truth
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”
Oxford English Dictionary

Brexit was one example from the UK

Can you expand on that a bit Smalls?

I don't agree btw, I think Brexit is about the majority of the people who voted in the referendum not wanting to be in the EU.

Why do you think it is "post-truth"?

WrongTrouser · 20/12/2016 14:31

It's not about whose lies are pushed to the front, who is manipulating, who is the expert we listen to

Maid Could you give an example of this, as it is very difficult to understand what people are referring to without a concrete example?

MaidOfStars · 20/12/2016 15:22

Example:
Do we really want 77 million Turkish people with freedom of movement to the UK?

IMO, although I'm happy to examine and dabble along the debate (because it's an interesting subject and I'm not sure I'm perfectly clear on the concepts), this is a statement designed to evoke an emotional response from a voting populace. Take a number at least matching our current population, make it sound like the Turkish people are all going to come to the UK, set your tone as one of disbelief.

If we search for the "facts" that underpin this statement, we will find perhaps a different story (and I use quotation marks because I fully accept that there is, has to be, an element of opinion in what constitutes a fact....)

Turkey's accession to the EU is technically possible (hence the headline message) but highly implausible, as evidenced by their failure to meet the current criteria for joining, and the potential for them meeting the criteria any time soon
This could be discussed in rational terms. How soon do we think they would meet criteria? How difficult is it to meet the existing criteria? What could be the strategy for such a populous nation acceding, in terms of freedom of movement?

The UK would have retained a veto over Turkey's accession had it stayed
Again, rational discussion. How likely is it we would have used this veto? Would we have been alone in doing so? What are the valid reasons for doing so?

But the actual message - the soundbite, I guess - was not rational, it was emotional.

I'm not really going to argue that "post truths" are the sole tool of either side of any debate either. I'm sure some digging would bring out a fair bit from the Remainers and from the Clinton campaign. The above is just an example to facilitate discussion.

almondpudding · 20/12/2016 15:32

Sound bites are pretty much always designed to have an emotional impact.

If you want to present an argument based on fact, you do so by presenting a series of facts as to why the situation around Turkey is implausible.

Because you've written is an opinion, and it leaves me none the wiser as to what the facts are, which means I can't form an opinion of my own, only parrot what you have said based on tribalistic emotion that you are or are not on the right side.

MaidOfStars · 20/12/2016 15:32

Although I would add that I think Trump's wall along the Mexican border is the clearest example of "post truth" that I can imagine, but not a UK one.

almondpudding · 20/12/2016 15:35

And I wonder if some of this stems from people being told to 'educate themselves' which leads to us not transmitting facts via public debate?

almondpudding · 20/12/2016 15:37

So what is post truth about the wall (now a fence, according to Trump)?

MaidOfStars · 20/12/2016 15:41

Because you've written is an opinion, and it leaves me none the wiser as to what the facts are, which means I can't form an opinion of my own
I get what you're saying. I think what I'm suggesting that to facilitate reaching whatever the "truth" might be or what the "facts" are, we need to start by agreeing we will use evidence, not emotion. In the example given, we should be examining the detail of likelihoods (there will be differing opinions) and strategies (there will be differing opinions).

"Do we really want 77 million Turkish people in the UK?" is a pub debate, not a serious political debate. But these emotional soundbites now dominate political discourse, not just in the media but by politicians themselves.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? I'm not actually trying to convince you of my opinion re: Turkey's likelihood of accession and all of those people coming to the UK and that even being a bad thing. I'm thinking more about the method of how we reach any conclusion.

wasonthelist · 20/12/2016 15:42

I think there are only two or three things that qualify as "facts" in the Turkey example -

1.The UK has/had (as an EU member) a veto on Turkish accession (although as evidenced by Cameron's speeches the use or otherwise of that would be dependent on the political landscape at the time).

Any movement of Turkish people to the UK in the event of accession would be less than the entire population.

