Comment by suddenlybananas
2 days 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.
> 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
>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
That is not the argument he is making.
>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
Because it is not meant to tackle a specific claim but rather the media environment in general. I'm astounded at how much faith you have in the media.
Chomsky is making the proposition "often the media misreports or doesn't report on important things" which is far from claiming "everything mainstream is false because it is mainstream".
> Chomsky is making the proposition "often the media misreports or doesn't report on important things" which is far from claiming "everything mainstream is false because it is mainstream
I feel like we are going in loops, so I am not going to reply anymore. so last time:
He said that the only reason that the reporter is sitting there is because he thinks in a specific way, and that's pretty much a quote. That hints that the reporter opinions are tainted and are therefore false or influenced by outside factors, or at least that's what I gather. What I am saying is if that idea is true, it applies to Chomsky as well which is not there for being a linguist and whatever self selection of right or wrong opinions is happening in the media can also be said for the academics