Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Word of the Year - "Truthiness"

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the oh-that-loveable-rascal dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 254

KingSkippus writes "Stephen Colbert calls it 'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' Merriam-Webster calls it their 2006 Word of the Year. The word, first introduced [Windows media] on 'The Word' segment of The Colbert Report, won by a five-to-one margin. In spite of Colbert's ironic dismissal of dictionaries and other reference books, will Colbert's coined word actually be added to those books? With media outlets like CNN and MSNBC covering it, the idea may very well have truthiness."

cancel ×

254 comments

Poster needs to look up the definition... (5, Informative)

Nrbelex (917694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182348)

Ironic that the post here misuses the word...

Re:Poster needs to look up the definition... (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182382)

It might just might fit the definition of Irony if he wasn't you know... acting..

Re:Poster needs to look up the definition... (3, Funny)

JPriest (547211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182604)

Maybe it just felt like the right way to use it.

Mod parent DOWN for ignorance... (3, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183984)

You need to look up the definition. Or at least watch the FV that I linked to.

Colbert says:

That brings us to tonight's word: Truthiness. Now, I'm sure that some of the word police, the "wordinistas" over at Websters are going to say, "Hey, that's not a word." Well, anybody who knows me knows that I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist.

The fact that the "wordinistas" over at Websters have made "Truthiness" their 2006 Word of the Year is about as ironic as it gets.

Even if you don't watch the FV that I linked to, my own submission says:

In spite of Colbert's ironic dismissal of dictionaries and other reference books, will Colbert's coined word actually be added to those books?

sigh I hate explaining basic things such as what irony is, but since you didn't get it, allow me to direct you [m-w.com] to one of those noisome reference books, Webster's online dictionary. Please pay particular notice to definition 3a: "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result."

It is possible (i.e. the "actual result of a sequence of events" is) that Colbert's word "truthiness" may eventually end up in one or more dictionaries. Colbert's satire (do I have to explain what that is, too?) dismisses books such as dictionaries precisely because they don't include words like "truthiness" (i.e. "the normal or expected result").

Feel free to point out exactly why you don't think that's ironic. Surely you don't think that conspicuous sarcasm is the only type of irony that exists?

If anyone who actually has a brain wants to mod the parent down and undo to the work of your unfortunate Slashdot peers who had mod points but no clue, it would probably be worthwhile. Meanwhile, I find your comment a little ironic as well. And in case you missed that, too, it's because you're using a definition of irony that must obviously be derived from "truthiness" (i.e. the actual result) instead of the real definition of the word (i.e. the expected result) in your comment. Are you starting to understand?

'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (2, Insightful)

TriezGamer (861238) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182354)

'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' We've already got a word for that -- it's called instinct. And it's often not related to genuine truth at all.

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182528)

Do you get out much?

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (1)

Eideewt (603267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182632)

Good one. Now if that were usable in the same way, all Colbert's work would have been in vain. Luckily, you're just a grammatically challenged ./er.

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (3, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183938)

And you're a positionally challenged /.er because it's not dotslash and will never be dotslash.

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182924)

I wouldn't go that far.

Truthiness is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (2, Funny)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183542)

and in other news... Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182988)

'truth that comes from the gut, not books.'

The problem with this is it may just steam and smell unless it can stand the test of reality.

If something has made it into a book it has been looked at by several people first - no matter what book it is - but the attitude in this comment show the current climate of proof by intimidation instead of peer review. This is the sort of thing you expect from illiterate dancers that make a list of thirty-five "senses" becuase they have never learned the meaning of the word "perception" - you should not hear it from someone that has learned to pay attention to the world around them.

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (5, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183162)

"Instinct" isn't a type of truth. It's a feeling (emotion) used in lieu of facts.

"Truthiness" is truth using emotion in lieu of facts.

Similar, but not the same word.

MOD PARENT UP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183578)

How the hell did the GP make it to +5 Insightful?

