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

Eugene, I can't follow you. We're talking about opinions, right? Not science.

i don't think that chomsky said that "imo, corporations and the government are involved in manufacturing consents, but just imo", no one would care if that's what he did.

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:17 AM, eugene said:

  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.

Awesome so when one of your students offers up the garbage that you do as a critical book review you'll pass them with flying colors.

GoDel. I'm not sure I understand your point about the financial press being more accurate. Are you trying to imply there is no bias in the business press?

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:13 PM, eugene said:

i don't think that chomsky said that "imo, corporations and the government are involved in manufacturing consents, but just imo", no one would care if that's what he did.

OK, I'm reading the introduction, second sentence:

"It is our view that, among their other functions, the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them."

further on the first page of the introduction:

"In our view..." "We believe..."

(2002 version with new introduction by the authors)

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:19 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:17 AM, eugene said:

 

  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.

 

Awesome so when one of your students offers up the garbage that you do as a critical book review you'll pass them with flying colors.

 

 

i could of just as easily not admitted that i didn't read the book and you would never notice because his thesis is easy to summarize, so drop the bullshit. it's not like i'm doing some serious full review and critique of the book either, i just pick at basic assumptions.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:23 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:13 PM, eugene said:

i don't think that chomsky said that "imo, corporations and the government are involved in manufacturing consents, but just imo", no one would care if that's what he did.

OK, I'm reading the introduction, second sentence:

 

"It is our view that, among their other functions, the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them."

 

further on the first page of the introduction:

"In our view..." "We believe..."

 

(2002 version with new introduction by the authors)

 

man, that's a typical, humble way most scholars speak. it doesn't signify that they consider their work an opinion piece rather than study that relies on scientific method.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:19 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:17 AM, eugene said:

 

  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.

 

Awesome so when one of your students offers up the garbage that you do as a critical book review you'll pass them with flying colors.

 

 

GoDel. I'm not sure I understand your point about the financial press being more accurate. Are you trying to imply there is no bias in the business press?

 

Geez chengod: it's a youtube which is shorter than 2 minutes. just watch for yourself. i'm not making any points. just restating what chomsky said.

transcriptions

1:00 and further:"the business press is very accurate and very reliable"

1:30 and further:"i think the reason is ... and that's generally true for business press.. [there are] a couple of differences between the business press and the general press. For one thing, the business press trusts its audience. And another thing is its audience are the guys who run the world. They have a pretty fair picture of what's going on"

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:27 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:19 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:17 AM, eugene said:

 

  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.

 

Awesome so when one of your students offers up the garbage that you do as a critical book review you'll pass them with flying colors.

 

 

i could of just as easily not admitted that i didn't read the book and you would never notice because his thesis is easy to summarize, so drop the bullshit. it's not like i'm doing some serious full review and critique of the book either, i just pick at basic assumptions.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:23 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:13 PM, eugene said:

i don't think that chomsky said that "imo, corporations and the government are involved in manufacturing consents, but just imo", no one would care if that's what he did.

OK, I'm reading the introduction, second sentence:

 

"It is our view that, among their other functions, the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them."

 

further on the first page of the introduction:

"In our view..." "We believe..."

 

(2002 version with new introduction by the authors)

 

man, that's a typical, humble way most scholars speak. it doesn't signify that they consider their work an opinion piece rather than study that relies on scientific method.

 

O come on already. They're trained scientists. This is as close to an IMO as a scientist can get. Even when writing unscientific work. The fact they don't literally write "in our opinion" but "we believe" is what you consider as proof that they see their political work as scientific? Just shut up already.

Again, read the wiki on Chomsky. He's a political commentator, NOT a political scientist. A leftwing pundit, so to speak. His only scientific field is linguistics.

i think you're way, way off on this point. unscientific knowledge on such major topic wouldn't be taken seriously, his followers believe that propaganda model works because he proved that it works relying on scientific method (of course he didn't but we're talking about their view). the majority of his book is testing the hypotheses regarding the filters he outlined. without scientific authority you would see him ranting on some youtube show or presenting on RT news.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:46 PM, eugene said:

i think you're way, way off on this point. unscientific knowledge on such major topic wouldn't be taken seriously, his followers believe that propaganda model works because he proved that it works relying on scientific method (of course he didn't but we're talking about their view). the majority of his book is testing the hypotheses regarding the filters he outlined. without scientific authority you would see him ranting on some youtube show or presenting on RT news.

according to chomsky, earlier in this thread, work can only be considered scientific when it's peer reviewed and published in some scientific publishing. not some mega selling book which you can buy at an airport.

well if that's according to him then he's wrong. a work is scientific when it's actually done according to scientific method, peer review is just a seal of approval but it doesn't change the nature of the work.

you're moving goalposts.

does chomsky consider his work scientific? no, not according to what he states as requisites for being a scientific work.

eugene, you're being way way off.

