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

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:23 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:00 AM, eugene said:

i thought i already made it clear, the fact that chomsky's model is not applicable doesn't mean the people stopped trying to influence other people through control of information.

 

Seriously Eugene, for the last time, the propaganda model is not about influencing other people through control of information. It is an inadvertent, emergent property.

 

I've pointed this out about three times now. I kinda don't think you're reading my posts.

from wiki:

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

 

Wikipedia is sort-of right.

Watch the film Manufacturing Consent (not quite like the book)

But anyway, here is a clip where he talks about why he reads the New York Times (despite being intensely critical of them and accusing them of being subject to the forces of the Propaganda Model).

Why? The reporting is accurate. Because there is no active deception, no reporters or anyone "manufacturing consent."

In other words, the New York Times is not making propaganda on purpose.

Rather it is the filtering of information--which portrays a certain de facto worldview or ideology--that is manufacturing consent for a political environment that favors advertisers, shareholders etc.

It's not a matter of evil deceitful people.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:45 AM, goDel said:

Tbh2: ima a bit confused how Chomskies non-scientific work in the context of politics gets treated as if it were scientific. To me at least, its value doesnt go much further than to shine a certain perspective on some reality which could offer new insights, as opposed to some scientific proof about how reality works.

The only reason to treat it as if it were scientific would be to either use it in the truther sense, as proof, or opposite to that ( which is also very truther like, but reasoning from a different truth)

 

*leaves thread before luke starts to post about tpp again*

but the point is that he doesn't consider it unscientific and so are his fans. he would have significantly less followers if he wasn't covered by his credentials, this stuff is very important.

Haha

So the man behind manufacturing consent argues that the business news is pretty good, because it is written for the people who run the world and got a good picture about what actually is going on. So the propaganda machine is turned of ( because the authors trust their readers)

Ok, listen up you smart asses, from now on the only interesting topics are those written about in the Financial Times. And the only interesting news outlets are those written for business people.

*Grabs a copy of the Economist*

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:56 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:45 AM, goDel said:

Tbh2: ima a bit confused how Chomskies non-scientific work in the context of politics gets treated as if it were scientific. To me at least, its value doesnt go much further than to shine a certain perspective on some reality which could offer new insights, as opposed to some scientific proof about how reality works.

The only reason to treat it as if it were scientific would be to either use it in the truther sense, as proof, or opposite to that ( which is also very truther like, but reasoning from a different truth)

 

*leaves thread before luke starts to post about tpp again*

but the point is that he doesn't consider it unscientific and so are his fans. he would have significantly less followers if he wasn't covered by his credentials, this stuff is very important.

 

According to you, Eugene. You're literally the only person I've heard say it's important.

I think his books speak for themselves. Whether they were written by a historian or a retarded meth-addicted midget, it literally has no impact on the merit of the work.

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:04 AM, goDel said:

Haha

 

So the man behind manufacturing consent argues that the business news is pretty good, because it is written for the people who run the world and got a good picture about what actually is going on. So the propaganda machine is turned of ( because the authors trust their readers)

 

Ok, listen up you smart asses, from now on the only interesting topics are those written about in the Financial Times. And the only interesting news outlets are those written for business people.

 

*Grabs a copy of the Economist*

Umm no if one more person says this then I'll gonna slit my wrists.

.

I swear nobody is reading my posts. Do you guys like skim posts or some shit looking for buzzwords?

Lol if you haven't read it you can't critique it.

Inset troll face here. Fucks sake Eugene.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:52 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:23 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:00 AM, eugene said:

i thought i already made it clear, the fact that chomsky's model is not applicable doesn't mean the people stopped trying to influence other people through control of information.

 

Seriously Eugene, for the last time, the propaganda model is not about influencing other people through control of information. It is an inadvertent, emergent property.

 

I've pointed this out about three times now. I kinda don't think you're reading my posts.

from wiki:

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

 

 

Wikipedia is sort-of right.

 

Watch the film Manufacturing Consent (not quite like the book)

 

But anyway, here is a clip where he talks about why he reads the New York Times (despite being intensely critical of them and accusing them of being subject to the forces of the Propaganda Model).

 

 

Why? The reporting is accurate. Because there is no active deception, no reporters or anyone "manufacturing consent."

 

In other words, the New York Times is not making propaganda on purpose.

 

Rather it is the filtering of information--which portrays a certain de facto worldview or ideology--that is manufacturing consent for a political environment that favors advertisers, shareholders etc.

 

It's not a matter of evil deceitful people.

