Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Chomsky on World Ownership
fpif.org — Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert. On January 15, Michael Shank interviewed him on the latest developments in U.S. policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. In the first part of this two-part interview, Chomsky also discussed how the U.S. government ’s belief in its ownership of the world shapes its foreign policy.
notque- 770 diggs
- digg it
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -56/+14I heard that Noam was actually named "Naomi" at birth (they mistakenly thought he was a girl).
Apparently, Noam was born without male genitalia. He eventually grew a peanut-shaped nub that his parents assumed was a penis. That's when they changed his name to the male equivalent.
Interesting, huh?- belzoradon, on 01/25/2008, -9/+18actually his first name isn't Noam at all but Avram
- commernie, on 01/25/2008, -8/+19Don't feed the trolls.
- StepCousin, on 01/26/2008, -3/+5But troll is hungry. Me needs liberal halfwits. Mmmmmmmmm good!
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -19/+8So, you're saying that the "Naomi" rumor is just a rumor?
- yodaj007, on 01/25/2008, -6/+14We're saying it's completely irrelevant.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -13/+5But you're not discounting the validity of the rumor?
- spawnfree, on 01/25/2008, -3/+7no im sure he has a small penis and that should make us laugh and not listen to what he has to say.
oh but that kind of angle only works on tards. Tards dont read old Chompy.- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -5/+3Uhhhhhh, have you not paid any attention to the violent reactions to my posts? Pavlov's dogs are STILL salivating.
- yodaj007, on 01/25/2008, -6/+14We're saying it's completely irrelevant.
- commernie, on 01/25/2008, -8/+19Don't feed the trolls.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/25/2008, -9/+12Come on. You should know that it is only acceptable to make "witty" transgender comments about Ann Coulter.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -15/+9That's going to be tough for me. I consider all left-wing men to be effeminate/highly emotional.
- Lyk4n, on 01/25/2008, -9/+11You seem to be pretty damn emotional through all of your previous comments, kind of like a whiny emo kid whose parents hate him more so than the local girls.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -8/+8You should at least put some effort into your insults.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -11/+1Oh yeah? Let's meet somewhere secluded, just you and me, and I'll show you how effeminate and highly emotional I can be as I take you apart. How about it, Chickenhawk?
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -9/+6I'm in. What's your phone number, name, address, and social security number?
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -9/+1Coward.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -6/+6I'm a coward????
You're the pussy casting threats from his keyboard. - Stevanoski, on 01/26/2008, -3/+6Typical comment from a Chickendove. Didn't you read today that the democrats have conceded defeat in waving the white flag?
- Lyk4n, on 01/25/2008, -9/+11You seem to be pretty damn emotional through all of your previous comments, kind of like a whiny emo kid whose parents hate him more so than the local girls.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -15/+9That's going to be tough for me. I consider all left-wing men to be effeminate/highly emotional.
- mightydavefish, on 01/25/2008, -17/+10Typical rightard *****.
You can't debate his points, so you make unsubstantiated personal attacks, and of course since you are a rightard you feel attacks on his masculinity are in order.
Gee, how very 2001.
Don't you losers ever get a new play book?
You seem obsessed with other men's genitalia.
That makes sense, since you anti-gay rightards are all closet cases who secretly DREAM of man love.
Your obsession with it is like a big "Gay wanna-be" sign over your head.
From your comments, and taking in your cowardice, I'm thinking you are a "soft" bottom.
I hear you can meet nice men in airport men's rooms. The GOP can tell you more about it.- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -13/+8I think that you hate me, dumbdave.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -10/+8No, you were just successful in your content-free inflammatory post, which was meant to shield you from the reality that Chomsky both speaks truth, and has an intellect several orders of magnitude greater than yours. Oh, and he has ethics and morals.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6There shouldn't be a comma after "truth".
;)
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6There shouldn't be a comma after "truth".
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -10/+8No, you were just successful in your content-free inflammatory post, which was meant to shield you from the reality that Chomsky both speaks truth, and has an intellect several orders of magnitude greater than yours. Oh, and he has ethics and morals.
- jabberwolf, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6I think he's making fuin of you girlish liberal ***** with no brains just loud mouths that follow any movement that sheep are attracted to.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5Right on. They're easy to manipulate.
- whiteninja, on 01/25/2008, -5/+3You guys should write about how cool you are to Bill O'Reilly.
- StepCousin, on 01/26/2008, -4/+2I'd like to do a shot with O'Reilly.
