4 ms·

Herbert Marcuse picked up on this idea that mass media broadcasts any opinion no matter how stupid and misinformed in 1965, and it's only gotten worse: >Within

Herbert Marcuse picked up on this idea that mass media broadcasts any opinion no matter how stupid and misinformed in 1965, and it's only gotten worse: >Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought. (From Repressive Tolerance, 1965)

bobthepanda 8y ago
At the same time, sometimes the informed are wrong because of fundamentally flawed assumptions. Most of science at one point thought the world was flat. More recently, the mainstream experts have been wrong on: - the superiority of American mass motorization - the environment - the drug epidemic - the economic sustainability of a housing-investment-centered economy So on and so forth. Democracy is great because it allows some level of correction if elites are horribly misguided, even if it can be too late. But you don't see misguided policies rapidly killing millions of domestic innocents because of a lack of feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign And we certainly have not come up with workable alternatives that work better.
- masonic 8y ago
  Most of science at one point thought the world was flat. Generally, none of science thought the Earth flat. Prehistoric creation stories lacked science altogether. The flatness that some in Abrahamic traditions clung to was partially motivated by apparent conflict with scripture, such as explaining the stoppage of the sun miracle.

bobthepanda 8y ago

At the same time, sometimes the informed are wrong because of fundamentally flawed assumptions. Most of science at one point thought the world was flat. More recently, the mainstream experts have been wrong on: - the superiority of American mass motorization - the environment - the drug epidemic - the economic sustainability of a housing-investment-centered economy So on and so forth. Democracy is great because it allows some level of correction if elites are horribly misguided, even if it can be too late. But you don't see misguided policies rapidly killing millions of domestic innocents because of a lack of feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign And we certainly have not come up with workable alternatives that work better.

masonic 8y ago
Most of science at one point thought the world was flat. Generally, none of science thought the Earth flat. Prehistoric creation stories lacked science altogether. The flatness that some in Abrahamic traditions clung to was partially motivated by apparent conflict with scripture, such as explaining the stoppage of the sun miracle.