Noam on stuff

[EGarrett]

I have no ****ing idea why you think I´m equivocating the US with "Sub-Saharan Africa, the USSR, China and any other country".

You said that my criteria would make the US equal to the Eastern Bloc and a bunch of other countries. I replied that if you think the way the US enforces its values (with public courts, public law, media-watchdogs on the government, voting and so on) compares to countries that use things like an open censorship policy (China does it constantly and unapologetically) and secret police...then you're insane.

I simply said that you guys are not the knight in a spotless shining armor that you demand to be taken for (yes, "demand", because every suggestion to the contrary instantly triggers demonization as "Anti-American" - see your rant above as evidence).

It might shock you to hear that I'm not a Conservative. There are a lot of things Bush does that I think are ridiculous and damaging to the country, but I never get a chance to say it because I'm too busy trying to counteract liberal ranting and raving that goes ridiculously overboard.

 

[Skeptic]

I disagree that his arguments for the U.S. becoming a failed state are ignorant generalizations or idiotic equivocations. Obviously he's not saying the U.S. is a failed country in terms of wealth or population or power.

But that's just the point: Chomsky's an expert at saying "The USA is failed / fascist / evil / dictatorial / whatever" and then, when asked to explain such preposterous charges, he "explains" that by "failed" he doesn't really mean "failed", and by "fascist" he doesn't really mean "fascist".

So why use such charged words at all? To get attention and to make himself look like a great fighter for freedom... while continuing to live in, and enjoy all the priviledges of, the "failed" / "fascistic" / "imperialist" (etc., etc.) USA.

 

[Skeptic]

IIRC, Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

But Bush won more votes in the electoral college, which is what determines the presidency. Incidentally, this was hardly the first time a candidate became president despite not having most of the popular vote. The same occured, for example, in 1888.

Wouldn't you agree that the Bush and other admins play fast and loose with facts and logic? I believe that's a demonstrable fact.

But that's not the point. Of course some politicians mislead and lie. Chomsky's problem is that he claims in that because both North Korea's (say) and the USA's leaders sometimes mislead their public, then there is no essential difference between the two countries. This is the equivalent of saying that, because both you and Ted Bundy were once rude to your girlfriends, both of you treat women the same.

 

[Merko]

Well, some evidence that the USA is not really a failed state is that Chomsky finds it quite comfortable and good to live there himself, and isn't for a moment thinking of leaving.

That's the problem with Marxist, anti-American academics: how could you possibly take seriously rants about how evil and awful the USA is, from those who not only continue to live there, but also enjoy some of the best, most comfortable jobs the USA's system has to offer--and show no indication of ever quitting?

Chomsky is demonstrably not a Marxist. So it's kind of hard to take your other allegations seriously, either.

I think Chomsky lives in the US because he likes the US and thinks it is a country "as free as any, since its origins" (quote from the same interview).

I think the problem many people here have with Chomsky is that their world view is made such that when a subject X is discussed, the only interesting question is whether X is good, or whether it is bad. So anyone mentioning anything negative about X is then assumed to argue the position that X is bad.

However, most people, including Chomsky, have a more nuanced world view.

 

[Chaos]

You said that my criteria would make the US equal to the Eastern Bloc and a bunch of other countries.

I said that the first criterium I picked, population growth, makes Sub-Saharan Africa better than the US. Which it does, unless qualified to a far greater degree than your hasty generalization. Immigration, as opposed to population growth, that would have been a different matter (and I´d have agreed with you that, at least, that´s a good measure of quality of life), but then you should have written "immigration", not "population growth". Don´t blame me for your own sloppyness.
I also said that "systems of values" was a useless criterium, as it is virtually impossible to accurately measure. And I pointed out one way in which inaccurate measuring would make Eastern Bloc countries look better than the US.

So your claims about are either really, really sloppy, or very transparently dishonest. Both of which is par for the course for this forum, but should make anyone who claims to be a skeptic feel ashamed of himself.

