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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.