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

i feel like this is going in a loop

  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.

So first you say the article you posted doesn't contradict Chomsky then you say it offers many ways to rebut Chomsky. Make up your mind eugene.

Also i think one thing to note here is that it's actually Herman who came up with the model.

embrace the mystery of my transcendental arguing...

*fucks off into ancient times to hang out with alco's asshole*

I don't think the ~*scientific method*~ is that applicable for the humanities, such as sociology. There are of course widely accepted methodologies and approaches to doing research in these fields, but ~*scientific method*~ is strictly applicable to the so called "hard sciences".

not chiming in on the ongoing discussion, but since I made a claim I thought I'd back it up with proof, that Chomsky is clearly playing games in this 9/11 truther response video, and he fails to mention his own skepticism surrounding the 9/11 official story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veye_NUS85Q

it's strange to me that he believes this, yet he seems to almost prop up the Bush narrative when responding to this guy's WTC7 claims. He has stated numerous times that Al-Qaeda is not a hierarchical organization and is essentially a myth the way the US government and media has portrayed it, he's said there is no proof to connect Bin Laden to 9/11, he's also said the war on Afghanistan is based on false pretenses. These statements are in very stark contrast to what probably most people in that audience cheering actually believe, but yet he makes no point to bring up his own skepticism about them. Odd. Is he intentionally omitting these beliefs to not give any fodder whatsoever to the 9/11 truth movement? It seems intellectually dishonest, regardless of whatever animosity or dis taste he has for what the 9/11 truth movement represents.

it seems like the most honest response he could have given would have been something like 'I don't think the Bush administration was behind the attacks in anyway, however the Bush administration created many myths and lies that have convoluted what actually happened on 9/11 and understandably these types of lies and contradictions create holes that people try to fill in with unprovable theories. While it wasn't 9/11 directly that got us into Iraq, the anthrax attacks did, and while that attack is still shrouded in mystery and pinned on a dead man, we can't assert speculative theories as truth, i would stand completely behind a proper and thorough investigation on both attacks'

instead chomsky resorts to a variation of the appeal to ridicule logical fallacy, which according to his other writings and interviews, seems beneath his intellectual capacity

Eugene, Since you couldn't help but level another comment about how I'm "lost" I'd like to sum up what I've gathered from your posts on this topic.

You've made three basic claims as far as I can see them:

1) Interest in chomsky's work is due largely to the misconception that it is scientific.

2) the propaganda model is rendered obsolete by the internet.

3) Chomsky clings to the propaganda model, despite 2).

For points 1 and 3 you have provided zero evidence whatsoever. In support of your notion that chomsky's "minions" are all duped into perceiving his work as scientific you offer simply your opinion; no data, no articles, nothing. What is more, you do not provide a substantial discussion on why it isn't scientific or why it should or should not be. You also claim that "no one" in the academic community takes him seriously, that no one cites him, but again zero proof. Likewise your notion that the Chomsky clings to the pm is not supported by any link or reference, in fact you deliberately ignored my request for such info and later told me to google it. So, two of your major points are simply opinions, nbd, but expressed as hard truths which you do not suffer to be challenged.

As for your basic criticism of the pm, it doesn't amount to much. You've reduced it entirely to this queer notion about corporations controlling the media which you counter by claiming that such manipulation is no longer possible on the internet. Again, no data, no studies, no in depth articles backing this up. Indeed, as Chen pointed out, the mainstream media that is the subject of MC still provide the vast majority of news used by Americans. It remains to be seen whether the internet will in time create a substantial paradigm shift in news consumption but as it stands people are still getting their news from the same or similar sources.

You also attempt to critique the pm itself by unfavorably comparing it to gatekeeping, but this amounts to very little. It may be the case that the pm is less comprehensive then other approaches, indeed its authors express their belief that this is so, but you'll have to do a lot more work to substantially discredit it.

Furthermore, you've repeatedly told people to just google something but have provided no analysis whatsoever on what they will find. For instance, I googled Chomsky/internet/propaganda model and I found on the first page two long articles both of which directly answered all of your rebuttals. Not only that but I learned on that first page that the pm is mainly Edward Herman's work, which rather seriously dimiahes the thrust of your ire about Chomsky here.

