Post-Truth Comments
Read Post-Truth Information Systems first
G: Whenever I read or hear your post-truth era schtick, I get this feeling that apart from ‘the winner is not determined by who is saying the truth’ (agree) you are also trying to say ‘the truth is completely irrelevant’ and ‘we should never care about who is lying, even if it could be proven’. But I must be misunderstanding this part. At least I know that is not what I believe, and not a world I want to live in. Also, by potentially mixing up ‘absolute truth is always out of reach’ and ‘reaching for truth is entirely futile’, I feel like you are promoting a culture where questioning presented narratives is seen as a bad habit.
G: Actually I’m not sure myself what to answer and what you think about this. As I saw it till now, I thought WE can try to figure out what the truth is BUT have to ALSO make sure we have good PR about it. I do get confused though as well – does it not matter to you at all what the truth is? That can’t be, because you don’t like liars. But then why would we not want to figure out whether the whole Corona thing is a hoax?
Knowing the truth is very nice, but it is a vanishingly rare event. If you put two grapes in a microwave oven, you can observe a plasma arc, and if grapes are all you have, you’d conclude that’s what microwave ovens are designed to do. So, even when you see things with your own eyes, there is a narrative (created by you) that might or might not have anything to do with the truth. When it comes to events that you cannot personally observe, the situation degenerates further.
All I can say is to not worry about it too much. If you are a member of Religion A and are surrounded by cranky members of Religion B, it doesn’t really matter which prophet existed, and which was a sham. You know who your allies are, and they are identified by their belief.
If I were paying a doctor to treat my illness, I’d want to know the truth; I’d question everything going on. The reason is that the doctor is billing me for treatments and test, not curing me.
The truth is always relevant when the motives and interests of the speaker are unclear.
Now, imagine we were in an apartheid society, and the narrative was that you, and people who look like you, have lower IQs than the ruling population; that’s why you’re mistreated. Who cares what the truth is? You’re mistreated and you dislike it.
If the government is controlled secretly by Martians, are you going to quit your job, stop bathing, and start shouting the truth in front of the parliament building? I mean, if the government is working, and people, are okay, who cares? If it’s a problem ⚊ like, they are going to start harvesting us for food in 2030 ⚊ then we’re doomed. We were defeated by a superior civilization, and that happened a long time ago.
In terms of corona, I suppose it could be a hoax, but that would be a disaster for us, because the people who control our infrastructure and legal system are promoting the hoax. The only thing we can do is get rid of all officials. But then, who is going to run the country? Conspiracy nuts? In order for this to work, we’d need a class of citizens at least as competent as the officials we are getting rid of. In other words, if our officials are lying, we’re doomed.
We go along with government lies all the time, and there is rarely so much controversy. The drug war is a lie, and yet we go along with it. All religions, save one, are a lie, but we have to put up with them. The US is technically bankrupt, but the Federal Reserve dollar still has value. Oh, yeah, and the Federal Reserve is not federal.
In summary, post-truth isn’t about rejecting the truth. It’s about identifying who the speakers are, and figuring out what relationship their interests have to yours.
M: > martians: If it’s a problem, like, they are going to start harvesting us for food in 2030, then we’re doomed.
M: But what if it’s a problem, but we don’t think it’s doomed yet? We think we could do something about it – if only more people knew the truth?
M: Like: we think it would be cool if more people knew about corporations, then people would stand up more and work on unions or whatever. Or on changing the law. Then the truth about corporations is important. Or we think we’re doomed anyway, then it’s not important. But when you don’t think we’re doomed, and you see the population is being lied to, why would you not want to campaign for telling people what’s really going on, so we can change something?
M: Like the drug war – there are people like the Drug Scouts who are working on making pamphlets etc. to inform the population or at least young people. Or religion – at some point it became optional to pay taxes (I resigned from church and don’t have to pay taxes). Maybe if more people knew about the “federal” reserve, they would think about what alternative they could propose or work on. And so on…
There is one answer to all these questions, and it is another question: Who’s got your back?
Everyone knows that there is some problem with corporations, even if it not easy to articulate. But the reason that interest is so limited is that everyone is also aware that Kaufland is a corporation. You have to replace what you propose to take away. People aren’t going to attack their support system, no matter how wicked it becomes.