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -13/+8I think that you hate me, dumbdave.
- hambend, on 01/25/2008, -5/+8Sigh... I had to scroll this far down the page to get at anything approaching intelligent discussion. Just bury and move on, k?
- StepCousin, on 01/25/2008, -8/+4Your comment sucked in comparison to mine. Try harder next time.
- belzoradon, on 01/25/2008, -9/+18actually his first name isn't Noam at all but Avram
- PatNolan, on 01/25/2008, -21/+12US ownership? Isn't most of the prime US land owned by Chinese and Japanese investors?
- jaybol, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7ha good point...we should focus on owning our own soil first huh?
- ggfobster, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3It's more about influence than ownership.
- lucidguru, on 01/25/2008, -3/+31I'm glad Chomsky realizes that war with Pakistan is just as much of a threat as war with Iran. Nuclear war would not be fun at all.
- known, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Due to the intrinsic cultural diversity, each State cannot 'productively' govern more than 2 million citizens.
Hence we should 'decentralize' the World into States or Cantons as in Switzerland. - LeeSoong, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2U.S.A. - We Own The Planet !
http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.11579335
- known, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Due to the intrinsic cultural diversity, each State cannot 'productively' govern more than 2 million citizens.
- RUFuKinCrazy, on 01/25/2008, -36/+18Who cares what Chumpsky thinks? The guy has zero credibility.
- yodaj007, on 01/25/2008, -16/+27He's one of the most important and out-spoken intellectuals of our time.
- phenry50BMG, on 01/25/2008, -24/+14rrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttt
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -14/+13I agree. He is so threatening that nobody will ever debate him publicly. Examples of when they have can be found, and Chomsky dispassionately dismantles their empty rhetoric every time.
- StepCousin, on 01/26/2008, -7/+5I debated with him once. He ended up crying like the little girl that he once was.
- blackjack75, on 01/25/2008, -9/+11Not sure why neocognitism got dugg down. Chomsky is actually a debate-beast. I have yet to see him in a debate or discussion where the opponent matches his ability to make his view heard. He'll always have a reasonable well-thought argument to oppose to any cheap shots.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/25/2008, -10/+8He's one of the most tedious and outspoken far left America-loathing Jew-hating blowhards of our time.
fixed it 4 u!- Iconoclast25, on 01/26/2008, -5/+6He is a far, far left anti-American lying jellyfish . . . .
What is that neat little ceremony they did with the burning tire and an informer in the South African ghetto? I'd pay good money to see him featured in one of those. - wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1He's a jew himself, fool. He's not idiotic enough to buy into the holocaust-pimping zionist ***** campaign, of SOME jews - and many a powerhungry evangelical "christian" American. Tedious? He enflames morons like you, which is very entertaining indeed!
- Iconoclast25, on 01/26/2008, -5/+6He is a far, far left anti-American lying jellyfish . . . .
- michaelscottA, on 01/25/2008, -10/+2w
- jaybol, on 01/25/2008, -10/+11i think my reply to your comment about his credibility is best said in your own user name RUFuKinCrazy
- alkajazz, on 01/25/2008, -6/+4RUFuKinCrazy is the unsung hero of our generation.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6TACTIC:
When one cannot confront the content of someone's speech, those without ethics resort to ad hominem attacks. When pulling off an ad hominem attack is difficult, then just declaring that there has been some sort of mysterious all-powerful ad hominem attack is what one of these sociopaths do. - alkajazz, on 01/25/2008, -6/+5And you do?
- wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1"I know you are, but what am I?" Brilliant, PeeWee, just brilliant...
- ggfobster, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5You have zero credability in assesing his intellect about foreign policy.
- hambend, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6I care what he says because it makes sense when he says it. That remains true however much "credibility" (what does that mean, anyway?) he has, and as far as I can see all you've done is admitted that you're not prepared to listen to what he has to say. Well done.
I bet if a pedophile told you he liked eating food you'd starve to death.- Iconoclast25, on 01/26/2008, -5/+4I've read some of his stuff - enough for me to hope he dies a slow, painful death, the sooner the better.
- wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1This irrational - psychotic - anger among his detractors (coupled with their complete lack of rebuttal to anything he has to say) is one of the things that moves decent, thoughtful people to listen to Chomsky, and discover the alternative worldview he has to offer.
