2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Martinus]

Well guys do you think we can last to election day, given the current level of 'discourse'?

Or will increasing numbers of us succumb to cerebral implosions? 

It's a win-win either way.

[Malthus]

The Economist has an interesting article about the "post-truth" nature of certain politicians these days (and why it is a bad thing).

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art

Interesting parallel here:

Mr Trump is the leading exponent of "post-truth" politics—a reliance on assertions that "feel true" but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power. And he is not alone. Members of Poland's government assert that a previous president, who died in a plane crash, was assassinated by Russia.

[Syt]

We have a wørd for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

[derspiess]

The Economist has an interesting article about the "post-truth" nature of certain politicians these days (and why it is a bad thing).

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art

Interesting parallel here:

Mr Trump is the leading exponent of "post-truth" politics—a reliance on assertions that "feel true" but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power. And he is not alone. Members of Poland's government assert that a previous president, who died in a plane crash, was assassinated by Russia.

The left has been doing this for decades, claiming Republicans want to poison the water, steal old people's medicine, and starve children.

[Malthus]

We have a wørd for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Yup. They mention that in the in-depth article that follows.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and

Reagan's words point to an important aspect of what has changed. Political lies used to imply that there was a truth—one that had to be prevented from coming out. Evidence, consistency and scholarship had political power. Today a growing number of politicians and pundits simply no longer care. They are content with what Stephen Colbert, an American comedian, calls "truthiness": ideas which "feel right" or "should be true". They deal in insinuation ("A lot of people are saying..." is one of Mr Trump's favourite phrases) and question the provenance, rather than accuracy, of anything that goes against them ("They would say that, wouldn't they?"). And when the distance between what feels true and what the facts say grows too great, it can always be bridged with a handy conspiracy theory.

One interesting aspect to this debate is to what extent (if at all) academic trends have been responsible for this. The articles mention the importance of "gatekeepers" to preserve at least some notion of what is true and what is not. Part of what I found unpleasant about academia in the humanities was what I saw as a growing indifference to any notion of objective truth having any substance or reality. This I thought eroded the value of the humanities as a "gatekeeper" - if everything is subjective, we can't brand politicians like Trump as "liars"; they just have a different notion of what is true, one that resonates with their audience. 

[derspiess]

Bloomberg poll has Trump +5 in Ohio.

[Berkut]

We have a wørd for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Yup. They mention that in the in-depth article that follows.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and

Reagan’s words point to an important aspect of what has changed. Political lies used to imply that there was a truth—one that had to be prevented from coming out. Evidence, consistency and scholarship had political power. Today a growing number of politicians and pundits simply no longer care. They are content with what Stephen Colbert, an American comedian, calls “truthiness”: ideas which “feel right” or “should be true”. They deal in insinuation (“A lot of people are saying...” is one of Mr Trump’s favourite phrases) and question the provenance, rather than accuracy, of anything that goes against them (“They would say that, wouldn’t they?”). And when the distance between what feels true and what the facts say grows too great, it can always be bridged with a handy conspiracy theory.

One interesting aspect to this debate is to what extent (if at all) academic trends have been responsible for this. The articles mention the importance of "gatekeepers" to preserve at least some notion of what is true and what is not. Part of what I found unpleasant about academia in the humanities was what I saw as a growing indifference to any notion of objective truth having any substance or reality. This I thought eroded the value of the humanities as a "gatekeeper" - if everything is subjective, we can't brand politicians like Trump as "liars"; they just have a different notion of what is true, one that resonates with their audience. 

I cannot help but wonder how the rise on American evangelism has prepped the ground for this kind of thinking.

There has been a concerted and conscious attack on critical thinking and reason as a way of justifying the teaching of "alternate theories" of creation, for example. The problem with things like that is you cannot limit the damage to only the actual target. If you are being told that science and reason and objectivity are all optional when it comes to creation or climate, then of course they are optional when it comes to things like the record of the Clintons, Obama's birth, the impact of immigration, or whatever other populist bullshit someone like Trump is willing to peddle to appeal to the ignorant, now made even MORE ignorant because we've actually made ignorance itself a virtue.

[Razgovory]

The Economist has an interesting article about the "post-truth" nature of certain politicians these days (and why it is a bad thing).

