Starving for Post-Post-Truth - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15161903
I really hope this kind of double negation is somewhere on its way. We all are sick and tired of fake-media, web3.0-propaganda, etc., etc.
I do not have any clear view of what might this post-post-truth be like. The only thing I know for sure is it should come.
What do you think?
#15161904
I think life is better when it's offline. That doesn't mean avoiding the internet entirely, but intermittent internet fasting can work wonders. Figure out a system that works for you and then walk away as much as you can - fake media and fake news can't take anything from you unless you allow it to. There's an equanimity of mind you can get back to while you look for truth in the non-digital world, aka that world that existed long before social media.
#15161905
Of course, social media and the Internet are somewhat crucial for post-truth politics. However, today they are not sine qua non for it already. So informational ascesis you seem to propose might help to some extent at individual level. But it is not going to heal whole groups or societies.
What I mean is some kind of herd immunity that should be built up to go to the ‘next level’, new realism, etc. That should be similar to an updated cartesian skepticism or something like that))
#15161906
How did whole groups or societies heal before the internet? (Hint: they didn't. It's an unachievable dream.) You have to work at the individual level to effect change at the group level. I don't think the groups or societies you want to see healed are going to accept herd cartesian skepticism, which pits itself against human nature.
#15161914
Think of a large flock of birds. It may change direction at a moment's notice. They call it ‘murmuration’. Does that happen at the ‘group’ or ‘individual’ level? I’m not sure if this question might make any sense at all.
If societies could only be healed only at the ‘individual’ level before the internet, then it does not necessarily mean they cannot be dealt with differently now. In fact, they are much different now.
And I suspect the ‘flock of birds’ metaphor might be much appropriate now than ever before.
#15161916
but intermittent internet fasting


What an excellent concept! This is just brilliant.
#15161919
What is truth anyway?

Image

There are indeed objective truths, but most of the truths people argue are subjective. Like going to war. Whether Trump was a good president? Capitalism vs Socialism? Etc etc etc.

What is the truth? And what could ever be the truth post-post-truth anyway?

The truth is always dictated by the victors. The national media executes the governments truth anyway. But with independent enquiry you personally might reach a different truth than the one you are presented with anyway. But one thing you can be sure of is that whatever the future brings, the truth will remain as subjective as it has always been. Universal concensus simply doesn't exist.
#15161922
B0ycey wrote:What is truth anyway?

This question was inevitable)
However, we do not consider what truth really is here. We discuss post-truth, which is kind of entirely different thing) It is more about culture and/or social psychology, than about logic and/or philosophy.
That is why any possible post-post-truth might appear somewhat different than what we now call ‘truth’ proper))

BTW, 'victor' is a weird term for the post-truth era))
#15161923
Ivan_R wrote:However, we do not consider what truth really is here. We discuss post-truth, which is kind of entirely different thing) It is more about culture and/or social psychology, than about logic and/or philosophy.


Well then I hate to disappoint you but culture or society isn't static either. Even if you are implying a single culture like 'white' due to historic reasoning being the absolute culture we should adhere to, consider the generation differences between yourself and your parents... or even your grandparents and how society has changed as each generation gets older. Perhaps research Dia-Mat to get an idea how and why culture changes - which then has an implication on society - which then affects culture again for why things change quickly.

I guess what I am saying is if culture and society is your basis for an absolute truth than that truth is going to be objective and as confrontational as ever in one generations time. No different as the existence of a deity is today when no so long ago its existence generally wasn't in doubt at all.
Last edited by B0ycey on 19 Mar 2021 13:05, edited 1 time in total.
#15161932
B0ycey wrote:Well then I hate to disappoint you but culture or society isn't static either.

I just hope we both know what 'post-truth' generally means. So I would have been an utmost moron, if I implied some kind of an 'absolute truth' when talking about some possible post-post-truth world ;)

Of course, cultures and societies are always changing. However, I hope you will not argue that sometimes they might develop in wrong direction. The post-truth condition is just an example...
#15161946
Ivan_R wrote:Of course, cultures and societies are always changing. However, I hope you will not argue that sometimes they might develop in wrong direction. The post-truth condition is just an example...


Well I wouldn't argue that culture and society could well head in the wrong direction when I would say that is what is largely happening now. I don't know if you are American or British (or even some other nation), but I would say both nations have suffered from populism recently and that is making society worse due to fictional or twisted facts. And even this trend is happening in all Western nations I would say but perhaps behind the Anglosphere by a decade or so in how populism is changing the face of politics.

I would also say that this is is largely a problem that is only now being addressed by social media which have been the platforms for the fictional facts we have seen so often lately. The problem is the lies are so prevalent now that to suppress or address the lies is regarded as a suppression of freedom of speech. But if you want me to address how we can somehow change the narrative, my opinion is that is only possible by addressing what caused populism to begin with. For example the diehard Trumpists must deep down know he lost the election really but they have invested and affiliated in his words for so long now that to choose to disbelieve them now is to abandon why they voted for him to begin with. There is a reason why people voted Trump. I could write an essay on the reasons. But until you address them, you won't ever get rid of the twisted reality and people who support the alternative reality either.
#15161957
Ivan_R wrote:Think of a large flock of birds. It may change direction at a moment's notice. They call it ‘murmuration’. Does that happen at the ‘group’ or ‘individual’ level? I’m not sure if this question might make any sense at all.


