Chomsky on the Republican Party.

[Trotsky]

Nah dude. I distinctly remember CNN and MSNBC either downplaying is popularity or barely even reporting his insane speech attendences. CNN collusion with the DNC was documented in some leaked emails, it's why I didn't vote for Hillary.


Is this an attempt at humor?

I think the "collusion" between CNN and the Hillary campaign is very overstated, at least from what is publicly known.

However, yes, I agree that all the major outlets pretty discernibly downplayed his candidacy, framed him as an idealist, etc. For some reason, I recall Trevor Noah doing it as pissing me off the most. Which it shouldn't, considering he's understandably a neophyte to American politics.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the "collusion" between CNN and the Hillary campaign is very overstated, at least from what is publicly known.

However, yes, I agree that all the major outlets pretty discernibly downplayed his candidacy, framed him as an idealist, etc. For some reason, I recall Trevor Noah doing it as pissing me off the most. Which it shouldn't, considering he's understandably a neophyte to American politics.

Wikileaks headlines framed normal media communication (with multiple outlets) or communication about the media as "collusion," which was convincing to rubes and people who wanted to be convinced. Like, "hey, we're doing a story on X. Would like to get your views." Or "we've had a good experience pitching stories to Y; let's try to tip him off on Z."

I think what gets forgotten a lot is that the race was never close, and Bernie wasn't even seen as the top contender until some time passed. I think the constant negative coverage that Clinton got was far more harmful to her than the limited but mostly positive coverage that Sanders got was to him.

 

[HomerThompson]

I pick both Chomsky and Peterson it shouldnt be some kinda team sport . I wouldnt call either a fake both are accredited and both are worth listening to weather you agree with them or not

Peterson isn't fit to shine Chomsky's shoes.

 

[HomerThompson]

Wikileaks headlines framed normal media communication (with multiple outlets) or communication about the media as "collusion," which was convincing to rubes and people who wanted to be convinced. Like, "hey, we're doing a story on X. Would like to get your views." Or "we've had a good experience pitching stories to Y; let's try to tip him off on Z."

I think what gets forgotten a lot is that the race was never close, and Bernie wasn't even seen as the top contender until some time passed. I think the constant negative coverage that Clinton got was far more harmful to her than the limited but mostly positive coverage that Sanders got was to him.

Donna Brazille giving Hillary debate questions ahead of time isn't, "normal media communication".

I'll end it here, because we've danced this dance before, and neither of our minds is changing on it.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Peterson isn't fit to shine Chomsky's shoes.

Nah both are smart guys and well worth the read . Its not about the team they play for but the ideas they bring forward . This is just hacky bullshit and you can fuck off with it

Report button is on the left

 

[HomerThompson]

Nah both are smart guys and well worth the read . Its not about the team they play for but the ideas they bring forward . This is just hacky bullshit and you can fuck off with it

Report button is on the left

My analysis is based entirely on the ideas they bring forward, dummy. You've projected your own tribalism onto me. Also, what team does Chomsky play for?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Donna Brazille giving Hillary debate questions ahead of time isn't, "normal media communication".

I'll end it here, because we've danced this dance before, and neither of our minds is changing on it.

Donna Brazile wasn't acting on behalf of any media company. We're talking about the media acting inappropriately rather than a politico who comes on a show as a talking head.

 

[Gutter Chris]

My analysis is based entirely on the ideas they bring forward, dummy. You've projected your own tribalism onto me. Also, what team does Chomsky play for?

chomsky and peterson both are their own men the team aspect comes in when you look at this thread and can tell whos going to say what based on already knowing their politics


I already stated I think that both are smart men worth the read and thought exercises so it sure as fuck wasnt me in here getting tribal. Go ahead and go through the thread real quick and what do you see ? Teams forming that you coulda picked before you even came in here



And for the record I also neither am in full disagreement or agreement with either man or the thoughts they bring to the table I just like to read

You dont have a point you just wanted to shitpost the least you coulda done was give me a fun gif for my time

 

[HomerThompson]

Donna Brazile wasn't acting on behalf of any media company. We're talking about the media acting inappropriately rather than a politico who comes on a show as a talking head.

