Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:04PM   Printer-friendly

Oxford Dictionaries has declared "post-truth" as its 2016 international word of the year, reflecting what it called a "highly-charged" political 12 months. It is defined as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals. Its selection follows June's Brexit vote [in the UK], and the US presidential election. Post-truth, which has become associated with the phrase "post-truth politics", was chosen ahead of other political terms, including "Brexiteer" and "alt-right".

[...] Oxford Dictionaries says post-truth is thought to have been first used in 1992. However, it says the frequency of its usage increased by 2,000% in 2016 compared with last year.

Mr Grathwohl said: "Fuelled by the rise of social media as a news source and a growing distrust of facts offered up by the establishment, post-truth as a concept has been finding its linguistic footing for some time," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37995600
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016

Would you have chosen something different?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:10PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:10PM (#428229) Journal

    On this site. With its smallish userbase, educated audience, and modestly diverse viewpoints.

    People will cite crazy, off-the-wall sources, or, more often regurgitate something they got from one of those sources, as fact. Probably less now that the election is over, but the democratization of knowledge has only proven to me how little the people can be trusted with fairly benign things like "fact checking" or "reading for comprehension when they think a source supports them".

    It doesn't help that our journalists were never great at it, and are now starting to be moderately bad at it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:14PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:14PM (#428232) Journal

    It has the aire of, um, "untruthiness". Double Plus Ungood. One star. Would not alphabetize again. http://www.brietbart.com/london/2016/11/17/post-truth-named-word-year-uk-us/ [brietbart.com]

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:09PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:09PM (#428318) Journal

      How did you manage to fuck up a cut and paste?
      Or have we all been played?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:32PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:32PM (#428335) Journal

        I would hate to give any clicks to an alt-right proto-fascist pseudo-news site, especially in a post-truth universe. Hanlon's razor will need to be reversed.

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday November 18 2016, @01:40AM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday November 18 2016, @01:40AM (#428552) Homepage Journal

          mcgrew's razor trumps Hanlon: Never attribute to ignorance or stupidity what self-interest will explain.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday November 18 2016, @03:17AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday November 18 2016, @03:17AM (#428606) Journal

            mcgrew: what possible self-interest could be involved here? And since your razor only trumps (shouldn't that be capitalized, now?) Hanlon's razor, which really is only a cynical restatement of Ockham's Razor, and mine is a double backflip Flying Camel Sowtoe reverse Hanlon's razor, you will have to concede on this one. Not a big deal. In fact, it is really useful that you point out the significance of various logic razors in the "post-truth" world!

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:29AM (#428759)

              Pretty sure you mean "salchow" (saul-kow), named for its inventor, Ulrich Salchow. [wikipedia.org]
              The dude was the Michael Jordan of his day, dominating his sport.
              He was World Champion from 1897 through 1911, missing the gold only in 1898 and 1906.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:19PM (#428372)

        Meh, just flip the i and e in Breitbart. The comments section there is darkly hilarious.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday November 18 2016, @12:35AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday November 18 2016, @12:35AM (#428515) Journal

          Meh, just flip the i and e in Breitbart.

          OMG! A Soylentil capable of spelling! what is the world coming to! None of my wiles will work with this one. But what do you mean by "darkly hilarious"? Post-truthy racist jokiness?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Entropy on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:20PM

    by Entropy (4228) on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:20PM (#428239)

    Are you suggesting that at one time politics was based on fact?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:37PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:37PM (#428251)

      Once upon a time, a politician would resign if found to have lied outright ... in England or Japan.

      • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:49PM

        by Entropy (4228) on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:49PM (#428259)

        That doesn't mean they were put into that place for other than emotion. Didn't they used to kill themselves in Japan for failure?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:50PM (#428296)

          > That doesn't mean they were put into that place for other than emotion.

          Lying isn't binary. That's being exploited by people to equate all lies, regardless of intent or severity as equal. Its like we've been reduced to a 3rd grade level of understanding because thinking is too hard.

          And that creates an inevitable rush to the bottom because nobody, not even the pope or snowden is 100% factual. So if everybody is a liar, then nobody is better than anyone else. Every sinner is a saint. Stalin is the same as Gandhi. Dr King is the same as David Duke. That is how you destroy a civilization.

          • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Friday November 18 2016, @08:38AM

            by mojo chan (266) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:38AM (#428743)

            It's the natural evolution of the feeling people had that all politicians are liars. If they all lie, then claiming to tell the truth is not going to work. Instead, be like the Brexit leave campaign, be like Donald Trump. Just lie outrageously. The voters know you are lying. You know that they know you are lying. They know that you know that they know. It doesn't matter, because your message is about feelings, not an objective evaluation of the world.

            --
            const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:29PM

          by edIII (791) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:29PM (#428436)

          No, they didn't kill themselves for failure, IIRC. I think that was only the Samurai and their practice of seppuku. Falling on your own sword may not have applied to the population at large, but may have applied to state actors in the various periods, as they were also quite often warriors themselves.

          I'm not sure if China had such rituals, but it was an honor to die by beheading in China. Not the same as seppuku exactly, but involved an honorable death nonetheless.

          Suicide in Japan is a touchy subject to begin with as it is the option apparently chosen all too often. IIRC, it was as much as 70 suicides a day, and over 60% higher than global averages.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 18 2016, @02:07AM

            by bob_super (1357) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:07AM (#428562)

            If my Chichen-Itza memory serves me well, it was the greatest honor to get sacrificed to the gods after you won an Aztec ball game.
            It's a good way to keep suspense in your championship: kill the best players after each game.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @02:28AM

              by edIII (791) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:28AM (#428574)

              It's a good way to keep suspense in your championship: kill the best players after each game.

              LOL, if only we could apply that to this election :)

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:49PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:49PM (#428348) Journal

        Once upon a time, a politician would resign if found to have lied outright

        Lying was ok. Getting caught was not. It was hard to get caught. The lie would have to be a real doozy in order for that to happen.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:21PM (#428240)

    Hey, how are Chloe and Ryan doin'?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:24PM (#428242)

    As a rule of thumb, the occurrence of the word 'fuck' in a post (except when quoting another post; a non-ambiguous reference to a sex act; or in an meta-reference, as in *this* post) is a red flag indicating the likelihood of a low quality post. More than one occurrence is practically a guarantee of low quality.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:24PM (#428276)

      As a rule of thumb, the occurrence of the word [insert word here] in a post (except when quoting another post or in an meta-reference, as in *this* post) is a red flag indicating the likelihood of a low quality post. More than one occurrence is practically a guarantee of low quality.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:53PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:53PM (#428300) Journal

      What's that? If you reach for an excuse you can find a reason to ignore anything that disagrees with you and your "rule of thumb" can be freely discarded when it tells you the opposite of what you want to hear?

      What a never-before-seen approach to discussions on the internet. Certainly not part of the cause of this whole nonsense we're experiencing. Definitely.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:42PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @06:42PM (#428256)

    Yea, that is the root of it. Once people noticed that journalism was not just dead, it was reanimated as a zombie in the service of evil, they realized they not only have been lied to their whole lives, they realize they have to question everything and search out knowledge on their own. That is hard of course and the legacy media ain't the only ones trying to push a Narrative. And some of those alternate Narratives are even more disfunctional, insane, etc. than even the official one.

    We need journalism again. A few outlets that will go and see events and then report them faithfully, in a clear and readable way to those who can't devote years of study to an issue. That doesn't see their mission as "changing the world", "making the world a better place" or "helping you understand". Give us a couple of rock solid and reliable sources of Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Atop that can be rebuilt analysis and commentary that is fact based.

    But no, what do we see instead? We see Vox Day's Three Laws of SJW in action.

    1. SJWs always lie.

    2. SJWs always double down.

    3. SJWs always project.

    Go reread the summary and spot all three. They are still asserting that they have "The Truth", therefore if voters rejected them they have to be "post truth". The very idea that they could simply be wrong never enters their minds. So right in the premise we spot the lie, but it is one they tell themselves as much as the world. It is yet another example of them not accepting defeat, not even accepting they did anything wrong that might require self reflection and a course change. Instead they double down on the same insults of their opponents as ignorant savages that lost them the election. And the whole 'Truth' doesn't exist, reality is a social construct concept, required to even make that crap parse in the first place is a projection of their own defective worldview.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:01PM (#428265)

      In other words, even though your guy won, you're still angry.

      Really angry.

      • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:27PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:27PM (#428280)

        Trump winning was not the victory. Trump was the sign that we have chosen to die fighting rather than die in apathy. Of course the odds said Trump couldn't be nominated and most certainly would be destroyed, along with the entire down ticket Republican Party if he somehow were nominated. Which proves that when you fight you can sometimes win against impossible odds. When enough Americans get pissed, reality can be remade. For good or ill we do not yet know.

