LAKOFF DOES NOT THINK. HE IS A BUFFOON. I SAT IN HIS CLASS, AND HE USED A "STRICT FATHER" ROLE TO DOMINATE THE CLASSROOM AND RULE OVER EMPIRICAL TRUTH THAT CONTRADICTED HIS WORLDVIEW. A FAILURE AS AN ACADEMIC. HE IS A "PROTOTYPE" OF A PAMPERED PROFESSOR DIVORCED FROM FACT. PS PREACHING TO A CHOIR OF PROGRESSIVES & TELLING THEM THEY ARE MENTALLY SUPERIOR IS THE ACT OF A FART-SNIFFER.
@laylaPazienza Because nobody is doing the framing. You have to repeat the words and images over and over to get them to become a significant part of the brain. How many times have you heard "War on Terror", or something stupid like that? Over and over and over, until that happens it won't work.
@tstruss912 Maybe my question was unclear! So why the sentence "war on terror" doesn't work on me? Why this frame doesn't work on progressives? You know, I don't think we have different brains or pathways. And in his book "political mind" he is a little bit unclear in so man issues. You can agree with the idea of framing, or just agree with the (unfair) use of propaganda. Merry xmas!
I consider myself to be a moral person. My dad always taught me to be a good person and do the right thing. What I noticed is that my beliefs always tended to lean more towards the liberal side instead of the conservative. I always wondered why that would be. Helping the poor. Honesty. Responsibility. "Love your neighbor as yourself." I thought these were THE morals. After watching this video... I finally get it.
it's actually pretty funny that this is sort of literally some of the stuff Aleister Crowley was talking about before cognitive science got to it, sort of.
310 Million people in America and this has been viewed 53K times. That for me is a problem. I'm just saying, it should be required viewing for anyone who votes.
So compelling especially in the last half of the lecture. He takes time setting up. But it's necessary to define the basics: framing and metaphor, their manipulation & impact on the subconscious.
All liberals need to view this.
His final words, that it's the whole political view of conservatives which have failed this country. (Dobson's "strict father" model)---not the govmint. Also, that liberal leadership does nothing to expose conservative lies. Why do they win and we fail? Ha!
I don't think that these paradigms are as narrow, conscious, or ridged as he suggests, but I do think that, in a general way; his definition of the "strict father" view of society is sound, and adhered to by traditional conservatives.
Were surrounded by a constant stream of messages~cues~signals .Millions of ongoing messages that we relay and broadcast, many completely unconsciously and were monitoring how were doing are we okay? approved of? accepted? on the' right track'?....were social animals approval seeking animals and we can easily be manipulated by our peers and by the consensual frames created by media.
Good speech. America is said to be the greatest country in the world. I wonder if it was molded by strict or nourished morality. Having lived in both types of government utopia's, I can say without a doubt, American's do not see the great nation they live in.
jared loughner believed government manipulated language to change public opinion, and he's considered a looney. yet lakoff says similar things and he's respected. by the way, i agree on many things with lakoff.
The 'father' metaphor is silly. There is NO logical consistency in liberalism or conservatism. Each comprises sub-groups which ally for any of several common goals yet still disagree on others. That's politics. One can not be decent (as in practicing the passive form of the Golden Rule), be informed and conservative at the same time. In fact, 'mean' conservatives brainwash the 'decent' but uninformed ones (at least when they can't debase their character, as Limbaugh, O'Rourke, Coulter & Co do).
One last thing I thought I'd say... George focuses on the language part, but he doesn't know his economics. Yes, conservatives do use their language very clearly, but this doesn't mean that liberals can do the same thing just with some slight tweaks. They can't get by on metaphors because a) their values are malleable and therefore so is the way they frame their language and b) their emphasis on big government is an extension of documented past socialist failures and conservatives know this.
You claim that "liberals can't get by on metaphors because...quote". I do not claim your statement is false but the reason for your statement could be directly linked back to Lakoff's research. How am I to know if your argument is merely a biased opinion due to your environmental background or if it's something that could be scientifically proven? Alas, this scientific proof could also be biased depending on how the observer interprets it.
@meckerarma It seems to me you're not being very clear. Liberals can't expect their metaphors to be nearly as effective and long-lasting as conservative ones, because the liberal mindset favours a much more fluid understanding of reality. In a lot of ways, this is a very good trait. I am not saying anything novel here. Lakoff still makes a lot of valid points, but the fact remains that liberals will struggle to match conservatives in the metaphor business.
The issue I have is that you don't acknowledge the fact that you yourself might be a "victim" of this mindset brought fourth from environmental causes. The fact that you claim liberals to be incapable compared to conservatives at using metaphors in politics might simply be a mere biased opinion. Since I myself am a liberal in some ways and that I can't see your point might just be further proof that this is such a situation.
@meckerarma I never said that liberals are incapable of using metaphors. I said that they can't get by on metaphors as effectively as conservatives do. All in all, what you're saying strikes me as some kind of relativist postmodern mysticism, of which I would not even accuse Lakoff.
That's why I said "compared to conservatives". Honestly, if you get that impression you obviously can't understand a very simple statement such as mine.
I'd say that is a more accurate description of the responses you've been giving me. It seems to me that you're only writing down these seemingly useless comments in order to avoid responding to my initial demand of proof as to why you think this way. You've failed to respond so far and thus I have no reason to think of your opinion as anything other than biased misinformation.
@meckerarma Because you didn't really ask the question. If your comments were anything but glib pomo relativism I would have probably been more forthcoming. No, we're not simply slaves to language. Yes, there is a great deal of literature on political thinking. No, not everything has to be cited, especially rudimentary things that I have mentioned. Yes, you should probably read Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. I feel like I am speaking to a Derridean.
You're still doing it. Your claims are worthless unless you can back them up with actual research which I am starting to doubt you actually have. You are seemingly educated and yet, from what I can tell, do you not fully understand the true meaning of scientific inquiry and thought.
One thing I'm not sure I like about this speech is that from the outset Lakoff frames the liberals as the good guys and the conservatives as the other not-so-good guys. It's good in the sense that he doesn't hide his biases, but bad because you get a sense that his supporting points are just there to lead him to a predisposed end. So he talks about liberals with a straight face, but smirks when the christian bookshop anecdote comes up. Lakoff by his own admission is far removed from that world
I'd like to see George debate Thomas Sowell. Linguist v Economist. Liberal v Conservative. Love both men. Wrote similar (sort of) books on the topic (political mindsets). Lakoff is more in my field, but I don't agree with his politics very much.