I replied that if you think the way the US enforces its values (with public courts, public law, media-watchdogs on the government, voting and so on) compares to countries that use things like an open censorship policy (China does it constantly and unapologetically) and secret police...then you're insane.

Well, then, as it can be easily and clearly shown that I didn´t do that at all, it is evident that I am not insane. One wonders, however, why anybody who is not a raving fanatic would be overreacting this drastically when confront with an opinion he does not like.

It might shock you to hear that I'm not a Conservative. There are a lot of things Bush does that I think are ridiculous and damaging to the country, but I never get a chance to say it because I'm too busy trying to counteract liberal ranting and raving that goes ridiculously overboard.

I never said you were a conservative. Or capital-C "Conservative", whatever the difference is. Once again you´re either being incredibly sloppy, or deliberately putting things into my mouth I never said.

We can´t have a discussion like that. Reply to what I say, instead of making up your own **** and attacking me for that, or just shut up. Anything else is a pointless waste of time.

Either way, "liberal ranting and raving" is no excuse. If it´s your mess, it´s your responsibility to fix it, not to blame those who point out the mess for the inconvenience they create for you.

 

[EGarrett]

I said that the first criterium I picked, population growth, makes Sub-Saharan Africa better than the US. Which it does, unless qualified to a far greater degree than your hasty generalization.

And I told you that I meant population growth by immigration. You're just as busy re-clarifying your points as I am...

I also said that "systems of values" was a useless criterium, as it is virtually impossible to accurately measure. And I pointed out one way in which inaccurate measuring would make Eastern Bloc countries look better than the US.

Systems of values is useless, really? So a country with no laws can't be assumed to have problems?

By the way, look up the definition of the word "criterium," then remind me what you said about sloppiness.

(way to shoot yourself in the foot)

So your claims about are either really, really sloppy, or very transparently dishonest. Both of which is par for the course for this forum, but should make anyone who claims to be a skeptic feel ashamed of himself.

See above.

Either way, "liberal ranting and raving" is no excuse. If it´s your mess, it´s your responsibility to fix it, not to blame those who point out the mess for the inconvenience they create for you.

What part of "I'm not a conservative," don't you understand?

Again, what were you saying about mischaracterizing other people's arguments and being sloppy?

 

[Chaos]

And I told you that I meant population growth by immigration. You're just as busy re-clarifying your points as I am...

You wrote "population growth", I responded to "population growth". It´s not my fault I can´t read your mind.

Systems of values is useless, really? So a country with no laws can't be assumed to have problems?

How the **** do you come up with this crap?

I said it is useless as a way of judging a country.

That´s because it is too difficult to separate claimed from real values.

By the way, look up the definition of the word "criterium," then remind me what you said about sloppiness.

(way to shoot yourself in the foot)

One day in the far future, when you show that you can express yourself in German as fluently and easily as I can in English, I will be ready to admit that there is some merit to this comment.

See above.

See above.

What part of "I'm not a conservative," don't you understand?

Again, what were you saying about mischaracterizing other people's arguments and being sloppy?

Which part of "I did not claim you are conservative" is it that YOU don´t understand?

You have a choice, buddy.

Either, you have a discussion. That means you respond to what somebody actually says.
Or, you troll. Which means you make up **** about somebody, make up some more **** to "debunk" the first ****, and then proceed to make personal attacks.

I can see clearly what you decided to do. And it is not "have a discussion".

 

[EGarrett]

You wrote "population growth", I responded to "population growth". It´s not my fault I can´t read your mind.

And I corrected you.

How the **** do you come up with this crap?

I said it is useless as a way of judging a country.

That´s because it is too difficult to separate claimed from real values.

You can separate values that are claimed from values that aren't there in the first place. Like the United States stating that they don't believe in abridging freedom of the press compared to China freely editing whatever media they choose.

It's not a "useless" method of judging by any means. That's just more ignorant generalization.

One day in the far future, when you show that you can express yourself in German as fluently and easily as I can in English, I will be ready to admit that there is some merit to this comment.

That has nothing at all to do with you making a boneheaded error in the same post where you try to sink to questioning someone else's grammar and word usage.