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183594)

If you're using emotions in lieu of facts to justify a factual claim, then it's not "truth" at all - or at least, the emotions that you are using do not make it truth. If you're making an emotional claim, then facts were never an issue anyway.

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183720)

exactly. that's what makes it truthiness

Re:'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' (2, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183174)

Yes, it may be synonymous with instinct, but the word "instinct" while having quite a bit of gravitas on it's own, doesn't have the same kind of gravitas as say, truthiness.

I still like decider (3, Funny)

shawn443 (882648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182358)

As in, "I'm the decider".

Re:I still like decider (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182608)

You misspelled "deciderer."

Re:I still like decider (1)

shawn443 (882648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182724)

as on"a"ther poster said, "true dat".

Heckuva Job, Brownie (3, Funny)

derrickh (157646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182368)

I applaude the truthitude shown by this article.

D

Re:Heckuva Job, Brownie (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182616)

That's a perfectly cromulent attitude.

Re:Heckuva Job, Brownie (3, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182748)

indeed it is Truthistic! The gut be a gooder place then booksies to find wards

Re:Heckuva Job, Brownie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183138)

I applaude the truthitude shown by this article.


Truthiful article indeed.

True dat (5, Funny)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182370)

I don't have any facts to back this up, but this just feels like the right decision.

Re:True dat (3, Insightful)

shawn443 (882648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182404)

And I will second that with a "fo sho".

Grammar Nazi Alert!!! (5, Informative)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183756)

"Fo Sho" lost its appeal circa 2000 with the release of Snoop Dogg's The Last Meal [wikipedia.org] but the term was not universally disposed as a term of affirmation until the release of Jay-Z's The Blueprint [wikipedia.org] circa 2001 due to the popularity of the single Izzo(H.O.V.A) which borrowed heavily from Snoop Dogg's supposed "Crip Colloquialism". In actuality the proper terminology to express agreement with another party would be "Fo Shizzle" which is not "Crip Colloquialism" but a form of expression first invented by an often forgotten Funk [wikipedia.org] band known as Gap Band [wikipedia.org]

What are they teaching people in school these days? ;-)

ironic dismissal? (3, Informative)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182378)

In spite of Colbert's ironic dismissal of dictionaries and other reference books, will Colbert's coined word actually be added to those books?

He doesn't just dismiss them. He views them as a direct threat [threatdowngenerator.com] to the only *true* primary souce, one's own gut instinct.

Re:ironic dismissal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182456)

That's absitively correct!

Re:ironic dismissal? (2, Funny)

scatteredbomb (963789) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183112)

one's own gut instinct.
Actually i dont think it even pertains to everyone's own gut instinct, just Colbert's.

Fucking Philistines! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182424)

Colbert might be "funny ha ha" but he is NOT a journalist and makes NO serious commentary on politics or society. His words are no more pithier than a Beavis and Butthead skit. IN fact I would have to say that Beavis' "I am the great cornhoilio! I need tee pee for my bunghole! Are you threatening me?" are words far deeper than ANYTHING Colbert has ever said.

I used to think Colbert was kind of cute in the way that he parodied the lefty view of Republicans. But now that they've taken him to be a serious journalist, I find both he and the liberals completely sad. Thankfully, in another four years, Bush will have proven that he is capable because Iraq will have proven out to be a success, the right will have the Whitehouse for another four years, the Democrats will have lost whatever power they gained in the last elections, and the Ownership Society will have proven out as well ensuring more Republican wins for generations to come. Ideally, I think the time has come to end the two party system and make the Democratic party illegal for the protection of future generations.

