Opinion Lying vs. Post-Truth: The REAL Danger of Trump

[Sketch]

Thankfully we have all the correct MSM and tools to perfectly calculate exactly how many lies he has made. I didn't know he has made 6420 lies. With an average LPD (Lies per day) of 30.

Would be interesting to see the official stats from the correct MSM outlets on some other politicians, like say, Hillary.

 

[Joe265]

There are important ideas in this article from philosopher Lee McIntyre. He puts a lot of the "Trump phenomena" into specific words. This is why, in my opinion, a person who really cares about the country should be an anti-Trumper, even if you like his judiciary picks or tax cuts.

Cliffs:

• Trump has told 6,420 lies since taking office. In the lead up to the midterm, his rate of lying increased to 30 per day.
• Almost all politicians lie. The real story is not the quantitative but the qualitative difference in Trump's lying.
• Normal politicians (and people) tend to explain, spin, or rationalize a lie when presented with objective evidence. Trump simply repeats the lie.
• "Any amateur politician can engage in lying, but Trump is engaging in 'post truth.'"
• "The point of a lie is to convince someone that a falsehood is true. But the point of post-truth is domination [... it] is an assertion of power.
• "[...] When Trump lies he does not do so to get someone to accept that what he is saying is true, but to show that he is powerful enough to say it."
  
• Post-truth is the hallmark of an authoritarian political ideology. "Post truth is pre-fascism [...] it is a tactic used in electoral dictatorships."

Most politicians lie.

Or do they?

Even if we could find some isolated example of a politician who was scrupulously honest — former President Jimmy Carter, perhaps — the question is how to think about the rest of them.

And if most politicians lie, then why are some Americans so hard on President Donald Trump?

According to The Washington Post, Trump has told 6,420 lies so far in his presidency. In the seven weeks leading up to the midterms, his rate increased to 30 per day.

That's a lot, but isn't this a difference in degree and not a difference in kind with other politicians?

From my perspective as a philosopher who studies truth and belief, it doesn't seem so. And even if most politicians lie, that doesn't make all lying equal.

Yet the difference in Trump's prevarication seems to be found not in the quantity or enormity of his lies, but in the way that Trump uses his lies in service to a proto-authoritarian political ideology.

I recently wrote a book, titled "Post-Truth," about what happens when "alternative facts" replace actual facts, and feelings have more weight than evidence. Looked at from this perspective, calling Trump a liar fails to capture his key strategic purpose.

Any amateur politician can engage in lying. Trump is engaging in "post-truth."

The Oxford English Dictionaries named "post-truth" its word of the year in November 2016, right before the US election.

Citing a 2,000% spike in usage — due to Brexit and the American presidential campaign — they defined post-truthas "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."

Ideology, in other words, takes precedence over reality.

When an individual believes their thoughts can influence reality, we call it "magical thinking" and might worry about their mental health. When a government official uses ideology to trump reality, it's more like propaganda, and it puts us on the road to fascism.

As Yale philosopher Jason Stanley argues, "The key thing is that fascist politics is about identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power."

Consider the example of Trump's recent decision not to cancel two political rallies on the same day as the Pittsburgh massacre. He said that this was based on the fact that the New York Stock Exchange was open the day after 9/11.

This isn't true. The stock exchange stayed closed for six days after 9/11.

So was this a mistake? A lie? Trump didn't seem to treat it so. In fact, he repeated the falsehood later in the same day.

When a politician gets caught in a lie, there's usually a bit of sweat, perhaps some shame and the expectation of consequences.

Not for Trump. After many commentators pointed out to him that the stock exchange was in fact closed for several days after 9/11, he merely shrugged it off, never bothering to acknowledge — let alone correct — his error.

Why would he do this?

The point of a lie is to convince someone that a falsehood is true. But the point of post-truth is domination. In my analysis, post-truth is an assertion of power.

As journalist Masha Gessen and others have argued, when Trump lies he does so not to get someone to accept what he's saying as true, but to show that he is powerful enough to say it.

