Urban v's the Commentariat

[butchersapron]

Looters, Tooters and Sawn-Off Shooters for the w/c who went to uni but are now embarrassed and cut-off.

 

[el-ahrairah]

Book launch!

Meta-commentariat pulp fiction.

i'm not sure i'm the target audience of that.

 

[DaveCinzano]

OJ is going to be in us soon

 

[Fozzie Bear]

i'm not sure i'm the target audience of that.

You read enough shite about about them on here.

I expect it will be like that, but with more sex and violence.

 

[butchersapron]

OJ is going to be in us soon

£7 concessions.

Feel it.

 

[DaveCinzano]

£7 concessions.

Feel it.

Hopefully there won't be any h8rz deeply resenting this attempt to reach a mass audience.

 

[brogdale]

Hopefully there won't be any h8rz deeply resenting this attempt to reach a mass audience.

And How They Get Away with It

If anyone wants to hear this advert for free...it's here

 

[J Ed]

They are all too busy reading OJ's syndicated Greatest Graunid Hits

 

[Pickman's model]

They are all too busy reading OJ's syndicated Greatest Graunid Hits

with gloves on i hope

 

[Lo Siento.]

They are all too busy reading OJ's syndicated Greatest Graunid Hits

I'd wager that more inner city sixth formers have been politicised reading Chomsky than have or ever will be by reading The Establishment.

 

[Bakunin]

Hopefully there won't be any h8rz deeply resenting this attempt to reach a mass audience.

Reaching a mass audience, yesterday:

 

[J Ed]

I'd wager that more inner city sixth formers have been politicised reading Chomsky than have or ever will be by reading The Establishment.

Chomsky is definitely a great gateway writer, not sure if you can say the same for OJ

 

[newbie]

only for those with intellectualist leanings and an appetite for long/obscure/academic words.

 

[DaveCinzano]

only for those with intellectualist leanings and an appetite for long/obscure/academic words.

What peculiar prejudices you betray.

 

[brogdale]

What peculiar prejudices you betray.

with 15 character words...

 

[J Ed]

only for those with intellectualist leanings and an appetite for long/obscure/academic words.

Are you talking about OJ or Chomsky? I don't think that what you are arguing here applies to either of them, I read the Fateful Triangle when I was 14. Chomsky writes in an unpretentious common sense way. Any literate student of that age who is sufficiently interested can read Chomsky's political stuff.

 

[killer b]

Have you read any Chomsky newbie? He's pretty careful not to use obscure academic language - the exact opposite of what you say.

 

[newbie]

What peculiar prejudices you betray.

you think? From my perspective the peculiar ones are those who read, understand and can reproduce the nuances of philosophical or political theories because IME & IMO most of us can't. So we defer to those that can and rely on their abilities to aid our understanding. That applies to this forum just as much as to Chomsky or the rest of the celeb left commentariat.

I've been trying to imagine who would work as a gateway for 16/17 year olds, though I'm reluctant to limit it to 6th formers since that's only a subset of the agegroup, many of whom don't pass exams. It's not been defined what the gateway is to, I suppose, but the current crop of social justice warriors, intersectionalists and so on passed through some sort of gateway. They're a tiny, tiny percentage of their peers, but still. Was that reading Chomsky aged 14, did they read Chavs, did they follow pennyred on twitter? or was it Harry Potter?

If the answer to that really is Chomsky, who is 85 and has been writing for decades, then why has the gateway effect worn off in so many of their older peers who now appear to be under the spell of UKIP, who (I'd have thought) owe little to Chomsky?

 

[butchersapron]

you think? From my perspective the peculiar ones are those who read, understand and can reproduce the nuances of philosophical or political theories because IME & IMO most of us can't. So we defer to those that can and rely on their abilities to aid our understanding. That applies to this forum just as much as to Chomsky or the rest of the celeb left commentariat.

I've been trying to imagine who would work as a gateway for 16/17 year olds, though I'm reluctant to limit it to 6th formers since that's only a subset of the agegroup, many of whom don't pass exams. It's not been defined what the gateway is to, I suppose, but the current crop of social justice warriors, intersectionalists and so on passed through some sort of gateway. They're a tiny, tiny percentage of their peers, but still. Was that reading Chomsky aged 14, did they read Chavs, did they follow pennyred on twitter? or was it Harry Potter?

If the answer to that really is Chomsky, who is 85 and has been writing for decades, then why has the gateway effect worn off in so many of their older peers who now appear to be under the spell of UKIP, who (I'd have thought) owe little to Chomsky?

So the answer to killer b's question is no. With some wordy waffle.

 

[andysays]

...or was it Harry Potter?

If the answer to that really is Chomsky, who is 85 and has been writing for decades, then why has the gateway effect worn off in so many of their older peers who now appear to be under the spell of UKIP, who (I'd have thought) owe little to Chomsky?

Who are you suggesting is "under the spell" of UKIP, or is this just an extension of your reference to Harry Potter?

 

[newbie]

No it's not, I've tried, by and large I fall asleep, as with most tracts.