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art

Interesting parallel here:

Mr Trump is the leading exponent of "post-truth" politics—a reliance on assertions that "feel true" but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power. And he is not alone. Members of Poland's government assert that a previous president, who died in a plane crash, was assassinated by Russia.

The left has been doing this for decades, claiming Republicans want to poison the water, steal old people's medicine, and starve children.

Any specific examples?

[Phillip V]

Bloomberg poll has Trump +5 in Ohio.

FiveThirtyEight now projects Clinton will lose Ohio and currently barely holds Florida at 50.4%

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

Here is the map I posted yesterday.  It currently may come down to Virginia:

[alfred russel]

Well guys do you think we can last to election day, given the current level of 'discourse'?

Or will increasing numbers of us succumb to cerebral implosions? 

If Hillary regains a comfortable lead, it will all be fine here.  If Trump remains within striking distance, though-- 

Imagine the chaos on the interwebs (including here) if Trump wins.

[alfred russel]

The Economist has an interesting article about the "post-truth" nature of certain politicians these days (and why it is a bad thing).

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art

Interesting parallel here:

Mr Trump is the leading exponent of "post-truth" politics—a reliance on assertions that "feel true" but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power. And he is not alone. Members of Poland's government assert that a previous president, who died in a plane crash, was assassinated by Russia.

The left has been doing this for decades, claiming Republicans want to poison the water, steal old people's medicine, and starve children.

The example that came to my mind was in one of the Bush v. Gore debates, Bush would make a broad statement, Gore would refute it with detailed numbers and analysis, and Bush would respond with "that is all fuzzy math".

I was watching with the thought: "Bush is embarrassing himself", but then it turned out most people watching thought Bush won.

[frunk]

I cannot help but wonder how the rise on American evangelism has prepped the ground for this kind of thinking.

There has been a concerted and conscious attack on critical thinking and reason as a way of justifying the teaching of "alternate theories" of creation, for example. The problem with things like that is you cannot limit the damage to only the actual target. If you are being told that science and reason and objectivity are all optional when it comes to creation or climate, then of course they are optional when it comes to things like the record of the Clintons, Obama's birth, the impact of immigration, or whatever other populist bullshit someone like Trump is willing to peddle to appeal to the ignorant, now made even MORE ignorant because we've actually made ignorance itself a virtue.

That's one of the central themes of Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.  Here's a decent review of it from two years ago.

Just as it's tempting, if you don't know the history, to fall into the view that anti-intellectualism is a threatening new development, it can also be tempting to believe the opposite: that intellectuals have now assumed their rightful place of power and respect in American society. (A related idea is that the United States has become a "meritocracy.") Hofstadter's book is valuable as a guard against the second temptation as well as the first. Anti-intellectualism has always been with us, and always will be; that isn't shameful, because it's an aspect of our being a democracy. Conversely, intellectualism should be inherently uncomfortable, not triumphant. Experts, Hofstadter reminds us, have been important since early in the 20th century, but to point out that our complex society increasingly needs people who are intelligent and have formal technical education to staff government and business is not the same thing as saying that the United States has a rich intellectual life. Experts try to dwell in the realm of rigorously derived knowledge and facts. Intellectuals dwell in the much more difficult realm of ideas and values, where almost nothing is ever right without qualification, and where contention, contradiction, and uncertainty are inescapable. So if anti-intellectualism is a natural aspect of a democratic society, humility ought to be a natural aspect of intellectual life. If you ever begin to think of American life as a struggle between the superior, enlightened few and the mass of yobs, pick up Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It ought to cure you.

[derspiess]

Imagine the chaos on the interwebs (including here) if Trump wins.

Like I've said a few times, it would be a fun couple of weeks followed by one hell of a hangover.

[derspiess]

I was watching with the thought: "Bush is embarrassing himself", but then it turned out most people watching thought Bush won.

But that's not why Bush "won".  It was because Gore came across as a condescending, arrogant prick.

[alfred russel]

I was watching with the thought: "Bush is embarrassing himself", but then it turned out most people watching thought Bush won.

But that's not why Bush "won".  It was because Gore came across as a condescending, arrogant prick.

Because Gore knew lots of stuff, and Bush didn't. By demonstrating that, Gore showed himself to be an asshole in the eyes of americans. That was my takeaway at least.