Many have now remarked on the dismissal of facts as important; the dismissal of rationality is only considered secondary and less important collateral damage. Putting aside the pervasive lack of interest in rationality, is the 'post-truth era' itself actually real, or is it just more 'fake news'? Sadly it seems not only real, but a genuinely new phenomenon, created by by the same technological forces that supposedly improved communication. And even more disturbing, the post-truth era could even be our last era, due to the total havoc it makes so much more possible.
Certainly similar trends have existed in the past, but I believe what is happening now is truly different and greater in scale, simply because of social media. For a while, it was a fantastic innovation, as people with particular obscure interests could find each other, which previously was totally impossible. But another corollary assemblage formed. Now people with any particular view can find others to validate it, regardless of the view's actual sensibility. When I first pointed out the trend to 'post truth' seven years ago, academics scoffed at me, and continued to scoff; until last year. Now others write about it as if it suddenly happened, but it has been gathering in force for at least a decade.
People can now easily find find reinforcement for hostile, violent, socially unacceptable views now, which would rapidly have been terminated in real-world scenarios, but which now can build impetus in anonymity until the group reaches critical mass. During the process, they create their own interpretation of world events which is published as 'fake news,' then they rapidly share it as propaganda to substantiation for their opinions. After that, they can organize to gather at some rally, when previously they would not have been able to find each other. Political parties have figured this out and now refer to it as 'new grass roots organization on the Internet.'
In concert, the remain immune to any fact or rationality contrary to their position, because they can find many others believing the same falsity. They then mutually reject any authority or academic qualification over their own opinion, and as I state, are not even open to discussing it. They simply ban or ridicule anything different to their agenda.
The aggregate of these micro communities creates a hostile dichotomy through the midst of every society, across which each side does nothing but attack and blame the other side, no matter how inconsistent or directly wrong each side's view is on any one particular point, because as I say, the discrepancies in rationality don't matter any more. There is no real interest any more in understanding what MIGHT be true, and what that would mean; instead there is only a continually mounting pressure to say that everyone outside one's own camp is wrong, accelerating into some future mutual assured destruction.
The frequency of usage of the term itself shows how rapidly an idea can overtake the minds of all. Regardless how sensible it is, the march to the devastation of nuclear war continues as necessary and unavoidable, defying all rationality altogether in its fervent imminence. The ease with which nuclear devastation could start has never been closer than in this new era of post truth.
This is no longer the fantasy it once was, as the post-truth era has also permitted development and deployment of the nuclear provocation. President Trump's planned $48 billion military upgrade will include the 20~50k kiloton B61-12 nuclear bunker buster. The plan includes placing 180 of these in Europe on the F-35 stealth bomber.
The problem with 'nuclear bunkerbuster' technology is threeefold: first, it is now argued that it is small enough to use as a tactical weapon without breaking existing treaties against nuclear weapons; second, that the detonation is too small to create a rock-glass shell to contain the radioactive residue from the explosion core, and the contamination will simply spread into the groundwater supply, thus constituting the exact unstoppable threat to civilian life which the pentagon claims it is not. Third, that the deployment of these weapons, with the statement as to their planned use without accepting treaties against nuclear weapons as pertinent, is itself an invitation to proactive nuclear strike by those under threat.
It has already been pointed out that its development broke existing nuclear weapons treaties, or rather, reinterpreted them as being irrelevant, in lockstep with the post-truth political farce which leads national leaders to claim a nuclear bunkerbuster is not a nuclear weapon. In the midst of continual and far more immediate post-truth farces, this effort continues with no noticeable public concern at all.
So it's only a matter of time until the mere existence of this bomb starts a global nuclear war.