What is more, you have made remarks about what Chomsky says "in the book," discussing his analysis of psychology and certain "undertones" found therein. However, you have never read the book. That you feel privileged to make such tonal and psychological observations and that you wash your hands of disingenuousness here is pretty dishonest imo.

I realize this is watmm and not a platform for scholarly debate and I'm perfectly comfortable just dishing out opinions without sources and so on. But you've continuously remarked on my inability to understand the concepts you put forth and accuse me of being lost, which quite frankly just seems really pathetic considering the low level of intellectual integrity present in this debate. It especially reeks of condescension bc you're making unsupported blanket claims about a work you have never read; as though to do so is to delve into territory where I might be lost lol

If you want to come into a thread and bash Chomsky go right ahead, but be prepared to back your shit up with more than "google it" or some sad excuse about how you have so many ways of countering an argument that you don't know what to chose from. As I said right off the bat I haven't followed his work for several years (I read MC in 2002 I believe) and was hopin you would provide me and others with something more substantial considering the vehemence of your responses to his name being brough up. And if you're going to dish out sad insults be aware that it will diminish the quality of the discussion.

lol? This is an alco post right?

That Chomsky, funny guy, haha...ha?

lol

that is my campfire headphase review, complete.

Eugene, Since you couldn't help but level another comment about how I'm "lost" I'd like to sum up what I've gathered from your posts on this topic.
You've made three basic claims as far as I can see them:
1) Interest in chomsky's work is due largely to the misconception that it is scientific.


nope, didn't say that. being scientific gives him legitimacy, but there are other reasons for interest and popularity obviously.


2) the propaganda model is rendered obsolete by the internet.

that i said.

3) Chomsky clings to the propaganda model, despite 2).

well yes, but he probably clings to it for his own reasons which i didn't get into. but i don't understand how you designated this as one of the important claims of mine.

For points 1 and 3 you have provided zero evidence whatsoever.

well i didn't have to provide anything for neither because i didn't claim such things in a way you present them.

In support of your notion that chomsky's "minions" are all duped into perceiving his work as scientific you offer simply your opinion; no data, no articles, nothing.What is more, you do not provide a substantial discussion on why it isn't scientific or why it should or should not be.

most of the argument that was going on i had was with limpy, and this stuff wasn't brought up in such direct manner as you're doing it now before. i'm not required by default to back up every single of my views. the only thing i did claim on this as far as i remember is that all of his findings seem to suspiciously correlate with his political views, noone really asked me directly to follow on to this.

You also claim that "no one" in the academic community takes him seriously, that no one cites him, but again zero proof.

didn't say it, i said that in the field of gatekeeping he's not cited despite his work actually relating very close to it (on surface).

Likewise your notion that the Chomsky clings to the pm is not supported by any link or reference, in fact you deliberately ignored my request for such info and later told me to google it.

i wouldn't have asked to google it if it wasn't trivial, it's a very popualr criticism of the model and obviously he answered to it.

  Quote

So, two of your major points are simply opinions, nbd, but expressed as hard truths which you do not suffer to be challenged.

well it's you who decided what's major and what not, i think that my focus was on showing that his work ignores important factors in gatekeeping without which the it can't be considered serious. and internet too.

  Quote

As for your basic criticism of the pm, it doesn't amount to much. You've reduced it entirely to this queer notion about corporations controlling the media which you counter by claiming that such manipulation is no longer possible on the internet.

summarising, not reducing, because essentially, however intricate the mechanism is, it amounts to govnmt and corporation having the final say in news output according to the model. it's the thing that's most important, the dependent variable so to say. and of manipulation of what exactly ? i never claimed that corporation ceased to work for profit since the advent of the internet i claimed that information is being processed very differently and the role of old media corporations changed a lot.

  Quote

Again, no data, no studies, no in depth articles backing this up.

because i didn't claim what you say i do, and what i did i try to show logically with a few examples. there was no need for any external backing for what i said.

  Quote

Indeed, as Chen pointed out, the mainstream media that is the subject of MC still provide the vast majority of news used by Americans. It remains to be seen whether the internet will in time create a substantial paradigm shift in news consumption but as it stands people are still getting their news from the same or similar sources.

pretty much every relatively young person in the west consumes and processes media completely differently than it was possible in the mid to late 80's which chomsky described, i don't think this notion needs any kind of proof. (though there is a very nice article on social news sites like reddit which compares its innovation with newspapers)

  Quote

You also attempt to critique the pm itself by unfavorably comparing it to gatekeeping, but this amounts to very little. It may be the case that the pm is less comprehensive then other approaches, indeed its authors express their belief that this is so, but you'll have to do a lot more work to substantially discredit it.

gatekeeping is a field where this kind of work falls into, there's nothing unfavorable in this idea. it's not that m.c. is less comprehensive, it simply cannot seriously explain what it aims to explain, it's like trying to explain nationalism with marxism.

