the polarization is due to economic pressures, not ideology. — baker

A vast simplification of a complex problem. Polarization forms out of many different reasons. Economical inequality is one, but not everything.

We can't ignore how individualism and neoliberalism combined disconnected people from each other. The formation of individuals who were brought up into believing they were the protagonists in contemporary history, that they, if they want, could be whatever they chose to be; a movie star? A successful business owner? The next president?

The cognitive dissonance facing adult life or older people realizing they never became anything they thought they would be transforms into anger and disappointment towards the narrative they were programmed to believe. This anger and disappointment therefor gets aimed at whatever is available to be blamed. Clustering in radicalized gatherings around a similar aim; "that group is to blame", "this ideology is to blame".

The hate from these people then meets the reaction of the groups they hate, defending themselves. And society spirals down into the consequences of these sides triggering each other.

While who's at fault is obvious in the direct confrontation and conflict, the underlying mechanisms that created the polarization in the first place is an overall cultural issue.

While authoritarian states propagate the authoritarian leader's ideas and emotion down through the people, either by force or brainwashing, the western democracies have been blind to the psychological consequences of the delusional narrative that everyone can individually become whatever they want and that the ego is preferred over the group.

As in pretty much all systems in reality, balance prevails over the extreme. While societies have tried extreme collectivism, it only led to the destruction of the self and the violence against individual thought and agency in life. But the extreme individualism has divided and alienated us from each other to the point of not only extreme polarization, but an epidemic rise of depression and loneliness throughout almost all western democracies.

None of this can be helped by just balancing the economy. It's part of it, especially leveling out class differences and intersect different classes to bridge over polarized distances. But at its core, western democracies need to form a better set of values that better reflect positive human nature and sociological structures.

Counter the addictive online algorithms, promote collective events and culture in society, cater to individual's strengths but don't ignore their weaknesses, help people find realistic life goals rather than inflating their childish ego delusions.

The biggest mistake that is being made is that people believe that the solution comes from somewhere else, some political party or leader who's gonna fix everything, some "parent figure" who's gonna swoop in and take care of it all. No, the change has to come from the people. Promote more positive collective things in society, decrease the use of social media online (until there's a system that does not rely on predatory algorithms), stop inflating the ego of children growing up, focus on what you can do, not unrealistic dreams and so on.

Continuing living in the same way just perpetuates the society we've arrived at. Blaming the top just ignores the participation that all have in society and it is society that places people at the top, either with money or by vote, so the change needs to happen in society, among the people first, not top down.

↪Joshs If you'd have read and understood what I've posted, you'd know that my use of the descriptor "Post Truth era" doesn't reference "ideological combatants". — LuckyR

You make a distinction between objectively sifting the evidence in order to arrive at truths undistorted by existing prejudices , and allowing oneself to be biased by presuppositions shared by a group based on ideological considerations, and then go on to claim that what defines the ‘Post Truth era’ is a propensity to do the latter.
I argue instead that all formations of empirical truth are and always have been socially constructed according to forms of meaning and value which change from era to era. This doesn’t mean that truth is ‘fake’, but that what you would call bias, distortion and prejudice are necessarily built into what it means to produce truth., that its meaning is contextually and social situated

What is different about the contemporary era compared with previous periods of history is not that it is Post Truth, but that a growing number of people are only now recognizing in our highly polarized times what has always been the case, but was until recently denied in favor of a ‘God’s eye’ view of truth, the inextricable relation between socially formed practices and the determination of truth. But they arrive at the wrong conclusion from the fact that two sides of a polarized political community interpret truth differently, insisting that only one side has arrived at the properly objective God’s eye truth , while the other side is succumbing to ideologically driven prejudice.

We can't ignore how individualism and neoliberalism combined disconnected people from each other. The formation of individuals who were brought up into believing they were the protagonists in contemporary history, that they, if they want, could be whatever they chose to be; a movie star? A successful business owner? The next president?

The cognitive dissonance facing adult life or older people realizing they never became anything they thought they would be transforms into anger and disappointment towards the narrative they were programmed to believe. This anger and disappointment therefor gets aimed at whatever is available to be blamed. Clustering in radicalized gatherings around a similar aim; "that group is to blame", "this ideology is to blame — Christoffer

I have a slightly different take. I agree that the idea of the autonomous individual, and the values of freedom and utilitarianism that surrounded it, characterized much of American society from the days of its founding until recently. And I think that the vast majority of those who voted for Trump still hold onto that worldview. But I don’t believe that their anger is directed at the “ narrative they were programmed to believe” if by this you are referring to that traditionalist worldview and its associated values. In the first place, there are many wealthy Trump supporters who voted for him precisely in to protect those values. Secondly, one has to appreciate how disconnected urban progressive thinking has become from the traditionalist worldview shared by Trump supporters.