        Do you truly believe that one election is going to cause the Foe to accept defeat and slink away for a time to regain its strength? BrExit certainly didn't work that way, that vote has already been set aside, now we see if they understood that their initial vote for independence from the global system was only an indication that a fight would take actually place. And even now, the Enemy is seeking to corrupt Electors to prevent our vote here from counting in exactly the same way because they are the exact same Foe.

        To win the glorious future Trump has promised, to win so much we tire of all the winning, is going to require a decade or two of unrelenting war first, with the outcome in doubt until the very last. Trump will at most open the fight, guide us through the initial battles and then stand aside and let others take up the burden, after moving the Overton Window enough that those as yet unknown men can become possible to raise up as leaders. The day when we lay down our weapons and enjoy the fruits of winning is not for us, it shall be for our children to enjoy.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:52PM (#428299)

          Lebensraum

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:38PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:38PM (#428341) Journal

          Jesus motocrossing Christ, you really believe the stuff you spew, don't you? You even capitalize random nouns like in German. Do you think in italics, too? J-Mo, you are so far off the reservation you're out in the ocean somewhere. Trump was a decoy, another piece of dangling bait for the GOP to trick the low-information crowd with. It's gonna be more of the same shit from the establishment GOP it's been for the last 40 years, only now they all think they're allowed to call people "nigger" in public and we have the equivalent of David Duke in khakis and a polo shirt in charge of strategy.

          You're insane. You wanna see "cultural suicide?" This is fucking it.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:03PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:03PM (#428420) Journal

            Trump was a decoy, another piece of dangling bait for the GOP to trick the low-information crowd with.

            Trump is no product of a GOP stratagem. The GOP stratagem produced about, what, 16 other candidates they thought could beat Hillary? Trump was a primal scream.

            You wanna see "cultural suicide?" This is fucking it.

            I'm not so sure Trump is material to that cultural suicide, Azuma. It's hard to accept the pre-Trump cultural reality of the Kardashians, the Osbournes, and Miley Cyrus as "healthy."

            Somebody in one of those post-election analyses linked to last week made a really good point about our cultural reality. Most of the cultural battles progressives have been fighting for for generations have been won. Gay marriage is accepted by most people now. Abortion is legal. Recreational marijuana use is legal now in more and more states. That's a real sea change.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:26PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:26PM (#428434) Journal

              Yeah? And now we have Mike fucking Pence as VP, which means just plain P given he's basically Cheney if Cheney found religion, and we have Steve motherloving Bannon setting strategy. Oh, and a SCOTUS that will get anywhere from one to three people worse than Scalia in short order at this rate.

              That "sea change" can be rolled back with interest. That motherfucker Pence thinks he can electrocute me into not liking other women, do you get this?

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:38AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:38AM (#428729)

                Sup bitch.

                --MikeeUSA

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 18 2016, @05:26PM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday November 18 2016, @05:26PM (#428937) Journal

                  Not too much, but you're gonna love this: I'm an editor now :) Still training but in a few days I'll be helping the flow of stories along.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:49AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:49AM (#428588)

              > Most of the cultural battles progressives have been fighting for for generations have been won.

              Average black household wealth is still just ~7% of average white household wealth [pewresearch.org] and most of that is in a single depreciating asset - a car.
              Life is unfair, but when the unfairness is so unevenly distributed we still have a long way to go.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:02PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:02PM (#428309) Journal

        That's why it's best to have a gun. You never know whose side you're not on until somebody declares you a demon from the burning hells.

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:30PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:30PM (#428385)

          You could just simplify that to "That's why it is best to have a gun. You never know when you will need it."

          Which is the entire point. When you realize you need one it is usually too late to get one. On either the short term or long term meaning of the phrase. Whether it is when you hear something go bump in the night and suddenly realize the Truth in the bumper sticker rhetoric of "When seconds count, the police are minutes away" or the medium picture of once the riots start the gun stores are not going to be open, all the way to the bigger picture of by the time a tyrant is in power it is going to be far too late to buy guns.

          So buy now, and be sure to buy at least one that isn't on the books and stash it. Probably won't need em but you probably won't ever need your homeowner's policy either, right? Odds say that the vast of majority of gun owners will never fire a shot in anger. Most police officers even get through a whole career in law enforcement without having to discharge their weapon in the field. These are good things. They are signs that chaos, while currently straining against the chains, isn't yet out of control.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:45AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:45AM (#428525)

            They are signs that chaos, while currently straining against the chains, isn't yet out of control.