  Quote

Furthermore, you've repeatedly told people to just google something but have provided no analysis whatsoever on what they will find.

just you, and it wasn't an analysis you request as you must surely remember.

  Quote

For instance, I googled Chomsky/internet/propaganda model and I found on the first page two long articles both of which directly answered all of your rebuttals. Not only that but I learned on that first page that the pm is mainly Edward Herman's work,

great job !

  Quote

which rather seriously dimiahes the thrust of your ire about Chomsky here.

i think it's safe to say that chomsky stays 100% behind this work.

  Quote

What is more, you have made remarks about what Chomsky says "in the book," discussing his analysis of psychology

never happened, i said that i'm pretty sure that he didn't deal with the actual individual, psychological consent formation...which i'm pretty sure he didn't.

  Quote

and certain "undertones" found therein.

i explained that point, there' no way corporation could be portrayed as anything but negative where he focuses on how they perpetuate propaganda. it's also very clear what he thinks about corporations in the film "the corporation"

  Quote

However, you have never read the book. That you feel privileged to make such tonal and psychological observations and that you wash your hands of disingenuousness here is pretty dishonest imo.

those aren't really deep observations that you can't infer from other sources about him and the book.

  Quote

I realize this is watmm and not a platform for scholarly debate and I'm perfectly comfortable just dishing out opinions without sources and so on. But you've continuously remarked on my inability to understand the concepts you put forth and accuse me of being lost, which quite frankly just seems really pathetic considering the low level of intellectual integrity present in this debate. It especially reeks of condescension bc you're making unsupported blanket claims about a work you have never read; as though to do so is to delve into territory where I might be lost lol

*yawn*

  Quote

If you want to come into a thread and bash Chomsky go right ahead, but be prepared to back your shit up with more than "google it" or some sad excuse about how you have so many ways of countering an argument that you don't know what to chose from.

again, never told anyone except you to google anything.
i did choose one and went through with it after all, there wasn't opportunity to develop it further because thread went to shit, and i don't think i will because i really can't see it working after all this.

  Quote

As I said right off the bat I haven't followed his work for several years (I read MC in 2002 I believe) and was hopin you would provide me and others with something more substantial considering the vehemence of your responses to his name being brough up. And if you're going to dish out sad insults be aware that it will diminish the quality of the discussion.

*yawn II*

I just watched Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy? and it's a nice little film. It's essentially Michel Gondry's light stroll through the history of science, philosophy and linguistics curated by Chomsky. And there's a kind-of somber tinge to the film as Chomsky's wife of 50 years had just passed and Chomsky himself is in deteriorating health. No politics in it, except incidentally for a minute here or there.

This thread is growing to be a huge conspiracy on its own. The ghost of sup is making us do it. I believe.

When's the last time a celebrity died where there wasn't some conspiracy theory about it?

Seems like there's a conspiracy theory about everything.

  On 12/3/2013 at 10:49 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Seems like there's a conspiracy theory about everything.

that's what they want you to think

  On 11/30/2013 at 4:46 PM, SR4 said:

i feel like this is going in a loop

  On 12/3/2013 at 10:49 AM, LimpyLoo said:

When's the last time a celebrity died where there wasn't some conspiracy theory about it?

 

Seems like there's a conspiracy theory about everything.

The world is chaotic and meaningless and we are pattern and meaning seeking creatures and thus conspiracy theories.

i think it was alan moore who said the scariest conspiracy of them all is that we're being driven off a cliff with nobody behind the wheel, that the idea of no scary nefarious organization being in control is actually not as bad because ultimately no-one is in control

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

All you guys unemployed or what?

I lol'd

  On 12/4/2013 at 4:56 AM, A/D said:

 

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

All you guys unemployed or what?

I lol'd

 

Imagine getting paid to think about this shit.

Amazon.

Time to get this thread back on track yo

USA government fundings exposed

oh shit! mayans!

up in the hizouwse!

remember when teh world ended back in 2012 was it? as data would say 'the octopus was weally scary'

but uh, i remember wondering what the history channel was going to do with the mountains of mayan end of the world prophesy show footage that they had after 2012. surely they couldn't rerun that shit? maybe they buried all the footage out in the desert beside all those ET 2600 carts.

anyway i'm totally surprised that the killing of bin laden which was accompanied by not even a single photo of his body before the prompt at sea burial, and preceded by the suspiciously lost signal during the actual raid, where it cut out during the key moments, that none of this seemed to inspire the 9/11 conspiracy types nearly as much as 9/11 itself did, if at all. and by totally surprised, i mean not at all surprised.

and i agree with the notion that for lots of people it's much more shocking that sometimes almost random things actually happen. like oswald being a lone shooter. to most people that's a far crazier idea that a lone guy would want to do something like that, and actually be able to pull it off, even though freak things happen every day. maybe it was a conspiracy. i don't take it as a given that it was though, or that any time some high profile person dies, it's prob a conspiracy. i think if everyone who died had investigations as thorough as when a president gets killed, all kinds of anomalous details would get turned up, that someone could use to paint a some kind of conspiratorial scenario to explain it. even if you really did just slip on a banana peel.

CIA flying in cocaine by the ton and selling it to Freeway Ricky Ross, the "WalMart" of crack in Los Angeles. Crack was used as a form of population control to force the underclass to contribute to the economy by being part of the prison system. Today, America has 25% of the world's prison population, 60% of which are non-violent drug offenders. In school they can teach you about slavery and the Native Americans because it was all so long ago and we've learned from our mistakes, right? Nah, we're just as bad, just more shrewd about it.

Funny how the poll assumes the 9/11 conspiracy would be "big" if Obama didn't know, that actually implies that the conspiracy was small and only a handful (under 5) of people had to know the full details. Which is in fact the case, since the Air Force simulations from that morning are necessary and sufficient for the inside job to be carried out with 99% of the people involved not knowing what they're doing.

It's the same mistake the Chomsky makes, he thinks a large conspiracy is unbelievable, and he's correct. But a conspiracy does not imply a LARGE conspiracy, it could be a medium-sized or small conspiracy. So Chomksy fails Logic 101.

Everyone who believes the government story about 9/11 is either (a) brainwashed by the media and government, like most WATMMers, or (b) an independent-thinking mentally-deficient dipshit, like Chomksy.

PS fun fact, someone pre-installed microcells in flight 77, which allowed passengers to make phone calls through a special system explaining

(1) no phone company record

(2) plane was too high for usual cell phone calls

see: http://qr.ae/IGD9b

  On 12/8/2013 at 12:07 AM, Joseph said:

Funny how the poll assumes the 9/11 conspiracy would be "big" if Obama didn't know, that actually implies that the conspiracy was small and only a handful (under 5) of people had to know the full details. Which is in fact the case, since the Air Force simulations from that morning are necessary and sufficient for the inside job to be carried out with 99% of the people involved not knowing what they're doing.

 

It's the same mistake the Chomsky makes, he thinks a large conspiracy is unbelievable, and he's correct. But a conspiracy does not imply a LARGE conspiracy, it could be a medium-sized or small conspiracy. So Chomksy fails Logic 101.

 

Everyone who believes the government story about 9/11 is either (a) brainwashed by the media and government, like most WATMMers, or (b) an independent-thinking mentally-deficient dipshit, like Chomksy.

 

PS fun fact, someone pre-installed microcells in flight 77, which allowed passengers to make phone calls through a special system explaining

 

(1) no phone company record

(2) plane was too high for usual cell phone calls

 

see: http://qr.ae/IGD9b

umm yeah fucking lol bro

"It's the same mistake the Chomsky makes, he thinks a large conspiracy is unbelievable, and he's correct. But a conspiracy does not imply a LARGE conspiracy, it could be a medium-sized or small conspiracy. So Chomksy fails Logic 101."

What the fuck are you talking about? You're apparently using English words so I've deduced that you and I speak the same language but what the fuck are you talking about?

i've been watching FEMA death camp videos on youtube. they are very lol.

especially this one, starring JESSE "THE BODY" VENTURA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axWAGSSB8cQ