[anna]

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

Thank you. It's good to see you too. (And thank you for your too-generous memory...)

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.

I'm definitely with your expansion on this, I know I'm exhausted from five years of arguing elsewhere agains the crazy lies and conspiracies of the Trumpers and Anoners.

I don't see how there can be a post-post-truth because barring a global implosion of some kind, we can never go back and un-internet. As long as the lies can be transmitted instantly and amplified exponentially, how do you put that back in the box? I don't think you can. We're in a historically different world now, where the online and the real life blur together.

[anna]

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).

That's true, I forgot what forum this was, sorry. The trauma runs deep.

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.

Agreed, this is very worrisome. As hard as I try to vet sources, how can I, not skilled in digital manipulation, tell what is deep fake and what is not? At that point then, how can I believe anyone? Everyone is suspect. And I'm already exhausted. Not yet to the point of not caring, but that day could come. But what of those who have the opposite reaction? As long as the deep fake comes from someone they trust, they will believe without question?

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

Perhaps, but there is there such a thing as new history?

[wat0n]

That's true, I forgot what forum this was, sorry. The trauma runs deep.

Well, certainly the US has been a major victim of this trend. But even here, you can see slant everywhere in the media - it's not exclusive to one side alone. I think it's actually one of the few ways they have to survive, by appealing to their costumers' confirmation bias, since they cannot compete with something as cheap to produce as the internet.

Agreed, this is very worrisome. As hard as I try to vet sources, how can I, not skilled in digital manipulation, tell what is deep fake and what is not? At that point then, how can I believe anyone? Everyone is suspect. And I'm already exhausted. Not yet to the point of not caring, but that day could come. But what of those who have the opposite reaction? As long as the deep fake comes from someone they trust, they will believe without question?

Indeed. I think there are algorithms being made to be able to tell when a video would be deepfaked, but I have no idea of how's this going and even then some people may refuse to believe in the algorithm too.

Perhaps, but there is there such a thing as new history?

In what sense?

[Unthinking Majority]

What hope do we have as a society when facts are hidden amongst lies, spin, and propaganda at a level never before seen?

Journalism and opinion have fused to a worrisome degree. Most journalists on every side of the spectrum now fancies themselves some kind of self-righteous activist with a narrative to push. That's anti-journalism. I don't see this going away any time soon because people crave power, and viewers enjoy confirmation bias.

[anna]

In what sense?

You'd said "once the failure of populism becomes a lived experience, people become more inoculated against it" and so I asked is there such a thing as new history, because history repeats itself, and populism does too. I don't think people become inoculated to it, as you say, because those prone to the siren call of populism - and what populism stirs in them - will continue to be prone, and the next generation, and the next, and the next.

[wat0n]

You'd said "once the failure of populism becomes a lived experience, people become more inoculated against it" and so I asked is there such a thing as new history, because history repeats itself, and populism does too. I don't think people become inoculated to it, as you say, because those prone to the siren call of populism - and what populism stirs in them - will continue to be prone, and the next generation, and the next, and the next.

But that happens to the next generation as you said, the generation that actually had to experience the aftertaste doesn't forget about its effects. And in some more tragic cases, the aftertaste of this drink might be experienced by more than just a single generation.

[anna]

But that happens to the next generation as you said, the generation that actually had to experience the aftertaste doesn't forget about its effects. And in some more tragic cases, the aftertaste of this drink might be experienced by more than just a single generation.

Yeah I probably didn't say that very well, I got ahead of my point a little. Forgetting what I said about the next generation and sticking to the current generation - I think people susceptible to populism are not good candidates for inoculation/immunity. They just get sucked in over and over by whatever new populist comes along to take the place of the last one.

[wat0n]

Yeah I probably didn't say that very well, I got ahead of my point a little. Forgetting what I said about the next generation and sticking to the current generation - I think people susceptible to populism are not good candidates for inoculation/immunity. They just get sucked in over and over by whatever new populist comes along to take the place of the last one.

Yeah, I understand. There are some who are indeed unaffected by this "vaccine" but the question is whether most people fall into this category. I don't think so, but it may take time to know for sure. And, it's harder when there is this whole issue with determining truth and what the facts are.

[anna]

Yeah, I understand. There are some who are indeed unaffected by this "vaccine" but the question is whether most people fall into this category. I don't think so, but it may take time to know for sure. And, it's harder when there is this whole issue with determining truth and what the facts are.

No, only some of them, but they're gonna be the same someones over and over. Maybe the percentage of apoliticals is as much or more, the ones who don't follow politics so can't be taken in by deep fakes they're not even aware of. They don't vote and probably can't name their elected officials when they're asked even if they're shown a photo of them. So we'll muddle along, like usual...

[wat0n]

No, only some of them, but they're gonna be the same someones over and over. Maybe the percentage of apoliticals is as much or more, the ones who don't follow politics so can't be taken in by deep fakes they're not even aware of. They don't vote and probably can't name their elected officials when they're asked even if they're shown a photo of them. So we'll muddle along, like usual...

