• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know sometime I've noticed. The more someone talks about the truth, truth this, truth that, the more bullshit everything they say is.

All "truth" are lies because anything that actually might be true never claims itself as absolute truth.
 
JessFR said:
You know sometime I've noticed. The more someone talks about the truth, truth this, truth that, the more bullshit everything they say is.

All "truth" are lies because anything that actually might be true never claims itself as absolute truth.
Click to expand...

There is good reason for that - "truth" is really just a construct. There is no single truth - there are many truths.

But you're absolutely right - when used in politics it's like a litmus test for bullshit, because people carrying on about "the truth" are usually selling some kind of ideological snake oil.
 
spacejunk said:
I find it pretty fucking disturbing that there are people still trying to convince us that trump is anything other than a dangerous idiot.
Click to expand...

I am going to make a note in tech support when I have the time regarding this semi related subject when I have time to word it politely (12 hour days, exams and family havent given the time needed to correspond to various pms or give bl much importance) but will digress- like it or not there are countless people with individual opinions about his abilities as a president, as a person and as a businessman.

As much as I totally agree with your sentiments, here we are. There are people who are able to see this man as some kind of saviour regardless or because of his behaviour. That doesnt mean those people themselves are idiots but just see the world differently.

Hes a president of a country and abusing him and his character is kinda free speech and the right to do so is enjoyed here. The defending of him is also not against any rule here and as much as it would be annoying and frustrating thats politics so too bad for those who dont like it.

I think his pulling out of the summit with NK is woeful however its to be expected.

Maybe because now there is a chance at peace on the peninsula, there is no need for the 32 000 American soldiers there and the loss of that presence means loss of influence so Trump realises that and is now trying to make NK seem like the bad guy again and therefore wont pull out the troops.

America never cares about peace just uses it to maintain a stronghold over the world.

I doubt anyone who is President would want to lose influence in the area and no one would leave of their own accord.

America has no real need to be there and should gtfo.
 
spacejunk said:
There is good reason for that - "truth" is really just a construct. There is no single truth - there are many truths.
Click to expand...
No, there are truths. For eg I think Trump is doing an OK job, you think he is not. These are subjective opinions. Generally these opinions are based on a truth and then interpreted in different ways through the individual's paradigm. The problem these days is people are not even getting their information from facts, it is brainwashing propaganda and agenda-driven deceptions.
However we both agree that Trump is a man.
He was elected to the presidency.
These are truths.
 
You completely missed my point, but i'm not surprised. I think it's healthy to look at the world with a critical eye rather than constantly blaming "brainwashing propaanda and agenda-driven deception".
The irony of a trump fanatic complaining about deception is probably lost on you too.
 
spacejunk said:
There is good reason for that - "truth" is really just a construct. There is no single truth - there are many truths.
Click to expand...

I have always found this claim self-defeating. Either the claim is absolutely true, and then there are absolute truths; or, it is just one of many subjective truths, and presumably false according to many subjective webs of belief/truth. In the former case, the truth of the claim implies its own falsity. In the latter case, there appears to be no substantive reason to take the claim seriously.

I am sympathetic to the idea that there is no absolute truth when it comes to many questions about how human society ought to organise itself. Do you mean to restrict your claim to the political realm?
 
Last edited:
drug_mentor said:
I have always found this claim self-defeating. Either the claim is absolutely true, and then there are absolute truths; or, it is just one of many subjective truths, and presumably false according to many subjective webs of belief/truth. In the former case, the truth of the claim implies its own falsity. In the latter case, there appears to be no substantive reason to take the claim seriously.

I am sympathetic to the idea that there is no absolute truth when it comes to many questions about how human society ought to organise itself. Do you mean to restrict your claim to the political realm?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for spacejunk, but the way I meant it, and the way I thought SJ meant it when he replied to my post, is that while ultimately yes, on any given issue there are things that are true or false, absolute knowledge of it is largely unreachable for humans.

We gather evidence, observations, and over time get closer and closer to what's probably true. But bullshiters, scam artists, conspiracy theorists, most Trump supporters, etc aren't interested in knowing truth, only perpetuating their existing beliefs, and since those beliefs are absolute, they tend to constantly talk about an absolute truth.

So, the more someone talks about an absolute truth, the more likely it is everything they're saying is lies. Cause you're much less likely to be close to the truth if you see everything in such absolute black and white terms. And have so many assumptions they take as a given.