She was working for CNN at the time. They were hosting the debate, correct?

Also, you're over parsing this situation. She worked for CNN, which is how she got the questions in the first place. The debate happened, and Hillary was helped(outside the bounds of media norms you yourself provided for this discussion).

This is damn near shifting the goalposts, Jack.

 

[Jack V Savage]

She was working for CNN at the time. They were hosting the debate, correct?

Also, you're over parsing this situation. She worked for CNN, which is how she got the questions in the first place. The debate happened, and Hillary was helped(outside the bounds of media norms you yourself provided for this discussion).

This is damn near shifting the goalposts, Jack.

She was working as a "contributor," like Jeffrey Lord or Corey Lewandowski. I agree that contributors who are brought on specifically because they are supporting someone will try to support that person. But that's hardly the same thing as saying that the media was colluding.

 

[HomerThompson]

chomsky and peterson both are their own men the team aspect comes in when you look at this thread and can tell whos going to say what based on already knowing their politics


I already stated I think that both are smart men worth the read and thought exercises so it sure as fuck wasnt me in here getting tribal. Go ahead and go through the thread real quick and what do you see ? Teams forming that you coulda picked before you even came in here



And for the record I also neither am in full disagreement or agreement with either man or the thoughts they bring to the table I just like to read

You dont have a point you just wanted to shitpost the least you coulda done was give me a fun gif for my time

You are the one who made the claim that I was being tribal. I refuted that, and asked you a question you can't answer, because your assertion wasn't based on facts. Only one of us is shitposting.

Chomsky is far superior as an intellectual. He is the consensus greatest living American Intellectual. Your tribalism is what has you putting a run of the mill academic like Peterson in the same league as Chomsky. That's not me, that's not my "team", that's you.

Your shitty tribalism has you putting the LA Clippers in the same league of all time greatness as the Lakers. It's impossibly dumb, and you exposed your level of intellect.

 

[HomerThompson]

She was working as a "contributor," like Jeffrey Lord or Corey Lewandowski. I agree that contributors who are brought on specifically because they are supporting someone will try to support that person. But that's hardly the same thing as saying that the media was colluding.

What Hillary and Donna engaged in was, "collusion" though. You were the one who made to claim that people were conflating normal media communication with collusion. That wasn't normal media communication, so you were wrong. CNN is as big of a media company as it gets.

Please try to remember that I agree with you about the CNN and others trying to be "balanced" leading to a pro-Trump bias.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You are the one who made the claim that I was being tribal. I refuted that, and asked you a question you can't answer, because your assertion wasn't based on facts. Only one of us is shitposting.

Chomsky is far superior as an intellectual. He is the consensus greatest living American Intellectual. Your tribalism is what has you putting a run of the mill academic like Peterson in the same league as Chomsky. That's not me, that's not my "team", that's you.

Your shitty tribalism has you putting the LA Clippers in the same league of all time greatness as the Lakers. It's impossibly dumb, and you exposed your level of intellect.

The issue is that I think Gutter is basically saying that it is impossible to think that one of Chomsky or Peterson is more insightful on the basis of an unbiased assessment. Disagreeing with him inherently implies bias.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of either, but I think both do valuable work. They aren't in the same league as intellectuals, though.

 

[HomerThompson]

They aren't in the same league as intellectuals, though.

That's just silly. Chomsky isn't an intellectual now?

 

[Jack V Savage]

What Hillary and Donna engaged in was, "collusion" though. You were the one who made to claim that people were conflating normal media communication with collusion. That wasn't normal media communication, so you were wrong. CNN is as big of a media company as it gets.

Please try to remember that I agree with you about the CNN and others trying to be "balanced" leading to a pro-Trump bias.