Nah, if the populist is bad enough the inoculated people will pay attention if only to vote to get rid of the populist. But I agree that beyond that, they won't do much.

[anna]

Nah, if the populist is bad enough the inoculated people will pay attention if only to vote to get rid of the populist. But I agree that beyond that, they won't do much.

That certainly wasn't the case with Trump, he never lost his MAGA base.

[wat0n]

That certainly wasn't the case with Trump, he never lost his MAGA base.

Indeed, but he did lose most of the fence sitters, independents and perhaps led to a larger never Trumper camp within the GOP. Now as to what will happen to the MAGA people... That is another question. I think we first need to see how they do in the midterm.

[B0ycey]

But that happens to the next generation as you said, the generation that actually had to experience the aftertaste doesn't forget about its effects. And in some more tragic cases, the aftertaste of this drink might be experienced by more than just a single generation.

This doesn't seem to be the case though. I agree that Trump has lost the moderates and would be unlikely to win an election should he ever run again, but to say that now people have experienced populism and seen its tragic effects, they would be wise to it now is ignoring what is going on. Trump remains the most popular candidate from the Republican base, 30% of America believe the election was a fraud WITH ZERO evidence, QAnonists still believe his predictions with a whooping none coming true and currently America is a divided nation with both sides of the political divide hating each other so much they consider them the enemy. We has seen the beginnings, it's effects and ultimately what should have been the end populism yet it still exists and perhaps it is as dangerous as ever.

The issue is that populism didn't just come from no where. People voted Trump because they are getting left behind in the "American Dream". They blame everyone except the people who they should blame (bourgeois) and instead it becomes a fight involving nationalism vs socialism. So if you do not address the wealth divide, don't invest in production or whatever the economic state/city activity is, keep on retaining a minimum wage that isn't even livable, tax the poor whilst given tax breaks to the rich, rely on the trickle down effect to stimulate growth, please your sponsors rather than your voters and keep a generally broken system, populism doesn't shrink, it grows. Trump was the ultimate false prophet. He said the right things whilst doing the opposite. He was the swampyist swamp thing in the swamp. But that didn't matter. People invested in him and as such believed his lies. And the next person who does that but isn't Trump is likely to win the presidency unless Biden addresses the things I mentioned before. Palin on a Trump ticket with four years of the status quo is perhaps a sure thing for victory because people will not give up on hope on a broken system regardless what they seen before.

[wat0n]

This doesn't seem to be the case though. I agree that Trump has lost the moderates and would be unlikely to win an election should he ever run again, but to say that now people have experienced populism and seen its tragic effects, they would be wise to it now is ignoring what is going on. Trump remains the most popular candidate from the Republican base, 30% of America believe the election was a fraud WITH ZERO evidence, QAnonists still believe his predictions with a whooping none coming true and currently America is a divided nation with both sides of the political divide hating each other so much they consider them the enemy. We has seen the beginnings, it's effects and ultimately what should have been the end populism yet it still exists and perhaps it is as dangerous as ever.

But Trump is probably unelectable still. If the GOP is still captured by Trumpism a couple of years from now then it will likely not have one of its own living the White House 4 years from now.

We'll know what's up in the upcoming midterm. The people who don't learn are often fanatical and noisy, while those who do show their preference at the ballot box. It's no different from what happened in the Democrats' primary, where the noisy ones eventually lost to the silent moderates when the old Black ones went out and voted en masse for Biden in South Carolina.

The issue is that populism didn't just come from no where. People voted Trump because they are getting left behind in the "American Dream". They blame everyone except the people who they should blame (bourgeois) and instead it becomes a fight involving nationalism vs socialism. So if you do not address the wealth divide, don't invest in production or whatever the economic state/city activity is, keep on retaining a minimum wage that isn't even livable, tax the poor whilst given tax breaks to the rich, rely on the trickle down effect to stimulate growth, please your sponsors rather than your voters and keep a generally broken system, populism doesn't shrink, it grows. Trump was the ultimate false prophet. He said the right things whilst doing the opposite. He was the swampyist swamp thing in the swamp. But that didn't matter. People invested in him and as such believed his lies. And the next person who does that but isn't Trump is likely to win the presidency unless Biden addresses the things I mentioned before. Palin on a Trump ticket with four years of the status quo is perhaps a sure thing for victory because people will not give up on hope on a broken system regardless what they seen before.

Ironically, Latin American leftist populists do exactly the opposite Trump did and yet end just the same, if not worse

That's not the solution.

[B0ycey]

But Trump is probably unelectable still. If the GOP is still captured by Trumpism a couple of years from now then it will likely not have one of its own living the White House 4 years from now.

Right, let's be clear. Trump is indeed unelectable. His movement remains electable though. Big fucking difference. Whilst the moderates can see what a swamp creature Trump was, the reasons they voted for him in 2016 have not been addressed and as such can be exploited again.

