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

well, that was an honest question. I wouldn't ask you about the nuances in any other book you hadn't read, either. Anyway, you want the real answer? You honestly upset me sometimes, so I like to make sure you know I disapprove of your need to call myself and others "uninformed" or "high school level" or whatever it is that you say when you count the number of textbooks you can fit up your ass and simultaneously try to constantly make the blanket assumption that caring about the things I care for - internet rights, the environment, corporate power in democracies - are "RT-reddit-cult tard axis" concerns. your certainty on these subjects is actually dangerous to the people reading it; I generally aim to give a counter position and I rarely stop until the people I'm talking to stop as well. Here's hoping we have fun together in the future.

.

watmm, the place where all you fuckers are ad hominem bronies

*kisses from el godelzzzz*

debunking Chomsky?

Everyone just needs too get friendly foiled!

  On 11/30/2013 at 12:03 AM, eugene said:

 

 

  Quote

Yeah just read through the first 15 or so pages of the article you posted. Gatekeeping theory is all well and good, and it surely applies to the first point of the propaganda model. In fact it actually strengthens the argument regarding ownership of media, and ties in with sourcing, because those are means of gatekeeping. But does it negate the propaganda model? No.

 

 

well if that's what you infer from the article than you're getting it completely wrong, what i wanted to show is that the field of gatekeepng is huge and chomsky's theory relates only to one of its sub fields - "institutional environment". and while i already said that obviously it doesn't contradict it, it should open your eyes to all other factors (possibly intervening and interacting) that chomsky simply doesn't even acknowledge and holds that institutional factors (market-govnmt axis) explain news output are the most important ones (if not the only ones). it's simply a primitive notion in the face of that field.

 

Fucks sake dude, I'll quote from wikipedia (since you seem to think it's fine to do that in any sort of academic discussion)

  Quote

 

Gatekeeping is the process through which information is filtered for dissemination, whether for publication, broadcasting, the Internet, or some other mode of communication. The academic theory of gatekeeping is found in multiple fields of study, including communication studies, journalism, political science, and sociology.^[1] It was originally focused on the mass media with its few-to-many dynamic but now gatekeeping theory also addresses face-to-face communication and the many-to-many dynamic inherent in the Internet. The theory was first instituted by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1943.^[2] Gatekeeping occurs at all levels of the media structure — from a reporter deciding which sources are chosen to include in a story to editors deciding which stories are printed or covered, and includes media outlet owners and even advertisers. Individuals can also act as gatekeepers, deciding what information to include in an e-mail or in a blog, for example.

 

Now you tell me which part of that is not covered by the propaganda model - ownership, funding, and sourcing all refer to this, flak refers to feedback mechanisms, the fifth component of the propaganda model - fear, is largely outside that as it is the message which is being conveyed (whether inadvertently or not).

Continuing, with the "internet paradigm"

  Quote

Along with Web 2.0 environment, users have become playing a greater role in producing and (re)distributing online news items via online social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. Shoemaker and Vos (2011)^[11] theorized such practice as "audience gatekeeping".

 

However, as I discussed earlier, Facebook is increasingly driving users to the 25 major news media sites. This is following in the same mode as print media, where non-mainstream, or more poorly funded, "gatekeepers" (content producers) become largely marginalized, thus making it easier for consent to be manufactured. Because as much as you would like to bring agency into the picture, the internet is quickly becoming a form of "push" media, rather than "pull" media.

Here is an interview that Herman did regarding its relevance - enjoy.

http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/comment/twentyyearsofpropaganda.html

well wiki is usually alright but why quote it when the article itself explains it in an even simpler and yet more detailed manner. on page 5 of the article you have a table that present different categories of factors, can't you see that propoganda model only neatly falls under one of them and pretty much ignores the rest (especially social environment which is essential imo)?

facebook doesn't drive anything, if this is happening it's not facebooks fault but users' as they are pretty much free to post and link whatever they want from fox news to chomsky youtubes. so i don't understand what relevance does it have in what we're talking about.

the Propaganda Model is not trying to describe the things you are accusing it of failing to describe

  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.

