Of course, this presupposes that all the media are in cahoots with each other, that ratings/competition have no influence, that no reporter has a spine exceeding that of a jellyfish, and that the orchestrators are all smart enough to pull it off.TimmyBoy said:Here is a quote from Chomsky from his book "Media Control"
"The role of the media in contemporary politics forces us to ask what kind of a world and what kind of a society we want to live in, and in particular what sense of democracy do we want this to be democratic society? Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. If you look up democracy in the dictionary you'll get a definition something like that.
An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception."
It seems to me what Chomsky is saying in this writing of his is that the media and the control of information controls the thoughts and perceptions of people like ourselves. And because the media controls our thoughts and perceptions, our thoughts and perceptions might be incorrect and serving powerful interests and people of the country. Powerful people and powerful interests use the media to get everybody else in support of their agenda by controlling our thoughts through information control.
UtahBill said:Of course, this presupposes that all the media are in cahoots with each other, that ratings/competition have no influence, that no reporter has a spine exceeding that of a jellyfish, and that the orchestrators are all smart enough to pull it off.
Not saying here that the power mongers are not trying to do it, just that there are too many individuals in the herd of media types, and they can't cull them all. Some of them end up getting Nobel prizes for going against the herd instinct, and those are the ones whose writings you want to read.
TimmyBoy said:Here is a quote from Chomsky from his book "Media Control"
"The role of the media in contemporary politics forces us to ask what kind of a world and what kind of a society we want to live in, and in particular what sense of democracy do we want this to be democratic society? Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. If you look up democracy in the dictionary you'll get a definition something like that.
An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception."
It seems to me what Chomsky is saying in this writing of his is that the media and the control of information controls the thoughts and perceptions of people like ourselves. And because the media controls our thoughts and perceptions, our thoughts and perceptions might be incorrect and serving powerful interests and people of the country. Powerful people and powerful interests use the media to get everybody else in support of their agenda by controlling our thoughts through information control.
hipsterdufus said:Great post. If you want someone actually representatice of the left in this country, Chomsky is it, along with Howard Zinn. I wish the MSM would interview these guys occasionally.
Pat Tillman was a Chomsky fan, and wanted to meet him after returning from the war. That's just too much!
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1007-22.htm
TimmyBoy said:An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:Chomsky is a proponent of anarchism..simple as that. Many people in the media lash out at buisiness...his use of generalization is testimony to how he makes an argument. He always leaves out vital details and information..I pointed it out clearly in the International Politics thread.
TimmyBoy said:You didn't point out anything in any thread concerning Chomsky, all you did was try to discredit him since he says things you don't like. I just ignored your posts because their was little sense in debating with you, since, first you really don't know what you are talkign about and next, their is little sense in debating somebody who is entrenched in their position. I am not going to change my position, because I know I am right. And you are not going to change your position either because you simply don't want to accept reality the way it really is or falsely believe you are right. Either way, it's stupid to debate when you or I are unwilling to budge from our positions. You even denied outright facts, claiming these proven facts were "false." I don't see why I should take you seriously.
TimmyBoy said:So what if he has anarchist beliefs? I have a friend who has socialist/anarchist convictions (stand corrected). They are entitled to their convictions and it doesn't mean they are un-intelligent or that their political views have no validity.
TimmyBoy said:I personally do not have anarchist or communist convictions but I learn alot from those who do.
TimmyBoy said:You probably don't even know what anarchism is or any famous anarchists, some of which who brought you the 8 hour work day.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:The quotes you used from Chomsky were FALSE. I proved it by stating the historical and well known facts.
It means they don't know history. Anarchism has never worked..it's nothing but chaos. Chomsky is for individuals regulating themselves..no government..nothing. Oddly enough he also makes a bizzare case for a marxist government and the exclusion and persecution of republicans.
Somone should tell them that it doesn't work in real life.
Acctually I do. Anarchism is the elimination of all social structures and the self regulation of the individual rather than an organized government. I also know of a famous anarchist; William Godwin.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:The quotes you used from Chomsky were FALSE. I proved it by stating the historical and well known facts.
It means they don't know history. Anarchism has never worked..it's nothing but chaos. Chomsky is for individuals regulating themselves..no government..nothing. Oddly enough he also makes a bizzare case for a marxist government and the exclusion and persecution of republicans.
Somone should tell them that it doesn't work in real life.
Acctually I do. Anarchism is the elimination of all social structures and the self regulation of the individual rather than an organized government. I also know of a famous anarchist; William Godwin.
Brigand said:Timmyboy is quite right, you have absolutely no idea, whatsover, what you're talking about.
Brigand said:How limited you are. How dull and contrived. And so, you dare reflect on such things in which, you have such a poor understanding of and have the effrontery to speak on others understanding of history.
Brigand said:Why don't you try actually reading some of Chomsky's literature.
TimmyBoy said:Here is a quote from Chomsky from his book "Media Control"
"The role of the media in contemporary politics forces us to ask what kind of a world and what kind of a society we want to live in, and in particular what sense of democracy do we want this to be democratic society? Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. If you look up democracy in the dictionary you'll get a definition something like that.
An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception."