WATMM. Putting the intelligent in Intelligent Dance Music Forum.

there's no way in hell that he considers his work unscientific, you're probably reading him out of context or something. to put it simply, scientific conclusion means it's actually real and true and unscientific conclusions are dubious to begin with. that's the whole meaning of the term in its current and common understanding. what's the point of 90% of the book that gives examples if not to show that his model is real, is working, is reliable, empirically grounded and so on ?

i don't think i'll put more time in this today,

shabbat shalom.

  On 11/29/2013 at 4:26 PM, eugene said:

there's no way in hell that he considers his work unscientific, you're probably reading him out of context or something. to put it simply, scientific conclusion means it's actually real and true and unscientific conclusions are dubious to begin with. that's the whole meaning of the term in its current and common understanding. what's the point of 90% of the book that gives examples if not to show that his model is real, is working, is reliable, empirically grounded and so on ?

 

i don't think i'll put more time in this today,

shabbat shalom.

90% of the book!? you mean 90% of non-fiction books in general! almost any non-fiction book on the market is unscientific. just admit that your premise that chomsky considers his political works as scientific is built on thin air and we're back to being friendly foiled again! ;D

Actually Eugene I called you on not reading the book before your admission. It's deceitful to pretend you understand the complexity of his argument without reading the book. Go blow it out your ass. I feel sorry for your students honestly.

GoDel. Sorry didn't watch the clip. In this case then I'll have to disagree with Chomsky. The Wall Street Journal has some terrible reporting for example. Economist is not bad. Financial times is mediocre. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

but the point is that there's no complexity, it's an old school, deterministic, marxist-like structural analysis that treats humans as objects and ignores agency. i understand its effect on the "uninitiated", but ffs, don't call it complex. i don't need to read the book to understand its basic arguments, chomsky repeats them in every single interview he has.

also what students ? i don't have any students.

flol

i do have a feeling that those who read and admired chomsky's m.c. didn't bother to read much else on the topic, especially those who participated here.

but yeah, if the fact that i didn't read the book prevents me from criticizing its most basic assumptions (THAT HE REPEATS IN EVERY FUCKING SINGLE INTERVIEW HE DOES AND IN A FILM THAT GLORIFIES HIM) then i guess we can get back to dealing with flouride and staged moon landings.

  On 11/29/2013 at 6:05 AM, goDel said:

Lol

 

Hypocrite.

i would call you a hypocrite for completely doing a 180 with not a moment of self effacing or reflection on you were wrong to defend Obama's programs on the NSA and Edward Snowden, but I suspect you are still an Obama apologist, so technically it probably wouldn't be hypocritical.

  On 11/29/2013 at 9:21 PM, eugene said:

i do have a feeling that those who read and admired chomsky's m.c. didn't bother to read much else on the topic, especially those who participated here.

but yeah, if the fact that i didn't read the book prevents me from criticizing its most basic assumptions (THAT HE REPEATS IN EVERY FUCKING SINGLE INTERVIEW HE DOES AND IN A FILM THAT GLORIFIES HIM) then i guess we can get back to dealing with flouride and staged moon landings.

haha, nah, it's that you have been getting the premise wrong for over 36 hours despite your extremely unwarranted confidence in your understanding of it, you purposefully tried to give the impression that you understood the nuances and even said you had read countless rebuttals, which you never brought when asked, and you have been criticizing a political commentator for not being scientific when he himself never claimed to be, and in the same breath you have been nothing but flippant and ridiculous in your own scientific knowledge, claiming other people just wouldn't understand, they're "uninitiated" etc

btw i posted a chomsky interview that addressed your criticisms and said as much, and despite your quote about "i get my information from wiki, his interviews, and that one movie i watched" you totally ignored it, even after i mentioned it again. it makes sense why alco and co usually just lol at you; calling a spade a spade when it's clear to everyone around isn't all that exciting anyway.

but oh hell yeah I'd love to talk about a real conspiracy, i tried pages ago and got totally ignored. since we've been talking about the corporate influence on information for a few days now, it might be a great transition to talk about the trans-pacific partnership, something you accused me of bringing up as a "reddit scare noise" tactic in the thread i dedicated to it.