I foresee a day when the Democratic party is finally viewed as it should have always been: equivalent to the Nazi party (they were socialists too) or the Communist party. There was once a time when the Communist party was also just as serious in this great land as the Democrats are. Thankfully, we took care of that in the 50s and we'll do the same to the Democrats today. In the marketplace of ideas of the political arena, the only parties that should be allowed to compete are the ones worthy of serious consideration: Republicans and Libertarians. Maybe the Contitution party as well. The ones that should be eliminated are the ones that claim to want to help the poor or the "underdogs". America has no room for people who won't take it on themselves to work hard and succeed.

Re:Fucking Philistines! (2, Funny)

MysticOne (142751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182490)

A perfect example of truthiness!

Re:Fucking Philistines! (2, Informative)

Supurcell (834022) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182496)

... and that's the word.

Re:Fucking Philistines! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182548)

Someone learned of the word 'pity' from The O'Reilly Factor.

Re:Fucking Philistines! (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182592)

In the marketplace of ideas of the political arena, the only parties that should be allowed to compete are the ones worthy of serious consideration:


You're free.... to think what we let you. Let's here it for freedom. Can I get an "amen?"

speak it like it is mofo (1)

abandonment (739466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183196)

amen fo' shure

Re:Fucking Philistines! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182640)

Another four years? So, you're thinking that Bush will be in office another four years? It's 2006 asshat. The last presidential election was in 2006 and unless you have the inside track into Bush planning to change presidential term limits, he's done in 2008. That's two year from now. Get your facts straight if you want to be "truthy". Frankly I find this whole thing disgusting. People are making light of serious problems in our society. America is a joke on the global stage in terms of economy and supporting it's citizens. At the same time, the joke that America is has an itchy trigger finger when it comes to starting unprovoked wars. And now Bush is talking nuclear arms against Iran if the need arises? "Party of life" my ass. It's already too late. America is doomed to more direct attacks considering the bad karma we've thrown out to the universe en masse.

Re:Fucking Philistines! (4, Funny)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182680)

joke -----------> o

                  O
                 \|/
you ------------> |
                 / \

Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

Re:Fucking Philistines! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182694)

Pass the freedom fries please.

Re:Fucking Philistines! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182786)

equivalent to the Nazi party (they were socialists too) or the Communist party.

You know those are direct opposites, right? Conservative and liberal.
There was once a time when the Communist party was also just as serious in this great land as the Democrats are.

You know the Democrats split off of an old party called the Democratic-Republican party, right? I'm sure you are able to discern what the other unpopular party was/is.

Re:Fucking Philistines! (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182894)

That time of the month, huh?

Re:Fucking Philistines! (2, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183224)

republicans and libertarians?

Jeez, and people thought the political system now had two parties that seemed alike...

I know you're a troll, but i've already replied, so I'll bite.

The idea of social safety nets and social programs aren't to encourage lazy people. Quite the opposite in fact. The idea behind a Government program to say, fund higher education through Pell Grants, is to make sure that people aren't stuck working for minimum wage(a great liberal idea).

Re:Fucking Philistines! (2, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183960)

Wow, how truthy. That's exactly what Colbert would say about Colbert if Colbert weren't Colbert.

mod 3o3n (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182436)

it a 3re4k, if [goat.cx]

Falseitude (1)

shawn443 (882648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182474)

Is that a word? dictionary.com says no I say yes.

you can... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182486)

...derelict....my balls!

This proves what is already known. (5, Interesting)

PixieDust (971386) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182512)

Colbert, Stewart, and a lot of other charismatic, fun, but still strangely accurate, are taking over media. Sure, it's "Fake News" but the vast majority of their stuff is based on fact, much of it is taken out of context, and anyone with half a brain can take the inaccuracies out, and keep the truthiness.

The big names in news MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, they all know it's true, in fact some of them have a sort of obsession with Colbert and Stewart. They are fun. They are reporting many of the same stories, just not doing it like they're having a root canal done at the same time. And they're not afraid to poke fun at everyone, including themselves. It's very refreshing. THAT is why they have this kind of clout. They are respected.