 

but we're not talking about new york times, we're talking about the whole model which describes a system (in which news outlets are just one actor) that serves corporations and government by filtering specific information, and filtering IS controlling and it does result in spread of particular information that is allowed to be spread. it's not called "manufacturing consent" (with government and corporations being the manufactures) and "propaganda model" for nothing, i don't know why you got stuck on that.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:56 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:45 AM, goDel said:

Tbh2: ima a bit confused how Chomskies non-scientific work in the context of politics gets treated as if it were scientific. To me at least, its value doesnt go much further than to shine a certain perspective on some reality which could offer new insights, as opposed to some scientific proof about how reality works.

The only reason to treat it as if it were scientific would be to either use it in the truther sense, as proof, or opposite to that ( which is also very truther like, but reasoning from a different truth)

*leaves thread before luke starts to post about tpp again*

 

but the point is that he doesn't consider it unscientific and so are his fans. he would have significantly less followers if he wasn't covered by his credentials, this stuff is very important.

Huh!? Does he really consider his political work as scientific? I don't think so. He makes arguments and tells stories from the position of criticizing the political arena. He writes like a debater, and not a scientist, imo. And i'm not aware of him talking about his political works as if they are equal to scientific works.

He has many followers because he has many believers and truthers interested in his point of views, amongst other things. And there are many simply interested in his viewpoints. I still don't see where the science part enters in all of this.

Also see the descriptions in the wiki on Chomsky: " political commentator" (not political scientist) and even " political activist"

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:10 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:52 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:23 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:00 AM, eugene said:

i thought i already made it clear, the fact that chomsky's model is not applicable doesn't mean the people stopped trying to influence other people through control of information.

 

Seriously Eugene, for the last time, the propaganda model is not about influencing other people through control of information. It is an inadvertent, emergent property.

 

I've pointed this out about three times now. I kinda don't think you're reading my posts.

from wiki:

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that states how propaganda, including systemic biases, function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

 

 

Wikipedia is sort-of right.

 

Watch the film Manufacturing Consent (not quite like the book)

 

But anyway, here is a clip where he talks about why he reads the New York Times (despite being intensely critical of them and accusing them of being subject to the forces of the Propaganda Model).

 

 

Why? The reporting is accurate. Because there is no active deception, no reporters or anyone "manufacturing consent."

 

In other words, the New York Times is not making propaganda on purpose.

 

Rather it is the filtering of information--which portrays a certain de facto worldview or ideology--that is manufacturing consent for a political environment that favors advertisers, shareholders etc.

 

It's not a matter of evil deceitful people.

 

but we're not talking about new york times, we're talking about the whole model which describes a system (in which news outlets are just one actor) that serves corporations and government by filtering specific information, and filtering IS controlling and it does result in spread of particular information that is allowed to be spread. it's not called "manufacturing consent" (with government and corporations being the manufactures) and "propaganda model" for nothing, i don't know why you got stuck on that.

 

You are mistaken about Chomsky's intentions with these terms. If you's like I can continue to post quotes or videos (like the one above, which you've dismissed out of hand for some reason).

okay I've had myself a Eugene OD

good night ch'all

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:07 AM, chenGOD said:

Lol if you haven't read it you can't critique it.

Inset troll face here. Fucks sake Eugene.

i'm not criticizing the depths of the book or talk about methodology and stuff, i trust wiki, his own interviews and the film that i did watch that they didn't simplify or distort his main points too much. if it bother you can consider my "critiquing" a critiquing of wiki's summary of his book, but chances are that's it's very close to the book, and you know it.

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:06 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:04 AM, goDel said:

Haha

So the man behind manufacturing consent argues that the business news is pretty good, because it is written for the people who run the world and got a good picture about what actually is going on. So the propaganda machine is turned of ( because the authors trust their readers)

Ok, listen up you smart asses, from now on the only interesting topics are those written about in the Financial Times. And the only interesting news outlets are those written for business people.

*Grabs a copy of the Economist*

 

Umm no if one more person says this then I'll gonna slit my wrists.

.

 

I swear nobody is reading my posts. Do you guys like skim posts or some shit looking for buzzwords?

Tehee

Play from 1:30 and on from that clip you've posted. " the business audience generally got a good sense of what is going on"

* hands knife to limpyschmoo*

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:18 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:06 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:04 AM, goDel said:

Haha

So the man behind manufacturing consent argues that the business news is pretty good, because it is written for the people who run the world and got a good picture about what actually is going on. So the propaganda machine is turned of ( because the authors trust their readers)

Ok, listen up you smart asses, from now on the only interesting topics are those written about in the Financial Times. And the only interesting news outlets are those written for business people.