Those of us who identify with a progressive worldview are the interlopers, the ‘aliens’, from the perspective of less densely populated and more traditionalist parts of the country. Our thinking has changed rapidly over the last 40 years and the rest of the country hasn’t had a chance to catch up.We speak an indecipherable language to them. But they can’t just ignore us because when we’re in power we try to shove down their throats values which are utterly alien to them. Plus we dominate institutions of higher learning education and other cultural domains , and produce 70 percent of GDP. So they feel that their way of is threatened by us in myriad ways.

But I don’t believe that their anger is directed at the “ narrative they were programmed to believe” if by this you are referring to that traditionalist worldview and its associated values. — Joshs

As I'm saying "western democracies" I'm not talking about the US specifically. This is a global problem.

I'm saying that individualism and neoliberalism is not so much an ideological stance but a form of values and ideals which have replaced a more balanced and collectively inclusive perspective on life. This, in turn produces polarized groups when the inflated expectations of life clash with reality and thus produce a reaction in the form of blame that these groups gather around. It exists everywhere, among all polarized groups, but is generally pushing conflict-driven behaviors among those with more conservative world views as they not only have to face a reality different to expectations, but also the reality of historical progression. It's why the anger and violence often is initiated by the conservative minded individuals and groups, as they have the traditional pressures of fighting against the tides of time, and now also against the inflated ego they formed out of individualism.

But the problems exist throughout all groups and all groups help perpetuate the polarizing consequences. Even within larger polarized groups there are further polarization.

What constitutes "post-truth" however, is the inability to break free from any form of radicalization because people have lost the ability to spot what is an actual truth. So they gather around individuals who perpetuate the narrative they emotionally feel gives them comfort against the reality that formed their cognitive dissonance.

Economic problems and class differences are just among the things in reality that clash with those inflated expectations and the emotional distress paralyzes people into comfort zones rather than the work that needs to be done to fix a problem (mainly because they've never learned to collectively fix a problem in society themselves).

I'm saying that individualism and neoliberalism is not so much an ideological stance but a form of values and ideals which have replaced a more balanced and collectively inclusive perspective on life. This, in turn produces polarized groups when the inflated expectations of life clash with reality and thus produce a reaction in the form of blame that these groups gather around — Christoffer

Unlike you , I make no moral judgements of individualism or neoliberalism as an ‘unrealistic’, ‘unbalanced’ , ‘regressive’ value system. I think all such value systems work for their adherents, but each works in a different way , and it’s the clashes between incommensurate systems that causes the problems we’re seeing today with political polarization. I suggest that it is not cognitive dissonance that is causing the anger among social conservatives, but the justified sense that they are being talked down to by people like you who believe they have some superior moral or objective vantage and try to shove it down their throats. I am a progressive , but I dont claim that my perspective is morally or objectively superior to other ways of thinking.

'Post-truth' is a system the US establishment has created, which might indeed be described as such. Trump moves within that system, but he isn't the cause or even a principal part of the problem. — Tzeentch

Trump didn't cause the problem; he exploited it and exacerbated it.


IMO, the solution is education. This includes formal education- teaching critical thinking, and also revising Civics classes to help kids learn to make more rational voting choices ( looking beyond the slick ads).

The post-high school masses are a more challenging group to reach. One possibility is entertainment, like movies, TV shows. They've been effective at pushing more people to embrace conspiracy theories, so it's not unreasonable to think they could do the opposite.

Trump didn't cause the problem; he exploited it and exacerbated it. — Relativist

But so did the establishment media, no?

The establishment has dominated the media for decades. They have operated on 'post-truth' principles for just as long.

The difference is that now there are multiple actors operating on 'post-truth' principles and the resulting bullshit cacophony makes it impossible not to notice something is wrong.