            You totally terrorized coward, jmorris! Why are you so afraid? Getting a brain is much better for your security and peace of mind than any firearm.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:14AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:14AM (#428736)

              Fear is the mind-killer.
              That's not figurative either. The long-term stress of living in constant terror literally shrinks the brain.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:40PM (#428285)

      Man, I don't think you could have demonstrated your membership in the post-truth world any better than if you had deliberately set out to.

      Citing ((vox day))) as an authority on anything other than wanking tops the cake!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:06PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:06PM (#428315) Journal

      Quoting a lying piece of shit("Aurora shooting was a false flag!") about how everyone who disagrees with you is a liar? What a coincidence, my outhouse is also full of shit, you two should hang out.

      Please tell me how a theocratic(sorry, I mean "Christian Libertarian" who just happens to think that the edges of freedom are defined in the bible) half-brained sci-fi author, who tries to rig votes in his favor is delivering the straight truth, and ripping past a corrupt society.

      You are the exactly kind of person doing this shit You, Jmorris. You link fucking r/the_donald as a source because you are terrified of the objective facts you "want" back. I guara-goddamn-ty that if we looked at your facebook feed we could see you shoveling turds like the "I was paid $3,500 to protest trump" story to your friends.

      You were one of the two unreality-dwelling goddamn idiots I was thinking of when I made this post. The fact that you don't know you're the problem is the problem.

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:40PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:40PM (#428343)

        So let us unpack your attempts at 'reason' shall we?

        Quoting a lying piece of shit...

        First of many Ad Hominem attacks in your post. Do not debate the man, debate his ideas. Have you even read _SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police_ By Day? I'd guess the answer is no. He asserts three laws, then devotes a fair amount of page count to carefully building a case for each. They either describe reality better than your alternative view or they don't. Mr. Day can be Lucifer and the truth or falsehood of the asserted laws do not change. Try again. Attack the idea this time.

        You link fucking r/the_donald as a source...

        Reading is fundamental, please try to keep up. Reread what I wrote and open your mind. Someone posted the mainstream Trumpian objections to HRC, another poster said those were all alt-right conspiracy theory. I replied that no, those were all agreed to facts in the MSM, they just post them once and never refer to them again, and shout "old news, time to move on" when anyone brings them back up. THEN I said if you wanted to see what is in the actual fever swamps of the alt right that looking at the linked thread on reddit would open your mind to entire new levels of anti-clinton rhetoric and research that exist.

        When you failed to get the fucking point in that thread I let it pass, because correcting you guys every time something goes WHOOSH! over your head would be a full time job. But since you ain't going to let your initial mistake go, I'm going to now whack you with it and watch YOU exhibit the three laws in action as you too double down on your original falsehood (which might then have been a simple error but that defense is no longer available to you) and project your own irrationality at me.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:09PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:09PM (#428368) Journal

          Section 1: wherein an alt-righter misunderstands a fallacy
          Dude, you did not just pull out the "Ad Hominem" whine after saying huge groups of people are liars because someone else said so.

          I mean, you did, because your a hypocritical shithead, who's so steeped in ideology that I know the most I'll ever get out a conversation with you is an aneurysm. But you know what I mean.

          The guy's ideas are: dumb, ideological, frequently totally dishonest, and never supported by more than hate fueled rants. The guy's a shithead, and I'm not really concerned with whether that counts as an ad hominem, since you cited him as an authority on the subject of truth.

          You know, intuitively, that the claims he's making aren't true. No one arbitrarily selected group of people are all liars. In spite of the trivially untrue nature of the claim, you still want to treat this like a "rational" "logical" argument. Because, in classic alt-right fashion, you apply zero critical thinking to logically structure your own position before invoking the rules of logic to counter-argue a point.

          His statement that "All SJWs are liars" is presented as an argument by assertion. I.e. in classical logic, one that you'd treat as a preposition because everyone agrees with it. Nevermind that "SJW" is a meaningless term that basically boils down to "People who disagree with me" in the same way one might use "ideologue" with an insincerity only your kind has ever managed.

          Summary: the idea is trivially false and the "ad hominem" was nothing but a relevant point given the context of the conversation. Honestly you should be ashamed, but instead you'll be angry.

