I vaguely recall encountering the word ‘truthiness’ for the first time during the 2008 Presidential election, but I gather the term predated that event.
Can anyone provide a good definition of the term, or better, prime examples? Thanks in advance
Interesting. I always thought of truthiness, from watching Colbert, to mean things that sound plausibly true, without any reference to their actual truth, and we trust the source so evidence beyond assertion is not necessary. Therefore not necessarily untrue, just not supported, or a partial truth without important context, or something like that.
Here is what an online dictionary says:
noun: truthiness
- the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.
Origin
early 19th century (in the sense ‘truthfulness’): coined in the modern sense by the US humorist Stephen Colbert.
Sort of.
The truthfulness of the statement is indeed orthogonal to its truthiness. But so is the amount of evidence/context/source/etc. What matters is how it makes you feel.
You can see the original use in this clip from S1E1 of the Colbert Report: https://www.cc.com/video/63ite2/the-colbert-report-the-word-truthiness
I always thought this was a humorous synonym for specious–sounds true but isn’t–only with more nuance in the context of the current political environment.
I’m still interested in any examples where there have been situations that showcased this phenomenon that can be pointed out.
Clearly much of the anti-COVID-vaccination propaganda relies on “truthiness”. Any argument that hinges on “it’s experimental” or “there may be long-term effects” or “the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID” are not based on any evidence but purely on emotions (primarily fear).
I’d say a huge part of Trump’s electoral success was “truthiness” writ large. We need a large wall on the Mexican border! Why? Because it feels like we do!
Some of the anti-CRT hysteria is largely based on “truthiness”. As is some of the “defund the police” rhetoric. Sometimes facts are introduced, but the arguments are largely emotional.
Basically any argument where the primary method of convincing relies on an emotional reaction is what Colbert was describing. Particularly if part of the argument is specifically that the data is bad and can’t be trusted (like the COVID vaxx example). The crux is “I don’t need the facts because I feel that my position is right”.
I’d say watch the original Colbert Report bit from '05. It’s not like he gives a rigorous, dictionary definition but since he came up with the term, it’s about as close to authoritative as you can get.
He describes it basically as not necessarily the truth but something that feels like the truth, what we want to be true regardless of evidence. Since it was back in '05, it was applied at the time to stuff like the justification for invading Iraq.
Colbert and his “Word” segment were parodies of Bill O’Reilly in particular and the opinionators on Fox News generally.
Since then, pretty much every word that they broadcast has been an example of truthiness. Ditto for OAN and Newsmax and Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh and the entire right-wing propaganda apparatus, and apotheosized by the Trump administration and his cult. I know the saying “not seeing the forest for the trees” but how exactly can anyone miss that many trees?
Truthiness is more closely related to lying than to bullshit. A lie is something you know is untrue and expect your audience to believe. Bullshit is when you don’t expect them to believe it, or expect them to believe that you believe it, but the act of saying it provides evidence of being in the in-group.
No one who holds a seat in Congress or works for Fox News actually believes that the covid vaccine makes you magnetic or that pizza restaurants traffic children in the basement. And the point of saying these things isn’t to make other people believe them, at least not primarily. It’s to signal that “we’re going to oppose whatever the people we don’t like do and mock the idea of rational discussion by invoking the craziest, most random ideas to do so.”
Truthiness is really more the province of the left these days, especially in the discourse around race. and slavery. Ideas like “the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery,” “the Second Amendment was passed to guarantee that white people could put down slave revolts,” and “police originate as slave catchers” feel true. They probably feel extremely true to someone who is being beaten with a police baton at a protest. The fact that they feel true is held up as some sort of equal evidence to counter the fact that they have absolutely no basis in any actual history and anyone who has any familiarity with historians’ methods or the sources from the time must know this.
Seems that the Trutiness part is more on the dismissal of how complicated history is, for example, sure, the Amercan police origins can be traced to the way things were done in Great Britain, but while police in America did not originate from just enforcing slavery, there were a lot of roots coming from the enforcing of slavery and preserving injustice in the US.
The key IMHO is that in the case of the American police origins, the Trutiness come from the denial of any relation with slavery or enforcing Jim Crow laws. The whole “lost cause” for the South feels like the truth for many, even today.