Until you are able to express yourself perfectly, with no errors, typos or word omissions, do not ever question someone else's. You always, always end up looking foolish.

But you should've known that.

Which part of "I did not claim you are conservative" is it that YOU don´t understand?

The part where you claim you aren't classing me as a conservative, then try to aim a lazy, stock anti-conservative argument at me. It doesn't make sense. Especially after repeatedly accusing someone else of sloppiness.

 

[Skeptic]

So anyone mentioning anything negative about X is then assumed to argue the position that X is bad.

True, but when--like Chomsky--99% or so of what someone says about the USA is negative, people tend to assume (for some strange reason) that the person isn't really "nuanced", but simply thinks the USA is bad.

 

[Chaos]

And I corrected you.

While refusing to admit that YOU chose the wrong word.

The right, i.e. non-trollish thing to say would have been "okay, you´re right, population growth is a bad way to measure this; how about immigration instead?". Instead, you chose to suggest that I am insane.

You can separate values that are claimed from values that aren't there in the first place. Like the United States stating that they don't believe in abridging freedom of the press compared to China freely editing whatever media they choose.

A "system of values" is either what people say (which is useless, as I suggested), or what people think (which you cannot reliably determine).

Besides, what one system of values is there in the US? Yours? Randi´s? Pat Robertson´s? Timothy McVeigh´s? The one of that scum who committed the atrocities at Abu Ghreib? Which is the "real" system of US values?

It's not a "useless" method of judging by any means. That's just more ignorant generalization.

That has nothing at all to do with you making a boneheaded error in the same post where you try to sink to questioning someone else's grammar and word usage.

So you try to claim *I* am the troll here? Now that´s rich. YOU are the one who puts words in other people´s mouth and hysterically overreacts on criticism.

Until you are able to express yourself perfectly, with no errors, typos or word omissions, do not ever question someone else's. You always, always end up looking foolish.

But you should've known that.

You should have, too.

The part where you claim you aren't classing me as a conservative, then try to aim a lazy, stock anti-conservative argument at me. It doesn't make sense. Especially after repeatedly accusing someone else of sloppiness.

"Lazy, stock anti-conservative argument"? WTF?
You apparently think that the US is absolutely flawless, and that suggesting otherwise means comparing the US unfavorably to the worst of dictatorships; your posts have clearly shown that. Your posts have also clearly shown that you are pathetically unable to honestly represent an argument you disagree with and respond to it in an even marginally civil manner.
If you think that I consider you a conservative because of that, there is obviously a problem with your perception.

 

[EGarrett]

While refusing to admit that YOU chose the wrong word.

The right, i.e. non-trollish thing to say would have been "okay, you´re right, population growth is a bad way to measure this; how about immigration instead?". Instead, you chose to suggest that I am insane.

I didn't choose the wrong word. In the process of ticking off a list, I omitted a word.

Meanwhile, you're still refusing to admit your misuse of "criterium."

Let me know when you want the childishness to end.

A "system of values" is either what people say (which is useless, as I suggested), or what people think (which you cannot reliably determine).

No, it's a generic phrase for laws, codes, commandments, declarations or anything else a nation might use to define itself. Note that it refers to the actual system, whatever it may be.

Besides, what one system of values is there in the US? Yours? Randi´s? Pat Robertson´s? Timothy McVeigh´s? The one of that scum who committed the atrocities at Abu Ghreib? Which is the "real" system of US values?

The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, Laws, the workings of the court system and so on. That is "real" because they're concrete and demonstrably enforced.

If you compare what the US clearly values to other societies (like for example, ones that have no qualms about human sacrifice or censorship), you can pick up a lot about which will probably be more successful as a state. You tried to claim it was useless and that is, of course, plainly exaggerated and wrong.

*ranting snipped*

"Lazy, stock anti-conservative argument"? WTF?
You apparently think that the US is absolutely flawless, and that suggesting otherwise means comparing the US unfavorably to the worst of dictatorships; your posts have clearly shown that.