I'm intrigued by how totally disingenuous you were about your familiarity with the actual book in question. this is the very definition of pretentious bullshit.

  Quote

 

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

 

  On 11/28/2013 at 5:19 PM, eugene said:

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 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.

it's also interesting that you remain curiously ambivalent on the issue of chomsky as a "scientist" (which you were the first to bring up), oscillating between outrage that anyone could consider his work scientific, especially since he himself does not claim to be one, and yet regularly condemning it for lacking scientific merit. basically, you want to hold him to a scientific standard in order to discredit it, knowing full well that it isn't social or anthropological theory, which is just a cheap shot at a famous thinker.

you brought up how he's been "clinging" to the unchanged propaganda model and when i politely explained that I don't follow his work and asked for a link about this you called me a "mindless follower" (genuine lol, thanks) and linked to a separate issue which has no direct bearing on whether or not chomsky is clinging to the propaganda model. you later claimed you ignored my claim bc I could find the specific evidence by looking at google which of course is foolish since I was asking you about the specific examples you were referring to.

you initially claimed that Chomsky is not taken seriously except by his minions but then later said that he has not been discredited but should be. If his work hasn't been discredited, it follows that it should be considered a serious source of information. On what grounds specifically would people have to not take it seriously if no thorough critique has been provided? You're response to this is that chomsky hasn't set himself up to be criticized. Whatever the fuck that means. The long and short of it is that it is precisely you who are a follower here, not the other way around as you'd like to have it. You're toeing a line that perceives chomsky as some kind of bullshit "Marxist" whose theory lacks credibility and you're toeing that line without doing any research yourself, not even reading a primary fucking text but instead just looking up shit online. that's your prerogative but it renders your condescending attitude and claims to scientific integrity totally meaningless.

what is more, you consistently insult other posters who are doing fine here in the argument, and your condescending remarks have typically lacked any evidence or credibility -- claiming that limpy simply isn't familiar with social theory, that luke doesn't know what an ethnography is (another lol, thanks), and your whole post about me being a follower and all the direct accusations therein. i specifically said i do not follow Chomsky's work -- how to you derive from this claim that I am a follower and that I have read his work and it showed me how bad the USA is or whatever other petulant bullshit you were talking about? Of course, in this instance as well you are making totally baseless claims bc they fit into your weltanshauung. If luke calls you out for not providing three ethnographies (you were of course the one who brought ese up btw) you simply tell him he doesn't know what the word means. LOL. just lol.

basically, you've really been wasting people's time here with half-backed, often contradictory claims about a book you haven't read (yes, the actual book, not just a summarized theory) and act like a total dick when people reply with perfectly legitimate questions and comments. it's one thing if you feel the need to chime in about shit without having a first-hand relationship with it, but imo it's inappropriate to be so condescending and insulting in the process. This is why I call you out in threads, not bc I have some grudge against you for being a right winger. Intelligent discussion is perfectly possibly from all sides of the issue, right wing, left wing, whatever. You are the first to ruffle peoples feathers and the first to hide behind braggadocio and insults. You should try just talking the issues directly, without recourse to name calling and self-reference to academic credentials and empty posturing.

tl:dr -- jbc, eugene

  On 11/30/2013 at 1:26 AM, LimpyLoo said:

the Propaganda Model is not trying to describe the things you are accusing it of failing to describe

it purports to explain why the news are the way they are using a very limited theoretical conception so the result can't be taken seriously really.

  On 11/30/2013 at 2:20 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/30/2013 at 1:26 AM, LimpyLoo said:

the Propaganda Model is not trying to describe the things you are accusing it of failing to describe

it purports to explain why the news are the way they are using a very limited theoretical conception so the result can't be taken seriously really.

 

i am now officially convinced you are smug, condescending and you have inflated sense of your own intellectual prowess. And that everyone and everything (including that Marxist hack Chomsky) are below you.

