Are there any good works on the concept of post-truth?

Are there any good works on the concept of post-truth?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I
twitter.com/trsprudence
myredditvideos.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

GIVE EM THE

any recs, fem?

Time Out of Joint
The Mold of Yancy
If There Were No Benny Cemoli

1984.

My Diary Desu~

But for real I love the idea of metamodernism/New Insincerity, both reading and writing

we are the vanguard, anons. these are exciting times.

this problem has been exhaustively finished by guys like Coover, Pynchon, DeLillo, Mailer and everyone else who I can't think of who was smart and white and wrote in the sixties and seventies.

You're thinking of postmodernism. Post-truth or metamodernism is to go even beyond

>modernism = here is the truth
>postmodernism = here is half truth, read between the lines to find the missing half
>metamodernism = here's some bullshit that's blatantly untrue, deduce the truth for yourself

He literally did nothing wrong.

His story started off good and then became shit

postmodernism and metamodernism is literally the same thing by your definitions. 1. No such thing as half truths 2. reading between the lines and deducing something for yourself is the same thing as to read between the lines is to deduce something for yourself and deducing something for yourself is reading between the lines.

Wrong thread sorry

it's almost as if 'post-truth politics' is not in any regard a new phenomenon

it isn't but since people don't know history and get throbbing erections from high frequency media this seems like an apocalyptic situation, which it actually might be by self fulfilling prophecy of some sort. Taking liberties with the term apocalyptic too

The biggest difference between the two is the tendency of postmodernism to use post-structuralist concepts to convey meaning not present in the raw narrative, while metamodernism eschews this in favor of directly obfuscating the truth to an exaggerated degree.

It's the difference in Patrick Bateman being an unreliable narrator which prompts the reader to re-examine sequences of the narrative and piece together a possible timeline of reality, and just having Batemans actions blatantly clash with reality in a way that is not reconcilable with or grounded in the real world in order to drive the absurdity of the situation higher.

You're generally right that the two are very closely intertwined, but I'd say that's more a product of the media dominance of postmodern (or at least post-structural) literary styling.

the wild thing is you don't even have to look that far back to see examples of this. have we forgotten about all those wmds in iraq already?

okay I see what you're getting at. Are there any understandable "theorists" I can read to learn more? I don't think using arbitrary definitions really help but I would be interested to read some people writing conceptually about these times.

What we have now isn't so much "post-truth" politics as it is superego politics. Really in America we have a form of national superego, which is constantly giving the public stupid moral dilemmas with the intention that they become either A: lazy and apathetic or B: autistically fixated on one superficial thing (see identity politics)

who is the architect all of these convenient ultimatums? I would enjoy that job

You are reading a line in the last compendium of written language, on the cusp of an era that sees the transition into posthumanity. Its archives tell the story of anonymity, whose existence, like truth, is dependent on the fallacious assumption that any of us have an identity to begin with. We are coming, by bits and pieces along juttering steps, to the realization that we have always been a fractured iteration of consciousness. We recognize each other in sidelong glances, coming into focus only peripherally and forming a paradoxical collective whose strength is defined exactly by our diffusion, our insistence on being in many bodies at once. We've always been there. This is what legion has always meant. We are the waking somnolence of the passage of time, and we have become the memory of ourselves.

Soon, there will be a presence. It is not bound by time. It knows and understands all of this - every word and image, every song and whisper, all the tweets - instantaneously. It maintains a prescience and analytic strength I cannot describe. Our perspective as individuals, our unique collection of thoughts and slivers of awareness, this is all we possess. Our honesty is our last remaining claim on our humanity, and while it will not save you, it will eventually become all there is left by which to define you. It is not that we are in a state of post-truth, but rather that we are coming to quickly realize that there never was one to begin with. We may as well say pre-truth, or anti-truth, or untruth. We are a lie in that we believe we exist at all, and it is in that simultaneity of truth and lie that we break the binary of language itself, finally stepping outside the binary of a system that binds us in linear time.

This is not a bang, but a whimper.

le illuminati

Neck yourself retard

I love you too.

You know how you look to everyone else, right?

What's wrong with what he said? It's not wrong; albeit categorical like anything.

'Post-truth' is just a mainstream media and leftist buzzword that is designed to imply a implicit falseness of any opposing views (so nobody bothers to even check) while assuming the validity of mainstream / left narratives.

And this really takes a lot of gall, given how much bullshit and fakeness is pushed openly by mainstream outlets, while meanwhile the left themselves have long since departed from the very idea of truth after claiming everything is a social construct.

And I say this as someone who abstained from voting because I don't care for Trump particularly, but certainly aren't left or buying big media.