*Grabs a copy of the Economist*

Umm no if one more person says this then I'll gonna slit my wrists.

.

 

I swear nobody is reading my posts. Do you guys like skim posts or some shit looking for buzzwords?

Tehee

 

Play from 1:30 and on from that clip you've posted. " the business audience generally got a good sense of what is going on"

 

* hands knife to limpyschmoo*

 

Clearly i thought you meant written in service of...as in propaganda to dispense to the rest of the world to manufacture consent.

Alright I'm gonna go take a nap.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:45 AM, goDel said:

Chomskies

terrifying creatures

For the record I'd just like to say that this conversation infected me with the HIV/AIDS virus.

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:18 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:06 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:04 AM, goDel said:

Haha

So the man behind manufacturing consent argues that the business news is pretty good, because it is written for the people who run the world and got a good picture about what actually is going on. So the propaganda machine is turned of ( because the authors trust their readers)

Ok, listen up you smart asses, from now on the only interesting topics are those written about in the Financial Times. And the only interesting news outlets are those written for business people.

*Grabs a copy of the Economist*

 

Umm no if one more person says this then I'll gonna slit my wrists.

.

 

I swear nobody is reading my posts. Do you guys like skim posts or some shit looking for buzzwords?

Tehee

Play from 1:30 and on from that clip you've posted. " the business audience generally got a good sense of what is going on"

* hands knife to limpyschmoo*

Clearly i thought you meant written in service of...as in propaganda to dispense to the rest of the world to manufacture consent.

 

Alright I'm gonna go take a nap.

You thought what i meant!. What the hell. I meant to address what the chomskies said in that clip you've posted in which he pretty unambiguously addresses the contrast between the business press and the general press. Point being that the business press is much less sensitive to propaganda. One of the reasons being that it trusts its audience ( namely those business people).

The irony of chomskies point is that this propaganda machine is a consequence of the process of simplifying the real news. And this simplification might be what the general audience either needs, or buys into by their own will ( they could buy a copy of the financial times, right?).

So, the general audience might indeed be called stupid, in the Nietzschian sense of the word.

Tbh, chomsky might be one of the most misunderstood political commentators around.

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:37 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:18 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:06 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:04 AM, goDel said:

Haha

So the man behind manufacturing consent argues that the business news is pretty good, because it is written for the people who run the world and got a good picture about what actually is going on. So the propaganda machine is turned of ( because the authors trust their readers)

Ok, listen up you smart asses, from now on the only interesting topics are those written about in the Financial Times. And the only interesting news outlets are those written for business people.

*Grabs a copy of the Economist*

Umm no if one more person says this then I'll gonna slit my wrists.

.

 

I swear nobody is reading my posts. Do you guys like skim posts or some shit looking for buzzwords?

Tehee

Play from 1:30 and on from that clip you've posted. " the business audience generally got a good sense of what is going on"

* hands knife to limpyschmoo*

Clearly i thought you meant written in service of...as in propaganda to dispense to the rest of the world to manufacture consent.

 

Alright I'm gonna go take a nap.

!?

 

You thought what i meant!. What the hell. I meant to address what the chomskies said in that clip you've posted in which he pretty unambiguously addresses the contrast between the business press and the general press. Point being that the business press is much less sensitive to propaganda. One of the reasons being that it trusts its audience ( namely those business people).

 

The irony of chomskies point is that this propaganda machine is a consequence of the process of simplifying the real news. And this simplification might be what the general audience either needs, or buys into by their own will ( they could buy a copy of the financial times, right?).

 

So, the general audience might indeed be called stupid, in the Nietzschian sense of the word.

 

Tbh, chomsky might be one of the most misunderstood political commentators around.

 

Godel man I posted that video from memory (I didn't watch it again until after your post) and I posted it because he talks about how he reads the New York Times because the reporting is honest. That was the whole point I've been on for the last three pages.

Yeah so? Does that mean i can't comment on that video?

Chomsky deserves an applause for making that point. Especially for restoring a piece of sense in all those truther occupiers who believe anything business related is bad. Lol

The business press is at least accurate, so anyone could read accurate coverage of the news, if they could stomach the idea of reading the same sources as those evil geniuses who apparently run the world. Those same sources just happen to be widely available.

I'm assuming that the truther occupiers associate business press with propaganda, because of books like manufacturing consent, while Chomsky ironically argues the opposite. Truthers create their own propaganda in their brain.