Re:This proves what is already known. (5, Insightful)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182552)

You see, once you realize that all news is really infotainment, you can just say that Stewart and Colbert are just much better as entertaining us compared to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc... Oh, and they make us laugh too!

Re:This proves what is already known. (4, Insightful)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182708)

When I travel out of the US (Which is about 50% of the time) I get a large majority of my news from Stewart, The Onion, and Colbert. Mostly because it's better written and better delivered than the other news sources. If "real" news could write as clearly, intelligently, and insightfully as these sources I might pay attention to it.

And sadly, I'm still better informed than most of my American colleagues.

They may not be "Real" news, but it keeps me entertained, informed, and isn't trying to make me hate my life and fear everyone.

CNN on the other hand (Which seems to be in ever hotel and waiting room on the planet) delivers the news with the same false forthrightness no mater if they're covering a cat up a tree or a massacre of orphans. They attempt to give all news the same mock gravity and seriousness so you'll stay tuned it, and be afraid to turn away. Which in turn makes it all worthless.

The approach of Stewart and Colbert is that the news is the entertainment, not much more than the Mystery Science Theater of news. Compared to the major outlets which focus on entertainment, and try to cram news into that mold, succeeding at neither entertaining nor informing.

Re:This proves what is already known. (4, Insightful)

exley (221867) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182984)

I agree that programs like The Daily Show and publications like The Onion are put together by intelligent and well-read people. Hell, they are damn right clever. It takes someone pretty sharp to come up with this [theonion.com] (as one example; let's not forget things such as the September 11th issue or the 2000 election issue, to say nothing of The Daily Show's body of work). And I really do think that a lot of comedians out there are some of the smartest people we've got.

But this notion of people getting the majority of their news from places like this has got to stop. I know it sounds pretty cool and progressive to dismiss traditional media and show a preference for alternative sources, but it's gotten out of hand. TDS, The Onion, etc... They're jokes first and foremost. I'd bet that the people involved with them would be the first to tell you that. Again, this isn't to detract from their intelligence or the poignance of what they have to say -- but still, the joke comes first. Announcing to the world that this is how we keep ourselves informed is not gonna get us any street cred, and that alone is enough for everyone else to hate us.

Yeah, the "real" news outlets are far from stellar. But if you follow them you can have just as good of an idea as to what's going on in the world. If you so desire, you can even think about it, check multiple sources, and wade through the bullshit.

Re:This proves what is already known. (1)

Ignis Flatus (689403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183142)

yeah, i dont' get it, either. i'd like to believe the people above were just trying to make a joke, but some other practical jokers modded them up as insightful/interesting for a laugh. and you've got to admit, it is kind of funny that Colbert's viewers would become the very embodiment of that which he parodies.

Re:This proves what is already known. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183716)

The Daily Show certainly is. The irony of the Colbert Report is easily lost in the deadpan style, which is too similar to that of dozens, even hundreds of right-wing commentators.

Re:This proves what is already known. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183202)

If "real" news could write as clearly, intelligently, and insightfully as these sources I might pay attention to it.

If news could write, we wouldn't need newswriters.

Re:This proves what is already known. (2, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183300)

I get a large majority of my news from Stewart, The Onion, and Colbert. Mostly because it's better written and better delivered than the other news sources. If "real" news could write as clearly, intelligently, and insightfully as these sources I might pay attention to it.

Mod parent up. :-)

I get almost all my news from (german site) Schandmännchen [schandmaennchen.de] - a german satire news site that is very well written and brings you the ugly truth. When everyone knows that our politicians are just trying to pretend they are important and can do things, Schandmännchen writes it. One of their favoured comment about politicians is "quick, make something illegal!".

I find myself as well if not better informed about what's going on than my friends. Funny. Or, as the site once wrote "some days we wonder why we're doing satire at all" (reality is stranger sometimes)

Re:This proves what is already known. (1)

BIGmog (592353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183798)

When you travel abroad, try the BBC for news. It's a good, international, non-commercially funded, English speaking news source.