It seems to me what Chomsky is saying in this writing of his is that the media and the control of information controls the thoughts and perceptions of people like ourselves. And because the media controls our thoughts and perceptions, our thoughts and perceptions might be incorrect and serving powerful interests and people of the country. Powerful people and powerful interests use the media to get everybody else in support of their agenda by controlling our thoughts through information control.
Napoleon's Nightingale said:I know precisely what I'm talking about.
Is that so? Provide an example of 1 successful anarchist society. I'll provide you with one that didn't work..France during the revolution.
Why don't you try reading your sources before you post them.
"...they anticipate he will lay out his goals and strategy with similar precision and clarity, only to be disappointed with his generalized statements of libertarian socialist values." That is precisely my point. Chomsky never offers solutions to the problems, often takes historical events out of context and distorts them, and generalizes to an insane degree. Obviously Chomsky has never studied history or he'd know that anarchism has never worked in real life. Anarchism looks good on paper but when its applied to real life it always results in mass murder, total chaos, and the inability of the state to protect itself from outside threats.
Deegan said:
This makes absolutely no sense at all, for an educated person anyway. Noam often talks down to everyone, that is his way of growing a larger dick, then the one he now, unfortunately for him, has to live with everyday. The day of this rhetoric is long gone, we have the internet Noam, your crap holds no water, nor weight, give it up! He is a dying breed, and is struggling to keep his sheep in line, how very sad so many still kneel at the alter.:roll:
Brigand said:No, it's not! You said nothing, of such sorts!! You spoke of Chomsky's absolute and catergorical convictions on Anarchy, when this article 'explains' he doens't have any! THAT'S the point, you blockheaded, daft little man.
Brigand said:You're one of those that takes snippets of information, and hoovers them up to suit your own tiny little bunch of prejudices.
Brigand said:OH, LOOK! HERE WE GO AGAIN!! So, NOW it's not only the others that you commented on as having no historical learning...it's now Chomsky!
Brigand said:No, you're far too doltish, for this to even remotely progress beyond the realms of your tiny little province, and you've made it, altogether, clear that debating and talking with you is an utter waste of time!
Brigand said:As for you!, your display of being confused is rebounded out of your own stupidity...and not that the quote/post made no-sense.
your crap holds no water"?
Needless to say, your laughable mix of metaphor's, shows your own standards of education. Is it really any wonder that you didn't make any sense of it?
Napoleon's Nightingale said:I clearly stated it in the thread about Chomsky in the Internation Politics section. You're a real fool...why don't you acctually read the source you provided me. Here are some quotes from Chomsky:
"The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many)....."
"I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues..."
Baaaaah baaaaah sheepy sheep..better hope your shephard doesn't lead you into the jaws of a wolf.
Aside from criticizing the current government system he also claims that we don't know enough about governments to know which is best..an oxymoron at the very least. If more than 3000 years of recorded history isn't enough for Chomsky to make his choice then no amount of time will be sufficient for him. There hasn't been a single instance in which anarchism works. I also find it humorous that when Chomsky was asked where he got a quote that he used in one of books he responded..."I read it somewhere."
HAHA. I'm still waiting for you to name 1 society in which anarchism worked.
Deegan said:I made my own way through my education, I didn't allow some confused professor to make my decisions for me, you have obviously decided to just trust someone else to direct you, how very sad for you.:2wave:
Brigand said:Hmm...Boring, typical and pig-headed. Yes, you did, indeed, make YOUR own way through YOUR education, I'm perplexed on how you think that lends you any crendence, when you don't do a good job of manifesting this self-taught wisdom of yours! How strange, that 'professors' become confused and stupid, when they publish things that people like you, simply don't understand or disagree with . And let's face it, fella. You've no desire to see over your wall, but you're fine, throwing your garbage over it.
I really ****ing despise people like you, more and more with each post I read.
Deegan said:Well don't cry about fella, I just don't buy in to the mans rhetoric, it is my right. Despise me all you like, I am sure it helps you to rationalize your own position, by attempting to disregard mine as irrelevant, or not worthy, Chomsky has taught you well. The facts are.......well, that facts are indeed there, no matter what "corporate news agency" you happen to be watching. This man is trying to create a paranoia, and inventing situations that just don't exist, there is no conspiracy. There are spins, there are left leaning, right leaning news sources, but a conspiracy, please, you sound as paranoid as the professor. There are folks out there that can be easily swayed, or manipulated......funny, that is starting to sound a lot like the Chomsky fans, or should I say sheep, that I know.
Brigand said:I see people like Chomsky trailblazing the way for people like me and you and the following generations after we're long gone.
Brigand said:The ones that have something different to offer. The ones we 'should' be paying close attention to are the those that see improvements.
Napoleon's Nightingale said::rofl Maybe you forgot that John Kerry lost. Chomsky can criticize all he wants but without offering solutions his opinions are just a flee fart in a hurricane. As I said earlier, if 3000 years of recorded history isn't enough for Chomsky to make his choice then no amount of time will be sufficient for him.
Then Chomsky isn't your man. All he does is criticize x, y, and z but never says what he thinks should have been done differently. The man has nothing different to offer..they're the same criticisms over and over again and he never offers solutions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?