На главнуюОбразованиеПохожее видеоЕще от: Thought Monkey

Noam Chomsky on Manufacturing Consent

Оценок: 373 | Просмотров: 10664
Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. Subscribe To My Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoFWz1e3VXKOoJ-E5cep1Eg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thought.Monkey.Community/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thought.monkey/
Категория: Образование
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Текстовые комментарии (51)
onaturalia (2 месяца назад)
This is why I stopped watching commercial TV and use ad blockers on the Internet. I don't want to be controlled by marketing.
onaturalia (2 месяца назад)
I agree with him that people want to control you and often do. I'm not sure they plan these things. It is like human nature, to dominate other humans. Throughout your life, people will want to control you. Just be aware. Don't let it happen.
dee nixon (3 месяца назад)
you should have put in some of HRC's campaign bullshit next to trumps
Cliff Gaither (2 месяца назад)
I appreciate this video as I appreciate so much that YOU-TUBE has to offer the public, especially me, as this technological age, in general, is sometime very *_irritating._* Today, YOU-TUBE provided an unintentional side of Noam Chomsky when he not only invoked the name _Sarah Palin,_ but said he _doesn't normally agree with Sarah Palin ..."_ It doesn't matter what point he was trying to make, he has enough of a historical vocabulary (as a Linguist & Historian) to find another example. An intellectual who invokes the name of a _moron_ to support his OWN opinion to say: _I don't normally agree ..._ diminishes not only the argument, but diminishes the intellectual. _SARAH PALIN IS A DANGEROUS FOOL !_ Her name should only be used to prove that point, not used by one of the most respected of intellectuals to support his argument. If he doesn't _normally_ agree with her, on what issues does he agree with this mentally diminished .... ? It seems petty to mention this as Chomsky had a greater issue to address; but, COME ON: _Sarah Palin ?!_ Her name should never enter the mind of a great intellectual -- especially for comparative argument; and most especially from Chomsky ! [ His contempt for Obama must be so great, he joined with Palin to criticize him. ] -- OR -- { He was trying to be "funny". } £ P. S. £ CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE UNBELIEVABLE HYPOCRISY IN CENSORING WORDS THAT APPEARED IN THE ANIMATION ?! THE PEOPLE READING / LISTENING TO THE VIDEO ARE FUCKING ADULTS !! *_Well, hopefully not while the video is running._*
coreycox2345 (11 месяцев назад)
Millennials are not the rabid consumers of other generations. This may be based on economic insecurity, but it seems positive.
Steven Glansburg (11 месяцев назад)
I don’t agree with Chomsky too often but he is a great mind and is definitely suppressed from the public. He should be trending with along with other great thinkers but no what’s trending is half assed pop culture neoliberal propaganda.
Cinzia Pompa (1 год назад)
Oh well.
Lui Morada (1 год назад)
Nice video, informative but the voice of the narrator is too distracting
onaturalia (2 месяца назад)
The narrator was Noam Chomsky himself.
Jonah H (1 год назад)
Even though I disagree with Chomsky (and presumably, your) positions, your production quality is excellent, and your videos are wonderfully informative. Subbed.
David Zaharie (1 год назад)
Nooo I gain... I gain... *self awareness!*
David Zaharie (1 год назад)
I like your content and your videos but, unlike other nice channels like Vox or Kurzgesagt - in a nutshell etc, your language sometimes does not appeal to me at all. Censored words ruin the level of profession of your work. I know you want to express your thoughts in an authentic way, but I would encourage you to stay formal. Nice videos however! :)
Thought Monkey (1 год назад)
Insightful. Thank you. Something I've thought about as well :).
NevilleRhysBarnes (1 год назад)
Look how well manufacturing the remain campaign worked in the UK. Look how successfully Clinton manufactured her winning the White House. Look how well Theresa May manufactured an increased majority at the UK's last election.
Atlantean (1 год назад)
The fact these videos don't have hundreds of thousands of views, speaks to how brainwashed society is already.