Re:This proves what is already known. (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182744)

Colbert, Stewart, and a lot of other charismatic, fun, but still strangely accurate, are taking over media. Sure, it's "Fake News" but the vast majority of their stuff is based on fact, much of it is taken out of context, and anyone with half a brain can take the inaccuracies out, and keep the truthiness.

I don't watch a lot of television, but from what I've seen of Colbert, his whole act seems to be a walking strawman. (The argument kind, not the farm kind.) There doesn't seem to be much else to it, other than trying to be funny about it.

I guess I just don't see the appeal. I don't want to be lectured at, even if it is sugarcoated in humor.

Re:This proves what is already known. (4, Insightful)

Bishop (4500) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182876)

from what I've seen of Colbert, his whole act seems to be a walking strawman.
That is the whole point isn't it?

Re:This proves what is already known. (5, Insightful)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182904)

Yes, Colbert's entire schtick is to parody O'Reilly. "Truthiness" isn't really a joke. He's passing it as a joke so people will listen, but what he's lampooning actually exists and effects all of us every day. Truthiness has taken the place of truth, not only in the executive branch, but in the mainstream media. Bush, Rumsfeld, or Cheney can screw up their eyes a bit, furrow their brow, give a serious, pensive look into the camera and tell us in an exasperated voice that they're trying to protect America, and that the liberals only want to hurt our nation, and people nod sympathetically, but in reality experts in the CIA, State Department, and Pentagon all said Saddam posed no credible threat, didn't have a WMD stockpile, wasn't poised to attack anyone, wasn't helping Al-Queida, had no known involvement in 9/11, and that invading Iraq would destabilize the region and make terrorism worse, not better.

Truth places more value on this fact-based, rigorous analysis, conducted by experts in the field, than it does on the gut-feeling of Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. A loyalty to truth means that you don't give people a free pass because they meant well and are probably decent people when they aren't making decisions that lead to tens of thousands of deaths. Truthiness ignores the fact-based analysis, distrusts the experts, and puts credence in Bush's gut-feeling. This sort of has consequences and stuff. So Colbert is joking, but not really, so faulting him for not being all that funny must be done with the knowledge that he's trying to call our attention to a collective insanity that we need to stop buying into.

Re:This proves what is already known. (1)

blakestah (91866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183284)

from what I've seen of Colbert, his whole act seems to be a walking strawman. (The argument kind, not the farm kind.) There doesn't seem to be much else to it, other than trying to be funny about it.

I guess I just don't see the appeal. I don't want to be lectured at, even if it is sugarcoated in humor.


Are you Bill O'Reilly?

Colbert takes the approach of the O'Reilly factor. You know, EVERYTHING twisted and contorted to support the Republican agenda. Then, he takes all the twisting and contorting, and turns it up a notch, so that for anyone paying even a little attention, it is brilliantly facetious, sarcastic, and satirical all rolled into one.

Plus, in his interviews, Colbert is very quick-witted. Unless Penn Jillette is the guest.

Re:This proves what is already known. (1)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182948)

These shows are no more "fake" than the mainstream media. Fox News is not really news, but entertainment. It panders to a demographic to keep the eyeballs tuned in so the sponsors can sell the viewers stuff. Fox News (and all the rest) do indeed cover stuff that happened, but only part of it, and only in a way to lead to a predetermined conclusion. They regularly broadcast items that are false, and known to be false. Sometimes they recant, sometimes they don't. It's well known that, circa 2004 or so, the more heavily someone relied on Fox News for their news, the more likely they were to believe that Saddam had WMD, was directly involved in 9/11, etc.

There is no mandate for accuracy in any of the news media, and hasn't been for some time. They get around any accusations of outright lying by not really taking on the position, but just talking about "the controversy." The Swiftboat thing is a good example--the accusations were known to be false, the thing was known to be financed by wealthy Republicans, and it was obviously, obviously a politically-motivated attack. But they talked about the controversy constantly, giving it air time, let it sink in and take effect.