Unlike you , I make no moral judgements of individualism or neoliberalism as an ‘unrealistic’, ‘unbalanced’ , ‘regressive’ value system. I think all such value systems work for their adherents, but each works in a different way , and it’s the clashes between incommensurate systems that causes the problems we’re seeing today with political polarization. I suggest that it is not cognitive dissonance that is causing the anger among social conservatives, but the justified sense that they are being talked down to by people like you who believe they have some superior moral or objective vantage and try to shove it down their throats. I am a progressive , but I dont claim that my perspective is morally or objectively superior to other ways of thinking. — Joshs

In what way is what I said a moral judgement? It's a direct observation and I think you are looking too much into the specifics of the symptomatic psychology of conservative voters and not at what is causing the general social reactions in society as a whole. The individualistic values I'm talking about is the overarching ideals for almost all western democracies today, it's built into how society functions and is structured today much more than before. It affects everything in life, it's not a value system of choosing as you describe it. I'm talking about a sociological undercurrent that fuels modern culture. It's a holistic perspective that everyone is involved with and the cognitive dissonance is everywhere; you, me, everyone around us. It's just that it affects some more than others and the consequences show up in different ways. You're looking at the direct symptoms at the end of the chain, the behaviors within the polarization itself. There's no morality to this explanation, I'm pointing at what values that drive society today as a whole, the fundamentals, not ideology. It doesn't matter if you are on the left, right or center, individualism is the undercurrent of modern life in western democracies and everything is trickling down from those values.

But so did the establishment media, no? — Tzeentch

Hell yes!

The establishment has dominated the media for decades. They have operated on 'post-truth' principles for just as long.

The difference is that now there are multiple actors operating on 'post-truth' principles and the resulting bullshit cacophony makes it impossible not to notice something is wrong.

The media is giving their customers what they want. How did we get here? The pivotal point in history was when the FCC, under Reagan, revoked the Fairness Doctrine.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Any return to "fairness" ideals would be treated as an assault on free speech. The dark corollary of free speech is the right to lie. So the only thing we can hope to do is to help people learn to seek truth.

he blind leading the blind, the blind judging the blind?
You don't see just how authoritarian you are. — baker

Who is blind? And authoritarian misses the mark. What I'm about is some minimum degree responsibility and accountability, and in gentler times these things usually just flow. But not now. Where once folks were more-or-less responsible and accountable, now they're not. And either we have them or we don't. I say we should have them, and where folks deny them, to impose them.

And what Javra said

On the subject of how individualism fostered the post-truth society, it also increased the Dunning-Kruger effect among all people. The more individualistic people are, the more confident in being right individuals become and the less able they are to spot the blind spots in their knowledge.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Any return to "fairness" ideals would be treated as an assault on free speech. The dark corollary of free speech is the right to lie. So the only thing we can hope to do is to help people learn to seek truth. — Relativist

I think people generally prefer truth over lies, and they also absolutely hate being tricked, so at least there are natural forces which ought to nudge people towards truth.

The problem is, all sources of authority have adopted 'post-truth'; governments, international institutions, media, science - it's all tainted.

It appears the only way forward is for the common people to completely reject traditional sources of information, and rebuild the truth from the bottom up. I suppose it's just a matter of time before the house of cards comes tumbling down and people will be forced to do so.

What I'm about is some minimum degree responsibility and accountability, and in gentler times these things usually just flow. But not now. Where once folks were more-or-less responsible and accountable, now they're not. And either we have them or we don't. I say we should have them, and where folks deny them, to impose them. — tim wood

The issue is that the very governments who would impose on people are part of the problem. When was the last time you heard of a government holding itself accountable and acting responsibly?

On the subject of how individualism fostered the post-truth society, [...] — Christoffer

Surely you are aware of the questionable relationship history's various collectivist projects had with the truth? Hell, it was the commies who formed the OG post-truth societies.

It appears the only way forward is for the common people to completely reject traditional sources of information, and rebuild the truth from the bottom up. — Tzeentch

The issues with major news organizations are not fatal. They are selective in what they report, but that's dealt with by using multiple sources. They usually report facts; the problem is the interpretations of those facts. It's usually possible to distinguish fact from interpretation. Opinion shows (which dominate cable "news" stations) are entertainment, not news.

Deniers of climate change, vaccines, Jan 6, 9/11, etc. invariably get their information from "non-traditional" sources. These usually aren't actually sources - they don't typically have actual reporters gathering news. They select stories from MSM, and internet rumors. Their selection of stories and their interpretation, can be more distorted than mainstream news sources. This is AFAIK, anyway. If you know of some alternative sources that don't have these pitfalls, please share them.

