Quantum 89 – Post Truth


This week’s Quantum is all about the issue of Truth and Post Truth.
You can listen on iTunes, Podbean or the Solas website here:


|   TOPICS   |

  1. Post Truth – Oxford English Dictionary ‘Word of 2016’
  2. Telling Fake News from Real News
  3. Banning Milo Yiannopoulos
  4. Mike Pence & Hamilton
  5. SNL – The Bubble
  6. France censors video advert with people with Downs Syndrome
  7. Jo Cox MP – family Statement
  8. “Speak Up” Guide launched at the Scottish Parliament


|   LINKS   |

Oxford Dictionaries – Post Truth

NPR: Students Have ‘Dismaying’ Inability To Tell Fake News From Real, Study Finds

Kent Online: Milo Yiannopoulos talk at Simon Langton in Canterbury cancelled

Fox News (on Facebook): Mike Pence – “That’s what freedom sounds like.”

Washington Post:  SNL ‘Bubble’ skit about liberals in denial over Trump was perfect

Conseil-Etat.fr:  Diffusion du film de sensibilisation à la trisomie 21


JoCoxFoundation.org:  Family Impact Statement

Speak Up

The Lawyers Christian Fellowship

Quantum 82 – Speak Up


|   MUSIC   |

  • Spandau Ballet – True
  • LeCrae – Truth
  • The Simon Kennedy Band – Show them it’s true
  • Emeli Sandé – This much is true
  • Bugs Bunny Theme – This is it
  • OK GO – The One Moment
  • Eva Cassidy – Fields of Gold
  • Beautiful Eulogy – Exile Dial Tone



  1. We like to validate collapse by giving it a series of pseudo-academic names. There is no ‘post-truth’. There is an accelerating acceptance of stupidity and intellectual laziness.

  2. The no such thing as an absolute truth is a philosophical idea. Its also not a new thing. Plato wrote that about the idea that reality cannot produce absolute truths. Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. Its the word absolute that you miss out that is important and its interesting you miss it out.

    Your thing about censorship also misses the point. Its lies and propaganda being presented as fact that is the problem. And its not about stopping that information being made available, it’s about categorising it correctly on internet platforms. Its interest you defend the modern equivalent of Die Deutsche Wochenschau.

    I do look for the truth. Climate change is real. Racism is real. Xenophobia is real. Anti-semitism is real. People shouting Heil Trump is real. People feeling oppressed because they feel they can’t use derogatory language are real. People who are oppressed by people using derogatory language are real. People who do not want equality for others are real. Confirmation bias? Perhaps. Evangelical Christians have their own confirmation biases which is why they voted at a rate of about 80% for a racist, misogynist, thrice married, pussy grabber. Because they really believed in the danger of Hilary.

    I think one of the more interesting aspects of having a worldview that is liberal and progressive is the difficulty, not in accepting that others think differently (after all TERFs and SWERFs are still at the far end of the scale from a lot of Christians), but that there is a whole set of beliefs that want to oppress and deny others existence and rights. Someone who is liberal and progressive may be dismissive of people who think that same sex marriage should not be allowed struggle with dealing with the views that LGBT should not exist, should be denied equality, denied services, denied sexual relationships and denied love. Similarly, how much respect and consideration should black people give racists and a racist point of view? The apparently liberal elitist idea that racisim is an idea that needs to be challenged is bad thing now? The heartbreakingly simple message of Black Lives Matter is assaulted by the idea that 60% of evangelicals believe that reverse racisim is a thing that affects them. If you genuinely think that alternative points of view are being banned then those of us who favour equality have utterly failed so far and banning views isnt working at all.

    I think that the alt-right are far more hateful and dangerous than you allow for and Brietbart news is nothing but the home of the public face of these people. See Delingpole article on Rhodes for a clear example of a well ridden race hate article. I think, on these people, you are more blind than that man at Bethsaida.

    Smugly pronouncing judgements on other people? 2000 years of Christianity has been a class on how to do that I suppose. Standing on a stage and voicing your concerns is, believe or not, not really one of the more violent methods of pronouncing judgement on people. Christianity liked to use fire, hanging, torture etc.

    The banning the ad in France was odd but your idea to show videos of abortions was also odd. Over 70% of abortions in Scotland are a women taking a pill and then having heavy period as the womb lining comes out. Not sure thats going to affect your abortions numbers to be honest. Of course the remaining 30% do sometimes require varying levels of surgical intervention and no doubt thats what you want to show re abortions of down syndrome affected fetuses. For fairness, you should also show still births and miscarriages of down syndrome fetuses as well. 25% for younger mothers, 50% for older mothers. Informed choices and all that.