His political viewpoints overwhelm his academic analysis. Its disappointing that our kids get this political bias when they take a class on Cognitive Science and Linguistics.
It seems like his speech is just an apologist's essay for an illogical thought pattern, and I don't mean liberal or conservative. What I mean is that gun ownership and taxation are separate issues and should be evaluated separately. It seems that he is less of a liberal than a democrat who is trying to explain away is copy and paste political ideology. Also, his family argument precludes several family models: matrilineal, orphanage, etc.
@MixedUpCody Actually, the family metaphors mainly come from the right wing.
And they don't really mean family, but fear of strangers - ie not trusting strangers with money (taxes) and protecting your property (guns). That's what I got out of it at least.
Free energy has been here for a while ,But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
Free energy technology exists!But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the revolution!
You sure it's him? Very weird coincidences... Today I get an email saying someone's replied to my comment about Matthew Fox/Jack Shepard minutes after I watch the final episode of LOST.
I also got an email giving me my college candidate number minutes before I saw an episode called 'The Candidate'.
Maybe I am The Chosen One. Maybe I get over-excited about coincidence.
Simply because he's a Linguist it doesn't mean that one should automatically trust him with words. One should still be vigilant in listening & carefully take notice of what he says. He actually contradicts himself quite a bit. Early in his lecture he casually & even jokingly makes reference to Conservative "greed". But nevertheless, one is made consciously aware of it as he makes the suggestive association between conservative & greed. Then, at about 21:15, in alluding to greed, he presents
@Chuichupachichi You definitely shouldn't trust him with politics. Lakoff is a cognitivist, so I think that one may as well trust him with 'metaphors' and related information. But once it comes to politics, Lakoff is no more an expert on the topic than Chomsky. Both are biting off more than they can chew. Although the core of Lakoff's argument (at least in his book) strikes me as completely reasonable and probably true, the end portions where he presents his politics are so-so.
conservatives as pursuing their self interests. However, at about 36:20, he then presents Liberal Democrats as "correctly" & "rationally" pursuing their self interests. Its quite interesting how "self interests" can transform from defect to virtue within the span of 15 min., depending on who is pursing them. Also, he alluded to America's founders while suggesting that they established the nation from an "enlightenment", rationalist mentality. The rationalism he associated with Liberal Democrats
Again, it's based on how YOU look at it. Self Interest could mean for a conservative being an individual, while for liberals it means being selfish. I personally think it's being selfish. I've studied how Conservative policies and VALUES have consistently failed America. From Slavery to Reaganomics to Iraq.
He is a liberal, so he going to see things from the Liberal/Progressive PoV.
He then went on to speak about the founder's applied concept of "self governing". However, self governing is in accordance with a reduced, "small government", or one with "limited powers" which he criticized as being Conservative politics. Furthermore, being a Democrat, he claimed that the Colonists founded a "Democratic" form of government. But in fact, they founded a "Republican" system, governed by the rule of law ("Strict Dad") (not a majority mob's transcending fickleness) & with a
representative form of government. He presents Conservatives as being semantically deceptive, applying positive words in place of smog, deforestation etc. However, I'm surprised that he was willing to simply give away the belt which Democrats have earned from being the Heavyweight Title Champions of lamentably lethal & legendarily ludicrous, linguistically liberal labels. To the languidly lewd Leftists, words such as "compassion", "sensitive", "tolerance", "bigot" & "fundamentalist" have an
entirely different meaning than those in Webster's. Democrats define them as an oratorically ostensible means with which to fight political battles & progress their run amok agenda to its preposterously predetermined, Hellaciously Utopian ends. Altogether, these are the reasons why "Moral Politics" are "relative" to the degree in which their Leftist proponent is willing to illogically assert them in "absolute" terms. But this is not a social crisis, its simply another Leftist cognitive quagmire
I don't see why the morality of the Founders is somehow a good metric to compare anyone (a lot owned slaves etc.).
But lakoff was still correct in that by the conservative logic, greed is just a necessary consequence of "self interest" and in liberal logic, you need "empathy" in order to care about others.
I am completely, absolutely amazed about this video. I think this is the best, most succinct public resource you can currently find that will tell you how, and why, political parties use language to sway public opinion in their favor. It describes exactly how and why conservatives and liberals are they way they are, and why liberals are losing the political race. Everyone should watch this.
Most of the things politicians say is just empty rhetoric that has no meaning. They say things like it is time for change but do not go on to say what they will change or how they will do it and then when they get into power nothing changes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Progressive Democrats= Socialist Commies. All these people want is big government and big taxes. Wake up and study Progressive movement history. These are the same people that brought you prohibition, Income Tax, etc.... Wake up and study history a little instead of being brainwashed or at least wikipedia these parties and see what there past really is!
@ucannotescape said "Wake up and study history a little instead of being brainwashed or at least wikipedia these parties and see what there past really is!"
so Wikipedia is your choice for research? LAME
you didnot understand one thought the professor made. I bet you like strict daddies and mommys who home school their kiddies?
@ucannotescape Funny how the conservatives that came before, say, Clinton, and the ones who came after, sunk this country deeper and deeper into debt, effectively hemorrhaging money. Meanwhile, Obama is doing an excellent job of slowing this downward spiral, and has reversed the trend of this country losing jobs by the second.
No need to study ancient history. Study the last 20 years. You might learn something.
If course, if it turns out that Strict Father morality tends to work better in the long run, Lakoff will be credited for helping conservatives to understand and articulate the world view which helped humanity to survive.
After all, we do live in a dangerous world, and in dangerous situations, women need to shut their traps and obey the men's instructions to improve everyone's chances of making it out alive.
What's interesting here is that he says nothing about the art of rhetoric. Much of what he discusses was already implemented in the practice and theory of rhetoric 2000+ years ago - just look at Aristotle's work on the subject! Similar ideas have therefore had an important place in the whole history of Western political thought. In some ways he's simply re-inventing the wheel... albeit giving it a modern 'scientific' grounding...
ok, cognitive science/linguistics plays an important role in understanding motives/morality in our society. However, symantics often distorts political thought. In fact, in my educated opinion, content education must be foremost in understanding politics/business. Afterall, politics is the ameliorating of differences of groups vying for resources. That should be left to business majors who crunch numbers, plan projects, assess risks, etc, in an efficient/effective manner. Plain talk is better.
I haven't even watched this yet, but I find it interesting that virtually all the comments below are either 1) slanting left, 2) a bit absurd, 3) "removed by author", or 4) account closed.
Are there comments that disagree anywhere? Is anyone allowed to disagree?