I argue that all formations of empirical truth are and always have been socially constructed according to forms of meaning and value which change from era to era. This doesn’t mean that truth is ‘fake’, but that what you would call bias, distortion and prejudice are necessarily built into what it means to produce truth., that its meaning is contextually and social situated

What is different about the contemporary era compared with previous periods of history is not that it is Post Truth, but that a growing number of people are only now recognizing in our highly polarized times what has always been the case, but was until recently denied in favor of a ‘God’s eye’ view of truth, the inextricable relation between socially formed practices and the determination of truth. — Joshs

Here is a correct point of an extremely high level of polarization in the contemporary political community. Opposed parties always try to transform their particular interests into a universal, truthful articulation. However, paradoxically, nowadays, the dimension of truth is not primarily based on rationally organized discourses or representations of sets of values but on the relying on an affective factor. Collective social emotions have been amplified, echo-chambered, and structured by social and mass media. Post Truth era means that political discourses express primarily the self-referentiality and authenticity of a political subject of affect. As a result,
the opposing parties systematically attribute each other the status of an evil Other so that civil discourse becomes ultimately impossible.

Not quite. I'm pointing out the reality that in the past those with ideological differences tended or tried to follow their ideology where ever it led, even if they result wasn't to their liking. Currently groups advertise their ideology merely as a convenient label, but have no trouble not following said ideology if it happens to logically lead to a non self-serving (predetermined) conclusion.

Surely you are aware of the questionable relationship history's various collectivist projects had with the truth? Hell, it was the commies who formed the OG post-truth societies. — Tzeentch

If you actually read and understand me first you would understand that I argue that post-truth is a problem within the public itself and their relation to truth and how to evaluate who's honest and who's a liar. Communist regimes used and use state violence methods to craft narratives that the public follow by force or indoctrination, it's not the same thing as what post-truth is about.

The problem is, all sources of authority have adopted 'post-truth'; governments, international institutions, media, science - it's all tainted.

It appears the only way forward is for the common people to completely reject traditional sources of information, and rebuild the truth from the bottom up. I suppose it's just a matter of time before the house of cards comes tumbling down and people will be forced to do so. — Tzeentch

Wouldn't that require complete abandonment of culture and society, medicine and technology? 'The bottom' you would need to start from would be like existence in a pre-agrarian society, a literal re-invention of the wheel (and fire, for that matter.)

:up:

I suggest that it is not cognitive dissonance that is causing the anger among social conservatives, but the justified sense that they are being talked down to by people like you who believe they have some superior moral or objective vantage and try to shove it down their throats. I am a progressive , but I dont claim that my perspective is morally or objectively superior to other ways of thinking. — Joshs

I think I agree with this for the most part. What reason do you have or holding progressive values if you do not consider them in some sense superior than a range of alternatives you could hold?

I don't buy the 'all sides are the same' argument at this point in history. In US politics, one particular important player is notoriously mendacious, self-interested and unfit for public office. But - who cares? The recent GOP Congress was notoriously dysfunctional, consumed by internicene disputes and pointless inquisitions. But they were returned anyway, with an increased majority. Meaning: the electorate doesn't know or care, they think it doesn't matter. Or, maybe that all sides are the same.

Wouldn't that require complete abandonment of culture and society, medicine and technology? — Wayfarer

No, it would just require people to become highly selective in what sources of information they initially trust.

Turn off the television, stop watching "the news", stop using social media. Touch grass, talk to your neighbor, see what's real.

If you actually read and understand me first you would understand that I argue that post-truth is a problem within the public itself and their relation to truth and how to evaluate who's honest and who's a liar. Communist regimes used and use state violence methods to craft narratives that the public follow by force or indoctrination, it's not the same thing as what post-truth is about. — Christoffer

Oh, I disagree with that definition of post-truth. People in general do not become delusional voluntarily. Some outside force is necessary, like a corrupt government elite that feeds them propaganda, and uses censorship to block off all roads to the truth.

Since the end of the Cold War, western governments (with the US at the helm) have dominated the information landscape and abused that position to influence their population in a way that can only aptly be described as 'brainwashing'.

Communist regimes functioned in exactly the same way, essentially holding a monopoly on information within the totalitarian state.

Today, that western/elite domination of media has been broken, hence we notice something is terribly wrong and call it 'post-truth'. But we have been living in this 'post-truth' reality since 1991 onward, and it started perhaps even before that.