Dillan Johnson (1 год назад)
Chomsky's entire argument relies on the assumption that people are too stupid to know what's going on around them. Are people really unaware that corporations try to manipulate them into buying their stuff? Are people unaware that politicians manipulate people into voting for them? Does Chomsky think that manipulation should be outlawed? When Chomsky makes arguments in the future, will he refrain from using any type of rhetoric in order to avoid manipulation?
David Giovanni (2 месяца назад)
Dillan Johnson of course people are unaware, this system is broken and no one seems to notice. We just seem to open our eyes slightly when something relatively tragic happens throughout our daily lives, but after that everyone goes back to the same dorment state set up. Capitalism is a failure of a system and the very spectrum that it created is very vague and wide, the masses don't understand because they are constantly conditioned with useless things, and that's just marketing and advertisement, there are other aspects such as culture that strip us from critical and rational thinking. Chomsky may fail in some insights but this one is a perfect point that reaches out to the reality we are living. He even talked about Lippman and other authors that share the same viewpoint.
Dillan Johnson (1 год назад)
Greg My point is simple: you're wrong.
Greg (1 год назад)
Yes they are in the same boat, as in, they are humans too. So no, I am not saying they have free will. They are acting as their environment (and I should add, genetics) have set the course for them act. With that being said, I am not really sure what your point is.
Dillan Johnson (1 год назад)
Greg But the advertisers are in the same exact boat. Are you saying that advertisers have free will and everyone else doesn't? It seems to me that advertiser's are making the same choices that everyone else is making by choosing to make advertisements.
Greg (1 год назад)
Not so. "Destined" implies some kind of supernatural presence. It means that humans act the way they do because of their environment and other external stimuli, therefore they would have no other choice but act the way they do when it comes to the manufacturing of consent. People who's environments have led them to not be compelled by advertising are the ones who can begin to change the minds of others, and change the environment.
Felipe (1 год назад)
Noam Chomsky? ugh... time to unsubscribe...
Nathan Drake (1 год назад)
Neo-liberalism in a nutshell.
sharasahara (1 год назад)
you should list your sources tho.
Another World (10 месяцев назад)
I agree. It is an excerpt from documentary "Requiem for the American Dream", just in case you did not know.
sharasahara (1 год назад)
I lovee your channel man.
CPU Tiara HD Otaku Weeaboo (1 год назад)
As someone who has studied the Austrian School of economics, this whole video is garbage. I voted for Bob Barr in 2008, Gary Johnson in 2012 and 2016, and voted Libertarian Party every time since 2006.
dee nixon (6 месяцев назад)
that clearly has helped you see the world objectively
Nathan Drake (1 год назад)
You wouldn't say Chomsky's diagnosis holds true for the most of the public?
Jack Hagan (1 год назад)
at least explain why
CPU Tiara HD Otaku Weeaboo (1 год назад)
Socialists like Noam Chomsky have a self-contradictory definition of consent. If people consent to something socialists don't like they call it fabricated consent. If people consent to socialism, they call it true consent. On another social media, I bumped into this. Why not ask a libertarian what consent is instead? The non-aggression principle and self-ownership are the basis and definitions of consent. Otherwise, you have the socialist double speak of consent isn't consent and coercion isn't coercion.
onaturalia (2 месяца назад)
I don't see any relationship between socialism and your comment. I see socialism as people retaining control of their own lives. That is apparently disagreeable to you.