(If this post is removed, I'll know the answer to the second question)
Hey Everyone - I would really really appreciate if you guys would subscribe to my page. I still have not started it up- But I am an aspired Political Analyst aiming at bringing the true Politics out and get more Youth involved in this centuries Politics. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE !!!!
@billtomwhelan I think the basic framework can be applied fairly universally. Conservatives will exhibit disciplinary personalities, and progressives nurturing personalities. It's just that it's more clearly recognizable in the US because of the two-party system and the existance of media outlets that are clearly slanted towards one of those parties, allowing their ideas and statements to be spread and strengthened, and thus more easily visible.
I can agree with you to most countries. However, it may apply to monarchy systems.
Take for example UK and watch how David Cameroon talks opposed to Miliband or compare The sun and Daily Mirror
In Ireland the situation is different as you have two major parties with no specifical ideological agendas: Fianna Feil and Fine Gael. Their main subject is the UK , either pro or against. The Euro-scepticism can be seen from this point of view(Nathaniel Copsey - Aston University, 14 Dec Lecture).
@billtomwhelan well it exists in canada as well, but that is another north american nation and bordering nations usually share a lot in common to be honest
Interesting how he described the sponsorship of conservative think tanks. They used to shoot people who worked against their "freedom" now they spend half a billion dollars a year on "conservative thought" with which they dilute the public discourse and mire more responsible sentiments in the no mans land of ideological rhetoric. If they werent so corrupt the debt wouldnt be 9 trillion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
oh my... he stopped speaking on linguists and now he's using linguistics to dupe the audience using words like nurturing family for liberals and strict discipline family for conservatives
it's real non-sense this is trying to be politically correct yet biologically socially domestically incorrect
he's still stuck on the 60s fad of feminism while if you read on the current literature of the leading authors of 60s they are all in a state of confusion for the horror they had unleashd on women
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I have never met a Liberal who is willing to sacrifice anything they are so interested in being unique that they are unwavering selfish and unable to experience or bring about change. The Conservatives that I know spend their lives making daily sacrifices for the people around them, it is somewhat part of their natural routine to sacrifice and make it possible for those around them to meet their full potential.
@GOWHITE80 Yeah, and this is so well reflected in their bigoted views of foreigners and even their fellow men, their ever so present support for social programs, and their constant repression of minorities and homosexuals. So considerate, those conservatives!
Good point, only philosophers should attempt logical expansion of ideas and in no way are philosophy and language related.
/sarcasm
Don't be a fucking idiot; language and philosophy are closely related and rely on the same governing factor: thinking. Critical thinking for philosophy and intuitive thinking for language.
He was doing well when he was talking about linguistics. Too bad it was only for the first 10 minutes of his speech. He should stick to linguistics and leave philosophy to philosophers.
He makes FAR too many political assumptions in this...i am right wing but i am not in support of the death penalty nor do i think abortion should be illegalized, of course, my form of "conservativism" reflects the intentions of the constitution,
rarely do my own personal moral decisions come into play.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Very interesting ideas, but unfortunately, the professor thought it important to use his findings to enter a pointless political debate. Besides his being clearly biased and with an agenda to propagate, I dare say a linguistics professor has little place in academic debate over political history, philosophy, and discourse.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out one glaring contradiction. It seems quite app.............wait!....what the hell is that thing that ran under the couch!!!!.................
I find that Mr. Lakoff's definition of Conservative and Liberal families are backwards except for the part of the Conservative family being led by a man. Conservative families discipline their children, yet know that without unconditional support on all levels their structures of right and wrong will all fall by the wayside and have no result in shaping their childs view of right and wrong as well as their childs view of success. Conservative families are the most caring and nurturing.
When i first read what this guy wrote awhile back I believed (agreed?) that Conservatives are daddy-like and Liberals are mommy-like. But I do not agree anymore: I think now that Conservatives are gender-role embracing, daddy is daddy & mommy is mommy; primarily social, willing to compromise individual freedom to take a part in a whole; liberals are androgyny-embracing, want freedom to pick & choose traits, custom build an identity, & willing to sacrifice "social unit cohesion" advantages
sorry but this scares me!!! "in 1908 a lady named sally rusa was in the woods looking for a dog until..." more "in 1908 a lady named sally rusa was in the woods looking for a dog until a ghost came and killed her so if ur reading this u will find a bloody body in your closet hanging there haunting you and will kill you and ur family and if u want to stop this just sends this to 6 videos in 30 mins or this will happen good luck
I certainly agree with the notion that "framing" is an important political tool, with broad consequences, but I simply cannot agree that it deserves more consideration than basic rational thought. To me, "framing" is not a proper substitute for cogent reasoning and the facts. I shudder to think that political persuasion may become (if it hasn't already) a mere contest in which political parties compete with one another over who can create the best slogan or best sound bite. Truly lamentable.
Nobody I know (I'm gonna quote 'senorlobo1' here) "look to the USA as a beacon of freedom and a just society". That's bullshit. The USA is just another country in this world. Nobody's better or more advanced than any other.
I'm an independent and I think I might have just wasted some precious moments listening to this guy. George is pretty good at framing. Conservative = Right Wing = Dobson = Nut Case
If you have any conservative views, what then? You are a Nut Case, Simple.
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs
I think that Mr. Lakoff's comments have some merit. Conservatives do have several themes that they use to sway public opinion. For example the GOP strategy was
Obama is a Muslim
Obama is a Socialist
Obama is Unpatriotic
Obama is UN-American
Obama is an Elitist
Obama is Different from us
Regardless of whether you are liberal, conservative, or neither; I think we do well to understand some of the strategies that are used by politicians to influence our opinions.
Agreed. Yet Obama won and in doing so we all did too; not just Americans, but all people in the world who look to the USA as a beacon of freedom and a just society.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time". - Abe Lincoln
@engage4mx-- 6 statements and all are valid.... HMMMM. How does that "sway" the masses? YOU gave bad and took away good. When you have the opportunity to lead cows you will streeeeetccccch the truth. OBAMA has proved to be all of the above, but is that any worse than his predessors??? Bandwagon. Its not your fault. Modernization leads to individualisim. Soy or fat free??? Wagon is waiting.
@engage45 i think you and me do because we obviously have the ittelectual competence to understand the dynamics of the context given in font of us. this is a rare trait and cannot be blanketly made all people..... in other words most people are dumb, we are not we need to help fix that
Really important mention of the discussion/debate that used to be carried on in this country but no longer is about whether God is a loving, nurturing and forgiving God or whether he is a punishing God. One's view of God then is reflected in the family (strict father vs. nurturing parents) and then in political thought, liberal/progressive vs. conservative. One's view of God also seems to be reflected in ones personality so that those who see God as a punisher have permission to punish. Cute.