The only way to prevent EU free movement is to leave the EU.

The rest is just conjecture about what might happen - on all sides.

almondpudding · 20/12/2016 15:46

You've changed the question from the one you originally asked.

To talk about your original one...

'Do we really want 77 million Turkish people to have freedom of movement to the UK? '

Get rid of the really, and that's a reasonable question which can be met with a rational discussion. The difference with your implausible scenario alternative is that it is not a question and it attempts to lead others to a particular answer.

MaidOfStars · 20/12/2016 15:49

The wall was never going to happen. Any examination of any "truth" (social, economic) would have told American voters that. And common sense should have told every single one of them that there's no way Mexico was going to pay for it - that's completely irrational talk.

But he kept saying it. And now there will be disillusioned voters.

I think there might a difference in how you and I conceive what "post truth" means? I don't take a political statement, wait for it to be false/unattainable/fall through, then declare it a post truth. There are many political promises that have failed to materialise but that do not become "post truths". It's more about how the promises were made, the strategy used, the appeal to emotion rather than fact.

MaidOfStars · 20/12/2016 15:51

You've changed the question from the one you originally asked
Not intentional and not designed to lead anyone anywhere. I'm just debating concepts.

I'm not arguing the actual premise of Turkey joining the EU, I'm arguing the method used to frame the argument to the general population.

almondpudding · 20/12/2016 15:53

Your examples of what post truth means all seem to be about your assumption that other people are going to respond to questions in a less rational way than you are.

As I've said unthread, it seems hair splitting to make a distinction between a wall and a fence.

almondpudding · 20/12/2016 15:54

Sorry, I didn't think it was intentional, I just didn't want to get distracted into a different question.

DJBaggySmalls · 20/12/2016 15:55

WrongTrouser
Brexiters could give no objective facts to support their case. they hadn't even sorted out an exit strategy. The arguments were all emotional, including the billboard showing a stream of refugees leaving Syria.
That made it very difficult to argue factually against leaving, or for staying.

One 'fact' that Brexiters offered was a vast amount of money for new hospitals every day, which is now admitted to be false.

wasonthelist · 20/12/2016 15:58

common sense should have told every single one of them that there's no way Mexico was going to pay for it - that's completely irrational talk.

But he kept saying it. And now there will be disillusioned voters.

By implication, the only disillusioned voters would be those with no "common sense". You surely can't expect politicians to campaign in such an inclusive way that they never say anything that people without common sense might be misled by?

Charlieismydarlin · 20/12/2016 16:01

Does post-truth mean simply that anyone voting Brexit/Trump is so duped/stupid that we have moved into a parallel universe of lies based politics?

Sounds like another load of shite from Guardian liberals.

MaidOfStars · 20/12/2016 16:06

wasonthelist
Hang on, let me think about what you're saying, as I think I'm probably chatting more informally than others

By implication, the only disillusioned voters would be those with no "common sense"
If someone voted for Trump on the basis that he was going to build a wall on the Mexican border and get Mexico to pay, then yes, I guess I say that voter had no "common sense". Maybe not their face.

You surely can't expect politicians to campaign in such an inclusive way that they never say anything that people without common sense might be misled by?
I think you're saying that there will always be people who lack "common sense" (in regard to any given issue) and that's a kind of caveat emptor? Sorry if I've misunderstood.

almondpudding · 20/12/2016 16:06

I'm still unclear on the wall thing.

Both Obama and Clinton voted in favour of the security act that created the current 700 mile fence. Trump's 'build the wall' policy is to extend that to 1000 miles by filling in gaps in the fence.

The gaps are there for the benefit of landowners whose land crosses the border.

So maybe they'll manage to block them and maybe they won't.

But it's not a totally ludicrous policy in a practical sense.

I would have thought the issue was more what people are culturally expressing by chanting 'build the wall.' It doesn't have much to do with the practicalities of border security.

And that's surely the post truth element.

Flip

1 2 3 4