If the claim is that Donna Brazile personally was on Clinton's side in the election and acted to help her, I agree. If the claim is that CNN as an organization was on Clinton's side in the election and acted to help her, I think that is obviously false, particularly with regard to the general, where they made a number of unusual and ethically questionable choices that hurt her, while blowing up a minor IT protocol violation into the biggest scandal in American history.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's just silly. Chomsky isn't an intellectual now?

???

Chomsky as an intellectual is way ahead of Peterson by any reasonable standard.

 

[Gutter Chris]

You are the one who made the claim that I was being tribal. I refuted that, and asked you a question you can't answer, because your assertion wasn't based on facts. Only one of us is shitposting.

Chomsky is far superior as an intellectual. He is the consensus greatest living American Intellectual. Your tribalism is what has you putting a run of the mill academic like Peterson in the same league as Chomsky. That's not me, that's not my "team", that's you.

Your shitty tribalism has you putting the LA Clippers in the same league of all time greatness as the Lakers. It's impossibly dumb, and you exposed your level of intellect.

Whos projecting again ? i dont have a team nor am I being tribal I was pointing out how tribal this fucking thread is when you quoted me

and here you are dick riding for chomsky and disrespecting peterson and lecturing me about being tribal lol

Look Peterson shines when hes saying get your shit together and defending the freedom of speech but he gets a bit wonky when he acts as if these retarded kids are going to usher in a new era of communism

Chomsky shines when he is talking about world policies and makes ya wonder if we are doing the right thing but also gets wonky acting as if the end of the world is always around the corner

and other than one being lumped in with the left and one lumped with the right it is pretty hard to compare them to each other at all considering that they talk about such different things

To further talk about tribalism why is it that you will slam peterson for any holes in his game you might see while ignoring Chomskys if you want to play this game ?

 

[HomerThompson]

If the claim is that Donna Brazile personally was on Clinton's side in the election and acted to help her, I agree. If the claim is that CNN as an organization was on Clinton's side in the election and acted to help her, I think that is obviously false, particularly with regard to the general, where they made a number of unusual and ethically questionable choices that hurt her, while blowing up a minor IT protocol violation into the biggest scandal in American history.

I think they were against Bernie, institutionally. Some people were clearly in favor of Clinton, but all major networks treated Bernie like a joke candidate, and didn't give serious time to his ideas, or speeches until it was too late. They also all pushed the shitty super-delegate narrative until the wheels fell off.


Also, sorry for lying earlier. There was obviously no way that I wasn't going to keep going in this discussion.

 

[Gutter Chris]

The issue is that I think Gutter is basically saying that it is impossible to think that one of Chomsky or Peterson is more insightful on the basis of an unbiased assessment. Disagreeing with him inherently implies disagreement.

My issue is that I think both are smart dudes and what I believe I am seeing in this thread is right wingers line up for Jp Left wingers for NC and it seems a silly thing to do when both are great to listen to and have value and its not the ufc so you cant really rank em like that unless they fight

I dont have a problem with either guy my problem is how quickly people seem to be to dismiss one or the other

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think they were against Bernie, institutionally. Some people were clearly in favor of Clinton, but all major networks treated Bernie like a joke candidate, and didn't give serious time to his ideas, or speeches until it was too late. They also all pushed the shitty super-delegate narrative until the wheels fell off.

Also, sorry for lying earlier. There was obviously no way that I wasn't going to keep going in this discussion.

Look at the betting odds. Bernie was a major longshot candidate from the start. After the field completely cleared, he had support from the anti-Clinton Democrats, but even then, he was way behind. IMO, any news organization that treated it as a neck-and-neck race would be doing a disservice to its readers/viewers/listeners. I actually think one of the annoying tendencies the media has (for obvious reasons) is to treat every race like Ali/Frazier I.

Also note that while Bernie was rightly treated as a longshot, the tone of the coverage he did receive was positive, while the tone of Clinton's coverage from the MSM was overwhelmingly negative.