He has asserted, "I'm the President and you're not," as if such high political office comes with the prerogative of creating his own reality. This would explain why Trump doesn't seem to care much if there is videotape or other evidence that contradicts him. When you're the boss, what does that matter?

Should we be worried about this flight from mere lying to post-truth?

Even if all politicians lie, I believe that post-truth foreshadows something more sinister. In his powerful book "On Tyranny,"historian Timothy Snyder writes that "post-truth is pre-fascism."

It is a tactic seen in "electoral dictatorships" — where a society retains the facade of voting without the institutions or trust to ensure that it is an actual democracy, like those in Putin's Russia or Erdogan's Turkey.

In this, Trump is following the authoritarian playbook, characterized by leaders lying, the erosion of public institutions and the consolidation of power. You do not need to convince someone that you are telling the truth when you can simply assert your will over them and dominate their reality.

https://www.businessinsider.com/whi...ZOfob4Zugv_9innGSoHCfLl34iFq934_9EQOQqPswX2V4

Sports fans/fanatics and political fanatics are very very similar. They overvalue the present because their interests and emotions are so closely tied to it. In truth, these people are waay too invested in the outcome to ever be an objective observer. They are really just communicating their self-centered vision of how things should look.

 

[panamaican]

That's untrue. It's often some misspeak or some wrong information that's off by a fairly small margin. It's not a lie to benefit himself if he doesn't make up his mind on what to do about it until later. Most, and I mean a strong most, doesn't benefit him at all. He's an egomaniac who is either pumping up what he's already done(distorting numbers) or has gotten incorrect numbers on and makes a plan based upon that.

The problem with you lefties is you act like chicken little over every inconsequential thing. Some of us would actually like to pick our shots and complain where it's needed, like spending in the current case, but it's become so muddy with "Trump wants to ____" or "Hitler also did ____" and "the world's going to implode and they'll be dead bodies in the streets" that legit criticisms just blend right in. Same thing with racists. Almost nobody is in favor of racism, but when you call everything and everyone racist, a fucking backwoods Klansman now has the same label as Dennis Prager and Mitt Romney.

I'm going to interject here.

Almost no one supports racism. But polling has shown that more than a few people support positions that parallel those of white supremacists. Here's an interesting tidbit in that vein. People on this board constantly complain about Antifa. Yet more people support White Nationalists, the alt-right and Neo-Nazism than people support Antifa.

If Antifa really is a big enough problem worthy of discussion then these White nationalists, alt-right and Neo-Nazi organizations are also a big enough problem to warrant discussion.

Now here's where it ties back to the lies. The people who downplay the amount of white supremacist racists in the country are often (but not always) the same people who are downplaying the President's lies. These are people who don't want to face the problems in their backyard because of who is the source so they're pretending that they aren't problems.

They're ignoring the white supremacists and saying "not a big deal" but by their own metrics, they are big deal because they're bigger than Antifa and Antifa is a big deal. They're ignoring the President's lies and say "It's not a big deal," but they've already shown that they're incapable of measuring the amount of negative behavior coming from the right. In short - they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm going to interject here.

Almost no one supports racism. But polling has shown that more than a few people support positions that parallel those of white supremacists. Here's an interesting tidbit in that vein. People on this board constantly complain about Antifa. Yet more people support White Nationalists, the alt-right and Neo-Nazism than people support Antifa.

If Antifa really is a big enough problem worthy of discussion then these White nationalists, alt-right and Neo-Nazi organizations are also a big enough problem to warrant discussion.

Now here's where it ties back to the lies. The people who downplay the amount of white supremacist racists in the country are often (but not always) the same people who are downplaying the President's lies. These are people who don't want to face the problems in their backyard because of who is the source so they're pretending that they aren't problems.

They're ignoring the white supremacists and saying "not a big deal" but by their own metrics, they are big deal because they're bigger than Antifa and Antifa is a big deal. They're ignoring the President's lies and say "It's not a big deal," but they've already shown that they're incapable of measuring the amount of negative behavior coming from the right. In short - they don't know what they're talking about.

