Noam Chomsky Stumps Andrew Marr
Noam Chomsky Stumps Andrew Marr on HackerTube: recommended by 1 Hacker News commenter across 1 month, 2019–2022.
A three-minute clip of Noam Chomsky in an exchange with BBC journalist Andrew Marr about media filtering and self-censorship. Chomsky argues that people reach positions precisely because they would not say things that conflict with the system.
What HN commenters said
8 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
herbsteinMar 2019Recommends
> Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge. That is right. Chomsky proposes 5 filters through which this process happens. These filters operate, according to Chomsky, not just in media, but in all of society. From kindergarten to our deadbeds. I think this was best illustrated with Chomsky's 1996 interview in "The Big Idea" on BBC by Andrew Marr. Chomsky is outlining how the filters make sure certain viewpoints are popularized, and Andrew Marr asks "How can you know that I'm self-censoring?". To which Chomsky replies "I'm not saying you're self-censoring. I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting." The 30 minute episode[1] is well worth a watch, but the three minute clip of the above exchange is also available[2]. [1]: [link] [2]: ▶ this video
in “Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages” · View on HN
r0uv3nSep 2022Cites it
I believe this [1] should be the interview, found it via leaving out the quotes and using "Chomsky" instead of "Noam". [1] ▶ this video
in “On my resignation as regulator of the Dutch intelligence and security services” · View on HN
aahortwwyAug 2021Cites it
"I'm not saying you're self-censoring; I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. What I'm saying is that if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting." ▶ this video
in “Six corporations control 90% of America media” · View on HN
herbsteinAug 2021Cites it
Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" proposes the method through which the media influence isn't by way of "old men in a dark, smoky backroom" as the claim conjures images of. Rather, it's a series of filters that funnel like-minded people into the decision-making roles of the companies. If we simplify it a lot, it's the claim that a CEO is very likely to hire a senior editor that shares his views on the world, that editor in turn hires writers with a similar outlook on the world, etc. etc. Likewise, promotions within these companies is predicated on this same mechanism. To the question "Do you think all journalists are self-censoring? Do you think I'm self-censoring?", posed by the BBC's Andrew Marr, Chomsky answered "I think you believe everything you're saying because if you didn't you wouldn't be sitting here". Both quotes paraphrased but meaning-preserving. [0] This is 1 of 5 filters laid out in "Manufacturing Consent". It's, in my eyes, a very compelling analytical framework. [0]: ▶ this video - Video title is terribly divisive but the quote is at the timestamp. The whole 3 minute video just gives a bit of context to why the question is asked. It also cuts off as Andrew Marr is about to say something, making the video's title bunk. Viewer beware.
in “We built a system like Apple’s to flag CSAM and concluded the tech was dangerous” · View on HN
chacha2Mar 2021Cites it
Noam Chomsky with Andrew Marr ▶ this video "If you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you are sitting"
in “'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter” · View on HN
mistermannJun 2019Cites it
> The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it. > So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker. You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable. > It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic... There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created. > ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct? > ...and just obfuscates the more important topic I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid
in “The Making of a YouTube Radical” · View on HN
Show 2 more comments
mistermannJun 2019Cites it
> You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy. That is one way your claim could be satisfied as true, I was pointing out it fails. > Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning. No, I do not make that claim, it was stated as a alternative condition that if satisfied could make your assertion true: "the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning" > If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance. Whether the phrase has an actual accepted meaning of what you say is not irrelevant, but I can see how you'd like that to be considered irrelevant. > Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author. Yet, you can present no evidence demonstrating this, and it is clearly contrary to the meaning he used in the context of its usage. Have you even listened to the clip in question? >> There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase > Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too. And therefore you can make u
in “The Making of a YouTube Radical” · View on HN
mistermannMay 2019Cites it
I make absolutely no claim of accuracy to your particular situation here, but the unique speaking style you use (unique to a layman, but quite common I suspect among people who find success in SV) made me immediately recall a Noam Chomsky interview I watched quite some time ago: ▶ this video The key line being: "I'm sure you believe everything you're saying, but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
in “Gmail really wants me to say yes” · View on HN