Noam Chomsky at New School
- Thread starter Rudolph
- Start date
Holy Shit. Princess Leia really let herself go.
Thanks for indicating that 58-minute mark. For those who are interested, he begins there talking about Trump.
Any idea what "volume" he's talking about when he says there's a volume of important Wikileaks material that's just come out?
The problem that most of us have - those of us who are even interested - is that when you start wading through the materials, it's mostly sheer drudgery. Maybe not if you are a scholar in the field, but as an ordinary citizen who just wants to learn more, it's a hard slog.
The problem that most of us have - those of us who are even interested - is that when you start wading through the materials, it's mostly sheer drudgery. Maybe not if you are a scholar in the field, but as an ordinary citizen who just wants to learn more, it's a hard slog.
Yes I understand, long speech. Unfortunately in a world dominated by complex issues reduced to sound bytes and 140-character (or less) "news" blurbs, too often people just can't absorb, or don't tolerate, listening to, watching, or reading anything that isn't delivered in short-form.
I always appreciate what Chomsky says about American "exceptionalism" and, as a former athlete who remains a sports fan, I am surprised by how the idea of exceptionalism thrives in such a sports-loving country. What do we know about an athletic program or team or even an individual athlete who, by default, just assumes they're the best? Even if they actually are the best at a given point in time, the moment they begin to think that way they invite defeat. We also know, from sports, that those who think they are exceptional in the way that they don't have to follow the same rules as others -- that this type of exceptionalism eventually causes their (often self-destructive and ugly) demise.
I view the idea of American exceptionalism as a dangerous cancer, and, similarly, nationalism. And please don't mistake pride with exceptionalism.
I always appreciate what Chomsky says about American "exceptionalism" and, as a former athlete who remains a sports fan, I am surprised by how the idea of exceptionalism thrives in such a sports-loving country. What do we know about an athletic program or team or even an individual athlete who, by default, just assumes they're the best? Even if they actually are the best at a given point in time, the moment they begin to think that way they invite defeat. We also know, from sports, that those who think they are exceptional in the way that they don't have to follow the same rules as others -- that this type of exceptionalism eventually causes their (often self-destructive and ugly) demise.
I view the idea of American exceptionalism as a dangerous cancer, and, similarly, nationalism. And please don't mistake pride with exceptionalism.
You'd have to point me to the point in the speech. I listened to it this morning in the background while working, so some parts I heard better than others.
I stopped when he said the Dem party has drifted to the right. What a crock of shit. The day BLM, OWS and other insane factions of the Donkeys are told to STFU by anyone in that party, I might begin to agree. But as long as these crazies are given a seat at the table, the base is way to the left of where it used to be.
You're asking the Dems to act as fascists? BLM and OWS make/made some valid illuminations. Income inequality is now being discussed as a moral issue to a certain extent by both "sides." BLM, among other things, has helped amplify the issues with mass incarceration and drug policy -- things both parties are "constructively" discussing.
These "factions" are also composed of human beings -- actually special human beings because they (presumably most) are American citizens with a right to free speech.
Look, I cringe when politicians on the right amplify the idea that Christians are being persecuted in this country. But I wouldn't tell them to STFU. I'm respecting they, and the people they're representing, may just have a valid argument. And I say this as an atheist with an admittedly often terrible prejudice against religion and the "religious."
Further, when you disagree with someone you just stop listening? I don't find that to be a very reasonable, adult, educated way to go about things.
Last edited:
Interesting answer starting at 1:08:45 on whether US foreign policy is driven by economic interests.
Just because the GOP associates those two groups to liberals doesn't make it true. Hell BLM interrupted a Bernie Sanders speech for crying out loud. I don't believe they've interrupted any GOP candidates speeches yet. Using your logic I think BLM is a branch of the GOP.
And we know your hard on with OWS, and again it was never associated with the Democrats outside of FOX News, The Blaze or Drudge Report.
You still bother to respond to Yellow?
At some point I realized how long it had been since I had seen a thoughtful comment from him that I gave up on him. These knee-jerk outbursts are OiT-like, but without the redeeming humor.
You're asking the Dems to act as fascists? BLM and OWS make/made some valid illuminations. Income inequality is now being discussed as a moral issue to a certain extent by both "sides." BLM, among other things, has helped amplify the issues with mass incarceration and drug policy -- things both parties are "constructively" discussing.
These "factions" are also composed of human beings -- actually special human beings because they (presumably most) are American citizens with a right to free speech.
Look, I cringe when politicians on the right amplify the idea that Christians are being persecuted in this country. But I wouldn't tell them to STFU. I'm respecting they, and the people they're representing, may just have a valid argument. And I say this as an atheist with an admittedly often terrible prejudice against religion and the "religious."
Further, when you disagree with someone you just stop listening? I don't find that to be a very reasonable, adult, educated way to go about things.
I do not know what volume he's referring to. A quick google shows that a book was published a few weeks ago called The Wikileaks Files.
Its synopsis:
Featuring expert contributors such as Tim Shorrock and Robert Prince, a first-of-its-kind book analyzes the most important WikiLeaks cables and shows their historic importance, revealing for the first time what the U.S. really thought about national leaders, friendly dictators and supposed allies. 50,000 first printing.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
- Noam Chomsky
- Noam Chomsky
Chomsky has some clever things to say but he is a real lunatic. I would even say he is anti-American. He is thought to be a "deep thinker" and really, it is the only thing he has accomplished outside of academia. He has never created anything, never employed anyone or ever contributed anything other than wild ideas about the strange world he live in. He was thought to be a prodigy and a brilliant mind, but he has done nothing with this gift. Nothing at all.
