Political Rhetoric, Explained - Steven Pinker

suren1946 Says:

Jan 3, 2009 - Pinker should switch to politics; at least then he can make a bit more sense [than his linguistic theory]. WHat he says about the "CHANGE" thing was copied from Chomsky anyway - again.

chainy10 Says:

Jan 9, 2009 - and this reaction to truth.....is due to how stupid most people are..do to the way society is now.

bajawind Says:

Jan 21, 2009 - pinker is a student of chomsky, there are no stupid people, just ignorant ones. school is where we learn stupidity. however the world and people appear is simply a reflexion of you.

astrophysicistCUboul Says:

Feb 13, 2009 - Pinker also strongly disagrees with Chomsky on the origins of language.

ContolGFK Says:

Mar 7, 2009 - The master of political rethoric is the English stand-up comedian and writer PAT CONDELL.

TheToltec Says:

Mar 8, 2009 - Excellent Video:)

inexxxorable Says:

Apr 7, 2009 - At minute 3:55, Pinker says that "words, in addition to having their literal meaning, can evoke an immediate emotional response." This requires that the meaning of the words is internalized by the subject. But the words (indeed the language) are created and manipulated by the subject. This entails that the meaning must be internalized before the words are used, else the user will not know which words to use. Thus, language is embodied. Else, words could not evoke emotions.

inexxxorable Says:

Apr 7, 2009 - Steve Pinker is somewhat famous for aggressively arguing against George Lakoff's theories. Yet, at minute 3:00, he says exactly the same thing that George Lakoff said so many years earlier - in the first chapter of "Don't Think of an Elephant!"

reaguirre Says:

May 3, 2009 - you've got to love this guy for wearing a 1980's david hasselhoff hairstyle.

gabydewilde Says:

May 8, 2009 - You've written one of those youtube comments.

apostleofsedition Says:

Jun 1, 2009 - Chomsky aptly illustrates how politicians use vague language that no one can disagree with. This is a means of diverting from real issues and marginalizing public opinion. Phrases like "anti-american" or "support our troops" Pinker says "we force" them to do this because we're too critical. He really misses the point. Pinker should stay away from politics.

suren1946 Says:

Jun 2, 2009 - exactly! in fact, most of his new book, THE STUFF OF THOUGHT, is plagiarised from Lakoff in particular, and cog. lx. in general.

suren1946 Says:

Jun 2, 2009 - yes, you're absolutely right! In fact, I wish Pinker would stay away from Linguistics as well!

Hamandchees3 Says:

Jun 12, 2009 - no. pinker says we force them because we aren't critical enough.

magicbibledotcom Says:

Jun 15, 2009 - lol that old psychology shtick about saying that sort of sentence such as "Don't think of X" and you think of X because "think of X" is there in the sentence is kind of silly. It's more the fact that X was just mentioned. Because if you say ANYTHING to someone that they have a mental image of then they'll think of it. Regardless of the structure of the sentence. If you just say "BUS" to someone, they'll picture a bus immediately lol.

inexxxorable Says:

Jun 17, 2009 - lolz like omg you totally didn't read Lakoff and you so don't know what me and suren1946 are talking about. lol.

phatpat63 Says:

Jul 11, 2009 - Chomsky can't even admit that the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions he thinks they were doing great. The man is a fucking loon.

vegtam1 Says:

Jul 13, 2009 - I think you are misunderstanding force there.

Buckman82 Says:

Jul 17, 2009 - he did not meant that we literally and directly force them intentionally to use vauge and indirect speech he was saying that it is only their natural response to being put nder fire for saying things in direct and difinitive ways. Also by buying into it (like buying into Obama's promises) we create the atmosphere where such empty rhetoric is applauded and clearly succsessful. Listent o the whole thing again and stop qoute mining lolololol

Cosbibi Says:

Jul 24, 2009 - Why do I never see people attack Chomsky using honest argument? It always seems to be this holocaust denier/genocide supporter/stalinist bullcrap. 30 seconds of work would have been enough to find out that Chomsky has always been extremely critical of the Soviet Union.

apostleofsedition Says:

Jul 29, 2009 - The purpose of vague language is avoidance of real issues, not being worried that you might offend someone.

analubalitious Says:

Aug 26, 2009 - Those are not mutually exclusive or even unconnected. Doesn't it make sense that politicians require votes (I.E. favorably viewed). To that end, it's wise to avoid real issues and concrete stances. Granted, many politicians probably couldn't care less about your emotions or mine, except to the extent of those emotions translating to votes.

skepticasts Says:

Sep 22, 2009 - "when we lose or jobs, we turn to guns and religion... lipstick on a pig and so on" lol Pinker doesn't say anything new, but he says it well.

IncLogic Says:

Oct 5, 2009 - PINKER FOR PRESIDENT !

WarRogers Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - It's a shame that we (America) keep getting dumb-asses running for office when there's smart guys like this out there. I'd much rather have Pinker on the phone with Vladimir Putin rather than Bush or Obama any day of the week!