Hmmmm, interesting thought experiment: how many occupiers would read the financial times? Why, and why not?

  On 11/29/2013 at 5:02 AM, goDel said:

Yeah so? Does that mean i can't comment on that video?

 

Chomsky deserves an applause for making that point. Especially for restoring a piece of sense in all those truther occupiers who believe anything business related is bad. Lol

The business press is at least accurate, so anyone could read accurate coverage of the news, if they could stomach the idea of reading the same sources as those evil geniuses who apparently run the world. Those same sources just happen to be widely available.

 

I'm assuming that they associate business press with propaganda, because of books like manufacturing consent, while Chomsky ironically argues the opposite. Truthers create their own propaganda in their brain.

 

Hmmmm, interesting thought experiment: how many occupiers would read the financial times? Why, and why not?

Sorry man I'm just tired I can't tell what's going on anymore

also I just died of herpes from this 15-hour debate

I understand. Reality can be too much of a burden to carry. ;D

If you're awake again, watch that clip past the point on the nytimes. The interesting part starts past the 1minute mark.

Also my retarded midget lover just awoke from his beauty sleep and I need to go tend to his little needs.

  On 11/28/2013 at 11:25 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:55 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:49 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/27/2013 at 9:42 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'd like to see how Noam handles a question about the Bush administration being on Cipro, the anthrax vaccine 7 days before the anthrax letters were sent through the mail.

 

Well most likely he would point out how that simply isn't evidence. It is two dots that one can connect if one is so inclined, but like I said before (referring to such dot-connecting): peculiarities and unanswered questions simply aren't evidence.

 

simply isn't evidence of what? It's at the very least evidence of foreknowledge that there would be the extremely rare event of someone using weaponized anthrax on a mass scale. I mean don't you find that odd?

 

I get that you find it stupid that people would be absolutely 100% sure that WTC7 is a controlled demolition, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that it doesn't seem even the slightest bit odd to you? That not just 2 but 3 entire buildings completely collapsed?

 

being sure of anything you cannot prove is not a good idea, but asking questions and expecting proper investigations, forensics, declassified documents that show saudi arabian intelligence involvement, things like that seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

 

Is it evidence of foreknowledge? After Obama got the swine flu vaccine in 2009, if there was a breakout of swine flu, would that be evidence that he knew there was a swine flu breakout coming?

 

Whether I find something odd means nothing. I thought it was very odd that Oswald got shot while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a club-owner with alleged mob ties. But is that evidence of something? Should I thus conclude that the mob killed Kennedy? Or should I simply find it odd and take no leaps beyond that?

 

If I sit down and pray for rain, and then it starts raining, is that evidence that my prayer worked?

 

It's the old problem of cause, correlation and coincidence.

 

you missed my much longer response because you were too busy feeding the troll. I was talking about the middle ground of being skeptical of government claims in which there is no provable evidence vs speculating about 'who did it'

I pm'd u like 5 hours ago asking which post u meant

sorry its thanksgiving, im not going to go back and find it.

Lol

Hypocrite.

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:04 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:56 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:45 AM, goDel said:

Tbh2: ima a bit confused how Chomskies non-scientific work in the context of politics gets treated as if it were scientific. To me at least, its value doesnt go much further than to shine a certain perspective on some reality which could offer new insights, as opposed to some scientific proof about how reality works.

The only reason to treat it as if it were scientific would be to either use it in the truther sense, as proof, or opposite to that ( which is also very truther like, but reasoning from a different truth)

 

*leaves thread before luke starts to post about tpp again*

but the point is that he doesn't consider it unscientific and so are his fans. he would have significantly less followers if he wasn't covered by his credentials, this stuff is very important.

 

 

According to you, Eugene. You're literally the only person I've heard say it's important.

 

 

I think his books speak for themselves. Whether they were written by a historian or a retarded meth-addicted midget, it literally has no impact on the merit of the work.

 

i missed this post earlier.

no one approaches anything as it is man, you rely on legitimacy, authority, popularity all kinds of symbols and personal biases of different kinds all the time and there's a reason why you we're talking about chomsky and not sociology of gatekeeping here (when it deals with exactly the same problem). and i can tell you that it's definitely not because "manufacturing connsent" is more scholarly or scientifically important.

i'm sorry to pull the credentials again but there are some things you just seemngly can't realize because you're simply not educated on the relevant subjects. just like it seemed obvious to you that the idea of universal human nature is completely uncontroversial (while it's being constantly challenged for the last 50 years if not more), chomsky's stuff seems visionary and essential to you.