  Quote

haha, nah, it's that you have been getting the premise wrong for over 36 hours despite your extremely unwarranted confidence in your understanding of it,

just because limpy said it's wrong it doesn't mean i got it wrong.

  Quote

you purposefully tried to give the impression that you understood the nuances and even said you had read countless rebuttals,

the whole field of gatekepping is one huge rebuttal from which i read quite a lot when i did a paper on gatekeeping on reddit.

  Quote

which you never brought when asked,

which of course i did in a reply to chengod.

  Quote

and you have been criticizing a political commentator for not being scientific when he himself never claimed to be,

if he wasn't regarded as scientific noone would be discussing his work seriously, it's one of the most stupid notions in the whole thread that for some reason you feel like repeating. he is situated in a SCIENTIFIC FIELD called communication and political economy, his methodology is considered scientific.

  Quote

btw i posted a chomsky interview that addressed your criticisms and said as much, and despite your quote about "i get my information from wiki, his interviews, and that one movie i watched" you totally ignored it, even after i mentioned it again.

what part did i ignore exactly ? i could of missed something because i'm talking with 5 people at once here.

  Quote

it makes sense why alco and co usually just lol at you; calling a spade a spade when it's clear to everyone around isn't all that exciting anyway.

alco thinks that everything i do is a veiled defense of some kind of right wing politics which he finds offensive, he can make up some nice lols in such threads but he doesn't even understand what i'm talking about most of the time.

  Quote

but oh hell yeah I'd love to talk about a real conspiracy, i tried pages ago and got totally ignored. since we've been talking about the corporate influence on information for a few days now, it might be a great transition to talk about the trans-pacific partnership, something you accused me of bringing up as a "reddit scare noise" tactic in the thread i dedicated to it.

it's ignored because you yourself can't even explain why it's something to worry about or even what it is and what is it going to become after the negotiations.

the primary point of my TPP criticisms is that it's been done in unprecedented secrecy, so I can't tell you exactly what it says or how it affects the world after it's ratified. It is a conspiracy to secretly enact laws that have been literally democratically squashed by activism in the past, and I only know that much because of leaks. Guess who's doing it? Corporations and the government. Guess who's left out of the information? The public. Guess who else is left out? The public's representatives. Guess who it affects the most? Citizens who can't read any of the bill. Guess who isn't reporting on it? The major media outlets, who are owned by the same telecommunications corporations that are helping to draft the bill. Maybe I haven't made the case that this is something to worry about yet, but that is extremely worrying to me, because most people I talk to like to tell me that we live in a representative democracy, or that the internet age has loosened the grip of corporate information brokering in the media.

I don't want to quote every part you just took apart there but essentially,

1. It's not just Limpy saying you got it wrong (though he's correct). Everyone ITT's last few pages has said as much. And so did the paper I quoted, as well as another I haven't posted yet, but read to clear up some ideas in my own understanding. I'll quote the exact part if you're too lazy to read this too, but I'd rather you do it yourself. You've been thinking about this for days anyway.

2. "The field of gatekeeping" is not "countless rebuttals." And no one is going to be able to read "the field of gatekeeping" as a rebuttal. It's not useful as a conversational tool for understanding; why not elucidate the field of gatekeeping yourself? You're the only sociology grad student here, as you so often like to remind us.

3. You posted one paper in response to chengod, who asked you for 3 of your "countless ethnographies" debunking chomsky. You did not bring what he asked. Don't say you did. Dishonesty doesn't make anyone trust your authority as a scholar, ffs. Gatekeeping may be a very relevant field to what we're talking about, but even the paper you quoted goes on to say that "However, as popular as the term has become and as richly descriptive as it is, there is little agreement among the different fields on its meaning and a lack of full theoretical status" and though it goes on to define the term itself later, even what they say has very little that directly contradicts Chomsky, at least in the first five pages, which is what you told Chen to read. Recall that you originally claimed to have "countless ethnographies." Academic dishonesty, again, makes you look like a piece of shit. Especially since you're a grad student TA and you once claimed to have given an average grade of 40% to your sociology students on the first set of papers you graded, lol.

4. I don't know about you but I don't consider every political commentary book I read to be hard science. Apparently you do, and you've projected this belief onto everyone who has ever read Chomsky. That is not an argument. I brought it up because of the sheer ridiculousness of your position, and that you've been focusing on it for over a day now.