    I’ve seen that resource before at some point. I did like the line about religious belief having more protections in work. Its a good wee line to use when religions claim they don’t have privileges in society.

    1. Douglas – I totally agree about truth and facts. The difference seems to be that you seem to think that lies and propaganda only comes from those who disagree with you. For example in the Europe debate you claim that lies and propaganda are only on the one side! And I love the way you self-identify as ‘liberal and progressive’ and yet don’t realise how oppressive progressive liberalism is!

      1. So am I being oppressed or doing the oppressing by being a liberal progressive?

      2. You belong to a ruling elite who desire to prevent any other worldview or ethos than their own from having any political or social power….if you were being consistent (which thankfully you are not) you would be an oppressor….stopping Christian schools, enforcing the redefinition of marriage, encouraging the killing of children in the womb…etc

      3. I see. Interesting. My ruling elite membership card seems to have been lost in the post as I have neither power nor influence and am being exiled from my own country because my liberal progressive views on immigration do not chime with the Daily Mail & Express reading masses that our governments are beholden to.

        However, I do have a worldview and ethos and would be happy for that to have political and social power. The thing is, so do you. Its about a competition of ideas. My ideas are beginning to lose and it may well be a long decline from here on. That could well mean your views become ascendant. Are you happy, going by your definition, with your impending role as an oppressor? You want to segregate children, have one religion dominant (not exclusive but seeking a return to the privileged position it once had and deny other religions to public services), you want to deny LGBT people equality, force your views of gender on people and change the role of women into that of mobile incubators regardless of rape, incest or foetal abnormality (there is, by the way, a difference between allowing and encouraging).

        If you were being consistent you’d probably also stop stem cell research and close the IVF unit at Ninewells (what else would you do with the fertilised eggs and embryos?). You’d also have to come up with a range of different vaccines.

        Our worldviews are in conflict because of a fundamental difference. The difference between helping people and controlling people. I want help people be who they want to be, to meet the potential, to be equal in the eyes of the law and be free from abuse and prejudice. Which is why I accept that you have your worldview and that you want to live by it. I am not going to tell you how you *must* deal with things you dont like. Just debate you when I think you are wrong. You cant even offer that to the people you dont agree with. You can’t even accept that two people in love want to get married and accrue the benefits that the state and legal system gives married people. You want to control them, deny them equality. Oppression isnt opening the door and offering equality and protection. Oppression is closing the door and making those who dont follow the rules unequal and outcast.

      4. Nope – not happy with any of that….but then thats because you are just making it up…demonising others in order to justify yourself. I neither recognise nor accept your caricature of Christianity. Whats interesting is Christians can live in pluralist society because we live in God….humanists can’t because they have the State as God…ANd yes you are right I do want to deny the ‘right’ of a father to marry his daughter….go figure!

      5. Which bits are you not happy with and why? All they were were me holding a mirror up to you.

        If Christians truely believed that they lived in God then they would be far less concerned with forcing others to pretend that they have to do the same. My state may be God as you put at least my state people would have equal rights and no one section would be privileged over others.

        Oh, and to paraphrase you, nice deflection with the incest thing.

      6. Where could I begin?! I’ll leave you to work it out for yourself….

        You continually misrepresent and keep setting up straw man arguments. Christians are not for example remotely concerned with forcing others to pretend that they believe in God….indeed such a position would be ridiculous. We simply ask for freedom of worship and freedom to educate our children according to our beliefs and not yours! There are no equal rights in your state – or rather there are only for those who accept your philosophy! The fact that you cannot see your privilege is quite sad.

        And the incest thing is not a deflection. It is a logical consequence of your criteria for marriage. Try to be consistent.

  3. Looking at your Daniel Hannan re-tweet below, containing a Paddy Ashdown quote, it seems that post-truth is a twin of post-integrity.

    Something you won’t find amusing was a tweet I’d read in a newspaper the morning after the recent England v Scotland soccer match. It was something like this: Sturgeon is calling for replays until she gets the result she is looking for.
    Ditto Brexit for the remainers, but Machiavellian maneuvers may prevail.

  4. “Over 70% of abortions in Scotland are a women taking a pill and then having heavy period as the womb lining comes out”

    Er, periods happen when the body isn’t pregnant. That’s the whole point of them. They are a natural healthy function. 100% of abortions are not periods. I will not insult the erudite readers of this blog by further explanation.

    “…change the role of women into that of mobile incubators regardless of rape, incest or foetal abnormality”

    That is disgusting language. Way to go denigrating and dehumanising the female functions Douglas. No wonder these views are losing traction, they deserve to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: