Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Media Television

Word of the Year - "Truthiness" 254

Posted by Zonk
from the oh-that-loveable-rascal dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Word of the Year - "Truthiness"

Comments Filter:
  • by Nrbelex (917694) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:31AM (#17182348) Homepage
    Ironic that the post here misuses the word...
    • It might just might fit the definition of Irony if he wasn't you know... acting..
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by JPriest (547211)
      Maybe it just felt like the right way to use it.
    • 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

      • by Gulthek (12570) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @11:06AM (#17184278) Homepage Journal
        The GP is talking about this sentence:

        With media outlets like CNN and MSNBC covering it, the idea may very well have truthiness.


        That's not truth from the gut, that's truth from evidence.
      • by xigxag (167441)
        Nice rant, but I think he meant that you misused the word "truthiness." Stephen Colbert didn't call it "truth that comes from the gut," "Stephen Colbert" did. And pretty much everything that "Stephen Colbert" says is not to be taken at face value. "Truthiness" is the act of setting forth a feel-good falsehood in the place of real truth.
        • Nice rant

          It was a good one, wasn't it? Definitely one of my better ones. I wish I had thought to save the HTML code so that I could post it as a standard response to people saying that someone has used ironic in the wrong sense when in fact they didn't. (Which, I've observed, has become just as common or more common on Slashdot as people actually misusing the word ironic.) Oh well!

          "Truthiness" is the act of setting forth a feel-good falsehood in the place of real truth.

          Kind of like, oh, say, "trut

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Hooya (518216)
            i guess you could say it's ironic that most people misuse the word ironic.
      • So, would that make it "ironic" that you jumped head first into a high-and-mighty rant at the GP over his misunderstanding of the definition of "ironic," when in fact it was you who misunderstood that he was actually referring to your mis-use of "truthiness"?

        Nice try though with the call to mod GP down. If only I had some mod points right now. I know for sure I'd be modding someone down. I'll leave it to you to figure out who. Are you starting to understand?
    • by Radak (126696)

      Ironic that the post here misuses the word...
      Poster needs to look up the defintion of truthiness? Try parent needs to look up the definition of irony. Here, I'll help you out:

      irony noun (ironies) 1 a linguistic device or form of humour that takes its effect from stating or implying the opposite of what is the case or what is intended, eg saying 'You've made a really good job of that, haven't you', when someone has done something badly.
  • '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.
    • by Eideewt (603267)
      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.
    • by dbIII (701233)

      '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 w

    • by node 3 (115640) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @07:00AM (#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.
      • 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.
        • by k_187 (61692)
          exactly. that's what makes it truthiness
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.
    • 'truth that comes from the gut, not books.' We've already got a word for that -- it's called instinct.

      Instinct and truthiness are not quite the same. Instinct refers to general inborn behaviors and motivations; truthiness applies to specific propositions and can be learned. They're often related, though. "When in danger rally behind the alpha male" and "I should trust what my parents teach me" are instinct; "Bush did a great job after 9/11" and "I know the Church is true" are truthiness.

      And it's often not related to genuine truth at all.

      Are you sure? How could Stephen Colbert steer me wrong?! But now that I think about it, I once heard a rumor that Colbert wasn't even a right winger; could you check up on that one for me too?
    • by creimer (824291)
      Sounds like "fartiness" to me.
  • by shawn443 (882648) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:34AM (#17182358) Homepage
    As in, "I'm the decider".
  • by derrickh (157646) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:35AM (#17182368) Homepage
    I applaude the truthitude shown by this article.

    D
  • True dat (Score:5, Funny)

    by BorgCopyeditor (590345) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:36AM (#17182370)
    I don't have any facts to back this up, but this just feels like the right decision.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shawn443 (882648)
      And I will second that with a "fo sho".
      • by Chineseyes (691744) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @09:45AM (#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? (Score:4, Informative)

    by macadamia_harold (947445) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:37AM (#17182378) Homepage
    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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by scatteredbomb (963789) *

      one's own gut instinct.
      Actually i dont think it even pertains to everyone's own gut instinct, just Colbert's.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10, 2006 @03:45AM (#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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by MysticOne (142751)
      A perfect example of truthiness!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Supurcell (834022)
      ... and that's the word.
    • by misleb (129952)
      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?"