- Iconoclast25, on 01/26/2008, -5/+4I've read some of his stuff - enough for me to hope he dies a slow, painful death, the sooner the better.
- yodaj007, on 01/25/2008, -16/+27He's one of the most important and out-spoken intellectuals of our time.
- Gophergreg, on 01/25/2008, -41/+29Chomsky's field is linguistics, the study of languages. Beyond that field however, he has no real expertise. He has spent his life safely ensconced in the ivory tower of academia, taking potshots from the sidelines at people who are actually contributing to society. The guy has no credibility whatsoever, and no one on either side of the political spectrum pays the slightest bit of attention to him or his spew.
- chicofaraby, on 01/25/2008, -14/+26Sure, we pay attention to intellectual powerhouses like you. After the way you countered Chomsky's argument that the USA think it owns the world so deftly, how could we not?
- oldhick, on 01/25/2008, -5/+4I agree there is no way around his logic in this story. He hit the nail on the head. My only problem is that Chomsky is incredibly deft at pointing out logical inconsistencies and criticizing policy. I would love to read his views on how the US should govern itself, manage our markets, and protect our interests in the global community.
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2As I said above, he's not a politician. He wants everyone to become involved in the political process and learn to critically think for themselves. That's counter to advocating some idea people can just shut down and acquiesce to.
It's a standard refrain to discredit him, though, that he doesn't come up with policy per se. Like "put your head back in the sand because he doesn't tell you where to dig a new hole"- oldhick, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Eh??? Obviously anyone reading him is involved in the political process. Its a standard refrain, but not to discredit him. Nothing I said discredits Chomsky. How does the statement "I agree there is no way around his logic" discredit him?
Now back to point, I know plenty of people adept at criticizing the government and policy. In that, I don't feel Chomksy has any special gift. Your comment hits the nail on the head "he doesn't tell you where to dig a new hole". I don't want to dig a new hole. I want people to get there heads out of the sand and live in the open. However, you are correct, Chomsky doesn't really help with that.
- oldhick, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Eh??? Obviously anyone reading him is involved in the political process. Its a standard refrain, but not to discredit him. Nothing I said discredits Chomsky. How does the statement "I agree there is no way around his logic" discredit him?
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2As I said above, he's not a politician. He wants everyone to become involved in the political process and learn to critically think for themselves. That's counter to advocating some idea people can just shut down and acquiesce to.
- oldhick, on 01/25/2008, -5/+4I agree there is no way around his logic in this story. He hit the nail on the head. My only problem is that Chomsky is incredibly deft at pointing out logical inconsistencies and criticizing policy. I would love to read his views on how the US should govern itself, manage our markets, and protect our interests in the global community.
- oldhick, on 01/25/2008, -8/+12I agree to an extent. I like to read his thoughts and I welcome his intellectual prowess being used to address world policy. However, you are absolutely correct in is lack of expertise in the field. He is a school lecturer who has never run a business or specifically an international business. He has never served in a public office or as a diplomat. He is a self admitted anarchist. So his particular views on politics are interesting to me, but not necessarily relevant. I will continue to Digg Chomsky articles.
- djdedeo0, on 01/25/2008, -9/+4Getting dug down for sheerly point out the facts, Gotta love the slant on this site
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6By that reasoning, practically nobody who is on any news program or is allowed to make a press release or give a news conference has any credibility or should be allowed to. Diplomats do not have expertise, they simply regurgitate the party line. Look at all the USA's diplomats now! A motley group of morons who are either long-time friends of the Bush family, or the children of those friends.
And even if Chomsky WAS an anarchist, which he is not, how does that affect his accurate and factual analysis of world issues?- texpundit, on 01/25/2008, -6/+7Actually, Chomsky is a self-admitted anarcho-communist.
- Sunsetter, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5Anarcho-communist? No.
Libertarian socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Many would argue, myself included that this is a very organized form of anarchy. But such a thing would only exist in an ideal world. - neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Even if that were true, that isn't reason to discredit the man's words.
Or is it? Do you need him to be discredited with dysphemisms like that?
What are your motivations in commenting here, hmm? Did his criticism of Israel bring you here?
Do you use the megaphone software or know someone who does?
- Sunsetter, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5Anarcho-communist? No.
- oldhick, on 01/25/2008, -3/+5True, we must be very careful who we listen to. But more to the point, I like Chomsky. Whenever I find an article or interview with him I read it. But nearly all of the time he is simply criticizing policy. Rarely if ever does he recommend a solution and a method for implementing it. Even in this article he says he doesn't have the answers.