The U.S. Political system entertains one party which is treated like a pre-game Coin. One side has a Donkey and the other has an Elephant. In the rarest of cases, the coin may land on the edge of another party though, regardless of the coin toss, the coin is still a product of the world bank.
LAKOFF DOES NOT THINK. HE IS A BUFFOON. I SAT IN HIS CLASS, AND HE USED A "STRICT FATHER" ROLE TO DOMINATE THE CLASSROOM AND RULE OVER EMPIRICAL TRUTH THAT CONTRADICTED HIS WORLDVIEW. A FAILURE AS AN ACADEMIC. HE IS A "PROTOTYPE" OF A PAMPERED PROFESSOR DIVORCED FROM FACT. PS PREACHING TO A CHOIR OF PROGRESSIVES & TELLING THEM THEY ARE MENTALLY SUPERIOR IS THE ACT OF A FART-SNIFFER.
youngbums1 1 month ago
Interesting. If this is true, what about all the progressive voters? why framing doesn't work with them? By the way he's great
laylaPazienza 1 month ago
@laylaPazienza Because nobody is doing the framing. You have to repeat the words and images over and over to get them to become a significant part of the brain. How many times have you heard "War on Terror", or something stupid like that? Over and over and over, until that happens it won't work.
tstruss912 1 month ago
@tstruss912 Maybe my question was unclear! So why the sentence "war on terror" doesn't work on me? Why this frame doesn't work on progressives? You know, I don't think we have different brains or pathways. And in his book "political mind" he is a little bit unclear in so man issues. You can agree with the idea of framing, or just agree with the (unfair) use of propaganda. Merry xmas!
laylaPazienza 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@laylaPazienza "So why the sentence "war on terror" doesn't work on me? Why this frame doesn't work on progressives? "
Maybe the same reason "social justice" doesnt' work on cons.
They dont' accept the framing to begin with. And to progressives, "war on terror" doesn't make sense in their world view. War on a tactic? On a noun?
if the brain hits something that appears non sensical to it, it tends to get ignored. And most don't even notice it.
booley 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great video
makeiteasyable 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice discussion! thanks for sharing this video
adelle0001 2 months ago
awesome video!
12TabulaRasa12 2 months ago
democrats are paid to lose. they are paid to take a dive.
styrofoamheart 2 months ago
fake and gay
Vermundr44 2 months ago
I consider myself to be a moral person. My dad always taught me to be a good person and do the right thing. What I noticed is that my beliefs always tended to lean more towards the liberal side instead of the conservative. I always wondered why that would be. Helping the poor. Honesty. Responsibility. "Love your neighbor as yourself." I thought these were THE morals. After watching this video... I finally get it.
OriginMSD 2 months ago 9
why does this only have 56k views. He is brilliant
510AWOL 5 months ago 2
it's actually pretty funny that this is sort of literally some of the stuff Aleister Crowley was talking about before cognitive science got to it, sort of.
godfreyhowatchin 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please check out the Party of Sleaze by Tokyo Rose. It's a laugh but one day it may come true.
Tokyorosebiz 6 months ago
310 Million people in America and this has been viewed 53K times. That for me is a problem. I'm just saying, it should be required viewing for anyone who votes.
SuperHadEnough 7 months ago 13
So compelling especially in the last half of the lecture. He takes time setting up. But it's necessary to define the basics: framing and metaphor, their manipulation & impact on the subconscious.
All liberals need to view this.
His final words, that it's the whole political view of conservatives which have failed this country. (Dobson's "strict father" model)---not the govmint. Also, that liberal leadership does nothing to expose conservative lies. Why do they win and we fail? Ha!
BillSalem 7 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I force people to watch this at gunpoint ;)
tstruss912 8 months ago
i fucking love this video
510AWOL 8 months ago 4
I don't think that these paradigms are as narrow, conscious, or ridged as he suggests, but I do think that, in a general way; his definition of the "strict father" view of society is sound, and adhered to by traditional conservatives.
standinstann 10 months ago
Living in an immoral society is chaos.
j19527 10 months ago
Were surrounded by a constant stream of messages~cues~signals .Millions of ongoing messages that we relay and broadcast, many completely unconsciously and were monitoring how were doing are we okay? approved of? accepted? on the' right track'?....were social animals approval seeking animals and we can easily be manipulated by our peers and by the consensual frames created by media.
summondadrummin 11 months ago
would you believe that there still exist people who neither laugh nor scream at the word 'morality'?
planetjanet 11 months ago
Good speech. America is said to be the greatest country in the world. I wonder if it was molded by strict or nourished morality. Having lived in both types of government utopia's, I can say without a doubt, American's do not see the great nation they live in.
JahWarrior6 1 year ago
jared loughner believed government manipulated language to change public opinion, and he's considered a looney. yet lakoff says similar things and he's respected. by the way, i agree on many things with lakoff.
goPistons06 1 year ago
@goPistons06 It helps Lakoff didn't kill 6 people and doesn't look like Skinhead Curly.
psynema 1 year ago
....POOP!!
J0eySergi0T0ny 1 year ago
The 'father' metaphor is silly. There is NO logical consistency in liberalism or conservatism. Each comprises sub-groups which ally for any of several common goals yet still disagree on others. That's politics. One can not be decent (as in practicing the passive form of the Golden Rule), be informed and conservative at the same time. In fact, 'mean' conservatives brainwash the 'decent' but uninformed ones (at least when they can't debase their character, as Limbaugh, O'Rourke, Coulter & Co do).
ytdsgdjgfueyxn537 1 year ago
One last thing I thought I'd say... George focuses on the language part, but he doesn't know his economics. Yes, conservatives do use their language very clearly, but this doesn't mean that liberals can do the same thing just with some slight tweaks. They can't get by on metaphors because a) their values are malleable and therefore so is the way they frame their language and b) their emphasis on big government is an extension of documented past socialist failures and conservatives know this.
chapaev36 1 year ago
@chapaev36
Don't you see how you're just proving Lakoff's point?
meckerarma 10 months ago
@meckerarma Are you suggesting some kind of brilliant circularity to Lakoff's point?