Are they evil? No, they're just a business selling a product, and doing a good job of that. CNN and the rest are the same, as are the Comedy Central shows. But at least Comedy Central asks the obvious questions and admits that the ridiculous looks ridiculous. This isn't just a few comedians saying funny stuff--much of the show is given up to video clips of politicians doing their thing. It only looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous. The mainstream media is more gentle with politicians, because they need to maintain the access they have, and otherwise the "leaks" may dry up, and they'd be reporting on easter egg hunts the rest of their lives.

And you're the perfect example... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183268)

...of what Colbert is talking about. As you say, "anyone with half a brain can take the inaccuracies out, and keep the truthiness." Now go look up "truthiness" and try to convince me you have even half a brain. Ha! Stupid liberal, but I repeat myself. I know, I know, I was destined to be +5 funny until that last remark, but sometimes the truth hurts.

Re:This proves what is already known. (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183646)

They are reporting many of the same stories, just not doing it like they're having a root canal done at the same time.

IMHO, the quantitative difference is much more than them "having fun."

They focus attention on more important stories, as opposed to CNN watching babies falling down wells, celebrity interviews, and all the rest of that crapfest.

They actually do a good job of countering arguments, rather than just letting some guy say the world is flat, and moving on... This includes reading quotes or showing clips that directly contradict what the person is claiming. It's absolutely insane that it's considered "news" to just feed the public press releases, and not do ANY research (or even critical thinking) at all about the stories of the day.

Re:This proves what is already known. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183686)

Wow, flashback to Dan Rather. "Fake, but accurate."

Oh god. [WARNING: Opinion Inside] (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182560)

In my opinion, Merriam-Webster needs to stick to actual words. But nonetheless, congratulations to Mr. Colbert on using his sarcastic and idiotic (but sometimes funny) show and his position in pop culture to misinform the masses like no government ever could. I hate to be the turd in the liberal punchbowl, but I hate both Stewart and Colbert with a passion for the above reason. They corrupt today's youth by giving them the impression that it's okay to take nothing seriously, even if it's a matter of national security. Oh, the things people will do to make a buck. But nonetheless, it (truthiness) is both an interesting and redundant word (Instinct works fine, and it's shorter.) :/ I've never come across it in my daily life, short of when I decide to tune in to their God-awful liberal lovefests. P.S. Let's petition Merriam-Webster to add more words. I can't seem to find "burninate" or "pwn" in their dictionary. P.P.S. I'm posting anonymously simply because people with differing opinions seem to be a rare and hunted-to-extinction breed nowadays.

Re:Oh god. [WARNING: Opinion Inside] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182688)

Troll alert!!!

Re:Oh god. [WARNING: Opinion Inside] (1)

scatteredbomb (963789) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183158)

I think some people try to over-credit Colbert and Stewart. They do not do their shows every night to teach the youth anything. Youth should already be taught that they are very capable of coming to their own conclusions about any topic. Stewart and Colbert go out there to make jokes about politicians, celebrities, news media, or anything else worth going after to make a joke out of. They show the hypocrisy in politics, and the irony in cable news. That's what they do. They aren't telling any kid what is and isn't important. If people want to be up-tight and worried about national security, then tune into a news channel. These guys are on Comedy Central for a reason, for comedy. How they do it is up to them, who responds and enjoys their style of comedy is not.

Deciding (1)

aldo.gs (985038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182586)

What would have Turing to say about this...

Re:Deciding (1)

Dutch_Cap (532453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183424)

What, that flaming homosexual?

I laughed the first time. (0, Redundant)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182594)

I laughed the second through fifth times. It was a good gag.

Now we're up to the 703rd time. I think it's time for "truthiness" to make a graceful exit from the world.

