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