I mean I still like you of course, but I thought I'd just share my thoughts.

Oh and it doesn't just "purport to explain why the news are the way they are."

  Quote

I'm intrigued by how totally disingenuous you were about your familiarity with the actual book in question. this is the very definition of pretentious bullshit.

 

i thought i'm familiar enough l with the basics to argue what i was arguing, i didn't hide the fact that i didn't read it for one second. so i don't see where i was being disingenous

  Quote

it's also interesting that you remain curiously ambivalent on the issue of chomsky as a "scientist" (which you were the first to bring up), oscillating between outrage that anyone could consider his work scientific, especially since he himself does not claim to be one, and yet regularly condemning it for lacking scientific merit. basically, you want to hold him to a scientific standard in order to discredit it, knowing full well that it isn't social or anthropological theory, which is just a cheap shot at a famous thinker.

 

there's no ambivalence at all if you'd properly follow me, i personally don't consider his work scientific at all when it's so obviously colored with his politics all over. but there's no question that he himself and his fans consider to be scientifically rigid, he doesn't need to claim to be scientifically rigid because it's so obvious to all involved, it's the very thing that gives it all the legitimacy. it's pretty crazy that i need to explain it to three people here.

  Quote

you brought up how he's been "clinging" to the unchanged propaganda model and when i politely explained that I don't follow his work and asked for a link about this you called me a "mindless follower" (genuine lol, thanks) and linked to a separate issue which has no direct bearing on whether or not chomsky is clinging to the propaganda model. you later claimed you ignored my claim bc I could find the specific evidence by looking at google which of course is foolish since I was asking you about the specific examples you were referring to.

spare me this petty dramaqueen bullshit, i simply used you as an example for my argument.

  Quote

you initially claimed that Chomsky is not taken seriously except by his minions but then later said that he has not been discredited but should be. If his work hasn't been discredited, it follows that it should be considered a serious source of information. On what grounds specifically would people have to not take it seriously if no thorough critique has been provided? You're response to this is that chomsky hasn't set himself up to be criticized. Whatever the fuck that means.

i didn't say he he wasn't discredited, sr4 did and then i said that he should be. his work isn't considered serious in a field he's supposed to belong to, i doubt you'll find that book cited within this field. he's sorta went rambo and ignored everything that was written on the topic and came up with his stuff, so naturally no one bothered with him. i think i already showed how easily his work can be criticized, if you don't see it it's your problem.

  Quote

The long and short of it is that it is precisely you who are a follower here, not the other way around as you'd like to have it. You're toeing a line that perceives chomsky as some kind of bullshit "Marxist" whose theory lacks credibility and you're toeing that line without doing any research yourself, not even reading a primary fucking text but instead just looking up shit online. that's your prerogative but it renders your condescending attitude and claims to scientific integrity totally meaningless.

i think i have enough info on his work that i gathered from his own interviews and and the film that was made on the book. if it really bothered others this argument would have stopped after i admitted it. do you want to claim that i'm not allowed to argue about those basic points now because i have not the ultimate test of reading the book ? it's a bullshit argument.

  Quote

what is more, you consistently insult other posters who are doing fine here in the argument, and your condescending remarks have typically lacked any evidence or credibility -- claiming that limpy simply isn't familiar with social theory, that luke doesn't know what an ethnography is (another lol, thanks), and your whole post about me being a follower and all the direct accusations therein. i specifically said i do not follow Chomsky's work -- how to you derive from this claim that I am a follower and that I have read his work and it showed me how bad the USA is or whatever other petulant bullshit you were talking about? Of course, in this instance as well you are making totally baseless claims bc they fit into your weltanshauung. If luke calls you out for not providing three ethnographies (you were of course the one who brought ese up btw) you simply tell him he doesn't know what the word means. LOL. just lol.

