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

  On 11/28/2013 at 7:02 PM, eugene said:

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

Well look, not that it matters to the content of your criticism of him, but as a meta commentary I just think you have some grudge against him and you would never in a million years concede that he had said something intelligent or rational or true.

I think if he said "2 + 2 = 4" you would just accuse him of not actually being a mathematician.

i sorta get all the jokes historians make about sociologists now.

  On 11/28/2013 at 6:51 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 6:10 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 6:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:42 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:19 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_(communication)) for example, which precedes his stuff by half a century (something he completely ignored afaik).

lol dude

eugene, i asked you to provide a link showing what Chomsky's current position is, assuming you must be acquainted with it from some verifiable source since you're bringing it up here. i specifically mentioned that I have not followed his work in some time.

your response? to call me a "mindless follower," ignore my request and provide an unrelated link. good job man, you get an A in science.

Im just curious now, because I've done a few searches in my time for academic peer review of a lot of Chomsky's publications, and the worst "discrediting" I ever found was that Chomsky botched a number of casualties once in a 350 page book. Political bias is evident, but that's why you need to read his work on linguistic theory; its very easy to read, and it connects with Bertrand Russell's philosophy of language (Chomsky had given several lectures and has written a good amount of books explaining this). It doesn't take much more of a step to see how he arrived at his current political views.

How does a thoroughly discredited man attain over 20 honorary degrees from Ivy League and upper rated private universities across America and abroad? Maybe its a liberal establishment boogeyman.

Could you PM me some scathing reviews or challenges to his material? I'd be very genuinely interested in reading them. The only larger critique of Chomsky's framework either comes from linguists, or from the Anti-Chomsky Reader, written by David Horowitz.....so if you want to talk about bias I would LOVE to point out examples of bias from that hack.

I would agree with eugene to some extent that many people read one of his books and take him to be completely correct on all accounts. But thats the error of the reader rather than writer. I still have yet to see a book or article that absolutely excoriates Manufacturing Consent.

So yeah, if you have found any of these articles I would love to read them. I have no problem being proven wrong, but I demand to see the evidence first. Ive even asked professional historians, political scientists, and sociologists in university systems about their take on Chomsky. Most of them have said that they get tired of him repeating himself as a public figure, and his inordinate pull on the college educated youth of today (which I think is a fair point to make), but they still say despite its being dated, Manufacturing Consent is still a pretty solid work.

I have an idea.

Chomsky's work on linguistic theory easy to read? Perhaps the introduction. It gets pretty technical in the driest sense possible pretty soon. All those transformations and technical trickery to construct the basic building blocks for his universal grammar...horrible. Extremely horrible. Especially if you start to think, after a while, that this grammar is mostly based on that neural network between your ears, and its mostly based on statistics anyways. ....that was a long time ago, btw. Perhaps his current theories are updated, or something. dunno.

  On 11/28/2013 at 7:41 PM, goDel said:

Chomsky's work on linguistic theory easy to read? Perhaps the introduction. It gets pretty technical in the driest sense possible pretty soon. All those transformations and technical trickery to construct the basic building blocks for his universal grammar...horrible. Extremely horrible. Especially if you start to think, after a while, that this grammar is mostly based on that neural network between your ears, and its mostly based on statistics anyways. ....that was a long time ago, btw. Perhaps his current theories are updated, or something. dunno.

His current theories? His old theories still stand, yo*

*yes even in the face of Don't Sleep There Are Snakes

  Quote

Im just curious now, because I've done a few searches in my time for academic peer review of a lot of Chomsky's publications, and the worst "discrediting" I ever found was that Chomsky botched a number of casualties once in a 350 page book. Political bias is evident , but that's why you need to read his work on linguistic theory...

 

 

to whom is it evident ? my impression is that chomsky is considered a freedom fighting messiah by the youtube-rt-reddit conspiracy tards axis.

  Quote

, but that's why you need to read his work on linguistic theory; its very easy to read, and it connects with Bertrand Russell's philosophy of language (Chomsky had given several lectures and has written a good amount of books explaining this). It doesn't take much more of a step to see how he arrived at his current political views.

 

but why do i need to read it in order to nullify his bias ? why not try to write something that takes such bias into account to begin with ?

  Quote

 

How does a thoroughly discredited man attain over 20 honorary degrees from Ivy League and upper rated private universities across America and abroad? Maybe its a liberal establishment boogeyman.

i don't think he's thoroughly discredited, he should be though.

  Quote

Could you PM me some scathing reviews or challenges to his material? I'd be very genuinely interested in reading them. The only larger critique of Chomsky's framework either comes from linguists, or from the Anti-Chomsky Reader, written by David Horowitz.....so if you want to talk about bias I would LOVE to point out examples of bias from that hack.

i just don't think he ever positioned himself properly for such criticism, he's just not taken seriously in the field of communications or sociology in regards to "manufacturing consent", but basically there are whole fields that go against such simplistic models, gatekeeping is one. he simply reduces it to one axis, similar to marxists, and finds the right facts for his model.

  Quote

So yeah, if you have found any of these articles I would love to read them. I have no problem being proven wrong, but I demand to see the evidence first.

do you really need evidence that particular news are not generated only because it's profitable, and that journalists have conscience and values too, or that people are not mindless receptors of information ? i mean the whole premise of his work is just so simplistic that there's just not point to begin some serious criticizing.

oh god please get me out of this discussion

i quit

"I can't even vaguely articulate why, but he is wrong I know it in my heart why else would people I don't agree with listen to him"

what the fuck man

some retarded shit you're laying down

you failed at intelligently debunking anything he's said

anyway I've had a great time but this wasn't it

lol

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:37 PM, LimpyLoo said:

oh god please get me out of this discussion

 

 

i quit

 

 

"I can't even vaguely articulate why, but he is wrong I know it in my heart why else would people I don't agree with listen to him"

 

 

what the fuck man

some retarded shit you're laying down

 

you failed at intelligently debunking anything he's said

 

 

anyway I've had a great time but this wasn't it

what do you need articulating exactly ? that his whole theory is basically high school level marxism ? that people are not automatons that simply embrace all information that the press gives them ? that there are many complex and important factors in the filtering process besides moneyed interests ?

i;m not picking a particular angle because there are simply countless of ways to begin debunking his stuff, not because i don't see how.

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:47 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:37 PM, LimpyLoo said:

oh god please get me out of this discussion

 

 

i quit

 

 

"I can't even vaguely articulate why, but he is wrong I know it in my heart why else would people I don't agree with listen to him"

 

 

what the fuck man

some retarded shit you're laying down

 

you failed at intelligently debunking anything he's said

 

 

anyway I've had a great time but this wasn't it

what do you need articulating exactly ? that his whole theory is basically high school level marxism ? that people are not automatons that simply embrace all information that the press gives them ? that there are many complex and important factors in the filtering process besides moneyed interests ?

 

Oh that stuff isn't true? Because obviously that's exactly what I believe (having learned it from Noam Chomsky obv).

If you think that's what's being expressed by anyone then you're not understanding properly or you're playing dumb or you're strawmanning.

flol eugene

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:47 PM, eugene said:

what do you need articulating exactly ? that his whole theory is basically high school level marxism ? that people are not automatons that simply embrace all information that the press gives them ? that there are many complex and important factors in the filtering process besides moneyed interests ?

 

 

Debunk him? You clearly just don't even understand him. I'm sorry but wtf

what isn't true ? what are you talking about here ?

and where the fuck am i???

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:52 PM, Alcofribas said:

flol eugene

ROFL MATE NICE REPLY SO APT.

i don't understand why do you even get into such threads.

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:54 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:47 PM, eugene said:

what do you need articulating exactly ? that his whole theory is basically high school level marxism ? that people are not automatons that simply embrace all information that the press gives them ? that there are many complex and important factors in the filtering process besides moneyed interests ?

 

 

 

Debunk him? You clearly just don't even understand him. I'm sorry but wtf

 

his whole theory is neatly summarized in a couple of sentences on wiki man, he's really saying nothing complex and nothing smart and then supports it with very selective evidence. maybe because you're not familiar with other literature on the topic it seems profound to you.

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:55 PM, eugene said:

what isn't true ? what are you talking about here ?

You are arguing against a comical misunderstanding of a paraphrasing of his ideas. What do you mean "what isn't true?"

Strawman. If you wanna debunk his ideas, debunk his actual ideas. Read his writing critically, with an eye out for nuance, re-state it honestly, and then address it. If you're not gonna do that then why are we wasting our time? I was fit to leave after the first few jabs but you convinced me that this was gonna be a serious debate.

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:03 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:54 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 8:47 PM, eugene said:

what do you need articulating exactly ? that his whole theory is basically high school level marxism ? that people are not automatons that simply embrace all information that the press gives them ? that there are many complex and important factors in the filtering process besides moneyed interests ?

 

 

 

Debunk him? You clearly just don't even understand him. I'm sorry but wtf

 

his whole theory is neatly summarized in a couple of sentences on wiki man, he's really saying nothing complex and nothing smart and then supports it with very selective evidence. maybe because you're not familiar with other literature on the topic it seems profound to you.

 

Well the couple sentences you posited didn't represent his actual ideas, so where does that leave us? And yeah I must be under-educated to read/listen to Chomsky.

IT'S PRETTY EASY, EUGENE.

JUST PICK SOMETHING HE ACTUALLY SAID AND THEN POINT OUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT THEN LET'S CALL IT A DAY.

debate what exactly ? one of chomsky's main points is that the press is in the hands of governments and moneyed interest and that it pretty much always works in their favor.

can't you seriously see how easy it is to debunk that, there are countless of ethnographies and other studies on the works of journalists and editors that show a much complex picture of various factors at work ?

  On 11/28/2013 at 6:04 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:42 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:19 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.

 

You have no idea of the amount of resources that are being thrown into manipulating public opinion through social media. Just because you perceive the internet as this new paradigm where "information wants to be free, man" doesn't mean it is.

It is absolutely possible to manufacture consent in this modern age. Don't take my word for it - do like you tell everyone else - the research.

oh you don't need to tell me that man, of course i don't deny that, to put it simply, that there are people who want other people to believe in particular things and internet is simply a new platform to do this (hey, i'm actually doing it right now !). but clearly propaganda model can't possibly explain any of the dynamics of the communication and information spread and control on the internet, it's just a total paradigmatic change.

  On 11/28/2013 at 9:15 PM, eugene said:

debate what exactly ? one of chomsky's main points is that the press is in the hands of governments and moneyed interest and that it pretty much always works in their favor.

can't you seriously see how easy it is to debunk that, there are countless of ethnographies and other studies on the works of journalists and editors that show a much complex picture of various factors at work ?

I hate to sound like a broken record but once again you just debunked an idea that no-one believes.