Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

In a philosophical sense, I think the definition is arbitrary except via particular usage, but...

Hmm. Let's consider this. Can we imagine something to be a truth, which isn't a fact? Or a fact that is not truth?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The difference is that a fact must be objective, where as a truth can be either objective or subjective. It is not a fact that we shouldn't all kill each other, but most people would consider that true.

[wierd]

Precisely.

I was leaning more toward witness statements at the scene of a crime or accident. Each person's story will be different, some wildly different-- but each one is telling "the truth" as they know it.

[EnigmaticHat]

Truthiness doesn't mean what you think it means weird.  It means using personal emotion or feelings in the place of facts.  CNN is fake news, that's got some truthiness to it.  Trump reposted a video edit meme about about him beating up CNN, that's got truth.

The segment wasn't targeted at journalists, it was making fun of president Bush for using emotional appeals to justify policy decisions.  In the segment Colbert specifically calls out ignoring the news as a bad thing (in his transparently sarcastic way of course).

Edit: To be clear, the distinction is this.  Ignoring facts is truthiness.  Having spin or bias is not, provided none of your spin or bias distorts fact.  So for example saying "the senate healthcare bill feels like its going to really make healthcare great again", that would be truthiness because it uses emotion in the place of fact and ignores the CBO report.  Saying "the senate healthcare bill is going to result in reduced healthcare coverage and quality but I don't care because I'm rich" is heavily biased by the speaker's perspective, but its not truthiness because the facts remain fully acknowledged and intact.

[wierd]

Misidentifying my intent there EH--

Truthiness is indeed using emotional appeals in place of reason or objectivity.  Which is exactly the kind of thing that our earstwhile anchor woman did when she demanded the whitehouse correspondent give account for Trump's actions in the way she did.  She has not been alone in this, with repeated slights in language used by both sides of this sordid affair.

The fact is that trump does not really think about the things he tweets, and does not engage in subtlety like one would presume is proper for his position-- and instead resorts to over the top hyperbole. It is a "truth" to state that one feels that this can incite violent reprisals, or that one believes trump intends bodily harm to journalists (EG, that being a journalist is not safe with a Trump whitehouse.)

Conversely, when there are actual stories that need to be recanted because they are fictional, parleyed by the news media-- that too is a truth-- The news media spun a completely fictional story, and regardless of later recantment and resignations, the fact that the media DID indeed do it (and why) does not go away.  The media engaged in Truthiness, just as much as the other side has been lambasted for.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/3-cnn-journalists-resign-after-retracted-story-on-trump-ally.html


Neither side has clean hands.

[neo1096]

Neither side has clean hands.

The difference being that one side appears to be actively attempting to clean them, note the fact that the 3 journalists resigned, probably due to pressure from their superiors, while the other side just yells louder whenever they get called on it. Just because both sides have some level of falsity doesn't mean that they have equivalent levels of falsity.

[wierd]

Indeed! But is it "I'm sorry I did it." or is it "I'm sorry I got caught!" ?

The first one presents remorse for having performed an action, the latter presents sociopathy.

The modern conservative "chorus" (I dont know what else to call it-- it is just a morass of screeching, biting, hissing feral cats or something.) is at least openly shameless in its self-delusions.  The media on the other hand, shows all the signs of being a crafty and dangerous manipulator.

One side is patently transparent. The other is not.

Let's not assume that they are equally dangerous in that respect.

[EnigmaticHat]

Misidentifying my intent there EH--

Truthiness is indeed using emotional appeals in place of reason or objectivity.  Which is exactly the kind of thing that our earstwhile anchor woman did when she demanded the whitehouse correspondent give account for Trump's actions in the way she did.  She has not been alone in this, with repeated slights in language used by both sides of this sordid affair.

The fact is that trump does not really think about the things he tweets, and does not engage in subtlety like one would presume is proper for his position-- and instead resorts to over the top hyperbole. It is a "truth" to state that one feels that this can incite violent reprisals, or that one believes trump intends bodily harm to journalists (EG, that being a journalist is not safe with a Trump whitehouse.)