Nonetheless are you able to read between the lines? Trump basically said at CPAC that he wasn't running for president anyway. He implied backing his son. Or he might just go for another Tea-Party candidate. As long as they repeat his election message of anti establishment rhetoric, they don't need to act like Trump to win the presidency. In fact they might even go for Palin for the female vote. You know, appeal to the feminists as well as the loony right.

Ironically, Latin American leftist populists do exactly the opposite Trump did and yet end just the same, if not worse

That's not the solution.

Don't you get the impression that "Leftist Populism" are being handicapped just for the nerve of being 'leftists' in the continental America by the US? When your biggest trade partner basically embargoes you and shuns you for going against their ideology of 'Capitalists Free Markets' whilst also alienating other allies against you, you are then restricted to your own market and those of the East. Cuba did a good job considering their position. Venezuela less so I guess. But both could have thrived if allowed to given they had much to trade but unable to do so due to politics.

[wat0n]

Right, let's be clear. Trump is indeed unelectable. His movement remains electable though. Big fucking difference. Whilst the moderates can see what a swamp creature Trump was, the reasons they voted for him in 2016 have not been addressed and as such can be exploited again.

Nonetheless are you able to read between the lines? Trump basically said at CPAC that he wasn't running for president anyway. He implied backing his son. Or he might just go for another Tea-Party candidate. As long as they repeat his election message of anti establishment rhetoric, they don't need to act like Trump to win the presidency. In fact they might even go for Palin for the female vote. You know, appeal to the feminists as well as the loony right.

But Palin or the Tea Party are not Trump, and that's perhaps the key element here. Populists also rely on personalism, once they get someone else that person often changes course. Getting his son elected would basically have Trump being POTUS under the shadows and I think everyone understands that. Palin, on the other hand, would probably follow a different course.

We have to wait and see how the GOP manages. But if it proposes Trumpism without Trump it will also lose.

Don't you get the impression that "Leftist Populism" are being handicapped just for the nerve of being 'leftists' in the continental America by the US? When your biggest trade partner basically embargoes you and shuns you for going against their ideology of 'Capitalists Free Markets' whilst also alienating other allies against you, you are then restricted to your own market and those of the East. Cuba did a good job considering their position. Venezuela less so I guess. But both could have thrived if allowed to given they had much to trade but unable to do so due to politics.

No, I don't. There have been leftist populists who aligned with the US and they failed just the same. See Carlos Andrés Pérez (Venezuela) for instance.

[B0ycey]

But Palin or the Tea Party are not Trump, and that's perhaps the key element here. Populists also rely on personalism, once they get someone else that person often changes course. Getting his son elected would basically have Trump being POTUS under the shadows and I think everyone understands that. Palin, on the other hand, would probably follow a different course.

We have to wait and see how the GOP manages. But if it proposes Trumpism without Trump it will also lose.

What do you think Trumpism is? An old fat white guy with a Toupee? Palin basically stands for 'America First', 'Birthers', 'Guns', 'immigration control', 'conspiracy nonesense', 'free markets', anti Socialism', 'privatised healthcare' conservatism. She will say the same BS of bringing jobs home and building a wall that Trump did. It will be the same fucking movement with the same disappointing outcome. The only difference is that Palin will bring a diplomatic appointment to her crazy. Whilst Trump just brought the crazy.

Just because the movement has been polished, glammed up and given high heels doesn't mean it is a different movement. And if Trump endorsed the movement then it is the same movement. Don't forget that.

[wat0n]

What do you think Trumpism is? An old fat white guy with a Toupee? Palin basically stands for 'America First', 'Birthers', 'Guns', 'immigration control', 'conspiracy nonesense', 'free markets', anti Socialism', 'privatised healthcare' conservatism. She will say the same BS of bringing jobs home and building a wall that Trump did. Same flicking movement and same disappointing outcome. The only difference is that Palin will bring a diplomatic appointment to her crazy. Whilst Trump just brought the crazy.

Just because the movement has been polished glammed up and given high heels doesn't mean it is a different movement. And if Trump endorsed the movement then it is the same movement. Don't forget that.

I would not say Palin stands for the same as Trump. She's a conservative but I would not say she's an America firster. I see her as more in line with the more evangelical wing of the party than Trump's.

[B0ycey]

I would not say Palin stands for the same as Trump. She's a conservative but I would not say she's an America firster. I see her as more in line with the more evangelical wing of the party than Trump's.

Ohhhhh, she is an American Firster. Or that is how she will play her cards anyway. She of course is a free market conservative capitalists and just as extreme as Trump ideologically. Just not diplomatically.

Oh and FYI, Trump appealed to the evangelical wing of the party as well. Another similarity.

[wat0n]

Ohhhhh, she is an American Firster. Or that is how she will play her cards anyway. She of course is a free market conservative capitalists and just as extreme as Trump ideologically. Just not diplomatically.

Oh and FYI, Trump appealed to the evangelical wing of the party as well. Another similarity.

He did, but narrowly on anti-abortion. She's more religious IIRC.

I don't think she's an America firster, but I'll be happy to be corrected. She may indeed play that card but I suspect she'll lose if she does.

One way she wouldn't is if the leftist counterparts begin to run amok.