4 ms·

Seriously? What boon to public culture? We just entered a "post-truth" era, where the public at large cares nothing about truth, or anything requiring an att

Seriously? What boon to public culture? We just entered a "post-truth" era, where the public at large cares nothing about truth, or anything requiring an attention span. If intellectuals are finding ways to feed themselves and apply their talents, outside academia, bully for them. But let's not pretend they're stopping our slide to a dark age. We're still riding a hand basket right now.

devoply 10y ago
Does Chomsky tell the truth, I think he does but many people don't including some of the elite? The truth serves a power structure. The public believes in the truth that serves the power structure that they want running the world, because it protects them or empowers them. If you are not protecting them then they are going to look to other power structures or to change the power structure. To do that they are going to promote truth that serves that cause. Perhaps out of a sense of paranoia that someone or something is out to get them. Academia promotes a certain power structure, the pubic may no longer be down with that. And the economy has much to do with that. Better get on that minimum income asap, assuage their fears. Or we are headed for some really turbulent political times. Post-modernism already attacked truth and disassembled it, we're now seeing that work in real life rather than just academia. As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid"
- fredgrott 10y ago
  you hit the nail on the head of why minimum income so damn untruth-Y..seems but such illusions we award people for NOT taking a risk FIND OUT some truth..
kiba 10y ago
We just entered a "post-truth" era, where the public at large cares nothing about truth, or anything requiring an attention span. Can you qualify what that mean? Are you saying that people are isolating themselves into their own filter bubble?
- zatkin 10y ago
  Observe what happened with the United States presidential election.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Not exactly bubbles, but large areas of belief in things that are bizarre, harmful and unsupported by evidence. Everything from global warming denialism to birtherism.
zardo 10y ago
>where the public at large cares nothing about truth, or anything requiring an attention span. Nothing new about that.
- qntty 10y ago
  I recommend reading Amusing Ourselves to Death. The Lincoln-Douglas debates consisted of a series of hour+ long speeches by each candidate, all in a single sitting, and people went to them and listened.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Is it really that different from today's rallies (sp?) ? People literally waited in line for hours and hours to listen to long speeches. Many Clinton and Trump rallies had more than 20 000 attendees.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - ocschwar 10y ago
      They listened to many short speeches that weren't speeches at all. Just word salad and "trump that bitch" and "lock her up." Lincoln and Douglass were another thing entirely.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        So, which speech did you attend? I can't say I've heard any in this specific election (mind you, I'm not even American), but I frankly find it easier to keep my attention reading the Lincoln-Douglass speeches than the platitude-filled drivel of many of today's political speeches.
      - ocschwar 10y ago
        > So, which speech did you attend? I can only take so much of that before I click away.
jccalhoun 10y ago
For the last year or so I've been really thinking about how to deal with this. Why are people responding positively to bluster and lies? Why do they believe them? How can I, as an educator, help people develop critical thinking skills? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I'm still hashing out in my mind how to best integrate critical literacy skills into my courses for the spring semester. I am really trying not to make my thinking about specific politics but more about logic and reasoning. If someone suggests something that is blatantly unconstitutional or impossible to accomplish, I want them to recognize that and call it out whether or not I think it would be bad or good.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  My feeling is that since Facebook has a monopoly on being Facebook, and Twitter has a monopoly on being Twitter, and since these companies have an interest in not being gamed by the KGB, Macedonian teenagers or anything else, they should keep up research on using data science to identify disinformation and rank it accordingly in the feeds they serve. It would be a good start.
- tnecniv 10y ago
  What do you teach?
- devoply 10y ago
  The only good reason to think critically is that it's empowering. If you can convey this to your students you can get them to think critically. If not, then not.
tnecniv 10y ago
This stuff was never written for the public at large. It was written for the (upper-)middle class. Particularly those who already know something about the subject or enough about the academic/cultural sphere that they can wade through it. A ten page article in N+1 about the decline of orchestras is not targeted at people who don't have some exposure to classical music.

devoply 10y ago

Does Chomsky tell the truth, I think he does but many people don't including some of the elite? The truth serves a power structure. The public believes in the truth that serves the power structure that they want running the world, because it protects them or empowers them. If you are not protecting them then they are going to look to other power structures or to change the power structure. To do that they are going to promote truth that serves that cause. Perhaps out of a sense of paranoia that someone or something is out to get them. Academia promotes a certain power structure, the pubic may no longer be down with that. And the economy has much to do with that. Better get on that minimum income asap, assuage their fears. Or we are headed for some really turbulent political times. Post-modernism already attacked truth and disassembled it, we're now seeing that work in real life rather than just academia. As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid"

fredgrott 10y ago
you hit the nail on the head of why minimum income so damn untruth-Y..seems but such illusions we award people for NOT taking a risk FIND OUT some truth..

kiba 10y ago

We just entered a "post-truth" era, where the public at large cares nothing about truth, or anything requiring an attention span. Can you qualify what that mean? Are you saying that people are isolating themselves into their own filter bubble?

zatkin 10y ago
Observe what happened with the United States presidential election.
pjc50 10y ago
Not exactly bubbles, but large areas of belief in things that are bizarre, harmful and unsupported by evidence. Everything from global warming denialism to birtherism.

zardo 10y ago

>where the public at large cares nothing about truth, or anything requiring an attention span. Nothing new about that.

qntty 10y ago
I recommend reading Amusing Ourselves to Death. The Lincoln-Douglas debates consisted of a series of hour+ long speeches by each candidate, all in a single sitting, and people went to them and listened.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Is it really that different from today's rallies (sp?) ? People literally waited in line for hours and hours to listen to long speeches. Many Clinton and Trump rallies had more than 20 000 attendees.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ocschwar 10y ago
    They listened to many short speeches that weren't speeches at all. Just word salad and "trump that bitch" and "lock her up." Lincoln and Douglass were another thing entirely.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      So, which speech did you attend? I can't say I've heard any in this specific election (mind you, I'm not even American), but I frankly find it easier to keep my attention reading the Lincoln-Douglass speeches than the platitude-filled drivel of many of today's political speeches.
    - ocschwar 10y ago
      > So, which speech did you attend? I can only take so much of that before I click away.

jccalhoun 10y ago

For the last year or so I've been really thinking about how to deal with this. Why are people responding positively to bluster and lies? Why do they believe them? How can I, as an educator, help people develop critical thinking skills? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I'm still hashing out in my mind how to best integrate critical literacy skills into my courses for the spring semester. I am really trying not to make my thinking about specific politics but more about logic and reasoning. If someone suggests something that is blatantly unconstitutional or impossible to accomplish, I want them to recognize that and call it out whether or not I think it would be bad or good.

ocschwar 10y ago
My feeling is that since Facebook has a monopoly on being Facebook, and Twitter has a monopoly on being Twitter, and since these companies have an interest in not being gamed by the KGB, Macedonian teenagers or anything else, they should keep up research on using data science to identify disinformation and rank it accordingly in the feeds they serve. It would be a good start.
tnecniv 10y ago
What do you teach?
devoply 10y ago
The only good reason to think critically is that it's empowering. If you can convey this to your students you can get them to think critically. If not, then not.

tnecniv 10y ago

This stuff was never written for the public at large. It was written for the (upper-)middle class. Particularly those who already know something about the subject or enough about the academic/cultural sphere that they can wade through it. A ten page article in N+1 about the decline of orchestras is not targeted at people who don't have some exposure to classical music.