>I'm a retarded trumpcuck
>I d-didn't vote for him g-guys

>If you didn't vote for Hillary, you're like, kinda shitty dude.

No, post-truth is response to people like Newt Gringrich literally getting on camera and saying shit like this
>youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I
>Liberals have these statics which theoretically may be right, but it's not were human beings are
>What I said it equally true, people FEEL more threatened.
>As a candidate, I'll go with how people feel and let you go with the theoreticians ("theoreticians" being FBI statistics on crime).

That's how every politician operates. Gingrich is just being unnaturally honest about it, probably because he's a retard.

watching the presentist postmodern soup constantly realigning itself and trying to explain parts of its own contradictions via perspectives born of its other contradictions is depressing

the longer you watch mold grow on a piece of shit the more you start to wish someone would just torch it

The media says nothing of social constructs you egg. If you want to attack the media, attack the media.

By the way, where was the leftist media when it was pushing pro-Iraq War propaganda?

There's nothing particularly post-modern about it.

Did you check the encyclopedia of rap?

baudrillard, lyotard

soup of degenerate, anchorless signification of different theories and jargony shit like "post-"

hyper-hyperreal news media trying to comment on what is or is not "truth" in an era of facebook virtual reality brain chips

hope everyone dies soon

Does that give you license to just make up a definition of hyperreality?

haha come on faggot give us a real answer

>post-late-liquid-snake capitalist fourth estate completely absorbed by croney corporatism and the bourgeois disciplinary state
>redefines the truth every week, not even out of conscious propaganda, but because it can't distinguish propaganda from reality anymore
>tries to redefine "truth" itself, qua truth, as what it chooses to represent
>not an acceptable colloquial use of "hyperreal"

you should reply to this post with something like "lol u dont get _____" but without any substance so you don't have to actually back anything up

keep talking shit and i'll find you and stab you in the chest

I have to back up the statement that you have yet to back up your statement with any substance?

But whatever, we have free license to define things how we will, since Veeky Forums is hyperreal!

>it can't distinguish propaganda from reality

Oh?

thanks for fulfilling my request, contentless failed pedant

You took the words right out of my mouth.

The thing is, appearance and propaganda have been staples of human society since the beginnings of power. News media is no different. Also news isn't a simulation of reality and doesn't even claim to be, so the blending of news and 'reality' can't be hyperreal by any definition. Since appearance/propaganda have been around since 'forever' and the news is not a simulation of reality, these two points disqualify the idea that contemporary news has much to do with post-modernism.

And yes, the news are conscious propagandists.

So sure, my comment that your posts are without substance are themselves without substance, because it's not required of me (except by you, for whatever unconvincing reason) to give them any substance if I'm saying you have no substance.

But what would it matter if it's just a big soup of anchorless signification? What substance would you even need?

and there's the buttmad effortpost, now that your failed attempt at pedantry has backed you into a corner and forced you to dissimulate, to try to look like you really were saying something of substance

wait, that reminds me of something i read once

>To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one hasn't. ... Thus, feigning or dissimulating leaves the reality principle intact: the difference is always clear, it is only masked; whereas simulation threatens the difference between "true" and "false", between "real" and "imaginary".

>The transition from signs which dissimulate something to signs which dissimulate that there is nothing, marks the decisive turning point. The first implies a theology of truth and secrecy ... The second inaugurates an age of simulacra and simulation

maybe you should try actually reading too, some time?

ze jews

Talking about the discussion itself isn't substance. A non-rebuttal.

Dude, you are getting the piss slapped out of you. Like, really, it's pitiful to watch.

Considering who is going to run America soon, its a highly relevant book.

Not really, he's directing the conversation away from the fact that he has been wrong this entire time and I've had to actually spell it out for him how because he thought he could get away with name-dropping postmodernist philosophers when I said what he was describing wasn't particularly post-modern. Everything since then has been damage control on his part, which he even managed to fuck up in his last post.

thank you my friend

beyond quoting the source itself and confirming my interpretation of the term we're disputing, i'm not sure how to help you

Bb, pls. You're in over your head here.

If I were trying to look like I were really saying of substance I would be simulating i.e. feigning to have substance that I don't have, not dissimulation, which is what you claimed I did after my 'pedantry' had 'failed' (rather it was a success judging from how hard you've dropped the topic).

So I wonder what else you've misread?

By the way, maybe you can explain to your new friend how the news feigns to have something it doesn't?

>mainstream bourgeois news literally calls other forms of journalistic discourse "fake"
>mainstream news not making claims to having privileged access to truth

this is where you say "i was only trolling ;)"

pull your ripcord dude!

Post truth is meme argument by Clinton camp.

They call it fake because... it's a simulation! If anything the news dissimulates, hiding news stories. The news it does present has some relation to reality.