 

i think i explained well enough why i though that bringing a sort of meta-summary of the field of gatekeeping would be better than bringing up ethnographies, why are you even clinging on this ? did luke signify that he needs your help with that part or something ? *ignores the rest of drama bullshit*

  Quote

basically, you've really been wasting people's time here with half-backed, often contradictory claims about a book you haven't read (yes, the actual book, not just a summarized theory) and act like a total dick when people reply with perfectly legitimate questions and comments. it's one thing if you feel the need to chime in about shit without having a first-hand relationship with it, but imo it's inappropriate to be so condescending and insulting in the process. This is why I call you out in threads, not bc I have some grudge against you for being a right winger. Intelligent discussion is perfectly possibly from all sides of the issue, right wing, left wing, whatever. You are the first to ruffle peoples feathers and the first to hide behind braggadocio and insults. You should try just talking the issues directly, without recourse to name calling and self-reference to academic credentials and empty posturing.

 

did you even ask yourself if someone required your help here, i though i was getting along with limpy relatively fine and now i have to fend off 15 posts of this idiotic, oversensitive accusation of how i'm offending people. didn't you occur to you that i simply don't care and that i can continue my argument just as easily if those are ignored and if im being ridiculed as well ?

every single argument lately gets to a point where you have to make this huge statement of my manner of conduct (about which i obviously don't care one bit) without actually understanding half of the things i'm talking about and now you have to shove me the fact that i didn't read the books 50 times in one post as if it actually matters.

i don't for a minute think you're actually offending anyone (I'm certainly not offended), i just think you're coming across as a clueless douchebag. as luke pointed out, this is rather a modus operandi for you so just carry on fooling yourself that no one is sophisticated enough to understand you. just be sure to never enter teaching professionally since you are evidently incapable of transmitting your superior thought forms to simpletons.

#2deep4me

but still what if it's actually you're that's fucking clueless, have you entertained that possibility seriously ? i mean point me at one remotely intelligent thing that you said on topic besides trying to sneak some flols, this pathetic defense for the bros no one actually asked for and lousy accusations that add absolutely nothing.

I'm simply saying that the complexity of your argument is way to hard for me to grasp. I am capable only of desperately searching for flols whenever possibly, something even you commend me on when you seek to dismiss my intellectual merits. i figure if i can defend the bros, they will love me and their effusive benevolence toward me will obscure the obvious fact that I am a simple chumpsky minion, a follower incapable of comprehending even the barest minimum of your sophisticated dialogs. indeed I don't even know what an ethnography is or how to look up the definition. I bet even that tard luke, having never duly studied even the simplest science 101 course, knows how to do that.

having come to this crossroads i have no other choice but to continue veering dangerously to the cultish left, with but little hope that I can even begin to find this ever elusive "wikipedia" entry on manufacture consents. perhaps I ought to start with the ghostbusters franchise where I seem to remember a voluminous discourse on gatekeeping.

in any case, you've found me out. you've shamed me before all my bros. you have seen into the paucity of my knowledge and laid it bare before all, even papa. and possibly even sean and rob. so sad. perhaps some day i'll truly be able to appreciate your transcendent knowledge but considering that from my humble class your posts appear as so much bullshit, i respectfully bow out of a discussion for which I am deeply ill-suited.

with flols,

alco

alright, time-out:

can you guys help me find a couple really good porn sites?

Lol

Apart from calling chomskies political works scientific, i do actually agree with some of the points made by eugene. Manufacturing consent is pretty limited in a couple of ways. limited being different to flat out wrong, btw.

All you guys unemployed or what?

  On 11/30/2013 at 11:33 AM, Djeroek said:

All you guys unemployed or what?

I WORK FOR TRUTH.

but yeah this went full retard quite a while ago so i'm off.

500th post in this thread is mine

see ya don't wanna be ya

*backflips out of window*

  On 11/30/2013 at 4:34 AM, Alcofribas said:

I'm simply saying that the complexity of your argument is way to hard for me to grasp. I am capable only of desperately searching for flols whenever possibly, something even you commend me on when you seek to dismiss my intellectual merits. i figure if i can defend the bros, they will love me and their effusive benevolence toward me will obscure the obvious fact that I am a simple chumpsky minion, a follower incapable of comprehending even the barest minimum of your sophisticated dialogs. indeed I don't even know what an ethnography is or how to look up the definition. I bet even that tard luke, having never duly studied even the simplest science 101 course, knows how to do that.