Conversely, when there are actual stories that need to be recanted because they are fictional, parleyed by the news media-- that too is a truth-- The news media spun a completely fictional story, and regardless of later recantment and resignations, the fact that the media DID indeed do it (and why) does not go away.  The media engaged in Truthiness, just as much as the other side has been lambasted for.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/business/3-cnn-journalists-resign-after-retracted-story-on-trump-ally.html


Neither side has clean hands.

OK but you have to be able to see how she could get to that point.  If Trump didn't want his opinions to be ambiguous, he should express them via a medium other than video edit memes.  And he should inform his subordinates of his intent because they might be called upon to explain it.  Any other president, and her questions would have had an actual fucking answer instead of blind speculation from someone who should be informed.  Its not her fault the white house is a rolling PR disaster.

Emotion vs reason is not the same thing as fact vs fiction.  Nor are they mutually exclusive.  I would argue the anchor was using facts, logic, and emotion all at the same time.  You might disagree with her conclusion but I fail to see why this segment is so awful.

Trump always using hyberbole is in no way a fact.  That's like the people that voted for him because "surely he doesn't actually mean it."  He's said plenty of true statements about himself in the past.  Not most of his statements but you know, sometimes when he says something he actually means it.

[neo1096]

Well, given that the media were forced to have those who published the false information resign due to public opinion, that at least shows that the aforementioned body is susceptible to some form of control when they are called out on a misdeed and tries to rectify that to avoid further censure. A sociopath who cannot be restrained in such a way offers far fewer opportunities to be reigned in, which would seem to make them more dangerous in that respect. Beyond that, wouldn't the posited objective of increasing the ratings, and thus the amount of money made as a result of increased viewership be compromised by ever admitting falsehood? Particularly considering the opposition doesn't seem to be suffering overmuch by refusing to admit the same, wouldn't it be sensible, if that was indeed the objective, to emulate them and refuse to admit falsehood?

[wierd]

Indeed, which puts the media firmly in category #2-- Sorry we got caught.


EH-- Trump still engaged in "larger than life, over the top hyperbole"-- especially during his campaign. The problem was that some of his base felt he was just putting on a show, and was not in actuality really a full blown koolaid drinker.  Now that he has been tweeting pure insanity, and leading the Whitehouse like it was a Barnum and Baley clown convention, any such comforts (should, hopefully) have been dispelled.  Unless you think "Crooked Hillary" is somehow NOT hyperbole, or over the top?

[PTTG??]

Here's some significant news.

[wierd]

Really you dont say?  I would expect nothing less from the guy who values "Loyalty" over "integrity".

*gets popcorn*

[scriver]

"We're draining the swamp! What's that thing over there you ask? Oh, it's just our newly established mud and moss farm."

[RedKing]

Indeed, which puts the media firmly in category #2-- Sorry we got caught.


EH-- Trump still engaged in "larger than life, over the top hyperbole"-- especially during his campaign. The problem was that some of his base felt he was just putting on a show, and was not in actuality really a full blown koolaid drinker.  Now that he has been tweeting pure insanity, and leading the Whitehouse like it was a Barnum and Baley clown convention, any such comforts (should, hopefully) have been dispelled.  Unless you think "Crooked Hillary" is somehow NOT hyperbole, or over the top?

I can guaran-damn-tee you there are millions of people for whom that is not hyperbole. And as far as this "Well, people will know he's not calling for physical violence against the media...", let me remind me that Montana just got done electing a guy who body slammed a reporter for the heinous crime of asking him a question.

[Frumple]

For what fairness exists, the montana thing was probably largely because the attack happened after most of the votes were already locked in, rather than it not causing a lot of antipathy.

That said, what hector posited as likely reaction to things boiling over into actual physical attacks on journalists is also exactly what a great deal of the reaction was. For a lot of people on that "not actually physically violence what are you talking about" side of things, they're real damn untroubled when it happens. And for all FTFE may be a sentiment I'm thoroughly behind at this point, that's going a damn sight too far.