          Section 2: Wherein the whole point is linking bullshit ideology bubbles as fact

          So this parts a lot easier. I didn't miss the context. You're destroying our democracy jmorris, and I understand that accepting culpability in that is basically impossible, because hell, I wouldn't either. But fuck you for this twisted "but but but in context I was just answering a charge" leap. It doesn't matter. You do this shit all the time.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:01PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:01PM (#428461)

            I really should simply say, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I rest my case." Because you did exactly what I predicted. I frickin' 0wned your ass and made you dance on command like a monkey on a leash for the amusement of all. This election is the gift that keeps giving, you guys really are losing what little minds you had.

            His statement that "All SJWs are liars" is presented as an argument by assertion.

            No, the three laws are the summation of arguments laid out in a book. A book you refuse to even consider reading before passing judgment on it, a book written by a man you pass judgment on without ever reading any of his free online work either, but apparently based entirely on what your tribal elders tells you to believe about him. After being called out on hurling Ad Hominem attacks you double down with even more personal attacks, you add in Genetic Fallacy, Guilt by Association Fallacy, and Straw Man Fallacy.

            since you cited him as an authority on the subject of truth.

            That would be dumb, which is why I didn't do that. I cited him as an authority on the behavior of SJWs. Which you have helped me to demonstrate the value of by your own unhinged behavior and by your conforming to all three laws.

            but but but in context

            The context made all the difference, you simply can't bring yourself to admit it. Unless it is your assertion that referring to 'the fever swamps' was intended to convey an endorsement, which would call your English comprehension skills into doubt. So you again obeyed all three laws, you lied, when called out you doubled down on your original lie, which we can now know was not a simple error but a lie, i.e. a knowing falsehood, and you are projecting your dishonesty onto me.

            Thanks for playing. And for the record, ikanreed is NOT a sock puppet account. May the admins publicly shame me if the logs show otherwise.

            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:10PM

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:10PM (#428469) Journal

              No... I could admit that to myself if you weren't full of shit.

              You are full of shit, so fuck off.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:50AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:50AM (#428532)

              No, the three laws are the summation of arguments laid out in a book. A book you refuse to even consider reading before passing judgment on it, a book written by a man you pass judgment on without ever reading any of his free online work either, but apparently based entirely on what your tribal elders tells you to believe about him. After being called out on hurling Ad Hominem attacks you double down with even more personal attacks, you add in Genetic Fallacy, Guilt by Association Fallacy, and Straw Man Fallacy.

              Well, he was being cited by jmorris, so there is that.

          • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday November 18 2016, @04:13PM

            by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday November 18 2016, @04:13PM (#428902)

            As an outside observer reading this discussion, I facepalmed heavily when I saw how this brick of text started out:

            "Dude, you did not just pull out the "Ad Hominem" whine after saying huge groups of people are liars because someone else said someone else said so.

            I mean, you did, because your a hypocritical shithead, who's so steeped in ideology that I know the most I'll ever get out a conversation with you is an aneurysm. But you know what I mean.

            The guy's ideas are: dumb, ideological, frequently totally dishonest, and never supported by more than hate fueled rants. The guy's a shithead, and I'm not really concerned with whether that counts as an ad hominem, since you cited him as an authority on the subject of truth.

            You know, intuitively, that the claims he's making aren't true. No one arbitrarily selected group of people are all liars. In spite of the trivially untrue nature of the claim, you still want to treat this like a "rational" "logical" argument. Because, in classic alt-right fashion, you apply zero critical thinking to logically structure your own position before invoking the rules of logic to counter-argue a point.

            His statement that "All SJWs are liars" is presented as an argument by assertion. I.e. in classical logic, one that you'd treat as a preposition because everyone agrees with it. Nevermind that "SJW" is a meaningless term that basically boils down to "People who disagree with me" in the same way one might use "ideologue" with an insincerity only your kind has ever managed.

            Summary: the idea is trivially false and the "ad hominem" was nothing but a relevant point given the context of the conversation. Honestly you should be ashamed, but instead you'll be angry."

            YOU STILL DID NOT ADDRESS HIS ARGUMENT.

            Ugh!

            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 18 2016, @06:35PM

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 18 2016, @06:35PM (#428994) Journal

              Counterpoint: The point was retarded and didn't deserve to be logically addressed.

              Further counterpoint: Yes I did. The part where I say it's trivially untrue? There's a simple refutation there. Let me put it in terms "rationalists" can understand. The claim is an over-generalization fallacy, supported by no empirical evidence. That's more enough to reject it. And I'd reiterate that that is intuitively obvious and anyone saying "Just give it a chance" is shitting me.