I disagree with his views on Economics. But, not having listened to the video yet, I have agreed with him on foreign policy in the past. Anti-American? I don't see it. I find him to be courageous to speak out against the real anti-Americans (neocons) who are always pushing war for the benefit of the Oligarchs. He does so, knowing he will be persona non grata.
Which is my point, fred. They're far left nutbags and and are talked about by MSNBC hosts and HUffPo as if they are the litmus test for being an acceptable candidate. If they weren't relevant, Sanders would have had no problem with chasing them out and telling them to STFU. Instead he stops, gives them the stage and tells them that they're right. And I like Bernie. Would have liked him a lot more if he had done that.
Awwww...you still don't love me? How can I go on, knowing that Che's long lost brother doesn't find me tolerable, due to my pointing out how irrational the shit he tries to pass off as normal is. Dammit.
Wow. So writing and publishing over 100 books didn't contribute? Teaching in and of itself is a very admirable career. I don't know, Americans willing to be critical of America, especially when it may (initially at least) be unpopular, is about as American as it gets. I get it, he isn't Sam Walton. What a waste.
Teaching and writing books would be considered "inside academia". If you read my post I was talking about what he has not accomplished "Outside" of academia. Try again.
I recognize that and tried to make a subtle point that these "inside academia" activities actually are accomplishments that break through to the "outside world" (as you see it).
My father was an engineering professor. He never employed anybody, but he prepared, or helped prepare who knows how many people for employment. His accomplishments didn't stay "inside academia" and they live on despite his retirement after 40+ years.
Chomsky writes books as well, and prolifically. Someone has to typeset those books, design the covers and dust jackets, a publisher has to publish, a printer has to print, a digital publisher has to do what they do, then a marketing team or person has to get involved, there is a publicist in there somewhere, then there are the book signings and speaking engagements that are staffed by people (some of whom presumably employed).
I'm sorry Chomsky doesn't measure up to your standards, and that his commentary and ideas, however well-considered and formed, are different than yours (or most in this dysfunctional media market), but that doesn't make him summarily wrong or dismissively "crazy."
This is why I stayed away from this board after my only other attempt about a year ago to participate. I got sucked into the absurd behavior of arguing about everything except what should be argued. Were reduced in this thread to arguing whether Chomsky is qualified to present ideas and commentary, rather than the intended purpose of the thread, which is to discuss the actual ideas and commentary presented in his speech.
Clearly I'm wasting my time thinking that actual productive discourse can happen here. Sure there are exceptions, but this appears to one the rule.
Clearly I'm wasting my time thinking that actual productive discourse can happen here. Sure there are exceptions, but this appears to one the rule.
noam is basically saying there is one democrat party, a right leaning one {which is sooooo false, they are so leftist they have become socialists and commies} and they have taken the rino repubbers with them to the left as well, btw, but noam cannot see it, then he's saying the right wing repubbers just went off the spectrum and are now not a political party, but he's saying they are wayyyyy too right on the political spectrum, making them still political, then he is saying they are religious, well, the church and religion are hugely political now, maybe always were. then he is saying they are racist and want an America that is white. which would also be political. then he's advocating against the second amendment, saying the white gun owners think they need a gun in a starbucks, which the second amendment does not meantion a coffee shop as being a place where I need to remove my weapon. which is also political. but he says it's not. then he says we are scared there's a muslim in starbucks. no, we are scared there's a liberal whackjob in starbucks, and in liberal Chicago for example, the liberals let everyone kill everyone else. more politics. but we are sooooo right we are not political. I guess we are space aliens.
well, in the first part of it he's saying that sanctions by the usa are hurting the iranians, but the usa gives Israel money. the Iranians will not use the money for bread and water, you and I know that. he's advocating for giving them money. they will use it to buy nukes and bomb us, they said they would. I take them at their word. I happen to agree though with him we should not give Israel money, but I don't agree we give equal amounts to iran, as an equality gesture. unless it's equally zero.
I have no problem with Iran having nukes. I lean to the right but this topic is embarrassing for the right.
ha ha, ok, you have no problem with them saying they want to nuke the usa and Israel off the planet? ok, great
Ah so you made some drastic jumps based on your arguably ill- or mis-informed views. I have no idea how you came to your views, but I suspect mostly if not entirely from American media. It doesn't matter. If you can, without evidence, call into question how Chomsky comes to his conclusions, I can do the same to you.
Interesting how you interpret Chomsky's speech into very simplistic conclusive claims and "blame games."
If the only thing Iran wants to do is make nukes and bomb us, do you really think our president, not to mention quite a few other important parts of the world, would enter into any sort of negotiation?
Whatever. I'm bored.
Chomsky's ideas are not only out in left field, they are very dangerous. He sucks a lot of people into his make believe reality but the guy has done nothing to deserve the following he has. Yes, he has written a lot of books and I would have to admit his ideas do make you think. But given careful consideration and scrutiny his ideas simply do not make logical sense. He doesn't like this country, we all get that. I invite him to go elsewhere to dream.
Yes i think the president would tell iran its ok to bomb us and israel then lie and say its a nrgotiation. Yes, i think this
Similar threads
