"post-truth&quo t; international word of the year

DD

By sexed up I mean made palatable for the masses. I think the term in now a part of modern parlance. The way I interpret it is that people want to to stirred. They want an orgasmic sensation; even from the most mundane.

They really need to take Trump's tweet account away from him - again.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/18/donald-trump-takes-credit-saving-ford-factory-not-closing

Explanations of all the new words in the Oxford Dictionary.

www.ourlittleearth.com/2016/11/5180/

I've never heard of quite a few of them.

I love the Obamas they are a lovely couple.

Yes, DJ, sorry thick thumbs! Love News thump. Latest is 'First batch of Eu savings to be pi**ed away on Queen's new curtains'

I like the one about Trump asking Voldemort to be his chief of staff, after Sauron turned it down.

newsthump.com/2016/11/17/living-in-a-post-apocalyptic-wasteland-isnt-too-bad-manchester-residents-reassure-americans/

Not sure about Trump to conduct all international diplomacy through twitter. That might actually be true.

Anyone who disagreed with him could be visited by Voldemort.

I looked up/googled post truth after I saw it mentioned on GN a couple of days ago. I was horrified at how it was made out to be some sort of scientific concept. What is happening to the world?

It's post truth, Morgana. If you make something out to sound scientific, people are more likely to believe it's true. In the olden days, we just used to call it lying.

After the referendum, Arron Banks, founder and funder of Vote Leave, said ‘The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.’

Just as with advertising and marketing, these people don't care whether they tell the truth or give the whole picture, so to an extent it has become 'scientific' because it is quite deliberately planned to fool people, using market research and focus groups, etc.

These are politicians who just don't care if they tell the truth, which isn't the same as promising or predicting something which turns out to be undeliverable or wrong.

granta.com/why-were-post-fact/

Twitter has suspended a number of accounts, because they were spreading tweets which the originators knew weren't true and were deliberately intended to do damage, but were believed. Some of the tweets were outrageous, such as the one which claimed Michelle Obama is a man (and, yes, some people believed it). This is different from broadcasters giving air time to people who claim something which isn't true, but seems plausible.

Let's face it, most "news" these days consists of the latest doings of some celebrity most people have never heard of doing what most people have no interest in. Sadly the BBC leads the way in this. As for the latest incarnations of What the Papers Say - a collection of arrogant "journalists" sharing their worthless opinions on anything and everything; about once a month there is someone on who just might know something and say something important to listen to. To me post-truth just means lies.
Yes I'm getting to be a cranky old woman but I'm not alone.

The BBC is getting on my nerves big time; but that is a whole new thread.

That's just 'fake news' dapnedill, not 'post-truth'.

Is this post-truth politics?

politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/here-is-why-newspaper-claims-that-most-new-jobs-are-going-to-foreigners-are-often-wrong/

It possibly managed to swing Brexit.

By the way, notice that Boris is a foreigner taking our jobs.

Why, how many of your jobs has he taken?

Don't be silly, Ana.

Why not? Your statement was!

Read the link, Ana, then you'll see it wasn't.
Brexiteers went on all the time about foreigners taking our jobs.

This is the relevant bit, just to save you saying you never read my links.

'Newspapers usually divide the rise in foreign-born workers by the rise in employment (in a given period) and come to this figure. But it is wrong.

For a start, official employment figures do not show how many new jobs went to foreign-born workers or to Brits. No such figures exist.

Secondly, a large proportion of the ‘foreign-born workers’ are actually British citizens. They were just born abroad! That brings the number down usually to about 50 – 60%, not 90%.

In other words, if Boris Johnson gets a new job, he is counted as a ‘foreign-born worker taking a British job’ by the press as he was born in the U.S.. It’s absurd! Especially as Boris Johnson doesn’t do that much work.'

I thought a lot about my Brexit vote and decided that sovereignty was the issue here. I have no wish that the UK be subjected to the requirements imposed by the likes of Juncker who was, as far as I know , not placed there by any democratic process. The democratic procedure, as such, was imposed further down the chain when J-C's requirements could be amended to a degree.
As for immigration, that was another topic.
It would seem, anyway, that our government was not really prepared in the nane of the electorate for either the stay or go situation or appropriate preparations would have been made. Government officers were so sure, as ever, that they knew the answer to everything so did not prepare at all for the eventuality of a Brexit vote.
For earlier postings, I agree absolutely with Yorkshiregel, Joannewton46 and beammeup scottie.

Yes, I did realise you weren't serious durhamjen (although sometimes it's very difficult). Neither was I...sigh.

Did anyone watch the alarming interview on Channel 4 News between Cathy Newman and Milo Yiannopoulo, a senior editor on Steve Bannon's publication Brietbart? Bannon who is now Trump's chief strategist could employ Yianopoulo in the think tank.

Watch as he explains post truth politics. In the clips he rages against feminists/feminism among other issues and he's a sort of more outrageous Katie Hopkins.

Cathy Newman did well to contain him. I almost said control, but he was out of control. In my view, a vile mind uttering vile thoughts.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/milo-yiannopoulos-channel-4-cathy-newman_uk_582e0b40e4b0b8f7701070a5

I didn't see the interview, but I can imagine what it was like, having read that interview. Steve Bannon and Breitbart are perfect examples of post truth politics, although they're quite mild in comparison with some. It's frightening that he will now be Trump's chief strategist, alongside Jeff Sessions as attorney general, although he was considered too racist to be a judge.

I hadn't heard of Milo Yiannopoulos, but he seems well-qualified to be a member of a truly bigoted post truth team. How about giving him the brief for women's rights? With Farage and Arron Banks as self-appointed ambassadors, what could possibly go wrong?

Post truth politics - women imagine racism, blacks imagine racism, there's no such thing as climate change - all 'proven' by post truth politicians. Yeah right!

PS. Juncker was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Luxembourg for 18 years. He then became President of the European Commission after being democratically elected by the European Parliament, which consists of democratically elected MEPs. Which post truth information led you to believe he wasn't democratically elected?