    • by pembo13 (770295)
      That time of the month, huh?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by WilliamSChips (793741)
      Wow, how truthy. That's exactly what Colbert would say about Colbert if Colbert weren't Colbert.
  • by PixieDust (971386) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:02AM (#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.

    • by dagamer34 (1012833) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:13AM (#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!
    • by Zadaz (950521) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:50AM (#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.
      • by exley (221867) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @06:06AM (#17182984) Homepage
        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.

        • 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.
        • I agree with your point, but I think you're missing the larger picture. It's not that The Daily Show is a joke, and that makes relying on it as a primary information source stupid. It's that many people feel it's no more stupid to rely on The Daily Show than Fox News, or maybe even CNN, and the people who think this way are generally better-informed than the people who watch FN or CNN.
          It's a little like the linux/windows security debate: the people who use linux and say it's more secure are the sorts of p
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tom (822)
        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
    • by Rayonic (462789)

      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

      • by Bishop (4500) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @05:35AM (#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?

      • by misanthrope101 (253915) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @05:45AM (#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.

      • by blakestah (91866)
        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 i
    • 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,
    • by evilviper (135110)

      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 showin

    • Keith Olbermann is a recently-added anchor to the MSNBC crew. Certain segments seem inspired by The Daily Show, even if Countdown with Keith Olbermann is normally straight news. An example: when Jennifer Wilbanks started making headlines again, they cut to a picture of her and, as Keith claimed something along the lines of "She now makes money by mowing lawns... WITH HER EYES," added laser beams shooting out of her eyes (including suitable sound effects) to her photograph; Keith then said something along
  • by Eideewt (603267) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:38AM (#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.
  • by denmarkw00t (892627) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:44AM (#17182698) Homepage Journal
    The word, first introduced [Windows media]...

    Try:
    The word, first introduced [youtube.com]...
    • by evilviper (135110) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @09:10AM (#17183624) Journal
      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?
      • by strider44 (650833)
        The Windows Media file doesn't work at all in 32 bit Linux even with the compatibility layer files.
        • by evilviper (135110)
          The Windows Media file doesn't work at all in 32 bit Linux even with the compatibility layer files.

          No, actually it works perfectly.
      • I don't know about the rest, but a flash .flv video file will play just fine in mplayer.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by evilviper (135110)

          I don't know about the rest, but a flash .flv video file will play just fine in mplayer.

          No, it won't. Only a tiny subset of FLV features are supported. So, you may get lucky with older FLV files, and others encoded with just the right options, but the vast majority don't work for a damn.

          And besides that, you need the SWF plugin to parse the embedded SWF file just to get the URL to the actual FLV file it's embedding. No such nonsense with "real" multimedia formats.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WilliamSChips (793741)
        Actually SWF is as proprietary as PDF--that is to say, it only looks proprietary.
      • Why? Because Flash is now considered less proprietary than Windows Media?

        I'm not trying to argue about which is "less proprietary," the YouTube link is just something I wanted to provide as an alternative, as I've always had rather bad luck with Windows Media, I figured others might have too and why not make a link so that everyone possible can enjoy this great segment on 'truthiness.'
  • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:57AM (#17182736) Homepage Journal
    "I'm feeling truthsome": Malcolm Reynolds to Inara.
  • by westcoaster004 (893514) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:59AM (#17182752)
    Despite my unending devotion to Mr. Colbert, I must point out that he did not invent the word truthiness [americandialect.org]. He, like Microsoft did with their use of the word Genuine [slashdot.org], gave it a new meaning.
    • by strider44 (650833)
      According to Wikipedia the original word "truthiness" was "rare and dialectal". Since I'm pretty sure no one except for linguists knew of the word, and it obviously wasn't in widespread use, it doesn't count.
    • I recommend everyone check out the first link, since you get all sorts of goodies like "pope-squatting", "man date", "jump the couch", "crotch fruit", and "sudden loss of wealth syndrome" (2000).
    • by hehman (448117)
      Maybe the facts show that Colbert didn't invent it, but in my gut I believe that he did.
  • then the media and politicians will have to stop using it.
  • 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...

  • Not a new word (Score:3, Interesting)

    by verloren (523497) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @08:11AM (#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.
    • by awol (98751)
      But maybe the 1854 reference is actually an abbreviation of "true Ruthiness" referring to a certain "mother of all things" ness ???
  • Truthiness == ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Evil Pete (73279) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @08:29AM (#17183466) Homepage

    Gut instinct. Yeah right.

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

  • 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"
  • The word is "prejudice".
  • In law its often used in swearing in. "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"
    And of course the proceedings that follow based on this is the use of thruth in a manner of "A point" this of "A point" that which often results in a distortion of what is real and honest.

    The word truth has been so distorted and manipulated that someone finally challenged it...

    The Honesty oath is now law of the land
    http://www.neo-tech.com/irs-class-action/oath.htm [neo-tech.com]

    "Truthiness" is nothing more the
  • by elgatozorbas (783538) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @11:23AM (#17184408)
    Nullity?
  • Dare to be True? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PeterAitch (920670)
    Absolute communicable truth (not to be confused with recitation of facts) is an ideal, and as such unattainable (check the philosophy section of your bookstore). Of course, the very (re)emergence of "truthiness" suggests that in some cultures/contexts this is a really useful loophole which allows an alternative gut-level relationship to be utilised (rather conveniently) for good or ill. In the old days, when it was "on-side", this was referred to as wisdom; now it's more likely to be spin.

    My favourite can
  • by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @01:34PM (#17185444)
    I'm all for flexibility in language and allowing for natural patterns of evolution. The French embarrass themselves every now and then by trying to disallow such evolution saying that 'Language is a code. It must not be tampered with!'

    --As if French or English, or any language in the world for that matter, sprang into being fully conceived, or worse, that the current state of a given language is by some holy decree, its final, perfect form. That's just Ego and Fear talking.

    But honestly, the word 'Truthiness' is not one I'll ever find myself using in earnest, because it was invented through a sense of irony to make fun of Brain-dead Texans with Too Much Power.

    It's not a word. It's a joke. And a bitter one, at that.

    But if it somehow, (*cough* through ignorance *cough*), it does become a well-used word without any sense of irony attached, then so be it. But honestly, the word doesn't roll off the tongue or really describe something desperate for description enough to affect the public popular lexicon any time soon, IMHO.

    Now, can we talk about something else? This whole non-issue reminds me of the banal stupidity of the whole Political Correctness thing; that is, it's too retarded for words and should be stamped out immediately so that it doesn't piss everybody off and waste enormous amounts of time and energy.


    -FL

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lord Ender (156273)
      You know, in a lot of companies, management thinks from the gut, not from careful analysis. In such places, the word "truthiness" can fit well. It's not exclusively applicable to Texan politicos.
  • Cabazorros statements exceeding truthiness:

    "Women don't want power, they want love"
    "Global Warming is real and permeates through each and every thing in life found vexing"
    "RIAA is pure evil"
    "Apple knows my needs and desires and sells them to me at the right price"
    "C++ and pointer operations are babel's tower of software development"
    "Broadband is essential and priced right"
    and so on..
  • by khallow (566160) on Sunday December 10, 2006 @04:40PM (#17186864)
    This is so bizarre. An online poll gets rigged and suddenly it's a news story on slashdot? I wonder who does the marketing for Mr. Colbert. They are good. This is even better than the time he insults Bush [slashdot.org] to his face, getting tremendous recognition and publicity, and it's spun on slashdot as "taking a huge risk". Given the number of Stephen Colbert stories [google.com] that sneak onto slashdot, one wonders if they're part of some monstrous Colbert-benefiting astroturf campaign.

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Working...