              Unnecessary addendum: ugh, you completely missed the point of my post. Fuck you "outside observer" with your faux neutrality. The truth isn't in the middle: vox dei and jmorris are both completely full of shit.

              • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday November 19 2016, @02:21AM

                by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday November 19 2016, @02:21AM (#429235)

                "The point was retarded and didn't deserve to be logically addressed."

                This is flat-out intellectually lazy, and a poor defense of your decision to give an extremely illogical response, rather than simply no logical one.

                His point was:
                "journalism was not just dead, it was reanimated as a zombie in the service of evil,"

                "That's untrue" is NOT a rebuttal. "The claim is an over-generalization fallacy, supported by no empirical evidence" is one.

                However, while we're on the subject, I have a piece of empirical evidence for you: The news media knowingly took orders from the DNC about what to cover about Sanders and Clinton. I can show you the Wikileaks Emails if you would like.

                That's not all, I can also show you empirical evidence that the MSM was spreading outright lies about the legality of people accessing those Wikileaks emails.

                So, now you have been made aware of some empirical evidence that demonstrates the corruption (service of evil) of the MSM.

                "That's more than enough to reject it."

                Only in your previously ignorant state.

                "Fuck your faux neutrality."

                I am not neutral, nor are you, nor is the MSM - and that was jmorris' claim. It was not a foolish one.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:00PM (#428459)

          jmorris, such a tool, so little clue about his own lack of perspective. He is a bastion of insanity and self-reinforcing bullshit. The irony is that he is the one that can't open his mind, and parrots propaganda and conservative conspiracies time after time.

          Take note any new readers, jmorris sometimes sounds like there is a good point buried in there somewhere, but its washed away by all the crazy. Ad hominem FTW!

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday November 18 2016, @12:47AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Friday November 18 2016, @12:47AM (#428528) Journal

          Quoting a lying piece of shit...

          First of many Ad Hominem attacks in your post.

          And of course you realize, son, that ad hominem is not a fallacy when what is in dispute is the person hisself. It really is all about you, jmorris.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @04:53AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @04:53AM (#428665)

          jmorris has a little Peter Thiel in him. Literally. Just a little. Very little, when it comes right down to it. And that always happens too soon. Just saying.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @08:22AM (#428738)

          > First of many Ad Hominem attacks in your post

          What is it about the ad hominem fallacy that dunces can't understand?
          Calling you a name is not an ad hominem, its just an insult.

          The ad hominem fallacy is "you are wrong because you are an idiot." But that's not what is going on here. Ikanreed is explicitly saying "you are an idiot because you are wrong." That's not an ad hominem, its an insult. A deserved insult, backed up by a logical argument. Which is the opposite of a fallacy.

          Now, like many dunces you will be tempted to say "but he's attacking the man, so its an ad hominem because that's what the latin translates too." Well dumbfuck, we ain't speaking latin here. We are using latin phrases that have a specific definition when used in english. If you want to whine that someone is insulting, just say they are insulting because "ad hominem" doesn't apply.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:54PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:54PM (#428410) Journal

      Once people noticed that journalism was not just dead, it was reanimated as a zombie in the service of evil, they realized they not only have been lied to their whole lives, they realize they have to question everything and search out knowledge on their own. That is hard of course and the legacy media ain't the only ones trying to push a Narrative. And some of those alternate Narratives are even more disfunctional, insane, etc. than even the official one.

      That's why critical thinking is important. It is hard. It takes time. Who has that time when they're working two jobs or 60+ hours/wk at the one? Who wants to encourage people to think critically when it's so much easier to train them to react to Pavlovian prompts? Who wants to work through complexity in any form when you can be trained you can get all you need to know in 140 characters or less?

      In that environment it is not surprising that people wrap themselves in cognitive bubbles and reflexively shriek at anything that tries to pop them.

      It is hard to listen before jumping to conclusions, and to think before speaking. It is hard to consider instead of calling each other names. We all fail at it at least some of the time. But we all need to put in the work.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Friday November 18 2016, @08:42AM

      by mojo chan (266) on Friday November 18 2016, @08:42AM (#428744)

      This is a perfect example of post-truth thinking, thanks. If everything is a lie, you can substitute reality for your own version and it's just as valid. There is no objective truth, which means there is also no objective untruth, no conspiracy theory or batshit idea can be wrong. All that matters is what you feel, and you feel angry.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)