{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/7/2016 12:52:24 PM
47
In this post-truth world we live in...
As you may or may not have heard, the Oxford Dictionary's Word of the Year for 2016 is "post-truth".
[quote][url=https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth][b]post-truth[/b][/url]
Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief:[/quote]
As I would like to think most people would agree, typically, when someone posits an argument based on emotion, when there is relevant objective data available, the gold-standard of rebuttal is to make an argument based on what the data says.
However, in this post-truth world we live in now, where people are too easily swayed by what merely [i]sounds[/i] good, how best should we respond?
Do we stand our ground and continue to assert the facts?
Do we meet them on their level with similar material of what [i]sounds[/i] good?
Do we bend the truth, misrepresent the facts, and falsify information if it helps achieve our goals, even if those goals are noble causes; is the ends beginning to justify the means?
I'd be curious to hear about any other stories you have of post-truths and how, if you did, respond to them.
-
I always try to stay as objective as possible. I avoid articles and other similar texts that twist words to influence opinion because if they could convince the reader (me) with facts alone, they would imo. Shows a weakness of argument to me
-
Truth/fact trumps all.
-
5 RepliesPost-truth honestly sounds like another word for a lie.
-
7 Replies"You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." ~Doctor Who.
-
1 Reply[quote]Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief:[/quote]Haven't we been living in that world for a long time?
-
I'll take your word for it.
-
Edited by Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 12/9/2016 9:17:42 PMPeople can subscribe to whatever nonsense they want to and believe it as hard as they possibly can to be true, but no amount of belief makes something a fact. If 6 billion people believe something to be true and only one person can repeatedly demonstrate and verify the opposite, 6 billion people are wrong. Most people are lying to themselves about many things anyway. Too many of us still let fear get the best of us.
-
Related...
-
Stick to the facts and take solace in knowing that you're right regardless of what they think they know.
-
Is it natural to be ignorant?
-
Say Goddammit Jill, if I want to believe in Unicorns I will. I don't need your bullshittery
-
7 RepliesI usually respond with facts if I have the correct information, but people won't budge and I'm guilty of it too. I think we all are but some of us can accept a fact. But sometimes, I just wonder Like my mom wants to own a house, but I tell her that's not really a great idea considering the economy and how it'd better to rent, so you're not stuck, but she just tells me I need to stop believing everything I see on the internet but will turn around and quote something she saw on the internet as evidence to prove her points. I usually just don't bother anymore. You can't with some people.
-
#RIPD2 im not getting a pvp game!
-
Edited by Lordsa Jar-Jar: 12/9/2016 3:36:13 PMExterminate them all, we'll solve two problems at once. Overpopulation, and ignorance.
-
Socialism will never work.
-
What amazes me is how many people think this is "post truth workd" is new. It started with the death of objectivity decades ago, the very concept of which today is loathed by journalists as dated and or unobtainable. I firmly believe facts should determine civil discourse and should be used to explain and defend ones positions. However i feel theres no denying slick shallow emotional appeals generally work better than the most well researched academic spiel.
-
This kind of subject material is an introspective discussion, used to judge potential usage that may have been overcome by the same process used to study possibility. Its postulated to give an air of safety to certain ideas, that while developed as a range of selections to choose from, have to have a questionable nature of stability to be able to be progressed from. It's to setup the logical reference capable of comparing "apples and oranges", so to speak. Extension of the judgment involved resulting from such thought is what your asking about though. I in looking at things that are used to make judgment for movement, noted, bodies are used as judgment reference points, and the result of a positive judgment is indicated by creation furthered from a position of bodily desire. When desire reaches certain levels its considered emotional, or religious. Yet still the action remains tied to creation. Since the trend for better is to create, I noticed, when we all focus on creation of paradise together, then the largest amounts of new possibilities occur. This being said I noticed that at every moment having desire attachment, lead to creation, and decided to desire to be a part of creation. It lead me to want to make paradise for everybody. This lead me to discover the best way to handle debate, is to focus largely on visual appeal. At this I noticed, that, if you band a community together MADE of make paradise, and have the members build gaming environments, and we could share ideas for environments. Heck we could even play them, and test them out. Call it world domination...
-
1 ReplyAt least it's not a damn emoji.
-
2 RepliesWhat in the blue hell have you done with Duardo? Is he locked in your basement again? #DuardoMatters
-
Edited by dazarobbo: 12/7/2016 1:51:50 PM
Started a new topic: A question for everyone to answer(33 Replies))
-
how ya been
-
Facts, science, and reality are just weapons in the liberal's Satan-inspired agenda. Donald Trump has never lied to the American people, and under his eternal reign, we're gonna win so bigly, we're gonna get tired of winning so bigly, and I'm not saying that bragadociously. #MAGA
-
Edited by Cultmeister: 12/8/2016 12:06:44 PMThe battle between scientific objectivism and beliefs based on emotion has been going on for a long time, and has always seemed to be biased in favour of beliefs. There was never really a golden age of science where people only made logical conclusions and opinions based on what the factual evidence said. People like to think that kind of a world is possible but I really don't think it is. People's views are affected by much more than just the evidence either way and I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect or want people to change that. At the end of the day, giving someone factual evidence that contradicts the view that they probably invested lots of time and effort into believing and repeating, isn't going to change their mind most of the time. But that's not something that's developed over time, that's always been the case.
-
Each argument has a different "best" response. In a pre-arranged debate, obviously the outcome depends on which party can best present their data, using emotional appeals as sparingly as possible in favour of other persuasive techniques. Any other situation is almost certain to be completely different when both sides are arguing a case. If you're getting into an argument with somebody over the internet or in person, generally the person standing their ground isn't going to convince others to see their view; so much as get shit flung at them for refusing to change their mind, regardless of their argument being based in data or emotion. We're kind of toxic that way. Honestly it's normally of little consequence to me whether i win most of my arguments or not. If I see things are going south I tend to just humour the other people. It's not worth my time when each of my posts are just going to be even longer than the last as I repeat myself ad verbatim, to some guy ignoring the argument altogether and sharing knowyourfallacy links in the complete wrong context while messaging his friends to manipulate the karma of each post just so he can look cool. TL;DR: It's not really worth it. Most people have their minds made up about the issues worth arguing about anyway, and trying to convince somebody their views are wrong turns them into an extremely rude person, regardless of the accuracy of your data.
-
Bump for latertimes
-
8 RepliesThe basic condition of humanity in general has always been "post-truth". It is the tendency of every person to hide behind whatever appeals to them, whether it be religion or "the facts". Also, what are "objective facts"? Why are they important? I'm not implying that objective facts are not important, but that many people have a definition of "objective" that is far from objective itself... Good post though. Thanks.