Conspiracy theorists for example already believe the conspiracy as true first, then they look for proof. And naturally see anything remotely compelling or plausible as absolute truth. It becomes so absolute and undeniable that they can't help but go on about truth this and truth that. Which in itself is an example of exactly the flawed thinking that makes the truth further away from them than almost anyone. They and people like them don't recognize that everything is just probability, a probably truth. It's never absolute. Trump supporters like many other political positions, especially more extreme politics, tends to be very similar. A preexisting fundamental truth they believe in then everything else is convincing themselves of it.
Hence why they think anyone who doesn't see it the way they do must be blind and in denial.
 
Last edited:
JessFR said:
I can't speak for spacejunk, but the way I meant it, and the way I thought SJ meant it when he replied to my post, is that while ultimately yes, on any given issue there are things that are true or false, absolute knowledge of it is largely unreachable for humans.
Click to expand...

I took spacejunk and yourself to be making fairly distinct claims. I understood you to be saying that claims which are presented as absolute truths are very unlikely to be true. SJ seemed to me to be suggesting that the reason for this is because 'truth is just a construct'. I interpret 'just a construct' to mean that it lacks objectivity, that it is in some sense made up. Basically, I took SJ's comment as a sort of postmodernist rejection of a universalist conception of truth. I don't want to be uncharitable, and perhaps I have misunderstood something, that is just how it seemed to me.

JessFR said:
We gather evidence, observations, and over time get closer and closer to what's probably true. But bullshiters, scam artists, conspiracy theorists, most Trump supporters, etc aren't interested in knowing truth, only perpetuating their existing beliefs, and since those beliefs are absolute, they tend to constantly talk about an absolute truth.

So, the more someone talks about an absolute truth, the more likely it is everything they're saying is lies. Cause you're much less likely to be close to the truth if you see everything in such absolute black and white terms. And have so many assumptions they take as a given.
Click to expand...

I more or less completely agree with you on this point.
 
Last edited:
Well. I wouldn't exactly phrase it that truth is just a construct, but neither would I say it's a bad way to think about it even if it isn't literally true. I mean, there ARE truths, we just can't see them as absolutes from our perspective. Cause our senses and interpretations are fallible and our knowledge very incomplete. So you just gotta go on the probabilities, and more importantly, how to balance and interpret those probabilities and the evidence in a neutral and scientific way.
 
JessFR said:
Well. I wouldn't exactly phrase it that truth is just a construct, but neither would I say it's a bad way to think about it even if it isn't literally true. I mean, there ARE truths, we just can't see them as absolutes from our perspective. Cause our senses and interpretations are fallible and our knowledge very incomplete. So you just gotta go on the probabilities, and more importantly, how to balance and interpret those probabilities and the evidence in a neutral and scientific way.
Click to expand...

There are domains in which it is possible to know absolute truths. At the very least, there are many mathematical truths which humans can apprehend. I find relativistic conceptions of truth quite objectionable. If truth is subjective then there doesn't seem to be any antecedent reason to conduct neutral enquiry. It seems to me that the best reason we have for conducting neutral enquiry is that it is more likely to be conducive to finding out the truth . Once we throw out the idea that there is an objective truth to find, it isn't clear that there is a strong motivation for individuals to try to be neutral in the way they seek and interpret evidence.

This is getting a bit off-topic. I was mainly just curious whether SJ meant for his comment to apply universally, or just to the political domain.
 
drug_mentor said:
There are domains in which it is possible to know absolute truths. At the very least, there are many mathematical truths which humans can apprehend. I find relativistic conceptions of truth quite objectionable. If truth is subjective then there doesn't seem to be any antecedent reason to conduct neutral enquiry. It seems to me that the best reason we have for conducting neutral enquiry is that it is more likely to be conducive to finding out the truth . Once we throw out the idea that there is an objective truth to find, it isn't clear that there is a strong motivation for individuals to try to be neutral in the way they seek and interpret evidence.

This is getting a bit off-topic. I was mainly just curious whether SJ meant for his comment to apply universally, or just to the political domain.
Click to expand...

Fair point. And yes, you're right, maths is just about the only absolute truth. 2+2=4. That's true and absolute.