chapaev36 10 months ago
@chapaev36
You claim that "liberals can't get by on metaphors because...quote". I do not claim your statement is false but the reason for your statement could be directly linked back to Lakoff's research. How am I to know if your argument is merely a biased opinion due to your environmental background or if it's something that could be scientifically proven? Alas, this scientific proof could also be biased depending on how the observer interprets it.
meckerarma 10 months ago
@meckerarma It seems to me you're not being very clear. Liberals can't expect their metaphors to be nearly as effective and long-lasting as conservative ones, because the liberal mindset favours a much more fluid understanding of reality. In a lot of ways, this is a very good trait. I am not saying anything novel here. Lakoff still makes a lot of valid points, but the fact remains that liberals will struggle to match conservatives in the metaphor business.
chapaev36 10 months ago
@chapaev36
The issue I have is that you don't acknowledge the fact that you yourself might be a "victim" of this mindset brought fourth from environmental causes. The fact that you claim liberals to be incapable compared to conservatives at using metaphors in politics might simply be a mere biased opinion. Since I myself am a liberal in some ways and that I can't see your point might just be further proof that this is such a situation.
meckerarma 10 months ago
@meckerarma I never said that liberals are incapable of using metaphors. I said that they can't get by on metaphors as effectively as conservatives do. All in all, what you're saying strikes me as some kind of relativist postmodern mysticism, of which I would not even accuse Lakoff.
chapaev36 10 months ago
@chapaev36
That's why I said "compared to conservatives". Honestly, if you get that impression you obviously can't understand a very simple statement such as mine.
meckerarma 10 months ago
@meckerarma Your statement is vacuous and isn't even interesting to react against.
chapaev36 10 months ago
@chapaev36
I'd say that is a more accurate description of the responses you've been giving me. It seems to me that you're only writing down these seemingly useless comments in order to avoid responding to my initial demand of proof as to why you think this way. You've failed to respond so far and thus I have no reason to think of your opinion as anything other than biased misinformation.
meckerarma 10 months ago
@meckerarma Because you didn't really ask the question. If your comments were anything but glib pomo relativism I would have probably been more forthcoming. No, we're not simply slaves to language. Yes, there is a great deal of literature on political thinking. No, not everything has to be cited, especially rudimentary things that I have mentioned. Yes, you should probably read Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. I feel like I am speaking to a Derridean.
chapaev36 10 months ago
@chapaev36
You're still doing it. Your claims are worthless unless you can back them up with actual research which I am starting to doubt you actually have. You are seemingly educated and yet, from what I can tell, do you not fully understand the true meaning of scientific inquiry and thought.
meckerarma 10 months ago
@chapaev36 "Not everything has to be cited/this is so rudimentary" just means you have no idea what you're talking about. You aren't fooling anyone.
w3rkable 9 months ago
One thing I'm not sure I like about this speech is that from the outset Lakoff frames the liberals as the good guys and the conservatives as the other not-so-good guys. It's good in the sense that he doesn't hide his biases, but bad because you get a sense that his supporting points are just there to lead him to a predisposed end. So he talks about liberals with a straight face, but smirks when the christian bookshop anecdote comes up. Lakoff by his own admission is far removed from that world
chapaev36 1 year ago
I'd like to see George debate Thomas Sowell. Linguist v Economist. Liberal v Conservative. Love both men. Wrote similar (sort of) books on the topic (political mindsets). Lakoff is more in my field, but I don't agree with his politics very much.
chapaev36 1 year ago
His political viewpoints overwhelm his academic analysis. Its disappointing that our kids get this political bias when they take a class on Cognitive Science and Linguistics.
alc99 1 year ago
@alc99 His research seems wholly unbiased.
airfalcon 1 year ago
@alc99 Why would you say this? Lakoff wouldn't be teaching politics in a linguistics course. He is branching out here.
chapaev36 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Kurunegala NOW benaughtyman.info
xzbzsdhfhnds 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012! Donate December 16 2010
12rand 1 year ago
It seems like his speech is just an apologist's essay for an illogical thought pattern, and I don't mean liberal or conservative. What I mean is that gun ownership and taxation are separate issues and should be evaluated separately. It seems that he is less of a liberal than a democrat who is trying to explain away is copy and paste political ideology. Also, his family argument precludes several family models: matrilineal, orphanage, etc.
MixedUpCody 1 year ago
@MixedUpCody Actually, the family metaphors mainly come from the right wing.
And they don't really mean family, but fear of strangers - ie not trusting strangers with money (taxes) and protecting your property (guns). That's what I got out of it at least.
psynema 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
George Jackoff!
noahcornelius 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here for a while ,But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
buchananfibbing 1 year ago
Comment removed
Phyrexious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Let the revolution begin!
buchananfibbing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Free yourself!
buchananfibbing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time has come for Free energy to be revealed ,But Elite controllers don't want ppl to be free from the costs of energy,Get the blueprints for a free energy motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the revolution!
buchananfibbing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LORD JESUS IS KING OF ALL WORLD!
bass109 1 year ago
Is that Mathew Fox (Dr. Jack Shepherd from Lost) in the audience?!??! Around 27:00 - 27:07 on the far left of the screen?!!
I didn't think he would be attending lectures on cognitive science....
dwefoster1 1 year ago
@dwefoster1
good eye! awesome
ialwaysbluff 1 year ago
@ialwaysbluff
You sure it's him? Very weird coincidences... Today I get an email saying someone's replied to my comment about Matthew Fox/Jack Shepard minutes after I watch the final episode of LOST.
I also got an email giving me my college candidate number minutes before I saw an episode called 'The Candidate'.
Maybe I am The Chosen One. Maybe I get over-excited about coincidence.
dwefoster1 1 year ago
Can someone please tell me how Lakoff quantified and tested the claim that 98% of our thinking is unconscious?
suren1946 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Somebody should kill this piece of liberal shit.
Nopartyforme82 1 year ago
Simply because he's a Linguist it doesn't mean that one should automatically trust him with words. One should still be vigilant in listening & carefully take notice of what he says. He actually contradicts himself quite a bit. Early in his lecture he casually & even jokingly makes reference to Conservative "greed". But nevertheless, one is made consciously aware of it as he makes the suggestive association between conservative & greed. Then, at about 21:15, in alluding to greed, he presents
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi You definitely shouldn't trust him with politics. Lakoff is a cognitivist, so I think that one may as well trust him with 'metaphors' and related information. But once it comes to politics, Lakoff is no more an expert on the topic than Chomsky. Both are biting off more than they can chew. Although the core of Lakoff's argument (at least in his book) strikes me as completely reasonable and probably true, the end portions where he presents his politics are so-so.
chapaev36 1 year ago
conservatives as pursuing their self interests. However, at about 36:20, he then presents Liberal Democrats as "correctly" & "rationally" pursuing their self interests. Its quite interesting how "self interests" can transform from defect to virtue within the span of 15 min., depending on who is pursing them. Also, he alluded to America's founders while suggesting that they established the nation from an "enlightenment", rationalist mentality. The rationalism he associated with Liberal Democrats
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Again, it's based on how YOU look at it. Self Interest could mean for a conservative being an individual, while for liberals it means being selfish. I personally think it's being selfish. I've studied how Conservative policies and VALUES have consistently failed America. From Slavery to Reaganomics to Iraq.
