• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noam on stuff

l0rca

I know so much karate
l0rca
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,100
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGsTmcFxrYo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qGsTmcFxrYo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

+ part 2.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B1qedUIg7sI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B1qedUIg7sI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Overall, what do you guys think of Noam's politics?
 
88864595f254190a6.png


I think that about sums it up for me.
 
Thanks a lot, unnamed.

I still want to know what confidence you guys give on Chomsky's politics.
 
He reminds me of papa smurf.

I naively bought one of his books a couple years ago to learn some of his views and see what all the hubbub was all about. The hippie at the bookstore counter with the tie-dyed shirt gave me a thumbs up when I bought it, and I only understood later what that was all about...

Noam is a smart guy, and a 'socialist libertarian'. We commonly think of libertarianism as being completely a capitalist/business oriented philosophy, but this is the mirror image of that. Socialist libertarianism advocates the idea of stewardship of things without any personal property ownership.

The wiki article seems like an ok description of the idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

The part of Noam's political views about small local government with no hierarchy are interesting to read and there is much to agree with. I disagree that any single political or philosophical system can make everyone happy.

Neither Noam's socialist L, or the more traditional libertarianism take into account idealogical or religious driven social forces like Sharia law. I consider this to be a flaw of libertarianism - all versions serve as an adequate launching platform for religion or extreme idealogy to take over.

The part about eliminating personal property has about as much chance happening as me walking to the moon, and promises much violence and bloodshed in whatever project plan that could bring it about.

Noam's general dislike of the US government and business derives from his philosophy, and agree with him or not, his books are well footnoted.

I consider Noam a good example of why I think politics is much more like art or religion - than science.
 
Planet Chomsky is the epitome of "noone is responsible for any trouble they cause (unless they're israeli)", pie in the sky, dreamland.

Everything is theory with this guy, no real world solutions. Any solution anyone comes up with is somehow offensive or some such.

Perfect example of totally wrong but for all the right reasons. You know he means well (except possibly to jews) , but he is clueless about reality
 
Kopji said:
Socialist libertarianism advocates the idea of stewardship of things without any personal property ownership.
Click to expand...

How do you stop someone with a lot of charisma and good yappity skills from coming along and saying, "My group will take charge of that for the benefit of all."? Vote? Now you're in even worse shape.

Oops, I guess his theory isn't complete yet.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Planet Chomsky is the epitome of "noone is responsible for any trouble they cause (unless they're israeli)", pie in the sky, dreamland.

Everything is theory with this guy, no real world solutions. Any solution anyone comes up with is somehow offensive or some such.

Perfect example of totally wrong but for all the right reasons. You know he means well (except possibly to jews) , but he is clueless about reality
Click to expand...

I was unaware the expression "Planet Chomsky" existed elsewhere than Planet Dershowitz.
 
Beerina said:
How do you stop someone with a lot of charisma and good yappity skills from coming along and saying, "My group will take charge of that for the benefit of all."? Vote? Now you're in even worse shape.

Oops, I guess his theory isn't complete yet.
Click to expand...

No theory is immune to that. I for one welcome our yappity overlords.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Planet Chomsky is the epitome of "noone is responsible for any trouble they cause (unless they're israeli)", pie in the sky, dreamland.

Everything is theory with this guy, no real world solutions. Any solution anyone comes up with is somehow offensive or some such.

Perfect example of totally wrong but for all the right reasons. You know he means well (except possibly to jews) , but he is clueless about reality
Click to expand...

Would you mind going in more depth, and give examples of him being fringe?
 
"Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media. "

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. "

"I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system."

"Sports plays a societal role in engendering jingoist and chauvinist attitudes. They're designed to organize a community to be committed to their gladiators. "

Of course my real dislike for this guy, unscientific as it may be, starts from his mannerisms. The same as you will find from cranks from Sylvia Browne to Benny Hinn, to John Edward to psuedo intellectuals like Lawrence Krauss. They all seem to follow a set of crank rules:

1: Sound like you couldn't care LESS about the words you are saying (Sylvia for instance uses this mannerism in order to say REALLY whack things, without skipping a beat or needing to expand on otherwise showstoppers)

2: Sound like you couldn't give less of a crap about the people you are speaking to. Words fall out in a way that sounds like they were headed for a word toilet. A great insulator when you get called on your shiznit later on

3: Self deprecating or punctuating "uhm". This is, for some reason where a lot of people really pull their hair out. This doesnt bother me so much, but I have no trouble recognizing it. Its one of the obvious sounds of a cold reader as well
 
Okay, I will be the lone dissenter here.

I pretty much agree with everything Chomsky said in that interview.
 
I don't know alot about his philosophy, but I do know that it eventually leads to anarchism, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
 
I usually agree with most every conclusion Chomsky makes about practical politics. I'm not sure I agree with him philosophically, but that's not where he's most active anyway. It seems to me that he has a tougher standard when judging the action of two groups: Americans and Jews. But that's ok with me, since Chomsky is an American and a Jew. If everyone followed that example (and I mean being tougher on your own groups, not necessarily Americans and Jews), the world would be a much better place.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Perfect example of totally wrong but for all the right reasons. You know he means well (except possibly to jews) , but he is clueless about reality
Click to expand...
How is Noam Chomsky ill meaning to Jews? As I recall, he is a Jew. He does not appear to be a fan of Israel au outrance, but I don't find his PoV to be profoundly anti Jewish. You might call him "anti Zionist," or "anti neo Zionist."

I am not a big fan of his politics, but I like some of what he writes on how power works. Dissent as an exercise, if for no other reason, has inherent value, even if you don't agree with it. Now and again the dissenting view is the better idea, if we may give Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther a nod.

DR
 
Chomsky is very eloquent and highly intelligent, but like most USA bashers, he is all-too-eager to spit his theories and opinions at the world, without realizing that he has no actual solutions.
 
EGarrett said:
Chomsky is very eloquent and highly intelligent, but like most USA bashers, he is all-too-eager to spit his theories and opinions at the world, without realizing that he has no actual solutions.
Click to expand...
He does mention solutions at points. In so far that when the proposed cure is worse than a disease, do nothing is actually the better solution.

My main problem with him is his choice of language. He does a lot of equivocation, choosing language much in the same way a politician would. Use the word with the most emotion content, not necessarily the most accurate one.

ETA: I should problem expand on the last paragraph. As a simple example I would not the use of the term "terrorist state" being applied to the U.S.. Taking a word that has a specific (and not very pleasant) meaning in everyday use is precisely what we see politic groups do to vilify the opposition.

Walt
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom