On 8/17/07, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some related reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-whorf
The strong Whorf axiom is cute, it's too bad it isn't true.
-- Charles
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 23:01 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
Very simple - if you have control of how an issue is framed, then the
mechanics of the discussion are relatively unimportant,
of course, in most democratic societies, there _is_ no such control.
control-by-disdain (you are unpatriotic
At 03:06 AM 8/18/2007, Thaths wrote:
Wow! Quoting Sapir-Whorf against Chomsky in a non-linguistics debate.
I thought that might get a rise out of you (and a few others) :-)
Would you posit that any argument is, by definition, framed in a
manner certain to lead towards desired conclusions?
I am not so sure it is confined to the west, but this is an interesting
take on journalism as well.
http://edstrong.blog-city.com/noam_chomsky_how_propaganda_works_in_the_west.htm
The EFF and moveon.org fit that bill almost as much as the right wingers do.
In fact just about any political action propaganda does.
suresh
Venkat Mangudi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not so sure it is confined to the west, but this is an
interesting take on journalism as well.
Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter.
On 8/17/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The EFF and moveon.org fit that bill almost as much as the right wingers
do.
In fact just about any political action propaganda does.
suresh
Venkat Mangudi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not
On 8/17/07, Lawnun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter.
Explain how.
Thaths
On 8/17/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The EFF and moveon.org fit that bill almost as much as the right wingers
do.
In fact just about any political action
Some of that is a bit snarky on my part. But the following (from his
original posting) struck me as things Mr. Chomsky has himself been a part of
at least w/r/t this subject and others:
It's not so much the control of what we think, but the control of what we
think about.
When our governments
Thaths wrote: [ on 10:21 PM 8/17/2007 ]
Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter.
Explain how.
Very simple - if you have control of how an issue is framed, then the
mechanics of the discussion are relatively unimportant, as any of the
various outcomes will be more or less to your liking. Chomsky
Lawnun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Suresh noted, the EFF and other causes on both the left and right
also
partake in prop-agenda. I hold that Mr. Chomsky's power and force as
Oh no. Propaganda is what the other side does. When you do it, it is
spreading awareness, it is political action,
On 8/17/07, Udhay Shankar N [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thaths wrote: [ on 10:21 PM 8/17/2007 ]
Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter.
Explain how.
Very simple - if you have control of how an issue is framed, then the
mechanics of the discussion are relatively unimportant, as any of the
various
On 8/17/07, Thaths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow! Quoting Sapir-Whorf against Chomsky in a non-linguistics debate.
I caution you
D'oh! Completing the thought
I caution you that Sapir-Whorf is a contentious hypothesis and is not
to be considered scientific truth (or falsehood) till there is
12 matches
Mail list logo