He is a liberal, so he going to see things from the Liberal/Progressive PoV.
TheBlackLesbian 1 year ago 2
He then went on to speak about the founder's applied concept of "self governing". However, self governing is in accordance with a reduced, "small government", or one with "limited powers" which he criticized as being Conservative politics. Furthermore, being a Democrat, he claimed that the Colonists founded a "Democratic" form of government. But in fact, they founded a "Republican" system, governed by the rule of law ("Strict Dad") (not a majority mob's transcending fickleness) & with a
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
representative form of government. He presents Conservatives as being semantically deceptive, applying positive words in place of smog, deforestation etc. However, I'm surprised that he was willing to simply give away the belt which Democrats have earned from being the Heavyweight Title Champions of lamentably lethal & legendarily ludicrous, linguistically liberal labels. To the languidly lewd Leftists, words such as "compassion", "sensitive", "tolerance", "bigot" & "fundamentalist" have an
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
entirely different meaning than those in Webster's. Democrats define them as an oratorically ostensible means with which to fight political battles & progress their run amok agenda to its preposterously predetermined, Hellaciously Utopian ends. Altogether, these are the reasons why "Moral Politics" are "relative" to the degree in which their Leftist proponent is willing to illogically assert them in "absolute" terms. But this is not a social crisis, its simply another Leftist cognitive quagmire
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi
I don't see why the morality of the Founders is somehow a good metric to compare anyone (a lot owned slaves etc.).
But lakoff was still correct in that by the conservative logic, greed is just a necessary consequence of "self interest" and in liberal logic, you need "empathy" in order to care about others.
AndroidPolitician 1 year ago
I am completely, absolutely amazed about this video. I think this is the best, most succinct public resource you can currently find that will tell you how, and why, political parties use language to sway public opinion in their favor. It describes exactly how and why conservatives and liberals are they way they are, and why liberals are losing the political race. Everyone should watch this.
wbaker82 1 year ago
fucking brilliant
510AWOL 1 year ago
Most of the things politicians say is just empty rhetoric that has no meaning. They say things like it is time for change but do not go on to say what they will change or how they will do it and then when they get into power nothing changes.
sinwow33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w wwDOTerepublikDOTcom/en/referrer/FaintyDave
Help your country become the greatest in this massive online social strategy game!
Work, train, fight, run your own company and become rich or get yourself elected as party/country president, do it all at the same time if you like!
YouTubbyComma 1 year ago
zionist bullshit
ProfessorHuggins 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Progressive Democrats= Socialist Commies. All these people want is big government and big taxes. Wake up and study Progressive movement history. These are the same people that brought you prohibition, Income Tax, etc.... Wake up and study history a little instead of being brainwashed or at least wikipedia these parties and see what there past really is!
ucannotescape 1 year ago
@ucannotescape
I don't think you understand what socialism or communism means when you use them in the same phrase like that.
By the way, income tax is good. It makes up a very good portion of what pays for our basic infrastructure.
BLARGHALT 1 year ago
@ucannotescape said "Wake up and study history a little instead of being brainwashed or at least wikipedia these parties and see what there past really is!"
so Wikipedia is your choice for research? LAME
you didnot understand one thought the professor made. I bet you like strict daddies and mommys who home school their kiddies?
lagunadebi 1 year ago
@ucannotescape Obama hasn't raised your taxes, you delusional asshat.
BenkaiDebussy 1 year ago
@ucannotescape Funny how the conservatives that came before, say, Clinton, and the ones who came after, sunk this country deeper and deeper into debt, effectively hemorrhaging money. Meanwhile, Obama is doing an excellent job of slowing this downward spiral, and has reversed the trend of this country losing jobs by the second.
No need to study ancient history. Study the last 20 years. You might learn something.
slingblade345 1 year ago
If course, if it turns out that Strict Father morality tends to work better in the long run, Lakoff will be credited for helping conservatives to understand and articulate the world view which helped humanity to survive.
After all, we do live in a dangerous world, and in dangerous situations, women need to shut their traps and obey the men's instructions to improve everyone's chances of making it out alive.
conradjulian 1 year ago
What's interesting here is that he says nothing about the art of rhetoric. Much of what he discusses was already implemented in the practice and theory of rhetoric 2000+ years ago - just look at Aristotle's work on the subject! Similar ideas have therefore had an important place in the whole history of Western political thought. In some ways he's simply re-inventing the wheel... albeit giving it a modern 'scientific' grounding...
MuhakgreetsWonhyo 1 year ago
ok, cognitive science/linguistics plays an important role in understanding motives/morality in our society. However, symantics often distorts political thought. In fact, in my educated opinion, content education must be foremost in understanding politics/business. Afterall, politics is the ameliorating of differences of groups vying for resources. That should be left to business majors who crunch numbers, plan projects, assess risks, etc, in an efficient/effective manner. Plain talk is better.
Tutilost 1 year ago
I haven't even watched this yet, but I find it interesting that virtually all the comments below are either 1) slanting left, 2) a bit absurd, 3) "removed by author", or 4) account closed.
Are there comments that disagree anywhere? Is anyone allowed to disagree?
(If this post is removed, I'll know the answer to the second question)
requiretruth 1 year ago
Comment removed
XanBcoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@requiretruth
Oh dang, you found us out. The Youtube Conspiracy is revealed!!
XanBcoo 1 year ago
Comment removed
insomniabelow 1 year ago
To answer your concern, you need to watch the entire speech, especially the part that begins here: 25:10
substanti8 1 year ago 15
Absolutely BRILLIANT. Tks substanti8 Favd
classicallady 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Everyone - I would really really appreciate if you guys would subscribe to my page. I still have not started it up- But I am an aspired Political Analyst aiming at bringing the true Politics out and get more Youth involved in this centuries Politics. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE !!!!
MachinePolitics 1 year ago
LAKOFF FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Roorippin 1 year ago
I need to finish watching this sometime when it's not 3 AM. ._.
Mizuumi18 2 years ago
excellent work!
1888junkteam 2 years ago
Great stuff, but it's worth noting that this really only applies to the US Conservative/Liberal divide... wouldn't apply in many countries
billtomwhelan 2 years ago 11
@billtomwhelan I think the basic framework can be applied fairly universally. Conservatives will exhibit disciplinary personalities, and progressives nurturing personalities. It's just that it's more clearly recognizable in the US because of the two-party system and the existance of media outlets that are clearly slanted towards one of those parties, allowing their ideas and statements to be spread and strengthened, and thus more easily visible.
jolanion84 1 year ago
I can agree with you to most countries. However, it may apply to monarchy systems.
Take for example UK and watch how David Cameroon talks opposed to Miliband or compare The sun and Daily Mirror
In Ireland the situation is different as you have two major parties with no specifical ideological agendas: Fianna Feil and Fine Gael. Their main subject is the UK , either pro or against. The Euro-scepticism can be seen from this point of view(Nathaniel Copsey - Aston University, 14 Dec Lecture).
Jolly05 1 year ago
@billtomwhelan well it exists in canada as well, but that is another north american nation and bordering nations usually share a lot in common to be honest
noobler9 6 months ago
Interesting how he described the sponsorship of conservative think tanks. They used to shoot people who worked against their "freedom" now they spend half a billion dollars a year on "conservative thought" with which they dilute the public discourse and mire more responsible sentiments in the no mans land of ideological rhetoric. If they werent so corrupt the debt wouldnt be 9 trillion.
Ruralta 2 years ago
Lakoff should be president.
ThisSentenceIsFalse 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WHAT THE FUCK. I never knew Youtube actually made videos that are an hour long.
KitKatman2008 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What has cogs done to this point? Nothing at all....Using backwards speak....middle man theories....Mediumship.
TheMagank 2 years ago
Comment removed
gabbydaniels21 2 years ago
Comment removed
gabbydaniels21 2 years ago
Comment removed
gabbydaniels21 2 years ago
Comment removed
gabbydaniels21 2 years ago
the dude in the white shirt at 34:34 looks really uncomfortable. should have just watched the youtube from the comfort of his la-z-boy like i did.
shitnrun 2 years ago
Do you enjoy Georgelette Lakoff?
dowling1981 2 years ago
Hey, my favorite Iron maiden album is peace of mind, i hope those niggas go back on tour soon!
ramonefan22 2 years ago
haha what's up with the dude in the red shirt at 42:15?
shitnrun 2 years ago
He is a conservative, and he is in pain because he's hearing the truth.
slimvictor 2 years ago
yup conservatives believe in an objective morality whereas liberals believe in a relativist morality.
ediblepet 2 years ago
@ediblepet That WHOOSH you heard is the sound of the point flying over your head.
slingblade345 1 year ago
why don't you guys just take his class and argue with him in person? are you all too old to go to school? or did you not get into Berkeley?
itdontmatter36 2 years ago
This may surprise you, but there are people on the Internet from all sorts of varied backgrounds.
ediblepet 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh my... he stopped speaking on linguists and now he's using linguistics to dupe the audience using words like nurturing family for liberals and strict discipline family for conservatives
it's real non-sense this is trying to be politically correct yet biologically socially domestically incorrect
he's still stuck on the 60s fad of feminism while if you read on the current literature of the leading authors of 60s they are all in a state of confusion for the horror they had unleashd on women
maghi85 2 years ago
What's this blathering nonsense you're spouting again?
numnunums 2 years ago
@maghi85 Nice post. Now try making one that isn't 100% bullshit.
slingblade345 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
very shallow in his world view this man
though the part on linguistics is good
maghi85 2 years ago
Obviously you're not familiar with North American Politics.
numnunums 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your a fucking peice of shit and i hate you. alot. you dont know anything about life. go to hell.
69baa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
can do... will do
cannot do.. will teach.
academic have voted themselves jobs for life.
free -welfare for academic for life.
"money for nothing" "chicks for free"
charlesdarwinxxx 2 years ago
@charlesdarwinxxx Nice post!
For a windowlicking mongoloid. Try again.
slingblade345 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have never met a Liberal who is willing to sacrifice anything they are so interested in being unique that they are unwavering selfish and unable to experience or bring about change. The Conservatives that I know spend their lives making daily sacrifices for the people around them, it is somewhat part of their natural routine to sacrifice and make it possible for those around them to meet their full potential.
Ken
GOWHITE80 2 years ago
on the other hand....every revolution ever
ahuj89 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's horseshit if I've ever heard it. Thanks for the laugh, ass hat.
Antiks72 2 years ago
@GOWHITE80 Yeah, and this is so well reflected in their bigoted views of foreigners and even their fellow men, their ever so present support for social programs, and their constant repression of minorities and homosexuals. So considerate, those conservatives!
slingblade345 1 year ago
Fuck!
wildmanchris200 2 years ago
Repeated use of the word "progressive" is just as bad as the "tax relief" example he gave. "If you disagree with me, you're against progress!"
hfcbhddcdsry89 2 years ago 2
Good point, only philosophers should attempt logical expansion of ideas and in no way are philosophy and language related.
/sarcasm
Don't be a fucking idiot; language and philosophy are closely related and rely on the same governing factor: thinking. Critical thinking for philosophy and intuitive thinking for language.
Crackxyx 2 years ago 2
He was doing well when he was talking about linguistics. Too bad it was only for the first 10 minutes of his speech. He should stick to linguistics and leave philosophy to philosophers.
nohopeforyou 2 years ago
He makes FAR too many political assumptions in this...i am right wing but i am not in support of the death penalty nor do i think abortion should be illegalized, of course, my form of "conservativism" reflects the intentions of the constitution,
rarely do my own personal moral decisions come into play.
s0beit 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Very interesting ideas, but unfortunately, the professor thought it important to use his findings to enter a pointless political debate. Besides his being clearly biased and with an agenda to propagate, I dare say a linguistics professor has little place in academic debate over political history, philosophy, and discourse.
JValorDV 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
everytime you masturbate, john mccain eats a baby
MrN00bkiller69 2 years ago 10
William Murray is the grand inventor of the frame. he can frame anything...need your pet framed? William Murray can do it.
in the words of Wiliam Murray "what is the sound of two hands clapping?"
ProductSpacemint 2 years ago
I would like to take this opportunity to point out one glaring contradiction. It seems quite app.............wait!....what the hell is that thing that ran under the couch!!!!.................
neil7227 2 years ago
If that's true then my best friends family who votes Conservative is Liberal. And My family who votes Liberal is Conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!
