World's Biggest Comspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

you can easily apply the same type of criticism to him as you do on conspiracy theorists. he's a devout political activist who's widely and mistakenly considered a social scientist (when it comes to political stuff at least, i dunno about his linguistics). i think he doesn't even hide that fact but the millions of his minions still seem to regard him as such. and it's actually scary and hilarious how he's saying exactly the same thing for like 50 years since that debate with foucault (maybe even before that) to this day about some delusional notion of universal human nature and justice that he ties to his politics while ignoring pretty much every advance in anthropology and sociology during those years.

  On 11/28/2013 at 1:32 PM, eugene said:

you can easily apply the same type of criticism to him as you do on conspiracy theorists. he's a devout political activist who's widely and mistakenly considered a social scientist (when it comes to political stuff at least, i dunno about his linguistics). i think he doesn't even hide that fact but the millions of his minions still seem to regard him as such. and it's actually scary and hilarious how he's saying exactly the same thing for like 50 years since that debate with foucault (maybe even before that) to this day about some delusional notion of universal human nature and justice that he ties to his politics while ignoring pretty much every advance in anthropology and sociology during those years.

1) He's never pretended to be more than a political activist in his political activism.

 

 

2) Okay so point to anthropological or sociological findings that contradict his position. But let's just be clear that you're talking about his position on a philosophical matter, from a philosophical debate. Furthermore, he is making no great claims. He is positing ideas like how humans have an innate need for community and creativity. I can't think of a more uncontroversial claim.

1 - no that's not true, if he wasn't considered a scientist no one would take him seriously, he would be just another glenn beck or alex jones.

 

2 - pretty much everything that's tagged as post-modernist, everything in contemporary cultural anthropology. "an innate need for community and creativity" - there's no such thing, are notions of cultural and cognitive relativism new to you ?

Edited November 28, 2013 by eugene

Yeah okay I can tell this conversation isn't gonna be fun or productive lol

 

Have a good day eugene

oh fuck you, i got all lubed up and now you bail like that.

  On 11/28/2013 at 2:36 PM, eugene said:

oh fuck you, i got all lubed up and now you bail like that.

I mean, your first point didn't even address my first point. But you seem to think your point contradicted my point. Chomsky has never pretended to be anything he isn't. Usually his credentials are brought up when people introduce him, but that's about it. His books are credited to simply "Noam Chomsky"...anyway yeah this is like pulling teeth, we're no gonna get anywhere.

but it doesn't really matter what he considers himself, he is considered a scientist. i already mentioned that he himself might not hide the fact that his work is politically motivated (though i highly doubt he would want to call his stuff unscientific).

I'm not gonna go back and forth on this point.

 

But look if you're gonna try to lump him with Alex Jones et all then ill just say that luckily yes he is scientific in his analyses and his books are well annotated so everything he says can be externally verified.

 

As far as his work being politically motivated...he is a self described anarchist and socialist. He is very upfront about his values. So yes he is gonna view and present history through the lens that worker's rights are good and government policy that doesn't reflect the will of the citizenry is bad. Luckily his books are full of citations so you can make sure he's not just making shit up innit.

when the empirical findings in his books continuously align to his politics for decades without any contradictions you gotta at least suspect that something is very wrong. it seems like he and his followers can't really fathom the fact they're looking at world and possibly distorting it through and according to a particular ideology. he can technically adhere to the formalities of scientific writing and research but it's worthless when he doesn't exercise even a tiny bit of reflexivity.

Edited November 28, 2013 by eugene

  On 11/28/2013 at 3:27 PM, eugene said:

when the empirical findings in his books continuously align to his politics for decades without any contradictions you gotta at least suspect that something is very wrong. it seems like he and his followers can't really fathom the fact they're looking at world and possibly distorting it through and according to a particular ideology. he can technically adhere to the formalities of scientific writing and research but it's worthless when he doesn't exercise even a tiny bit of reflexivity.

 

I don't understand. Let's say I hold the value 'murder is bad.' Would it be suspicious if I wrote extensively about history and never once faltered in that 'particular ideology.'

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet with a straight face, which is kinda comical.

Edited November 28, 2013 by eugene

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:19 PM, eugene said:

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet, which is kinda comical.

Well firstly I think you vastly underestimate the amount of people who still get their information about the world from old media (e.g. TV, radio, newspapers). Secondly I think you vastly underestimate how much old media--and the forces behind it--influence the content of the Internet. This forum is a great example. A lot of our information is sourced from outlets that are owned by giant corporations and beholden to advertisers. Look at the links posted in Gen Ban threads and you'll find that the sources linked aren't civilian reporters, it's HuffPost and other comparable outlets. Yes there are lots of havens on the Internet but just because the scenery has changed doesn't mean the mechanics have.

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:19 PM, eugene said:

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet with a straight face, which is kinda comical.

Woah woah woah...do you actually think it's not possible to manufacture consent because we live in the "age of the internet"?

eugene, your comment about Chomsky's "millions of minions" speaks volumes to your inability to be objective here. it's the same shit you do when greenwald comes up and you can't help throwing around the "cult" slur. you continuously, without any evidence whatsoever, "debunk" some leftist thinker or concept, call them names, ridicule their followers and claim to represent "social science." it's truly puzzling that you could possibly think you're bringing any kind of constructive concepts to the table, it's always the same old shit.

 

Chomsky isn't an anthropologist or a sociologist so your attempt to dismiss him on that front is pointless and is quite frankly a red herring. furthermore, people don't admire his work because it's good social science, they value it because it is a thoroughly sourced deconstruction of the deceit and hypocrisy of the claims of powerful governments. You can check the factual record and see for yourself whether he's right or not. Your attempt to dismiss him for having a "static ideology" ignores the obvious fact that he's been critiquing the actions of governments that have largely been singing the same tune over and over again for decades, no matter how much the world has changed. your beloved israel for instance consistently shoves the same official bullshit down people's throats no matter what the reality is -- it's always israel has a right to defend itself, will not negotiate with "terrorists," will not negotiate with Palestinians until they "recognize Israel's right to exist," and so on. it is not Chomsky's fault that powerful states can get away with criminal behavior over and over again for decades with the same ideological narrative, one that does indeed grow more out of touch with reality.

 

I appreciate that it makes you excited to pull your lab coat costume out of your hello kitty trunk from time to time but I'd really appreciate it if you tried a little harder. It's tiresome to see you deal with leftist writers by claiming to take issue with their scientific merit, all the while unable to hold back your name-calling and general cheese. It's always the same shit with you, so I supose when you're critiquing chomsky for his "static ideology" at least your providing a dose of pleasing irony.

everything has changed completely, clinging to relevance of "manufacturing consent" is simply a sign of not being aware of what internet has brought.

i don't even know where to begin, but there are so many angles. the old media is confronted and scrutinized by the new one and has to react to that, its produce changed drastically because of that. the people who still consume old media live in an environment that's surrounded by new media and people who consume it. the massive, powerful corporations that is google is an major actor in all this so this "scary, powerful corporations" speak needs some serious rethinking (it always did but now it's just so obvious). the forum like this one is a great example of scrutiny of old media (which isn't even old because internet reshaped it) that was never possible before in such large scale and ease.

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:42 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:19 PM, eugene said:

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet with a straight face, which is kinda comical.

Woah woah woah...do you actually think it's not possible to manufacture consent because we live in the "age of the internet"?

 

in a way that he portrays in the book ? of course not.

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:42 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:19 PM, eugene said:

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet with a straight face, which is kinda comical.

 

Woah woah woah...do you actually think it's not possible to manufacture consent because we live in the "age of the internet"?

in a way that he portrays in the book ? of course not.

I haven't followed chomsky very closely in some time, can you provide a link to an article or talk demonstrating his current position on this?

 

i also feel I should brush up on his propaganda model.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Alcofribas

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:42 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:19 PM, eugene said:

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet with a straight face, which is kinda comical.

Woah woah woah...do you actually think it's not possible to manufacture consent because we live in the "age of the internet"?

 

in a way that he portrays in the book ? of course not.

 

 

Okay let's springboard off this point. Can you paraphrase the 'way he portrays in the book"? Then we can address the point in a rational nuanced manner.

 

But once again, if you think that the internet is immune to what Chomsky speaks against then I must not live on the same planet as you. Even on the internet major news outlets are owned by giant corporations and subject to advertisers. That--in Chomsky's view--is the root of 'manufactured consent' and that system exists in spades on the Internet. And it's not even that it's simply ubiquitous--that would be moot were it not that me, you and everyone we know get our information from such sources. New skin for the old ceremony and all that.

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:56 PM, Alcofribas said:

eugene, your comment about Chomsky's "millions of minions" speaks volumes to your inability to be objective here. it's the same shit you do when greenwald comes up and you can't help throwing around the "cult" slur. you continuously, without any evidence whatsoever, "debunk" some leftist thinker or concept, call them names, ridicule their followers and claim to represent "social science." it's truly puzzling that you could possibly think you're bringing any kind of constructive concepts to the table, it's always the same old shit.