Easier This Way (1)

saxoholic (992773) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182620)

Well, this makes things much easier for me. If it hadn't been the word of the year, my gut would have told me it was anyway.

Truthiness already made it to Wikipedia (2, Interesting)

Eideewt (603267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182662)

About a week ago the tag for articles suspected to be hoaxes read, "The truthiness of this article has been questioned." I would have brought it up, but I couldn't figure out where to do so. It's since been fixed.

Re:Truthiness already made it to Wikipedia (3, Informative)

Eideewt (603267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182702)

And here's a link [wikipedia.org] , as if my statement's truthiness needed augmentation.

Re:Truthiness already made it to Wikipedia (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183758)

Much as I love "truthiness" I'm personally more fond of "wikiality". They go hand in hand, and wikiality is fantastic tool for proving truthiness.

Wikiality's ability to prove "truth" on the other hand, however...

Re:Truthiness already made it to Wikipedia (1)

saxoholic (992773) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182704)

You sure you weren't at http://www.wikiality.com/ [wikiality.com] ?

Language log... (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182674)

...has been following this already [upenn.edu] , and they have some excellent commentary on the matter

The Colbert Nation and like-minded crusaders for all that is truthy won this one on their own

Wait! What about good ol' YouTube? (5, Informative)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182698)

The word, first introduced [Windows media]...

Try:
The word, first introduced [youtube.com] ...

Re:Wait! What about good ol' YouTube? (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183624)

Why? Because Flash is now considered less proprietary than Windows Media?

Guess which one works in MPlayer, Xine, VLC, ffplay, GStreamer, etc., and which doesn't?

Re:Wait! What about good ol' YouTube? (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183876)

The Windows Media file doesn't work at all in 32 bit Linux even with the compatibility layer files.

I preferred the word from Firefly (3, Interesting)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182736)

"I'm feeling truthsome": Malcolm Reynolds to Inara.

Copyright it (1)

NonViviDaSola (1010423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182850)

Colbert should copyright it, wait until everyone is using it, and then sue any politicians he doesn't like for rights infringement! :)

if you define it.... (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182990)

then the media and politicians will have to stop using it.

The real question for slashdotters (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182998)

The real question about using the words "Truthiness" is this:

Well it help geeks (i.e. Slashdotters) to get pussy?

The frightening part of this... (1)

testadicazzo (567430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183132)

Is as the word gains common acceptance it will be used in a positive (i.e. non pejorative) sense. When Steve coined truthiness he was of course taking the piss out of the cavalier attitude most in government (esp Republicans) have towards truth.

Just watch, in twenty years people will critisize truths as not being truthy enough. Steven C. will kill himself on live TV in shame...

bollocks (0, Offtopic)

dwater (72834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183180)

Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from, and it has no 'degrees' other than 100% (or 0%, I suppose), so there's no 'ness' about it, since that implies an entire range.

Godwin wants you to dismantle the Democratic Party (1)

chuckdarw1n (1037970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183272)

Even before I clicked on the comments to this post, I knew that there would be at least one (1) Right-Wing Nutjob comparing the Democratic Party to the Nazi Party, effectively rendering this entire thread Godwinised. [wikipedia.org] Being right all the time is such a burden.

Hmm, impactfull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183290)

So I guess the question is... how many dictionaries will be impacted by truthiness (and what will the resultant dental bill be)?

The demise of English in the US (1, Interesting)

Lord_Scrumptious (552119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183292)

I'm not American, but this story reinforces an impression of Americans that I have not been able to shake off. Namely, that there is absolutely no love of the English language among the majority of it's native speakers.

Language is always changing and dynamic, but Americans coin new words simply because they can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary and find a suitable one that already exists. American's love to think they are direct and to the point in the way they communicate (and they are in many ways), but they are also masters of obfuscation. Who else has given us words like collateral damage and downsizing? Call a spade a spade if you ask me, these are dishonest words designed to mitigate the more direct meaning of other perfectly suitable words. A commercial is a commercial but it doesn't sound quite so bad if you can call it an infomercial does it?

