Yes. That is correct. But the erroneous word is "than." The correct sentence is, "He couldn't care less about ignoring his study."
And in the UK we would tend to say "studies" rather than "study". It is mostly used as a plural unless specifically about a single area of study. Absent of such context we would use it in the plural.
Actually, we Yanks use the same construction. I was just giving Saint the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that "his study" is a room, not an activity. Yes, although in some regions the people might say that one is a little different from the other. The essential point is that a wharf or jetty is man-made, not a natural harbor.
To be troubled by something means that you think it will be difficult or problematic, and/or cause undue anxiety, stress etc. It can mean unhappy (in as much as people at not happy if problems arise).
waterboarding is a form of torture whereby you cover a person's face with a porous cloth, such as a face cloth, that restricts breathing without preventing it entirely, and then you pour water onto the cloth. This further restricts their ability to breath and, given the water going through the cloth, it makes the subject feel as though they are drowning. But it can also cause pain, lung damage, etc. Basically it's not pleasant.
It is also another example of the US President Elect's ability to be a stranger to the truth. Before the election he was in favour of waterboarding and now ,with his foot in the door he seems no longer to believe this. What does "post truth" mean?
"Post truth" is where actual facts are less important to public opinion than appeals to emotion, consensus, personal belief etc. In politics it basically refers to where one or other or both sids of the debate make claims that are simply not factual but are used to gain support, and by the end the populace really don't care if the claim was true or not, as the emotion is the determining factor. Take the Brexit claim by the Leave campaigners that the UK would be better off by £350m or so each week, this being hat we pay to the EU at the moment. This grabs the attention, especially when followed by a list of things that could be done with the money instead, and it generates support for the idea of leaving. In reality the figure is only £150m or so (after rebates etc) but by the time people hear this they no longer care about the truth, their emotion has taken over. If someone decided to vote to leave based on this lie then their decision would have been "post truth". Okay, it's a simplistic version of events, but hopefully gets across what I think "post truth" means.
Would you say that "post truth" is a term that applies to something that is very new or just a very new description of something quite old? Also ,would you say it is a technique that is being used subconsciously or quite deliberately?
No, at least not how the term is coined at the moment. It is where the truth of a situation is of less importance in determining the outcome of a debate, for example, than the emotional impact of the non-truth position. So the decision, the outcome, is described as "post truth". Quite deliberately, I'd say. It is the classic appeal to emotion rather than argue on factual content. The hope is that the emotional appeal, stirred up by claims that are deliberately misleading, or deliberately covering up the reality, will connect with the public such that the emotional content becomes more important than the (lack of) factual content of what they're saying. Obviously it's possible to combine emotional appeal with actual facts, and that should be a winning combination. But "post truth" is where emotion stirred up by non-factual (*) claims wins the day over factual content. * by non-factual I don't mean necessarily a bold-faced lie, but more likely a cleverly spun half-truth - something that sounds close enough to the truth but is actually rather different. E.g. The Brexit claim of £350m or so is technically what we pay to the EU, but it's not what we would not having to pay into the EU due to the rebates we get.
To be fair (ironically ?) we also have the failing of pedantry/reliance on statistics where the truth can be lost in the forest of facts. Maybe there is a "Middle way".
Ah, there's a difference between spinning different opinions but still based on fact, and where you blatantly use misleading data to build up emotion and then rely upon that emotion rather than the actual message.
Agreed. Is there a grey area when there is a smorgasbord of statistics either side of a debate can dip into to back up their argument? I don't think this is really related to the term "post truth" though.A separate area perhaps.
Aye, separate area, and one that scientists and academics engage in all the time as they try to arrive at theories to fit the facts. Otherwise what you're referring to is simply an honest debate: both sides use actual facts/statistics to support their positions, without relying on appeals to emotion, etc. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can the slow witted ** feel disadvantaged by this use of information and so be favourably inclined to the siren calls of "post truthism" ? Another form of "anti intellectualism" ? There were many complaints,I seem to remember during the Brexit debate about many claims being made but nothing being understandable. ** ie yours truly
Asked for the logic behind the Saudi’s backing out of Monday’s international meeting, Saudi Arabia said it wants OPEC members to agree on a deal before sitting down with non-OPEC producers—for example, heavyweights such as Russia, which OPEC is keenly aware needs to be onboard for any meaningful contraction on the supply side of things. backing out = pull out?
For oil prices, the effect of a more confrontational approach would be bullish, to say the least. The potential for supply outages would rise. But the geopolitical risk premium would arguably be more important. Tearing up the nuclear accord would leave moderate Iranian officials in the lurch, many of whom took a great deal of risk to support negotiations with the U.S. Hardliners would thus be strengthened, and conflict between Washington and Tehran would be hard to undo. 1. supply outages = ? 2. leave in the lurch =?