But anyways, that's why I'm not saying there is no truth, not sure if spacejunk meant that either but I can't speak for him. The point is that knowing the absolute truth (outside things like mathematical absolutes) isn't possible. It exists, which is why it's worth searching for. But point is we should always remember we only ever have a possibility and a probability. Anyone offering an absolute truth is probably gonna give you something far from it.
 
drug_mentor said:
I have always found this claim self-defeating. Either the claim is absolutely true, and then there are absolute truths; or, it is just one of many subjective truths, and presumably false according to many subjective webs of belief/truth. In the former case, the truth of the claim implies its own falsity. In the latter case, there appears to be no substantive reason to take the claim seriously.

I am sympathetic to the idea that there is no absolute truth when it comes to many questions about how human society ought to organise itself. Do you mean to restrict your claim to the political realm?
Click to expand...

i maybe should have specified that i was referring to political speak/spin/propaganda/ "fake news" etc.

I mean, look at how unreliable witness testimony is.
It's not uncommon for several people to witness the same event, but to all describe it in different, contradictory ways - to come to completely different conclusions, based presumably upon individual thought processes or subconscious bias.

I think lots of people probably assume that eyewitness accounts represent "truth" - but all of the witnesses would probably insist that their truth account is true.

Filter those accounts through journalists, editors and then on to secondary articles, editorials and whatever, as well as other digital means, and the inherent bias which is inevitable - and the idea of mass media reporting on anything that is 100% true.

I'm not meaning to sounds all postmodern and claim that truth is a constucted (i can see how that comment about "truth" but i just think it's funny when people talk about "truth" when it comes to things like political commentary tv news reports, which often just seems to mean "this article (or op-ed, youtube video, news piece or whatever) is true because i agree with it".
Which is why so much content involves pandering and confirmation bias.

I was just kind of riffing with jess on the idea that word shit he word "truth" is often a warning sign that you're about to encounter a lot of bullshit.

Believing any one source of information - and trusting it enough to consider it "truth" - musu require a certain suspension of reason and critical analysis, right?

I''m definitely not saying there is no real truth, but simply that in politics there are few absolute truths or absolute certainties in any political discussions - so the word "truth" always jumps out at me, it's so redundant and ridiculous that its presence in political discourse ("truth" or "truther" etc) is always a dead giveaway that it you've encountered a conspiracy theory.

So it's good in that way, but it's also made me kinda jaded about the way people use the word "truth - it's been pretty badly misused in the post-911 conspiracy world, and the trump era, with its constant attacks on freedom of the press (to report truth fully)
 
Last edited:
Truth as a word for me has come to mean lies

9/11 truth movement, home of all lies about 9/11.
Truth about UFOs? More lies.
Really is you just take literally anything called "the truth about X", it's probably fiction. People who actually are interested in the truth and know how to discern what's probable from what's implausible and bullshit, don't go around constantly advertising "the truth". The truth is the signpost for where the lies are kept. They wouldn't be lies if they weren't billed as the truth.
 
spacejunk said:
There is good reason for that - "truth" is really just a construct. There is no single truth - there are many truths.

But you're absolutely right - when used in politics it's like a litmus test for bullshit, because people carrying on about "the truth" are usually selling some kind of ideological snake oil.
Click to expand...

Nope. Only one objective reality.

Completely deterministic universe.

A lot of mistaken people.
 
I am 100% opposed to this move

Trump plans to nominate Stephen Feinberg, billionaire financier and co-CEO of private equity firm Cerberus Capital, President?s Intelligence Advisory Board.

Things have not gone particularly well for the ultra wealthy individuals who have tied themselves to the Trump administration. (See: Tom Barrack, Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross, Carl Icahn, along with all those CEO council members who stepped down post-Charlottesville.) And yet they keep coming. The latest addition: Stephen Feinberg, billionaire financier and co-chief executive of Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm based in New York.

Under Trump, the board hasn?t had any members. Feinberg, however, doesn?t have any experience in the intelligence field. His Cerberus Capital does own defense contractor DynCorp, which derives most of its $3 billion in annual revenue from the government.
Click to expand...

DynCorp is not a good organization. They were engaging in child sex trafficking at the same time that they were receiving government contracts from Rumsfeld's Pentagon. There was also a scandal with Dyncorp contractors and young boys in Afghanistan.

One theory to explain the revolving door of staff is that Trump is giving these people a chance to alter their course and follow the new plan (less corruption = drain the swamp). If they prove disloyal or adhere to their previous agenda then Trump shows them the door. It would not be an easy choice to make - join Trump and if he fails then feel the wrath of the deep state that you've crossed. Otherwise if Trump wins this governmental war then the ones who betrayed him or bet against him might find themselves in a bit of trouble..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top