5 ms·

The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however. So while you're factually correct, you lie by omission. Their attempts at presently a

The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however. So while you're factually correct, you lie by omission. Their attempts at presently a balanced view is almost to the point of absurdity these days as they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias.

breppp 1y ago
I said BBC because as the other poster added, this was a BBC reporter rather than Carlson Chomsky's entire argument is, that the reporter opinions are meaningless as he is part of some imaginary establishment and therefore he had to think that way. That game goes both ways, Chomsky's opinions are only being given TV time as they are unusual. I would venture more and say the only reason Chomsky holds these opinions is because of the academics preference for original thought rather than mainstream thought. As any repeat of an existing theory is worthless. The problem is that in the social sciences that are not grounded in experiments, too much ungrounded original thought leads to academic conspiracy theories
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  Imaginary establishment? Do you think power doesn't exist?
  - breppp 1y ago
    power does exist, however foucault's theory of power as a metaphysical force pervading everyone's actions and thought is a conspiracy theory
    - suddenlybananas 1y ago
      Chomsky was not a foucauldian at all and his criticisms are super far from foucault's ideas. You can watch the very famous debate they had to see how they differ.
      - breppp 1y ago
        I read your reply to be alluding to the foucault concept of power, as it was in the context of power systems "censoring" ideas furthermore, in this specific quote they do not differ a lot. maybe mainstream opinion is mainstream because it is more correct, moral or more beneficial to society? he does not try to negate such statements, he just tries to prove mainstream opinion is wrong due to being mainstream (or the result of mainstream "power")
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        [flagged]
        breppp 1y ago
        > Are you six years old? Approval of slavery or torture used to be mainstream opinions And also disapproval of cannibalism is a mainstream opinion, that doesn't change the fact that popularity of an opinion does not make it wrong or immoral just like it doesn't make it right or moral > You have deeply misunderstood his criticisms So please explain how am I mistaken in your opinion
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        >that popularity of an opinion does not make it wrong or immoral just like it doesn't make it right or moral I know. You were the one who suggested the converse. >So please explain how am I mistaken in your opinion The argument is not that mainstream ideas are necessarily false, that would be an idiotic position. The idea is just that the media has incentives to go along with what powerful people want them to say because there are real material benefits from going along. In fact, the whole point of the model is that it doesn't require a concerted conspiracy, it falls out naturally from the incentive structures of modern society.
        breppp 1y ago
        > I know. You were the one who suggested the converse. No, you misread. I said if Chomsky wants to tackle mainstream ideas he needs to show why they are wrong. not just say they are popular and are therefore wrong because they were shoved down by the ether of "power" > The idea is just that the media has incentives to go along with what powerful people want them to say because there are real material benefits from going along Yes I understood, and that's why I said the same can be said about Chosmky, who has material benefits in academia to hold opinions which are new, are politically aligned with the academic mainstream and are in a field where the burden of proof is not high (although LLMs have something to say about Chomsky's original field). This is a poor argument to make about Chomsky as just like Chomsky's argument it does not tackle an idea, just the one who is making it
    - mejutoco 1y ago
      And yet even in this old forum, depending on what I write in the comment, I can be praised, shadowbanned or downvoted.
      - Der_Einzige 1y ago
        Dang being an ass and the moderation on HN being bad doesn't mean that suddenly the disappearance of leprosy from europe was a socially constructed thing. Foucault is so full of shit that I think calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is charitable. He's a full on anti-scientific charlatan. Biopolitics/biopower is a conspiracy theory. Most of all of his books, including and especially Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, and a History of Sexuality, are full of lies/false citations, and other charlatanism. A whole lot of others are also full of Shit. Lacan is the most full of shit of all, but even the likes of Marshal Mcluhan are full of shit. Entire fields like "Semiotics" are also full of shit.
tehjoker 1y ago
How often does the BBC have a communist on? Almost never?
- youngNed 1y ago
  I'm genuinely struggling to think of many people in modern politics who identify as communists who would qualify for this, but certainly Ash 'literally a communist' Sarkar is a fairly regular guest on various shows: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002dlj3 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002dlj3
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Zizek would probably qualify? I think he self-identifies as a communist but I'm not sure he means it completely seriously. Here he is on Newsnight about a month ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx_J1MgokV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx_J1MgokV4 Then agaain, he's not a politician himself.
    - youngNed 1y ago
      Alexi Sayle has had numerous shows on the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wrsn https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wrsn
    - tehjoker 1y ago
      Zizek in my view betrayed the movement in his home country. That's why the press loves him so much. He also talks a lot without being that insightful in my opinion. Sarkar could be good, but that famous quote from her is the only thing I know about her politics.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        > Zizek in my view betrayed the movement in his home country. I don’t know what you mean by this, but I know he’s been around a while before he became known in the US. Could you explain a bit more for me or give me a link to something he said or did that caused you to change how you felt about him? I feel like I’m missing the proper context to appreciate your points, and if I did know what you do, I might feel as you do.
gadders 1y ago
>>The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however. Not for climate change, as that debate is "settled". Where they do need to pretend to show balance they will pick the most reasonable talking head for their preferred position, and the most unhinged or extreme for the contra-position. >> they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias. Yes, really hard to determine the BBC house position on Brexit, mass immigration, the Iraq War, Israel/Palestine, Trump etc