 

[newbie]

Who are you suggesting is "under the spell" of UKIP, or is this just an extension of your reference to Harry Potter?

sort of the latter, but it's pretty plain that a fair chunk of the older brothers/sisters and parents/grandparents of the current teenagers are sympathetic to what UKIP is saying.

 

[rekil]

Helen Lewis gives the Kathy Sierra case the mention with some awkward bits filleted out.

Eg this kind of thing.

If one thing unites the hackers and whistleblowers hunted by the US government over the past three years, from Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden to notorious prankster Andrew "weev" Auernheimer, it is that they have little respect for the moral authority of the US government and its mechanisms. They are in their teens and 20s; they grew up in the Bush, Blair and Brown years and came of age just as the financial crash of 2008 swept away the socioeconomic justification for Anglo-American imperialism. The online culture that they helped create believes deeply in transparency and, to that culture, digital activists who risk everything for the public's "right to know" are heroes.

If the SWP had plonked themselves in that loon's corner, the intersectionalistas would've gone ballistic, tipping over stalls and the like.

 

[andysays]

sort of the latter, but it's pretty plain that a fair chunk of the older brothers/sisters and parents/grandparents of the current teenagers are sympathetic to what UKIP is saying.

But are you suggesting that these people are the same ones who once read and understood Chomsky, and have since gone on to reproduce the nuances of philosophical or political theories, and that some of them are here? If so, maybe you'd clarify by naming them.

Otherwise I don't see how your post #9738 makes any sense at all

 

[Lo Siento.]

you think? From my perspective the peculiar ones are those who read, understand and can reproduce the nuances of philosophical or political theories because IME & IMO most of us can't. So we defer to those that can and rely on their abilities to aid our understanding. That applies to this forum just as much as to Chomsky or the rest of the celeb left commentariat.

I've been trying to imagine who would work as a gateway for 16/17 year olds, though I'm reluctant to limit it to 6th formers since that's only a subset of the agegroup, many of whom don't pass exams. It's not been defined what the gateway is to, I suppose, but the current crop of social justice warriors, intersectionalists and so on passed through some sort of gateway. They're a tiny, tiny percentage of their peers, but still. Was that reading Chomsky aged 14, did they read Chavs, did they follow pennyred on twitter? or was it Harry Potter?

If the answer to that really is Chomsky, who is 85 and has been writing for decades, then why has the gateway effect worn off in so many of their older peers who now appear to be under the spell of UKIP, who (I'd have thought) owe little to Chomsky?

I don't think anyone was claiming that Chomsky's work has politicised the majority of people. They were just countering your misconception that Chomsky's political stuff is "nuanced political theory" and accessible only to intellectuals. It's a caricature that doesn't stand up to actually reading it.

Here's the first article I came across on Chomsky's website. I could find just two words that you might reasonably classify as long/obscure "Extirpate" and "marginalia". As to the theory, is the idea that the US condemns things that others do, whilst also doing them and letting their allies do them really that complex?

 

[Idris2002]

No it's not, I've tried, by and large I fall asleep, as with most tracts.

Including this one?

Spoiler

 

[nino_savatte]

only for those with intellectualist leanings and an appetite for long/obscure/academic words.

Er, no. Chomsky's work is pretty accessible. Besides, what's wrong with long words? Expand your vocab, maaaan!

 

[newbie]

But are you suggesting that these people are the same ones who once read and understood Chomsky, and have since gone on to reproduce the nuances of philosophical or political theories, and that some of them are here? If so, maybe you'd clarify by naming them.

Otherwise I don't see how your post #9738 makes any sense at all

If Chomsky works as a gateway, he's not been very effective. Plenty of people here seem to think his writing is accessible and persuasive- apparently it's only me that finds him dry and academic. He's been prominent for decades, and the post I initially responded to said "Chomsky is definitely a great gateway writer". I don't know how many of the current UKIP sympathisers read him at some point during those decades, but some of them must have done, if he's such a great writer, or such a great gateway.

 

[Lo Siento.]

If Chomsky works as a gateway, he's not been very effective. Plenty of people here seem to think his writing is accessible and persuasive- apparently it's only me that finds him dry and academic. He's been prominent for decades, and the post I initially responded to said "Chomsky is definitely a great gateway writer". I don't know how many of the current UKIP sympathisers read him at some point during those decades, but some of them must have done, if he's such a great writer, or such a great gateway.

I'm not sure what exactly you think that proves. Most people don't share Richard Littlejohn's views, does that make him dry and inaccessible?

 

[J Ed]

I don't know how many of the current UKIP sympathisers read him at some point during those decades, but some of them must have done

Some, sure, how many exactly do you think? Plus, no one is suggesting that Chomsky's writing suddenly magically turns everyone into 'born again' libertarian socialists. There are definitely right-libertarians, Islamists and even neo-Nazis who read, quote and draw their own conclusions from Chomsky but that is not exactly the majority. Are you seriously criticising Chomsky on the basis that 1) Chomsky's writing exists 2) UKIP supporters exist therefore Chomsky's writing is academic and dry and has failed to 'purify' the world of UKIP?