GOWHITE80 2 years ago
I find that Mr. Lakoff's definition of Conservative and Liberal families are backwards except for the part of the Conservative family being led by a man. Conservative families discipline their children, yet know that without unconditional support on all levels their structures of right and wrong will all fall by the wayside and have no result in shaping their childs view of right and wrong as well as their childs view of success. Conservative families are the most caring and nurturing.
GOWHITE80 2 years ago
When i first read what this guy wrote awhile back I believed (agreed?) that Conservatives are daddy-like and Liberals are mommy-like. But I do not agree anymore: I think now that Conservatives are gender-role embracing, daddy is daddy & mommy is mommy; primarily social, willing to compromise individual freedom to take a part in a whole; liberals are androgyny-embracing, want freedom to pick & choose traits, custom build an identity, & willing to sacrifice "social unit cohesion" advantages
barrilixx 2 years ago
@barrilixx Interesting insight!
chapaev36 1 year ago
@GOWHITE80 Hahahahaha, yeah, sure.
Now make a post that isn't 100% bullshit.
slingblade345 1 year ago
Don't negate the thought of an elephant (repressing). Merely "observe" the thought arising, and passing away.
sbox192 2 years ago
RightSquared. google it.
dwdrms1 2 years ago
more right wing extremists. RightSquared. google them.
dwdrms1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry but this scares me!!! "in 1908 a lady named sally rusa was in the woods looking for a dog until..." more "in 1908 a lady named sally rusa was in the woods looking for a dog until a ghost came and killed her so if ur reading this u will find a bloody body in your closet hanging there haunting you and will kill you and ur family and if u want to stop this just sends this to 6 videos in 30 mins or this will happen good luck
stephanieare08 2 years ago
I certainly agree with the notion that "framing" is an important political tool, with broad consequences, but I simply cannot agree that it deserves more consideration than basic rational thought. To me, "framing" is not a proper substitute for cogent reasoning and the facts. I shudder to think that political persuasion may become (if it hasn't already) a mere contest in which political parties compete with one another over who can create the best slogan or best sound bite. Truly lamentable.
sifjure 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
uy84y8
oli1058010 2 years ago
Nobody I know (I'm gonna quote 'senorlobo1' here) "look to the USA as a beacon of freedom and a just society". That's bullshit. The USA is just another country in this world. Nobody's better or more advanced than any other.
Aussieargie 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
us-politicswitholi.blogspot... .......press ctr+enter
oli1058010 2 years ago
jump old man! he's a politician... get to the fucken point
rickyGbaby 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
us-politicswitholi.blogspot... .......press ctr+enter
oli1058010 2 years ago
Comment removed
IronGrade 2 years ago
I'm an independent and I think I might have just wasted some precious moments listening to this guy. George is pretty good at framing. Conservative = Right Wing = Dobson = Nut Case
If you have any conservative views, what then? You are a Nut Case, Simple.
IronGrade 2 years ago
Very informative. Thank you.
Danielbatten76 2 years ago
I like what Rush Limbaugh called him. "Sounds like".
Bureyeanne 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
☻/
/▌
/ \ i like bob
bob will take over youtube
just like politicts raiped the free spririt of fucking life you pencil-pushing scaz wags!
joshuk96 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs
kavdeman 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
┗┫━━ ┃ ━━┣┛ ┣┫ copy and paste ┃ ━━━━━ ┃ ┏┳┫┣┳┓ if this ┗━━┳━┳━━┛ ┃ ┃ motherfucker
━━━━┃ ┃ ┗━┳┳━ should go get fucked by a donkey with aids and then get a booob job and die from sufferring milk leak ....
joshuk96 2 years ago
Very enlightening - thank you for sharing.
wantingluv 2 years ago
It's not black and white. Agreeing with someone's values does make them seem more interesting as a speaker.
Jatagg 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proverbs 1:20-23
1kcharrison 3 years ago
I think that Mr. Lakoff's comments have some merit. Conservatives do have several themes that they use to sway public opinion. For example the GOP strategy was
Obama is a Muslim
Obama is a Socialist
Obama is Unpatriotic
Obama is UN-American
Obama is an Elitist
Obama is Different from us
Regardless of whether you are liberal, conservative, or neither; I think we do well to understand some of the strategies that are used by politicians to influence our opinions.
engage45 3 years ago 19
Very good engage45!
falsificationism 3 years ago 2
Agreed. Yet Obama won and in doing so we all did too; not just Americans, but all people in the world who look to the USA as a beacon of freedom and a just society.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time". - Abe Lincoln
My best to you sir.
senorlobo1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And liberals do the same thing. They call everyone that disagrees with them:
1. close-minded
2. racist
3. non-sympathetic
4. selfish
Much stronger terms because they completely suppress any free speech and dialogue.
SkeffingtonP 2 years ago
@engage4mx-- 6 statements and all are valid.... HMMMM. How does that "sway" the masses? YOU gave bad and took away good. When you have the opportunity to lead cows you will streeeeetccccch the truth. OBAMA has proved to be all of the above, but is that any worse than his predessors??? Bandwagon. Its not your fault. Modernization leads to individualisim. Soy or fat free??? Wagon is waiting.
seanlecluse 1 year ago
@engage45 i think you and me do because we obviously have the ittelectual competence to understand the dynamics of the context given in font of us. this is a rare trait and cannot be blanketly made all people..... in other words most people are dumb, we are not we need to help fix that
510AWOL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my channel for george bush's hotmail inbox!
manz477 3 years ago
Thanks for posting this. It was interesting comparing his politics with his epistemological views.
inkonwater 3 years ago
Really important mention of the discussion/debate that used to be carried on in this country but no longer is about whether God is a loving, nurturing and forgiving God or whether he is a punishing God. One's view of God then is reflected in the family (strict father vs. nurturing parents) and then in political thought, liberal/progressive vs. conservative. One's view of God also seems to be reflected in ones personality so that those who see God as a punisher have permission to punish. Cute.
ourearthhome 3 years ago 3
Excellent!!
Lanckyyt 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, it's a good thing that I'm not stupid enough to think there are only two ends of the political spectrum.
Beskargam 3 years ago
The U.S. Political system entertains one party which is treated like a pre-game Coin. One side has a Donkey and the other has an Elephant. In the rarest of cases, the coin may land on the edge of another party though, regardless of the coin toss, the coin is still a product of the world bank.
SINTAXFREE 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show<