 

i wanted to leave this shit for good but this bit of stupidity still kinda bothers me and i don't want to leave it at that.

it's nothing to do with my pretense for intelligence or anything like that you made up and keep spinning. it's a simple fact of reading what i write without projecting your own misunderstanding of what i write. there's absolutely nothing sophisticated about what i posted and i have no pretensions for any sophistication. there are just very simple things that for some reasons keep getting misunderstood that sometimes prompt me to diss people for misunderstanding them, like for example it took limpy about 5 pages of argument to realize that i never claimed that chomsky holds that government tells the journalists what to write (and i'm not even sure if he's convinced).

if luke thinks (or thought) that by bringing another type of source (which shows many possible angles for rebbuting chomsky's work in a simple table) instead of ethnographies that i mentioned (which can be found in numbers by googling "ethnographic work on journalists" or something) i'm being intellectually dishonest he clearly doesn't understand fuck all, and there's just no polite way i can put it. it's just maddening how childish and stupid it is, it's like: "hey !!!211 you promised countless ethnographies but you didn't provide them therefore you can't disprove anything and you're a liar, haha ! you lose fucker".

last post i hope.

  On 11/29/2013 at 3:48 AM, goDel said:

Im still interested in the jokes about sociologists, btw.

Care to share?

sorry ive been away for a while, and im bad at retelling them, but the one i remember hearing most is something like this

Q: Whats the difference between a scientist and a sociologist?

A: One lectures at a university, the other lectures in a coffee house.

There are some other ones Ill request a retelling of so I can post them here later, but basically the whole idea is that sociologists are people that failed chemistry/physics but still want to be considered scientists. I suppose you could level the same critique towards any of the "soft sciences" (I hate that term).

People here leveling that Chomsky is somehow a scientist in anything other than linguistic theory is insane, and probably projecting their own bias to come to a predetermined conclusion.

  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.

 

no, no its not.

aren't you in grad school?

it's not what ? you think it's impossible for a two and a half hour film about the book (which he obviously endorsed) plus maybe a couple of hours worth interviews that i watched to present the main arguments in an relatively accurate manner that are susceptible to a rather simple kind of critiquing that i (hopelessly) tried to show ?

regarding the scientific status of the work, i honestly can't believe that you hopped on this too. what do you think would happen to the status of chomsky's book if he went out and said: oh, manufacturing consent ? the research behind it wasn't really done according to norms of scientific method, it's just like, my big opinion piece.

  On 11/30/2013 at 4:32 PM, eugene said:

it's not what ? you think it's impossible for a two and a half hour film about the book (which he obviously endorsed) plus maybe a couple of hours worth interviews that i watched to present the main arguments in an relatively accurate manner that are susceptible to a rather simple kind of critiquing that i (hopelessly) tried to show ?

 

regarding the scientific status of the work, i honestly can't believe that you hopped on this too. what do you think would happen to the status of chomsky's book if he went out and said: oh, manufacturing consent ? the research behind it wasn't really done according to norms of scientific method, it's just like, my big opinion piece.

Why do you continually insist on this being a factor? What he is arguing is from a political science/humanities perspective, why on earth would anyone even fathom claiming it within the real of scientific fact? Who is claiming its scientific fact?

Seriously, that type of thinking died out in the 1940s, at the very latest.

because it's an hugely important factor, you think his work would be worth anything if he arrived at the conclusions he arrived at via asking some people about propoganda on the street while being guided by his spiritual helper while on acid, for example ? the work is accepted and acclaimed by many because its methodology is considered legit (by many, not by me, in case alco is getting lost again), and what "legit" means in any kind of intellectual discourse in the last century at least is that it's conducted according to, or at least approaching, the norms of scientific method.