Chomsky was not a foucauldian at all and his criticisms are super far from foucault's ideas. You can watch the very famous debate they had to see how they differ.
I read your reply to be alluding to the foucault concept of power, as it was in the context of power systems "censoring" ideas
furthermore, in this specific quote they do not differ a lot. maybe mainstream opinion is mainstream because it is more correct, moral or more beneficial to society?
he does not try to negate such statements, he just tries to prove mainstream opinion is wrong due to being mainstream (or the result of mainstream "power")
> Are you six years old? Approval of slavery or torture used to be mainstream opinions
And also disapproval of cannibalism is a mainstream opinion, that doesn't change the fact that popularity of an opinion does not make it wrong or immoral just like it doesn't make it right or moral
> You have deeply misunderstood his criticisms
So please explain how am I mistaken in your opinion
>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
Chomsky is closer to Foucault than he will ever admit. Even critiquing critical theory/pomo shit from a position of "well you're relevent enough to talk to me, a god at CS" makes them seem like they are legit.
All the pomo/critical theory shit needs to be left in the dust bin of history and forgotten about. Don't engage with it. Don't say fo*calt's name (especially cus he's likely a pedo)
Dang being an ass and the moderation on HN being bad doesn't mean that suddenly the disappearance of leprosy from europe was a socially constructed thing. Foucault is so full of shit that I think calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is charitable. He's a full on anti-scientific charlatan.
Biopolitics/biopower is a conspiracy theory. Most of all of his books, including and especially Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, and a History of Sexuality, are full of lies/false citations, and other charlatanism.
A whole lot of others are also full of Shit. Lacan is the most full of shit of all, but even the likes of Marshal Mcluhan are full of shit. Entire fields like "Semiotics" are also full of shit.