What does "parallel those from white supremacists" mean? My thoughts probably parallel yours on a lot of things, but we don't align. You're going to have to find people from the right defending white supremacist violence, which you can't and won't, and then scale that against those from the left defending antifa, which is most news orgs.

"Anti" anything is by definition a suppression of someone else, now couple in your conflation of white supremacists and "people who support positions that parallel white supremacy". How far are you willing to take that? They eat meat, so ban meat? They watch TV, so ban TV? It's a supremacist view or it's not, stop trying to tie people into views they don't have.

 

[panamaican]

What does "parallel those from white supremacists" mean? My thoughts probably parallel yours on a lot of things, but we don't align. You're going to have to find people from the right defending white supremacist violence, which you can't and won't, and then scale that against those from the left defending antifa, which is most news orgs.

"Anti" anything is by definition a suppression of someone else, now couple in your conflation of white supremacists and "people who support positions that parallel white supremacy". How far are you willing to take that? They eat meat, so ban meat? They watch TV, so ban TV? It's a supremacist view or it's not, stop trying to tie people into views they don't have.

We don't align on everything. That doesn't mean we don't align on anything.

And why am I'm going to need to find people defending it when I already just posted a poll where people answered in the affirmative that they do support it. That's the point of including the poll.

Poll says 5% of people support something. Your response: You need to find people who support it, like the people on tv. That's pointless, it's rejecting polled data for anecdotal accounts.

You should read the poll before you fire off a response.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm going to interject here.

Almost no one supports racism. But polling has shown that more than a few people support positions that parallel those of white supremacists. Here's an interesting tidbit in that vein. People on this board constantly complain about Antifa. Yet more people support White Nationalists, the alt-right and Neo-Nazism than people support Antifa.

If Antifa really is a big enough problem worthy of discussion then these White nationalists, alt-right and Neo-Nazi organizations are also a big enough problem to warrant discussion.

Now here's where it ties back to the lies. The people who downplay the amount of white supremacist racists in the country are often (but not always) the same people who are downplaying the President's lies. These are people who don't want to face the problems in their backyard because of who is the source so they're pretending that they aren't problems.

They're ignoring the white supremacists and saying "not a big deal" but by their own metrics, they are big deal because they're bigger than Antifa and Antifa is a big deal. They're ignoring the President's lies and say "It's not a big deal," but they've already shown that they're incapable of measuring the amount of negative behavior coming from the right. In short - they don't know what they're talking about.

That's straight up not true. Nobody on here supports white supremacists. You're a mod ffs, you have the ability to ban them if they posted something retarded or racist. Where you're confused is that it's white supremacists(that aren't even white supremacists) talking vs burning down starbucks and hitting people with clubs. I take the side of those talking vs the side of those committing violence to stop them from talking every time.

Seriously, name 1 person on here who supports white supremacist violence. Just 1. I'll have to figure out how to backsearch posts, but it's probably 5 to 1 in support of antifa violence over right wing speech.

 

[panamaican]

That's straight up not true. Nobody on here supports white supremacists. You're a mod ffs, you have the ability to ban them if they posted something retarded or racist. Where you're confused is that it's white supremacists(that aren't even white supremacists) talking vs burning down starbucks and hitting people with clubs. I take the side of those talking vs the side of those committing violence to stop them from talking every time.

Seriously, name 1 person on here who supports white supremacist violence. Just 1. I'll have to figure out how to backsearch posts, but it's probably 5 to 1 in support of antifa violence over right wing speech.

Who is talking just about people on this board? Why are you limiting this to people on this board? The poll I attached is national in scope.

As for people on this board, we get plenty of white supremacist types. And you're right, we do ban them. But you're being a bit contradictory at this point. No one on this board is doing anything but talking. And maybe you just don't pay attention to raw amount of racist posting that takes place here?

But that remains irrelevant. I posted a link to polling data that covers support for Antifa, white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, etc. My point is that the people who say white supremacists aren't a big deal are frequently the same people who say that the President's lying isn't a big deal. These same people claim that Antifa is a big deal but more people support white supremacists than Antifa.