When it comes to coining new words and phrases, the technology sector is the worst culprit. The list is endless (and ugly): blogs, blogging, blogosphere, podcast, plogs, folksonomy, captology, thin-slicing. Yes, there's something to be said for words that form a professional vocabulary as part of a profession, but this certainly isn't it.

Are these words conjured up in the spirit of genuine invention or discovery? Or are they created more in the hope (expectation?) that they'll have a better chance of stimulating discussion if they appear to convey something new and original (even when they don't)?

You might want to watch an episode.... (1)

chuckdarw1n (1037970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183330)

...before commenting in an ignorant fashion. Since you don't watch the Colbert Report (a show whose very title is pronounced ironically), you probably won't get the irony of a word like 'truthiness'. Slang has always been a hugely important part of English, and the new slang isn't any better or worse than the slang you learned when you (ostensibly) learned the language. I actually find British slang to be more bizarre and faddish than the American sort, even that which comes from rap music / American black culture.

Re:The demise of English in the US (2, Funny)

progprog (1016317) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183340)

Namely, that there is absolutely no love of the English language among the majority of it's native speakers.
I'm normally not a grammar Nazi, but the irony of this sentence is too much to resist.

Re:The demise of English in the US (1)

anothy (83176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183910)

you've missed the point. of course "truthyness" obfuscates the real meaning - that's the point. Colbert was being satirical, in many ways making fun of exactly what your complaining about with regard to words like downsizing.

and who, really, are you comparing "Americans" to? i've lived in London, and heard there probably the worst and strangest contortions of english ever. several Italian speakers i know say the same thing about most Italians - particularly those not from their region. ever asked a Guatemalan about the Spanish spoken in, say, Puerto Rico? Or a Mexican about that spoken in Guatemala, or a Spaniard about that spoken anywhere else? i think what you're noting is real, but has nothing to do with americans or geography. people, generally, simply aren't careful with formal language rules. sucks, but that's life.

and, for future reference, in proper english one only uses "it's" as a contraction; the possessive form is "its", similar to "his" or "hers".

thats great! (1)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183308)

but wasn't the concept of "truthiness" introduced last year?

Not a new word (2, Interesting)

verloren (523497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183396)

Truthiness dates from 1824 or earlier:

OED: "1824 J. J. GURNEY in Braithwaite Mem. (1854) I. 242 Everyone who knows her is aware of her truthiness."

(http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv es/002586.html)

Not that Colbert and his writers don't deserve credit for this excellent word - I was one of the 5 to 1 who voted for it.

Re:Not a new word (1)

awol (98751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183458)

But maybe the 1854 reference is actually an abbreviation of "true Ruthiness" referring to a certain "mother of all things" ness ???

Replyiness. (1)

Elentari (1037226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183432)

At least it's not as insulting to the English language as "normalcy". I don't understand how this word can have a meaning other than the one carried by "truth", being the root of the word. It sounds like something girls on IM use to make themselves sound cute.

Truthiness == ? (3, Insightful)

Evil Pete (73279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183466)

Gut instinct. Yeah right.

What that means is "Truthiness is what agrees with my basic prejudices".

Well, we could put that in the dictionary. (-1, Flamebait)

lattyware (934246) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183480)

Or, alternativly, we could just call anyone who uses the idiotic word a fool, and move on.

We need some new cliches (1)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183598)

And if the "truthiness" of the situation doesn't make you like the word "truthiness", then I suggest "drismal" (which describes the weather here a lot of the time - a portmanteau word of "dreich" [firstfoot.com] and "dismal"

We already have a word for that (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183654)

The word is "prejudice".

Undoublplusgood (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17184016)

Minitrue ref CNN MSNBC truthiness undoubleplusgood.Suspect Goldstein inspired.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...