The difference is that now large amounts of people are able to tell something's wrong, which they simply couldn't before due to the totality of the propaganda system.

Since the end of the Cold War, western governments (with the US at the helm) have dominated the information landscape and abused that position to influence their population in a way that can only aptly be described as 'brainwashing'. — Tzeentch

Rubbish. I could stand on a street corner in Washington DC and pass out flyers accusing the US Government of corruption and at worst be moved along by the DC police. I was a Russian citizen who expressed hostility to the war in Ukraine, I could be arrested and jailed without trial. There’s no moral equivalence there, and you should thank your stars you’re in a society which gives you the ability to express your dissident opinions, because it’s under threat.

I could stand on a street corner in Washington DC and pass out flyers [...] — Wayfarer

The difference with systems like China and Russia is that at least there it is clear the population has little to no agency.

In the West, populations have been tricked into believing that they are in charge when in fact they are not - a much more effective way of placating a population, because it keeps them ignorant and/or guessing as to who their masters are.

I'm not sure whether it's endearing or grotesque that you would suggest handing out flyers in the face of the influence of the MIC, big business, powerful lobbies and establishment elites.

Oh, I disagree with that definition of post-truth. — Tzeentch

Why? It's literally the most common interpretation of it:

""Oxford Dictionaries popularly defines it as "relating to and denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.""

And I'm describing the circumstances here. If you're trying to redefine interpretations in order to validate your own argument, you're pretty much playing into the same behavior as post-truth society generates. What's the point of even discussing then if you transform definitions to fit your narrative?

People in general do not become delusional voluntarily. Some outside force is necessary, like a corrupt government elite that feeds them propaganda, and uses censorship to block off all roads to the truth. — Tzeentch

Who said anything about it being voluntarily? It's like you invent things that haven't been said or don't understand what I'm writing? I've already done an extensive breakdown on why it happened and none of it pointed to it as being voluntarily.

Since the end of the Cold War, western governments (with the US at the helm) have dominated the information landscape and abused that position to influence their population in a way that can only aptly be described as 'brainwashing'. — Tzeentch

Conspiratorial nonsense. What has dominated any form of brainwashed values since the 80s is the market. Have you done any form of analysis on any of this, at all? We're literally living in a Baudrillardian simulacra of free market constructs forming life narratives that are actively killing us. One of the biggest sources of self-harm in any form is how the identity of the person, the individual does not fit into the narrative they've been taught to believe. Nothing of that comes from any state actor, it comes from society's love of the neoliberal market which fuels the individualistic value system that everyone in western democracies live by today.

This idea that western governments is in control, especially US government, is literally giving them too much credit. They're not that smart. You're describing an X-Files storyline, not reality. Politicians in the US are interested in power and money, but most of them are too stupid to have any grand plan. Even the fascist type politicians like Trump don't have a grand plan, they misuse their power and to the danger of the public, but there's no deep state bullshit going on.

If you look at citizens in any western democracy, what are the things that research points towards being detrimental to their life and health? The thing that's killing us is stress and unreasonable expectations on life. It's unfulfilled dreams and skewed perspectives on wealth. NONE of that has anything to do with the government, it has to do with how the free market conditioned us into certain life values that does not mesh with what is good for us as animal human beings.

Being blind to what actually brainwashed us, blaming the government for brainwashing us instead, leads to the fundamental question... brainwashed us into what? What exactly has the government "programmed us into"? Raegan only gave the market the keys to the kingdom, he didn't orchestrate the world we live in.

And seen as large cap tech corps have so much power that politicians don't know how to handle them, who do you really think have the power to brainwash us? The market (with its tech companies) or any government?

Communist regimes functioned in exactly the same way, essentially holding a monopoly on information within the totalitarian state. — Tzeentch

This is not the same as post-truth.

Today, that western/elite domination of media has been broken, hence we notice something is terribly wrong and call it 'post-truth'. But we have been living in this 'post-truth' reality since 1991 onward, and it started perhaps even before that. — Tzeentch

You're confused as to who has power over the media. And you seem to haven't taken part in much of contemporary philosophy that is actively analyzing the relation between media and society. Ignoring the largest contributor to our modern world, social media. The elite do not have that much control over those channels, they're driven by income that formed the algorithms and those algorithms focus on conflict and negativity promoting influencers of the sort. The chaos of these voices aren't controlled by an elite, it's the system itself perpetuating the chaos as it drives sales in the attention economy. People at the top each money on this engagement, they don't care about a narrative, they care about the money.