Brn oZa (3 месяца назад)
It is not about not likeing specific propaganda or consent, it is about the fact that propaganda (sadly) is not informative and that it changes our behaviour in favour of power interessts. If I can make my opinion popular as a politician because I am rich, even if my opinion is damaging for anyone who isn't in my position, the population is not 'living in a harmony of ends'. Here is a writing relating to consent by a socialist. "Some would deny that workers are forced to sell their labor power, on the ground that they have other choices: the worker can go on the dole, or beg, or simply make no provision for himself and trust to fortune. It is true that the worker is free to do these other things. The acknow-ledgment that he is free to starve to death gets its sarcastic power from the fact that he is free to starve to death: no one threatens to make him stay alive by, for example, force-feeding him. But to infer that he is therefore not forced to sell his labor power is to employ a false account of what it is to be forced to do something. When I am forced to do something I have no reasonable or acceptable alternative course. It need not be true that I have no alternative whatsoever. At least usually, when a person says, "I was forced to do it. I had no other choice," the second part of the statement is elliptical for something like "I had no other choice worth considering." For in the most familiar sense of "X is forced to do A," it is entailed that X is forced to choose to do A, and the claim that the worker is forced to sell his labor power is intended in that familiar sense. Hence the fact that he is free to starve or beg instead is not a refutation of the mooted claim: the claim entails that there are other (unacceptable) things he is free to do." - G.A Cohen
Jack Hagan (1 год назад)
Dillan Johnson I was responding to you argument about being forced into something. I would argue that many people don't want to be under a capitalistic system either and are forced to through threat of starvation. I'm sure the homeless and uncared for don't enjoy the system. The millions of people exploited by capitalist imperialism in the least developed countries who die from preventable illnesses, pollution, overwork, poor conditions and depravation of human rights are less important than people who don't want to work for the greater good. To say these ideals have never worked is a stretch( Russia going from a feudal country to a space fairing one in fifty years is a failure?). Saying it would never work is an even further one.
Dillan Johnson (1 год назад)
Jack Hagan Did you even read my argument? Where did I say that workers wouldn't want to have a say in democracy? I said that not every single worker will want to participate in a Marxist system. Even if 90 percent of the population loves marxism-- a very generous number by the way-- there will always be 10 percent that want to be capitalists. So what happens to those workers? You FORCE them to do it anyway because a collectivist system doesn't worker without collective cooperation. Or you just kill them which is what every Marxist regime in history has done. This has nothing to do with Stalinism, it has to do with every single variety of Marxism that exists. That's why it's never worked and never will work.
Dillan Johnson (1 год назад)
Benjamin Weiler Anarcho communists were not the first anarchists first of all. Second of all I never made an argument about who came up with the word. That's a completely irrelevant point. When the word conservatism was coined it meant something completely different from it's modern usage as well. I highly doubt that you would correct somebody on that word if they weren't using it in it's original context. You seem only to be very intent on making yourself feel smart in the most pretentious way possible. Why must you perpetuate the stereotype that leftists are arrogant, self riteous cunts?
JN Woodard (1 год назад)
Wow, take the will of the people away, so that those at the top can make all the decisions. Sheep. They want sheep. Wow, how progressive. It's funny. The entire 2016 Presidential race was nothing more than bashing initially. Then Trump moved to what he wanted to do while Hillary just kept with bashing him and his voter base. That made even the most extreme of his ideas seem viable to some, all the while Hillary was doing nothing but campaigning on bare bones identity issues. Nothing that really helps this country as a whole succeed.
Tardi Grade (1 год назад)
Great content, dude
Lee Xiong (1 год назад)
Generally, I wouldn't mind about people having a smart and wise leader to rule over them so much given everything I've come to understand about the nature of man. Men, by nature are followers, afraid of the dark and unknown, and the world is a scary place for them -- avoiding pain at every turn. And it is by nature needed, that a leader should rise up to care for his people, but sadly, I'm afraid that our "leaders" today are not who they seem. They're wolves with sheep masks, and we the people are fooled, but for the vast majority of us, it's okay, because we feel safe.
Larry Panozzo (1 год назад)
I love this, but I can't be too public about that because the love of my life just went into advertising.
Connor Moore (1 год назад)
This reminds me of the ideas represented in Feed by M. T. Anderson.
D. M. (1 год назад)
This video is great. Love your style

Хотите оставить комментарий?

Присоединитесь к YouTube, или войдите, если вы уже зарегистрированы.