There are a lot of things Bush does that I think are ridiculous and damaging to the country, but I never get a chance to say it because I'm too busy trying to counteract liberal ranting and raving that goes ridiculously overboard.

The rest of your ranting has been snipped.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Lazy, stock anti-conservative argument"? WTF?
You apparently think that the US is absolutely flawless, and that suggesting otherwise means comparing the US unfavorably to the worst of dictatorships; your posts have clearly shown that.

Chaos, I will suggest that you spend your efforts on your German, America bashing forums, where your emotions and your native lucidity will be in sync with your adoring audience. This attempt to put words into EGarret's mouth, particularly as he has spelled out clearly that he does not hold that position, is both intellectually dishonest and a sign of poor comprehension. That latter is either due to lack of facility, or an emotional predisposition not to listen. The German word that best summarizes your posts on this topic is precluded by Rule 8. It rhymes with "ice."

DR

 

[Chaos]

Chaos, I will suggest that you spend your efforts on your German, America bashing forums, where your emotions and your native lucidity will be in sync with your adoring audience. This attempt to put words into EGarret's mouth, particularly as he has spelled out clearly that he does not hold that position, is both intellectually dishonest and a sign of poor comprehension. That latter is either due to lack of facility, or an emotional predisposition not to listen. The German word that best summarizes your posts on this topic is precluded by Rule 8. It rhymes with "ice."

DR

I could recommend a thing or two for you to do, but these are also precluded by rule 8.

I didn't choose the wrong word. In the process of ticking off a list, I omitted a word.

Omitted, my ass. You wrote what you wrote. I can only read what you wrote. I responded accurately to what you wrote. That you chose to see my failure to read your thoughts as meaning that I am insane is your fault, not mine.

No, it's a generic phrase for laws, codes, commandments, declarations or anything else a nation might use to define itself. Note that it refers to the actual system, whatever it may be.

So? During the Cold War, West Germany and East Germany had "laws, codes, commandments, declarations or anything else a nation might use to define itself" that were actually quite similar (except for the mirror-image approaches to their relation with the USA and USSR, of course). So the "system of values" was the same for both.
The difference was, West Germany actually enforced that stuff. You didn´t even take one look at the "system of values" to see what these countries were made. You just looked at what they really DID.


And as for your lame protestations about not being a zombie patriot... stick it where the sun doesn´t shine. How anyone with half a brain could claim that the ramblings of, say Chomsky, or Michael Moore, somehow prevent them from doing anything about Bush and his actions, that´s really beyond me. Unless, of course, they don´t mean it and are simply bashing their favorite enemy because they are too lazy, too afraid or too patriotic to do anything.

 

[robinson]

Chomsky and Moore have done a lot about Bush and his actions. Bush and his actions however, have done much more.

 

[Merko]

True, but when--like Chomsky--99% or so of what someone says about the USA is negative, people tend to assume (for some strange reason) that the person isn't really "nuanced", but simply thinks the USA is bad.

Fair enough, but when Chomsky is actually asked to give his opinion on the 'goodness' of the US, he for some funny reason always states that it is among the best states throughout history.

So then some people claim he must just be terribly pessimistic. Which may be the case. Personally, I think he's just very critical towards everything. Especially towards things that are close at hand and can be influenced.

 

[Chaos]

Fair enough, but when Chomsky is actually asked to give his opinion on the 'goodness' of the US, he for some funny reason always states that it is among the best states throughout history.

So then some people claim he must just be terribly pessimistic. Which may be the case. Personally, I think he's just very critical towards everything. Especially towards things that are close at hand and can be influenced.

Everybody who is not terribly pessimistic about a lot of things by about age 25 should probably have his brain checked.

That said, that Chomsky has a lot of bad stuff to say about the US and little bad stuff to say about, for example, Iran, *might* be because he thinks that the US, as a society, is open enough that changing the bad stuff is possible.
Judging from the responses coming from the usual suspects, I´m somewhat inclined to say he is wrong.