My point being that these people have no idea what is or isn't a big deal.

Meanwhile, you're arguing about Antifa and white supremacists but aren't looking at the polling data I attached.

 

[nostradumbass]

Who is talking just about people on this board? Why are you limiting this to people on this board? The poll I attached is national in scope.

As for people on this board, we get plenty of white supremacist types. And you're right, we do ban them. But you're being a bit contradictory at this point. No one on this board is doing anything but talking. And maybe you just don't pay attention to raw amount of racist posting that takes place here?

But that remains irrelevant. I posted a link to polling data that covers support for Antifa, white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, etc. My point is that the people who say white supremacists aren't a big deal are frequently the same people who say that the President's lying isn't a big deal. These same people claim that Antifa is a big deal but more people support white supremacists than Antifa.

My point being that these people have no idea what is or isn't a big deal.

Meanwhile, you're arguing about Antifa and white supremacists but aren't looking at the polling data I attached.

Your polling is confederate monuments. I want confederate monuments the same way I want Stalin monuments in Russia. I don't want an empty floor beneath me, I want to build on what's in teh past. Saying "same views as white supremacists" when the views are not about white supremacy is absurd. If one side is saying mean things and the other side is hitting people with bats, yeah, pretty much no matter what the sides are I'm going against the hitting people with bats side.

 

[panamaican]

Your polling is confederate monuments. I want confederate monuments the same way I want Stalin monuments in Russia. I don't want an empty floor beneath me, I want to build on what's in teh past. Saying "same views as white supremacists" when the views are not about white supremacy is absurd. If one side is saying mean things and the other side is hitting people with bats, yeah, pretty much no matter what the sides are I'm going against the hitting people with bats side.

No, my poll is not about Confederate monuments. Don't be a liar. Anyone can pop open the poll and read it in its entirety.

Actually, forget it. I can't have honest conversations with someone who lies about something so easily disproved.

Surprisingly apropos for this thread.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Seriously, name 1 person on here who supports white supremacist violence. Just 1. I'll have to figure out how to backsearch posts, but it's probably 5 to 1 in support of antifa violence over right wing speech.

WTF? Never seen anyone here or anywhere else support Antifa violence, while right-wing speech is almost universally supported.

 

[nostradumbass]

No, my poll is not about Confederate monuments. Don't be a liar. Anyone can pop open the poll and read it in its entirety.

Actually, forget it. I can't have honest conversations with someone who lies about something so easily disproved.

Surprisingly apropos for this thread.

What on there didn't have overwhelming numbers? The Confederate monument stuff was mixed, the rest was in the ballpark of 80/20 or more. That's like flat earthers for the contrary.

 

[panamaican]

What on there didn't have overwhelming numbers? The Confederate monument stuff was mixed, the rest was in the ballpark of 80/20 or more. That's like flat earthers for the contrary.

You are lying.

Just typing it out so there's not confusion.

 

[nostradumbass]

WTF? Never seen anyone here or anywhere else support Antifa violence, while right-wing speech is almost universally supported.

You're right, the left pretty roundly condemns antifa and CNN continues to be pro Trump .

 

[nostradumbass]

You are lying.

Just typing it out so there's not confusion.

Then give the specific things you found troubling. This isn't hard.

The 2 I saw were 70% "all races are equal", which you're assuming was entirely white people saying it, even though whites are underrepresented and decidedly anti-white on college campuses where the poll was taken. Say something specific instead of bagging out.

 

[HARRISON_3]

Thankfully we have all the correct MSM and tools to perfectly calculate exactly how many lies he has made. I didn't know he has made 6420 lies. With an average LPD (Lies per day) of 30.

Would be interesting to see the official stats from the correct MSM outlets on some other politicians, like say, Hillary.

Trump never lies.

It's all a fake news conspiracy from the deep state, Killary, Libtards, George Soros, George Zimmerman, The New York Knicks, and Melania.