breppp 1y ago

I said BBC because as the other poster added, this was a BBC reporter rather than Carlson Chomsky's entire argument is, that the reporter opinions are meaningless as he is part of some imaginary establishment and therefore he had to think that way. That game goes both ways, Chomsky's opinions are only being given TV time as they are unusual. I would venture more and say the only reason Chomsky holds these opinions is because of the academics preference for original thought rather than mainstream thought. As any repeat of an existing theory is worthless. The problem is that in the social sciences that are not grounded in experiments, too much ungrounded original thought leads to academic conspiracy theories

suddenlybananas 1y ago
Imaginary establishment? Do you think power doesn't exist?
- breppp 1y ago
  power does exist, however foucault's theory of power as a metaphysical force pervading everyone's actions and thought is a conspiracy theory
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    Chomsky was not a foucauldian at all and his criticisms are super far from foucault's ideas. You can watch the very famous debate they had to see how they differ.
    - breppp 1y ago
      I read your reply to be alluding to the foucault concept of power, as it was in the context of power systems "censoring" ideas furthermore, in this specific quote they do not differ a lot. maybe mainstream opinion is mainstream because it is more correct, moral or more beneficial to society? he does not try to negate such statements, he just tries to prove mainstream opinion is wrong due to being mainstream (or the result of mainstream "power")
      - suddenlybananas 1y ago
        [flagged]
        breppp 1y ago
        > Are you six years old? Approval of slavery or torture used to be mainstream opinions And also disapproval of cannibalism is a mainstream opinion, that doesn't change the fact that popularity of an opinion does not make it wrong or immoral just like it doesn't make it right or moral > You have deeply misunderstood his criticisms So please explain how am I mistaken in your opinion
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        >that popularity of an opinion does not make it wrong or immoral just like it doesn't make it right or moral I know. You were the one who suggested the converse. >So please explain how am I mistaken in your opinion The argument is not that mainstream ideas are necessarily false, that would be an idiotic position. The idea is just that the media has incentives to go along with what powerful people want them to say because there are real material benefits from going along. In fact, the whole point of the model is that it doesn't require a concerted conspiracy, it falls out naturally from the incentive structures of modern society.
        breppp 1y ago
        > I know. You were the one who suggested the converse. No, you misread. I said if Chomsky wants to tackle mainstream ideas he needs to show why they are wrong. not just say they are popular and are therefore wrong because they were shoved down by the ether of "power" > The idea is just that the media has incentives to go along with what powerful people want them to say because there are real material benefits from going along Yes I understood, and that's why I said the same can be said about Chosmky, who has material benefits in academia to hold opinions which are new, are politically aligned with the academic mainstream and are in a field where the burden of proof is not high (although LLMs have something to say about Chomsky's original field). This is a poor argument to make about Chomsky as just like Chomsky's argument it does not tackle an idea, just the one who is making it
  - mejutoco 1y ago
    And yet even in this old forum, depending on what I write in the comment, I can be praised, shadowbanned or downvoted.
    - Der_Einzige 1y ago
      Dang being an ass and the moderation on HN being bad doesn't mean that suddenly the disappearance of leprosy from europe was a socially constructed thing. Foucault is so full of shit that I think calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is charitable. He's a full on anti-scientific charlatan. Biopolitics/biopower is a conspiracy theory. Most of all of his books, including and especially Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, and a History of Sexuality, are full of lies/false citations, and other charlatanism. A whole lot of others are also full of Shit. Lacan is the most full of shit of all, but even the likes of Marshal Mcluhan are full of shit. Entire fields like "Semiotics" are also full of shit.

tehjoker 1y ago

How often does the BBC have a communist on? Almost never?

youngNed 1y ago
I'm genuinely struggling to think of many people in modern politics who identify as communists who would qualify for this, but certainly Ash 'literally a communist' Sarkar is a fairly regular guest on various shows: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002dlj3 https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002dlj3
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Zizek would probably qualify? I think he self-identifies as a communist but I'm not sure he means it completely seriously. Here he is on Newsnight about a month ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx_J1MgokV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx_J1MgokV4 Then agaain, he's not a politician himself.
  - youngNed 1y ago
    Alexi Sayle has had numerous shows on the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wrsn https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wrsn
  - tehjoker 1y ago
    Zizek in my view betrayed the movement in his home country. That's why the press loves him so much. He also talks a lot without being that insightful in my opinion. Sarkar could be good, but that famous quote from her is the only thing I know about her politics.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      > Zizek in my view betrayed the movement in his home country. I don’t know what you mean by this, but I know he’s been around a while before he became known in the US. Could you explain a bit more for me or give me a link to something he said or did that caused you to change how you felt about him? I feel like I’m missing the proper context to appreciate your points, and if I did know what you do, I might feel as you do.

gadders 1y ago

>>The BBC will have multiple people with differing view points on however. Not for climate change, as that debate is "settled". Where they do need to pretend to show balance they will pick the most reasonable talking head for their preferred position, and the most unhinged or extreme for the contra-position. >> they were accused so often, and usually quite falsely, of bias. Yes, really hard to determine the BBC house position on Brexit, mass immigration, the Iraq War, Israel/Palestine, Trump etc