 

[Skeptic]

Fair enough, but when Chomsky is actually asked to give his opinion on the 'goodness' of the US, he for some funny reason always states that it is among the best states throughout history.

So then some people claim he must just be terribly pessimistic.

Or simply dishonest.

We all know that someone who controls his wife with "you know I love you, so..." (insert unending, unrealistic demands that wife must do, a range of insults about her looks, weight, speech, etc.) doesn't really love his wife. Nor would the excuse that such a person is simply pessimistic about women--if that's what he thinks of his wife, just imagine how much he despises other women--cut much ice.

Same here. "Oh, the USA is, ahem, one of the best countries--now that that's out of the way, let me tell you in mind-numbing detail how awful it was here and there and there and over there and..." isn't really the sayings of someone who thinks well of the USA, or of someone who is "pessimistic".

In both cases, the "I love you"--or the "the USA is one of the better countries"--is just a pro forma statement, an official "magic word" that makes it justified in the eyes of the abusive husband (or in the eyes of Chomsky, which I suppose ranks as an abusive political commentator) to constantly rant against, belittle, and denigrate their wife (or the USA).

 

[Chaos]

Or simply dishonest.

We all know that someone who controls his wife with "you know I love you, so..." (insert unending, unrealistic demands that wife must do, a range of insults about her looks, weight, speech, etc.) doesn't really love his wife. Nor would the excuse that such a person is simply pessimistic about women--if that's what he thinks of his wife, just imagine how much he despises other women--cut much ice.

Same here. "Oh, the USA is, ahem, one of the best countries--now that that's out of the way, let me tell you in mind-numbing detail how awful it was here and there and there and over there and..." isn't really the sayings of someone who thinks well of the USA, or of someone who is "pessimistic".

In both cases, the "I love you"--or the "the USA is one of the better countries"--is just a pro forma statement, an official "magic word" that makes it justified in the eyes of the abusive husband (or in the eyes of Chomsky, which I suppose ranks as an abusive political commentator) to constantly rant against, belittle, and denigrate their wife (or the USA).

Or he *is* pessimistic (or maybe overly optimistic in that he believes that, in the US, criticism might actually make a difference).

I´m sorry, but when, by the strangest kind of coincidence, *everybody* who criticizes a particular thing just happens to have some kind of serious character deficit, that seriously diminishes the credibility of the person who makes such claims.

 

[Dave1001]

Fair enough, but when Chomsky is actually asked to give his opinion on the 'goodness' of the US, he for some funny reason always states that it is among the best states throughout history.

Interesting, I'm very skeptical of that apparent claim by Chomsky. Although I suppose it could be no-true-scotsmanned into a defensible position.

 

[EGarrett]

I could recommend a thing or two for you to do, but these are also precluded by rule 8.

Omitted, my ass. You wrote what you wrote. I can only read what you wrote. I responded accurately to what you wrote. That you chose to see my failure to read your thoughts as meaning that I am insane is your fault, not mine.

Then why did you reply talking about bike races? Your point made no sense either then...

So? During the Cold War, West Germany and East Germany had "laws, codes, commandments, declarations or anything else a nation might use to define itself" that were actually quite similar (except for the mirror-image approaches to their relation with the USA and USSR, of course). So the "system of values" was the same for both.

I've already plainly demonstrated how systems of values can be used to help determine the probable success of a society. There are many different measures for how successful a society is. It might be possible to twist each individual one to find a place where it won't be a be-all, end-all. That does not render the individual measure as useless. For you to think so is of course, an excluded middle fallacy.

Your attempt to poke a single hole in systems of values is not going to render it "useless." In the future, don't make ignorant, overreaching statements (a la Noam Chomsky) and you might avoid trapping yourself that way.

And as for your lame protestations about not being a zombie patriot... stick it where the sun doesn´t shine. How anyone with half a brain could claim that the ramblings of, say Chomsky, or Michael Moore, somehow prevent them from doing anything about Bush and his actions, that´s really beyond me.

Show me where I said that...or what statement you've incorrectly attempted to interpret as meaning that.