5. Alco has valid reasons for calling you out, as do I, but it gets tiresome. I don't think you're a "right winger," but I do think you constantly push the idea that this forum is filled with mindless Russia Today sheep, mostly because you seem to have a lover's spat with awepittance. FWIW I don't have a reddit account, and I actively discourage my gf from reading RT regularly, but you wouldn't know that, and you consistently lump me in with a crowd that doesn't exist.

I think the Mt. Stupid comic basically sums you up ITT, and now I've written far too many mean things, so I'm gonna go. Have fun telling people they're uninitiated to the esoteric hard science of sociology, lol.

1. here's how chomsky summarizes his own model in the first page of the book: "A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public.’" - yes, essentially it's the system that's built that way that allows such kind of manipulation but the major point is that it's the government that exploits it in an intentional way, which is exactly what i was saying from the beginning and that limpy said i'm getting completely wrong. he'll have to go argue with chomsky about his wrong interpretation of his own book i guess.

i'm not going to read 40 pages now, you better quote what you want to quote.

2. of course it can, but because you don't know what it is you don't see how it is possible and make up stuff. a decent analogy would be economic sociology as an answer to classic economic theory. i did post a link to wiki that succinctly explains what gatekeeping is (it's not 40 pages), and you could have read it before writing poop.

3. well you don't even realize what ethnography is (often a very detailed study of a very narrow phenomena) so you think that i actually failed and lied by giving chengod a link to an article that talks about gatekeeping instead of ethnographies while in fact it's a much better and accessible way to respond. i already said that it doesn't contradict chomsky, it just puts him into a rightful place and presents a much more complex picture of the process of gatekeeping (which kinda does contradict him because he magnifies the importance of his one sub-field and ignores all others). an ethnography of say, the day-to-day activity of some news outlets wouldn't be a really good answer to this. i don't really understand what are you trying to show with that quote from an article. i also don't understand you're picking at my posts from unrelated thread, it's really lame. (they did pretty good on a second test though)

4. who said anything about hard sciences ? social sciences are considered soft sciences but the main principles of scientific methods still apply.

5. ok.

Look dude, the way you're wrong about Chomsky is in the first fucking sentence of the wiki article you claim to be reading. You keep using words like "intentional." in fact you just did it again. Now look:

  Quote

 

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, is an analysis of the news media, arguing that the mass media of the United States "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion".[1]

What Limpy has told you in this thread previously, about emergent properties of a democratic society, is what you are ignoring. Sentence number one, eugene. Here's another way to put it, from Chomsky's own website:

  Quote

 

 

The ‘propaganda model’ of media operations laid out and
applied by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent:
The Political Economy of the Mass Media postulates that elite media interlock
with other institutional sectors in ownership, management and social
circles, effectively circumscribing their ability to remain analytically
detached from other dominant institutional sectors. The model argues that
the net result of this is self-censorship without any significant coercion.
Media, according to this framework, do not have to be controlled nor does
their behaviour have to be patterned, as it is assumed that they are integral
actors in class warfare, fully integrated into the institutional framework of
society, and act in unison with other ideological sectors, i.e. the academy,
to establish, enforce, reinforce and ‘police’ corporate hegemony. It is not a
surprise, then, given the interrelations of the state and corporate capitalism
and the ‘ideological network’, that the propaganda model has been
dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theory’ and condemned for its ‘overly
deterministic’ view of media behaviour. It is generally excluded from
scholarly debates on patterns of media behaviour.

Emphasis is mine. Here's the article, seriously from Chomsky.info, lol: http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----02.pdf

And I'm picking at your posts from another thread because things don't exist in isolation. Your opinions there are informative of your opinions here (so long as we assume you aren't lying or trolling for its own sake).

BTW, if you won't read 40 pages, why did you expect other people to read 200+? That paper you linked was interesting btw, and it's actually from the university I work at, but... you think a 200 page article is a good response, huh? I specifically made the point that you should be able to condense that knowledge down for us, since you've been studying it for years, yeah? But instead you drop a book in someone's lap and expect them to read it in the middle of a conversation about how you didn't read the book you're critiquing.

studying time for me though, later eugene. hope at least some of what I've said gets through to you.

thanks for ignoring the TPP after I brought it up again btw!

edit: Just want to add that I got 2 pdf's confused in tabs - eugene's article is also 40 pages, not 200. I think my point still stands.