Spoiler

#BeBest

 

[Andy Capp]

The tone of that makes it seem like this guy is giving Trump too much credit. Maybe he's not, and I agree with his description of the effect of right-wing postmodernism.

I don't want to lose sight of the fact that Trump is not some maniacal genius, but in fact just a pathological liar whose father had enough money to make people agree with him, in his formative years. This is just how he learned to act.

And it's not that I don't want to give him credit for being a clever liar. There's a temptation to see things as orderly, as intentional. That he's crazy like a fox. That would make this whole thing make sense. But that's just not what is happening. It's important to see what's really happening. If we pretend that Trump is somehow clever, we play right into the "post-truth" game.

These people (the would-be and actual authoritarian monsters) are usually cranks and liars. It bothers me that we never learn.

Don't you think it's possible that while in Russia and perhaps afterward, that he received coaching for lack of a better word, from Putin's government? He wouldn't have to be any particular genius to just follow a single general rule. In fact, that's the one thing I believe is within his abilities.

 

[Fawlty]

Don't you think it's possible that while in Russia and perhaps afterward, that he received coaching for lack of a better word, from Putin's government? He wouldn't have to be any particular genius to just follow a single general rule. In fact, that's the one thing I believe is within his abilities.

I don't think he accepts coaching from pretty much anybody. I think he listens to Russian input the same way he listened to professors as a student at Wharton (barely) and how he listened to his campaign advisers (barely). I really think it's just the business prospects and his admiration/imitation of thuggery that aligns him, as well as common interests like espionage against the Democratic Party.

 

[Andy Capp]

I actually don't think it matters very much how the "reality-based community" views Trump. They're not the ones electing him. And they're not the ones who will ultimately support the rapid descent into authoritarianism that he makes possible.

I agree with you that it's important to not paint basic pathological lying as skilled manipulation. He lies because, as the OP points out, he can and because you can't do anything about it.

But those who turn a blind eye to his lying are not doing it because they're being manipulated by Trump's skillful lies or his abuse of the power behind his lies. They turn a blind eye to his lying because it makes them feel powerful as well. That by supporting his lies, they can claim dominance over their perceived enemies.

This is the crux of Trump's appeal and the real problem. What's he shown is that these people will accept any lie, no matter how absurd, it they feel it empowers them in their reality based and internet arguments. Trump might not be clever as a fox but the next guy might be. We're already seeing various politicians testing if they can emulate Trump's outright disregard for the truth for personal gain.

The only solace is that the trend lines suggest that their behavior is actually driving people away, not towards, the GOP.

Agreed. I think Doug Ford is finding to his chagrin that it doesn't play all that well in Canada*, even if it was enough to get him elected after a very long term incumbent caused too much dissatisfaction.



*Incidentally, I'd be very very interested in good evidence to the contrary and I will happily withdraw my comment. But if I'm wrong, I'll be deeply disappointed in my fellow Canadians and as concerned as @panamaican about the future.

 

[Andy Capp]

I don't think he accepts coaching from pretty much anybody. I think he listens to Russian input the same way he listened to professors as a student at Wharton (barely) and how he listened to his campaign advisers (barely). I really think it's just the business prospects and his admiration/imitation of thuggery that aligns him, as well as common interest like espionage against the Democratic Party.

I don't know. He's been following the Authoritarian Playbook pretty much to the letter since he was elected, enemy of the people, fake news, and so on. But perhaps you're right. He's sure as fuck not going to adhere to any very detailed plan.

 

[Fawlty]

I don't know. He's been following the Authoritarian Playbook pretty much to the letter since he was elected, enemy of the people, fake news, and so on. But perhaps you're right. He's sure as fuck not going to adhere to any very detailed plan.

I can't say for sure how those kinds of authoritarian minds work, because to me it's like seeing an alien. But I suspect that he's just that kind of person, though I'm sure he picks up tips here and there. But maybe his KKK father sat him down and lectured him on the virtues of 20th century dictators? It's possible. I wouldn't rule that out.