 

it's not a sign of my unobjectivity, i full realize that others might call them differently and justify them, it's just how i like to call them .

 

    Quote

Chomsky isn't an anthropologist or a sociologist so your attempt to dismiss him on that front is pointless and is quite frankly a red herring.

 

 

what a stupid notion, i can dismiss him from every angle or discipline i desire. can't economic theories be criticized by sociological ones for example ? of course they can.

 

    Quote

furthermore, people don't admire his work because it's good social science, they value it because it is a thoroughly sourced deconstruction of the deceit and hypocrisy of the claims of powerful governments.

 

 

good on them, though they could pick a textbook on sociology and do it themselves though.

 

    Quote

Your attempt to dismiss him for having a "static ideology" ignores the obvious fact that he's been critiquing the actions of governments that have largely been singing the same tune over and over again for decades, no matter how much the world has changed. your beloved israel for instance consistently shoves the same official bullshit down people's throats no matter what the reality is -- it's always israel has a right to defend itself, will not negotiate with "terrorists," will not negotiate with Palestinians until they "recognize Israel's right to exist," and so on. it is not Chomsky's fault that powerful states can get away with criminal behavior over and over again for decades with the same ideological narrative, one that does indeed grow more out of touch with reality.

 

 

i don't care about anything of this, this is not what i'm talking about at all and i don't why are you even bringing this out here.

 

i'm talking about the status of scientific knowledge, its authority, its power, the way it's exploited an so on. you're stuck at this notion that i'm a right wing defender or something.

meh

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:11 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:42 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:19 PM, eugene said:

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet with a straight face, which is kinda comical.

Woah woah woah...do you actually think it's not possible to manufacture consent because we live in the "age of the internet"?

 

in a way that he portrays in the book ? of course not.

 

 

Okay let's springboard off this point. Can you paraphrase the 'way he portrays in the book"? Then we can address the point in a rational nuanced manner.

 

But once again, if you think that the internet is immune to what Chomsky speaks against then I must not live on the same planet as you. Even on the internet major news outlets are owned by giant corporations and subject to advertisers. That--in Chomsky's view--is the root of 'manufactured consent' and that system exists in spades on the Internet. And it's not even that it's simply ubiquitous--that would be moot were it not that me, you and everyone we know get our information from such sources. New skin for the old ceremony and all that.

 

 

i don't think that he actually dealt with the actual psychological, subjective process of consent formation in his book, it was just a catchy title.

 

nothing is immune to anything, it's just the changes that have occurred render the model almost meaningless. i mean it doesn't take a genius to claim that advertizes would like to make some cash, but the process of dealing with information changed completely. i mean what part of the book can deal with the phenomena that's wikipedia, for example ?

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:22 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:56 PM, Alcofribas said:

    Quote

Chomsky isn't an anthropologist or a sociologist so your attempt to dismiss him on that front is pointless and is quite frankly a red herring.

 

 

what a stupid notion, i can dismiss him from every angle or discipline i desire. can't economic theories be criticized by sociological ones for example ? of course they can.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I mean, you're welcome to attack his credentials to be writing books and talking to people if you want. That is a tried-and-true method called 'ad hominem' and doesn't in any way detract from the merit of the his work.

Edited November 28, 2013 by LimpyLoo

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:10 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:42 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 4:19 PM, eugene said:

it's not the static ideology that's the problem, it's the findings that constantly align to that ideology for decades, regardless of massive changes in the world that you can't ignore. for example you can still see him arguing for relevance of "manufacturing consent" in the age of internet with a straight face, which is kinda comical.

Woah woah woah...do you actually think it's not possible to manufacture consent because we live in the "age of the internet"?

in a way that he portrays in the book ? of course not.

I haven't followed chomsky very closely in some time, can you provide a link to an article or talk demonstrating his current position on this?

 

i also feel I should brush up on his propaganda model.

 

well this is a good example of this mindless following, why do you even think that chumpsky is a good start for researching propaganda ? because he opened your mind and showed you that u.s.a. is bad ? what if he's not such a big expert in the field and you don't even realize it ? why not start with gatekeeping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeping_%28communication%29) for example, which precedes his stuff by half a century (something he completely ignored afaik).

Edited November 28, 2013 by eugene

I think you have a chip on your shoulder.

*posts even smarter and pricker remark as a response to limpyloo"