He labels his beliefs as anarchistic (if thats a word?), I did not label them as that. But knowing he feels that way gives you incredible insight into his take on all issues. Its not good or bad or right or wrong, its just not my personal take. Again, I like Chomsky. But he doesn't know everything about everything!- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Yeah, I would agree with what you are saying.
But he's not a political candidate. More than anything he is trying to spread awareness and help people develop the capacity for critical thought. He doesn't want to think for them, as much as the megaphone brigade claims otherwise. He wants everyone to get involved in the political process, and stop leaving it up to these corrupt bastards. So in reality it's not that he's shirking his duty to provide solutions, it's that he wants everyone else to start thinking about them.
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Yeah, I would agree with what you are saying.
- texpundit, on 01/25/2008, -6/+7Actually, Chomsky is a self-admitted anarcho-communist.
- alkajazz, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5Do you even know Chomsky's background? He came from the working poor class. He wasn't born into a pampered life.
- oldhick, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4Yes I did know that. If I implied otherwise sorry. I never claimed he was a socialite or senators son...
- alkajazz, on 01/25/2008, -5/+1I replied to the wrong comment sorry heh.
- oldhick, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4Yes I did know that. If I implied otherwise sorry. I never claimed he was a socialite or senators son...
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -10/+6TACTIC:
When one cannot confront the content of someone's speech, those without ethics resort to ad hominem attacks. When pulling off an ad hominem attack is difficult, then just declaring that there has been some sort of mysterious all-powerful ad hominem attack is what one of these sociopaths do. Sorry, we aren't buying it. You cannot devalue all his work and discourage us from reading it ever again. - trickster878, on 01/25/2008, -6/+10Chomsky is just has entitled, if not more, to speak on political issues as any journalist is. These interviews are done with Chomsky because he has years and years of knowledge at his back and he can articulate the views better than most even at their peak could. Chomsky has been around the block and these days, that makes him pretty valuable to us all. Half the current US govt. doesn't know what it's talking about, so your argument is pretty week. Listen to what he has to say and read some of his books and the praise for those books before you say he has no credibility.
- OUChevelleSS, on 01/25/2008, -10/+7What knowledge? He's a Linguist! I'm a linguistic major; we don't study foreign policy!
- niczar, on 01/25/2008, -6/+6True, but HE is not a linguistic major, he is world-renowned academic, probably the most cited in his field and outside; to wit, you use his work when you study computer languages & compilers in CS.
And anyway, as a linguist, he is well placed to expose the double-speak and propaganda the US gov't is dumbing down the world with. - trickster878, on 01/25/2008, -6/+5Did you just compare yourself to Chomsky? Chomsky defines your "area of study". Just because you don't study foreign policy doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't or can't. Your simplemindness doesn't translate across an entire group.
You ask "what knowledge"? How bout 50 years of study on subjects more far ranging than your community college linguistics degree will ever bring.- OUChevelleSS, on 01/25/2008, -6/+7Actually I go to the University of Oklahoma, not a community college. And yes, I know he defines my area of study, but he defines no other areas of study.
- niczar, on 01/25/2008, -6/+6True, but HE is not a linguistic major, he is world-renowned academic, probably the most cited in his field and outside; to wit, you use his work when you study computer languages & compilers in CS.
- blackjack75, on 01/25/2008, -4/+6Hum, you can study anything you want. Your argument makes as much sense as "Hey, I can't learn to play guitar, I am an accountant!".
Chomsky isn't exactly a student in linguistic... he's old enough to have accumulated knowledge on a wide variety fo matters.
- OUChevelleSS, on 01/25/2008, -10/+7What knowledge? He's a Linguist! I'm a linguistic major; we don't study foreign policy!
- tucsonwc, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5If that were true, then your post would not be necessary. BTW, what is YOUR field of expertise that we should listen to YOUR spew?
- IADTatami, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5If you'd only have mentioned socialism or Cambodia, I would have got a BINGO.
- wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Typical anti-intellectual twaddle. "Ivory tower?" What about that "good fer nuthin' book-learnin," that "them pointy-headed interlecturals" get into?
- chicofaraby, on 01/25/2008, -14/+26Sure, we pay attention to intellectual powerhouses like you. After the way you countered Chomsky's argument that the USA think it owns the world so deftly, how could we not?