The difference is that now large amounts of people are able to tell something's wrong, which they simply couldn't before due to the totality of the propaganda system. — Tzeentch

What propaganda are you talking about? You're so vague and sloppily broad that you end up with such large brush strokes that it becomes platitude nonsense.

Your arguments basically just boils down to "government bad", "government tell propaganda", "people brainwashed". There's zero substance of theory.

What reason do you have or holding progressive values if you do not consider them in some sense superior than a range of alternatives you could hold? — Tom Storm

They’re superior for me, given my needs, the way I live my life and rhe community I identify with. They’re not for everybody.

Ignoring the largest contributor to our modern world, social media. The elite do not have that much control over those channels, [...] — Christoffer

Yes, that's my point.

Today the media dominance of the western elites has been broken, which is why now all of a sudden people are starting to notice something is wrong.

Guess what: it has been this way for decades, but because there was very little to stir up the echo chambers most people didn't notice.

If you find it difficult to believe that government elites conspire against the common people, I don't know what to tell you. Open your eyes?

If you find it difficult to believe that government elites conspire against the common people, I don't know what to tell you. Open your eyes? — Tzeentch

This is conspiracy theory stuff and rhetoric. That top people try to wield power is true, but you have no proof of unlimited power in doing so. If you think the public and the free market companies, especially the largest corporations on the planet are more innocent in producing our modern living conditions you aren't paying attention. State actors primarily try to influence elections, or they're targeting what they consider enemies. Western democracies have too much freedom among the people to be steered like that; what is steering them is the sum of our culture and that culture is consumerism. Governments aren't controlling consumption, it's corporations and the free market that does. It's not actual political ideology that actually drives people, even in online debates, what people believe is political discussions are usually different value systems being promoted and those value systems do not come from political leaders, they come from manifested perspectives on life.

A racist, homophobic conservative from an industrial town in the middle US do not hold those values because of political leaders forming those narrative, they hold them because of their surrounding culture and the dissonance between values when they grew up in clash with the values they meet in modern life. It happens in every generation, but in our modern world, all these values clash online and they've been entangled in the algorithms of social media, formed by business strategies that focus on manipulation of the customers.

You're only repeating yourself over and over saying that "it's the government". It's nothing more than conspiratorial parroting and regurgitating some narrative you believe is true. Where's your argument for it? And I'm not talking about linking to some dislocated events of state actors trying to do something specific because specific events does not form the foundation of an entire culture and a foundation for the modern condition. You're not arguing philosophically, you're doing a reddit post.

If you really need to be given proof for the major influence governments have on public opinion then you must have been living under a rock for the past couple decades.

If you need a place to start I would read Manufactoring Consent by Noam Chomsky.

If you really need to be given proof for the major influence governments have on public opinion then you must have been living under a rock for the past couple decades.

If you need a place to start I would read Manufactoring Consent by Noam Chomsky. — Tzeentch

And anyone who seems to JUST read Noam Chomsky will only have that perspective and regurgitating only his ideas.

I was waiting for you to name-drop him, as this inability to understand what I'm talking about is common among those who don't read much more than his writings.

You are still just saying the same thing over and over. Where's your actual argument, where's the theory behind your words? What's the reasoning? You're just saying that everyone who does not say what you say is living under a rock. What about the rest of contemporary philosophy? Have you forgotten about that? Have you forgotten about how online media have fractured the core thesis of his book as it's based around an outdated dominance in media? Ignoring writers like, Jürgen Habermas, Byung-Chul Han, Shoshana Zuboff, Slavoj Žižek, Evgeny Morozov, Geert Lovink who are all talking about what I'm talking about here; and how the power has shifted from governments to corporations, that governments aren't powerful enough to manufacture anything that corporations and the market aren't better at.

If there's anyone who's been living under a rock in here...

And anyone who seems to JUST read Noam Chomsky will only have that perspective and regurgitating only his ideas.

I was waiting for you to name-drop him, as this inability to understand what I'm talking about is common among those who don't read much more than his writings. — Christoffer

You asked me for substance. I gave you substance.

If you think I view your offhand dismissal of Chomsky as anything other than clownesque posturing I'm afraid you are wrong.

You simply prove that you're not really interested in anything I have to say, which is why I haven't been taking this conversation particularly seriously. It begs the question, if you're not interested then why do you keep writing these cramped replies? :chin: