> I say the idea of the destruction of truth was more important than the methods anyway I agree. I'm appalled that Trump feels free to lie about something as

> I say the idea of the destruction of truth was more important than the methods anyway I agree. I'm appalled that Trump feels free to lie about something as falsifiable as the weather (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-tru...). And it does make me worry about totalitarianism. But in American culture, the use of "alternative facts" is hardly an invention of the government. Postmodernism made deep inroads into the thinking of average people. "What's true for you" or "true for me" became a common idea in religious conversations. And it extends into our debates about things like gender. When everyone is allowed to have their own facts, we can quarrel, but we can't debate, because we have no common assumptions. And if we can settle anything by debate, coercion is the only option. It's an intellectual environment ripe for authoritarianism. But not created by it.