- suzywang3000, on 01/25/2008, -26/+11Chomsky is such a buzzkill. I wish he would keep his opinions to himself.
- csw1342, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6Nice Hitler quote, did he say that to the jews or the fags??
- jaybol, on 01/25/2008, -9/+13yeah it would be nice if we could just go back to ignoring all of those pesky problems that other people have...with all of our ***** to watch on the DVR and all...i mean seriously noam can you just start watching MTV Sweet Sixteen with suzywang and stop talking and talking and talking about those countries that she can't pronounce?
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+5Yeah, tell that ***** who speaks inconvenient truths to shut up! It's making me work overtime on keeping my conscience at bay.
- qwertymeister, on 01/25/2008, -10/+42Chomsky is always an interesting read/view, whether one agrees or not
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -8/+5In an intellectual CSI crime scene kind of way....
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+4this comment doesn't carry the negative connotations I think you want it to. Have you even graduated from high school?
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3My god, you're right! Do you use this talent for good or just literary interpretation at county fairs?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+4this comment doesn't carry the negative connotations I think you want it to. Have you even graduated from high school?
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -8/+5In an intellectual CSI crime scene kind of way....
- michaelscottA, on 01/25/2008, -29/+5Chomsky is a mouthpiece for globalization. Not a good guy.
- csw1342, on 01/25/2008, -10/+4WRONG!!! Blasphemous ass hattery. ***** world trade
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5***** the higher standards of living and multiculturalism, and freedom that free trade brings.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go tend to my greenhouse which full of orange trees. Growing oranges in MN takes a lot work, and I wouldn't want my state to have a trade deficit with FL.- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2Your business would evaporate if there truly was free trade in citrus, and you weren't allowed to hire illegal aliens to pick them.
- spawnfree, on 01/25/2008, -4/+1yay and all it needs is a ***** of oil. Or we are back to walking around and eating what we make. instead of going to the gym and working half our lives for free for a corrupt and wasteful stack of sociopathic monkeys.
- csw1342, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Oh, wait. I meant to say ***** the poor and uneducated, you know the ones who get paid pennies a day so my Chinese ipod will break in a year. Yeah ***** them. oh and ***** walking billboards.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5***** the higher standards of living and multiculturalism, and freedom that free trade brings.
- jaybol, on 01/25/2008, -7/+7a simple WTF are you talking about michaelscott is appropriate in response
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5Buried for being flat wrong, but given honorable mention for finding the most offensive thing possible to say about Chomsky's writings. Nice and inflammatory, like all these rabid anti-Chomsky comments that all appeared mysteriously early on in this submission.
- csw1342, on 01/25/2008, -10/+4WRONG!!! Blasphemous ass hattery. ***** world trade
- JigoroKano, on 01/25/2008, -5/+30"When the Russians complained about American interference in Afghanistan, we’d laugh. But when we talk about Iranian interference in Iraq, going back to viable political candidates, every single one of them says that this is outrageous – meaning, the Iranians don’t understand that we_own_the_world."
- JigoroKano, on 01/25/2008, -3/+12"Any candidate now, maybe anyone except Giuliani, will moderate somewhat the policies."
- sigg14, on 01/25/2008, -15/+15we need a revolution in america before its too late
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -4/+12Yeah, and we'll have it by saying that we need to have ones on forums! That'll show the ruling elite!
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7"1st we will shoot the neocons. Then the lawyers. Then the politicians. The businessmen. The warmongers. The rich. The bourgeoisie. The middle class. The teachers. The artists. And finally, after we split the last guy who disagrees with us with our stone club, we will be free." Viva la revolution!
/sarcasm for those who need it...- ggfobster, on 01/25/2008, -2/+5yay for neocommunism
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+1yay for neoconservatism
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+1Hey kid, this isn't fark. Stop looking like a moron and drop the /*****.
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -1/+4Truth hurts doesn't it neocog. Come on, you can tell us here. The best part about the revolution fantasy is you can give everyone whose got it coming their just deserts isn't it?
You'd start with Bush but eventually you'd realize that he's just a symptom to a problem that eventual ends with every man, woman and child being guilty of not living up to your ideology.- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2Yes, I am Tetsuo, and I will absorb everyone and only I will remain.
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -1/+4Truth hurts doesn't it neocog. Come on, you can tell us here. The best part about the revolution fantasy is you can give everyone whose got it coming their just deserts isn't it?