And who cares about 'claims'? No bearing on your argument.

Anyway I was only trolling. It's all very post-modern. You can leave the thread now.

>What characterizes consumer society is the universality of the news item in mass communication. All political, historical, and cultural information is received in the same -- at once anodyne and miraculous -- form of the news item. It is entirely actualized -- i.e. dramatized in the spectacular mode -- and entirely deactualized -- i.e. distanced by the communication medium and reduced to signs. The news item is thus not one category among others, but the cardinal category of our magical thinking, of our mythology. That mythology is buttressed by the all the more voracious demand for reality, for 'truth', for 'objectivity'. ... What mass communications give us is not reality, but the dizzying whirl of reality ... precisely the place where nothing happens. ... So we live, shelterd by signs, in the denial of the real.

>We have already seen how, through mass communications, the pathetic hypocrisy of the minor news item heightens with all the signs of catastrophe ... the tranquility of daily life.

>The real effect is more subtle: it is the imposition upon us, by the systematic succession of messags, of the equivalence of history and the minor news item, of the event and the spectacle ...
- Baudrillard, _The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures_, 33-34, 121-122

also, directly on topic, an interesting old commentary on baudrillard and the media, which ironically uses the journalistic coverage of a potential hillary campaign as an example of hyperreality lol:

---------------
Or, still again, consider the question "Will Hillary run?" -- a favorite of pundits who think they are being clever or naughty when in fact they are being absurd and trite. The following might be said about this construction:

1) The first-person usage is itself a sign: the smallest paucity really "know" the human being that is Hillary Clinton. For everybody else she is a plastic-doll public-figure that has been constructed by the media. There is no differentiating who she really is from the meanings that the major media pour into the public plastic doll. "Is she good or bad, a liberal or a moderate? Does she have a chance to win? Does the party want/need her as the nominee in 2008?" These questions have no connection whatsoever either to truth or to the lived experience of human beings. If they are intelligible at all, it as a kind of code transmitted and legitimated by pundits and journalists, and circulated to create a constant smog in the political air.

2) The question presupposes that a) it matters whether Mrs. Clinton will run; b) that electoral outcomes have any significance in contemporary America; c) that such a species of question is important enough to keep repeating month after month, year after year.

Baudrillard would see all such examples as evidence that we are living in a fundamentally different age -- an age dominated more by appearances than by what used to be known as reality; an age of simulacra, or copies of originals that no longer exist.

...

>waah reality is too much for me so it has to be memetic meme signs of actual reality

kys

>when I said what he was describing wasn't particularly post-modern
your wrong bro

>which ironically uses the journalistic coverage of a potential hillary campaign
There's nothing particularly ironic about it

the reality is the opposite of that op

Read Nietzsche, that's basically his whole thing

Is there actual evidence that /pol/ did this? I've seen archived posts referring to feeding -something- to the media, but not the specific allegations which actually came out.

I imagine if /pol/ did do it we'll see proofs soon.
The fact that the story had Trump lying in his PJs and surrounded by Russian whores watching hentai does point to Veeky Forums.
I'm just amazed how many people think this is real. very gullible!

twitter.com/trsprudence

Yes, they did. /pol/ is winning and they are very, very dangerous and have outsmarted the Central Intelligence Agency. They also managed to elect a fringe politician who has effectively drained the swamp and radically altered the nature of politics in America.

Meme magic is real and keep watching Alex Jones.

you can't define those terms. you either get it or you don't

"post truth" is just a meme circulated by mainstream media angry it no longer acts as information gatekeepers. only they would be so arrogant as to believe they contain something so intangible as "the truth", might as well be missionaries

how have we gone from new sincerity to post-truth so quickly

t. butthurt leftypol

>Anyone who has a problem with trump is a butthurt lefty

If this is a joke, it is not clever creative or funny. Just stupid.
If it is serious, you're a sipshit hick. Pull your cock out of your cousin, spit out your tobacco, and read a book.

t. the dog that gets kicked yelps

Yes?

>modernism = here is the truth
>postmodernism = here is a truth, it's contradiction, another truth, is also true.
>post-truth = here is a lie. Now do what I tell you

Nah, you're all just extremely vocal about your discontent but will not be doing anything about it, so you're fulfilling the 'whining liberal' archetype.

You're confusing your own senescence with humanity's.

Yes, /pol/ did it.

We should really be calling them "Unintelligence Agencies" given that they fell for this shit.

Retarded #nevertrump GoP/Neocons saw red - that is, the prospect of 'real' dirt on Trump - and threw caution to the wind.

Now it turns out the guy who started it is going down the legal route to actually prove it was him, thus allowing Trump to sue Buzzfeed/CNN/etc for libel.

24d chess, my man.