3 ms·

>Chomsky's analysis of society, and the media, is common across radicals of all political persuasions. They need a theory to explain why their radicalism isnt p

>Chomsky's analysis of society, and the media, is common across radicals of all political persuasions. They need a theory to explain why their radicalism isnt popular, despite being "obvious" -- so you have false consciousness (marx), manufactured consent (chomsky), class envy (ayn rand), etc. There is a difference between "people don't agree with me, it must be a conspiracy!" and "I see people reliably making choices that go against their self-interest" there are likely other factors manipulating them based on those factors own self-interest. >Well chomsky would always 'find his enemies' in the elite: trump down to his base. Whilst this analysis is partly correct, it doesn't explain the existence of trump in the first place: his base chose him. Rather than any prior 'political elite'. Trump's base chose him... from a sample of one. Whether by design or happenstance, Trump's political shock-jocking drew eyeballs to the media covering him and got him vastly outsized mindshare by doing so. And the same thing is happening again right now as most media outlets dwell on every single outrageous thing he says, which helps Trump by making it more difficult for any casual voter to see the underlying pattern of fraud, failure, and severe personality disorder.

mjburgess 3y ago
What happens to our analysis if we throw away the idea of manipulation all togehrer? or perhaps, better, say: there is only manipulation. That Chomsky manipulates when he points out the manipulation of others; and what we care about is that we're not successful in our manipulations. By localising this notion of 'manipulation' to an 'elite' he creates a paranoid mood of analysis -- rather, manipulation is democratic; and as far as we're in trouble in politics, it's often because of how democratic manipulation turns out to be.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Yes, people influence each other, even just by talking or writing or moving. No, this is should not be conflated with teams of media&communications experts spending thousands of man-hours on individual influence campaigns that have been focus-grouped to have precise impact.

mjburgess 3y ago

What happens to our analysis if we throw away the idea of manipulation all togehrer? or perhaps, better, say: there is only manipulation. That Chomsky manipulates when he points out the manipulation of others; and what we care about is that we're not successful in our manipulations. By localising this notion of 'manipulation' to an 'elite' he creates a paranoid mood of analysis -- rather, manipulation is democratic; and as far as we're in trouble in politics, it's often because of how democratic manipulation turns out to be.

pphysch 3y ago
Yes, people influence each other, even just by talking or writing or moving. No, this is should not be conflated with teams of media&communications experts spending thousands of man-hours on individual influence campaigns that have been focus-grouped to have precise impact.