- ggfobster, on 01/25/2008, -2/+5yay for neocommunism
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/25/2008, -3/+10QUICK! Ask your Mom if you can have $20 and borrow the minivan for a revolution.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+1You mean like the Republican Revolution of 1994?
Well, we could try, but the GOP is in tatters! Nobody aside from the crazies and the scaredies will vote for us anymore.
I guess we just have to demonize the term "revolution" so that anyone else who wants to use it gets branded an extremist, when in reality we were the extremists. Aren't I right my GOP brother?
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -18/+10Remember, you are NOT ALLOWED to say the word "antigentile" WHATSOEVER. Even though it is a perfectly valid word that means the opposite of anti-Semitism, the use of the word rings a bit too true for the megaphoners here.
Remember, the next time you are called an anti-Semite or a "Jew Hater" for disagreeing with the smallest aspect of Israeli government policy, do not let yourself feel bad. You AREN'T what they called you. In fact, it is THEY who have stepped over the line, abused the concept, and are now in effect using it to trample over YOUR rights. Respond with "No, YOU ARE AN ANTIGENTILE." It's true!
This word is not allowed to be used elsewhere. On reddit, for example, even USING THE WORD ONCE will get ALL your posts deleted without your even knowing! Don't believe me? Try it! Just log out and look again, and you might need to use a different browser.
ANTIGENTILE
ANTIGENTILISTIC
ANTIGENTILISM
Watch this get modded down, but only seldomly commented on and even then only tangentially.- notque, on 01/25/2008, -6/+8I think I agree with your basic cause, and yet I'm digging you down for not trying to have a discussion with people, and instead telling them things. Why not try to just explain your feelings, and ask people to comment on them instead?
And you repeated the comment on this thread,
http://digg.com/world_news/BBC_Palestinians_blow_u ...- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+1I repeated the comment in another story about Israel as well.
I'm using the same tactics as the megaphone brigade, and I am trying to spread awareness of the term at the same time.
Once one understands the tactics behind the actions of some sociopathic group, one can become inured to that tactic.
It isn't enough for some to just say to them "these are their tactics," it takes seeing those tactics employed for a different/opposing point of view. Only than can some decouple the point of view from the tactic, and see the underlying pathology. It then provides an effective mindset for transcending these tactics, allowing one to maintain focus on the relevant issues and the truth. - wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I think it's relevant on this thread, because some douche, above, called Chomsky (who is a jew!) a "jew-hater" - presumably because of his criticism of Israel. I'm sick of seeing the suffering of the jewish people pimped for rhetorical and political gain. Any time this disgusting tactic is used, it's appropriate to expose it.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+1I repeated the comment in another story about Israel as well.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/25/2008, -5/+4MEME FAIL.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -4/+5Hahaha. I was wondering when you were gonna show up here.
You know this isn't a thread about Israel, right?
Or is it, because it's about Chomsky, who is critical of the government of Israel.
Because he is critical of the government of Israel, it's "fair game" as the Scientologists say.
Well here's a little gift for you, to save you the work.
Ad Hominem attack vectors which although wrong, can be used effectively:
1) He is an idiot
2) All his research in linguistics is being proven wrong and therefore he has no legacy.
3) He's an anarchist OR marxist OR socialist
4) He's pompous/elitist
5) He isn't a foreign policy expert
Merry Christmas, and see you in the next story about the next horrible thing the gov. of Israel is doing!
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -4/+5Hahaha. I was wondering when you were gonna show up here.
- bullcutter, on 01/26/2008, -3/+4You're getting "modded down" because YOU are the fascist, by so easily grouping people into such generic and depersonalized categories. The world is not that simple. Breaking people down into "Anti-Gentiles" or "Anti-Semites" serves only one purpose, and that is to promote hatred.
I don't support giving Israel 8 billion per year in foreign aid (more than all of Africa), and let my views be known all over the place but nobody has EVER called me any of those names, but its probably because I'm not acting like a fascistic racist.- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+3Wait, so you're saying that it's wrong to call someone an antisemite who is being antisemitic?
That in and of itself is antisemitic, pal. Nice job.
And you need to look up the meaning of the word fascist before calling anybody else one. Also, facist is its own adjective -- "facistic" isn't a word. - neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+2Hey I have to correct myself. You were right, fascistic is a word and you were using it correctly. Apologies. But you still don't understand what it actually means. You can't call someone a fascist unless they are tacit supporters of fascism. In this case, I think you were trying to say I was a bad guy, or something. Just call me an *****.