Murmurations are beautiful to behold, but scientists have yet to figure out exactly how they do it. They have bits and pieces but not the whole picture, but it seems to point to the individual level, how each bird relates visually/spatially/acoustically to the birds nearest them. So if that's the case, it seems to me it supports my view of working at the individual real-life level to heal whole groups or societies. At the internet level, there's more success in bringing together individuals who want to disrupt whole groups or societies (for good or for bad). So maybe my hypothesis could be reduced to: the internet disrupts but does not heal whole groups or societies.

If societies could only be healed only at the ‘individual’ level before the internet, then it does not necessarily mean they cannot be dealt with differently now. In fact, they are much different now.
And I suspect the ‘flock of birds’ metaphor might be much appropriate now than ever before.


But I didn't say that at all. I said it was unachievable even before the internet. Unless you define "whole groups" down to, say, the micro level of a grief support group consisting of six people. But when you say "whole groups or societies," you're at the macro level and I don't believe humans are capable of that kind of healing. Disruption, yes.

And so... perhaps the flock of birds metaphor works better as an indication of what one individual can do. :)
#15161959
Ivan_R wrote:I really hope this kind of double negation is somewhere on its way. We all are sick and tired of fake-media, web3.0-propaganda, etc., etc.
I do not have any clear view of what might this post-post-truth be like. The only thing I know for sure is it should come.
What do you think?


I'm also hoping for it, but we have ways to go yet I think. For instance, just wait until deep fakes become more massified and politicians begin to get creative with those. Just wait until the time comes where a candidate for an election will have to deal with a deep fake showing him or her committing murder or rape, in an extreme case, or just showing that the candidate is corrupt. How can people tell up to what extent is this true or not? And then how do you expose politicians committing real crimes such as corruption if they will be able to allege the evidence is fake?
#15161960
B0ycey wrote:For example the diehard Trumpists must deep down know he lost the election really but they have invested and affiliated in his words for so long now that to choose to disbelieve them now is to abandon why they voted for him to begin with.


This is exactly right. Many if not most of them have too much of themselves invested in Trump or Trump/QAnon by now. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance.

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view."


― Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails: A Social & Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World
#15161961
wat0n wrote:just wait until deep fakes become more massified


I predict the exhaustion of trying to determine and stay on top of what is real and what is fake will lead to a type of digitally-induced nihilism. Will anyone care what's real or what's fake in the digital firehose? Perhaps they won't believe anything and they won't care.
#15161962
anna wrote:I predict the exhaustion of trying to determine and stay on top of what is real and what is fake will lead to a type of digitally-induced nihilism. Will anyone care what's real or what's fake in the digital firehose? Perhaps they won't believe anything and they won't care.


It's possible. But until this sort of standing issue isn't resolved, then I don't see how will post-post-truth happen. Even if people stop appealing to emotion to discuss policy, as is usually done now, that other non-policy side of post-truth politics will remain standing I think.
#15161964
wat0n wrote:It's possible. But until this sort of standing issue isn't resolved, then I don't see how will post-post-truth happen. Even if people stop appealing to emotion to discuss policy, as is usually done now, that other non-policy side of post-truth politics will remain standing I think.


The media has failed us in this. I'm talking all media. Journalists, talking heads, editors, news generators of every kind. The right of center media, particularly Trump-supporting media lie, repeat the lies, and support the lies with more lies. The left of center media bend over backwards to present "both sides" and in doing so fail to give us the truth. Who's left to trust already?

And good luck getting emotion out of policy, isn't that what populism is all about?
#15161967
anna wrote:I predict the exhaustion of trying to determine and stay on top of what is real and what is fake will lead to a type of digitally-induced nihilism. Will anyone care what's real or what's fake in the digital firehose? Perhaps they won't believe anything and they won't care.


It is good to see you back anna. I remember you making strong points before now.

I think this statement sums up where we are now. I can't say I have thought much about it before but I think this statement is 100% right. It has got to the point now where I don't think people care what is fake or real. They associate with a narrative and believe whatever that narrative is. I have given up using logic, facts, articles or even showing the contradictive statements when arguing on PoFo to prove a point. No amount of "evidence" or "common sense" can convince or even convert someone of their convictions. It is called "The illusory True Effect" but what is even worse is another phenomena called "Herd Mentality". As these are human traits, I don't see a solution to post truth when truth is so damn subjective and opinion based anyway. People will just follow the crowd than actually look into the information they are provided or even be prepared to question or challenge it as long as they have a conviction they truly support.
#15161969
anna wrote:The media has failed us in this. I'm talking all media. Journalists, talking heads, editors, news generators of every kind. The right of center media, particularly Trump-supporting media lie, repeat the lies, and support the lies with more lies. The left of center media bend over backwards to present "both sides" and in doing so fail to give us the truth. Who's left to trust already?


It's not like the lying part is confined to a left-right division, particularly once you look outside the US (we're on the Europe subforum). But deepfakes are worse, because there it really is hard to tell if they should count as evidence or not. Normally, once something is caught on camera it's assumed to be true.

anna wrote:And good luck getting emotion out of policy, isn't that what populism is all about?


It is indeed, but once the failure of populism becomes a lived experience, people become more inoculated against it.
America's Overwork Obsession

@wat0n None of that has anything to do with th[…]

..... I know, which is why I said "just&qu[…]

Well that was 76 years ago. Obama wasn't nominat[…]

Also, the Santiago slums smell a lot worse too.