You asked me for substance. I gave you substance. — Tzeentch

No, you pointed at Chomsky without the substance of connecting your argument to it. Manufacturing consent is outdated in today's world. The media landscape has been fractured and become much more complicated with the introduction of individually formed media online. So it requires further philosophical thought to expand it into modern relevance. Which is what all those philosophers I mentioned have done, and which you ignore.

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

Why are you so black and white binary in every thought you write out? It's like you don't even realize how ironically polarized you are in a thread about polarization. If I say that Chomsky ISN'T ENOUGH to describe the modern condition, that doesn't mean he is irrelevant, it means that he alone can't describe our modern society and the post-truth condition of it.

Your arguments rely on a single thesis without including consequent thought and arguments made after it. As I've said, you're not doing philosophy, you're doing dogmatism and appeal to authority. You aren't engaging with the text in the discussion, you're just saying opinions that are loosely based on your favorite philosopher on the subject and just points to that without ever actually making an counterargument to what I say, while ignoring the references I provide. It's infuriatingly annoying to have a discussion with someone who's not even engaging with what is actually written and who is unable to understand nuance.

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? — Tzeentch

Not interested? You're the one who's ignoring the points being raised. You're the one clowning around here with these non-answers and then have the arrogance to say that those who actually write arguments aren't interested.

Making one-sentence appeal to authority statements isn't philosophy, it's lazy and ignorant.

Who is blind? — tim wood

You said earlier:

the ignorant (which includes all of us) — tim wood

If all of us are ignorant, then who is going to teach us? The ignorant?

And authoritarian misses the mark. What I'm about is some minimum degree responsibility and accountability

Responsibility and accountability toward whom? The ignorant?

I say we should have them, and where folks deny them,

to impose them.

Ie. authoritarianism.

A good video on the subject of how society transforms into post-truth. As I've mentioned, the key is the erosion of truth within society more than the language of its leaders. Post-truth language from leaders only works if the definition of truth has already eroded away. You cannot defeat what you cannot define.