Also, the racist charge, which I forgot about earlier, only jibes in the literal sense. Anti-Semite in colloquial usage means anti-Jew -- the racial meaning is subordinated. In the Jewish faith, there are Jews and Gentiles, ergo the colloquially accurate opposite of anti-Semite is anti-gentile. As a sanity check, there are people of Semitic origin who are not of the Jewish faith, but antisemite in colloquial usage wouldn't be used for them, therefore it is dependent primarily on a religious distinction rather than a racial distinction.
That said, I have to stress again that your premise of eradicating both is impossible. The term "anti-Semitism" is forever in our vocabulary. Usage of the term has become horribly twisted, so I identified the need to raise awareness of the opposite, antigentilism. Once antigentilism is sufficiently within the vernacular, these two terms will be used accurately and cancel each other out when appropriate. This cancellation is effectively what you are arguing for, but it can only come AFTER antigentilism is widely used.
Do you see what I'm trying to do now? Unfortunately I am forced to use aggressive language, but it's taken from the group that abuses antisemitism. They need to be pushed back for now, to show others how to do it, and to provide some breathing room so people don't live in fear of being wrongfully branded an antisemite just for exercising their freedom to speak their ethics and morals.
Feel free to comment more.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -3/+3Wait, so you're saying that it's wrong to call someone an antisemite who is being antisemitic?
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -6/+8I think I agree with your basic cause, and yet I'm digging you down for not trying to have a discussion with people, and instead telling them things. Why not try to just explain your feelings, and ask people to comment on them instead?
- arugulord, on 01/25/2008, -8/+33Good work, overwhelmingly bang-on and to the point. That Chomsky is almost completely censored from US corporate media goes without saying. That Chomsky is the most quoted academic from the US, goes without saying even more. The astonishing attempts to bury and troll Chomsky on Digg and other sites shows the utter hysteria surrounding what happens to someone like Chomsky who actually dares to voice a cognizant dissenting opinion of what corporatist elites try and inculcate people into thinking.
- stanleyford, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3This is at least the fourth or fifth Chomsky story I've seen front-paged. As I'm writing this comment, this story has 563 diggs. Far from getting buried, a story with the name "Chomsky" in the title will almost certainly get dugg.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1digg isn't US corporate media, thats *why* Chomsky is getting any play at all.
And no, it's not because digg is "full of extremists."
Wait, check that, digg is. I forgot the Megaphone Brigade.- stanleyford, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2What are you talking about? arugulord mentioned "astonishing attempts to bury and troll Chomsky on Digg." I pointed out that the number of Digg this story got and the popularity of other stories about Chomsky are evidence that suggest otherwise: in other words, Chomsky isn't getting buried and trolled, but dugg and praised. Was my evidence factually incorrect? Were my conclusions wrong? What does the "corporate media" and the presence (or non-presence) or "extremists" on Digg have to do with anything?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1attempts != success
The attempts just haven't been successful, but I'm sure you'll keep trying. - stanleyford, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1"The attempts just haven't been successful, but I'm sure you'll keep trying." -- Again, what are you talking about? I haven't buried the article. I haven't made a negative comment about Chomsky. What will I keep trying to do?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1attempts != success
- stanleyford, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2What are you talking about? arugulord mentioned "astonishing attempts to bury and troll Chomsky on Digg." I pointed out that the number of Digg this story got and the popularity of other stories about Chomsky are evidence that suggest otherwise: in other words, Chomsky isn't getting buried and trolled, but dugg and praised. Was my evidence factually incorrect? Were my conclusions wrong? What does the "corporate media" and the presence (or non-presence) or "extremists" on Digg have to do with anything?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1digg isn't US corporate media, thats *why* Chomsky is getting any play at all.
- stanleyford, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3This is at least the fourth or fifth Chomsky story I've seen front-paged. As I'm writing this comment, this story has 563 diggs. Far from getting buried, a story with the name "Chomsky" in the title will almost certainly get dugg.
- robinthehood, on 01/25/2008, -9/+22To anyone who derides Chomsky because his field of profession is Linguistics... Anyone can be a scholar of history. It means reading books and cutting through the *****. A 18 year old can have a good understanding of political history if they're so inclined.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -10/+11But that doesn't make them an expert. You'd better have some damn good experience in something to be called an expert. Chomsky has none outside of punditry and criticisms. I could read a lot of books on brain surgery, but I'm not an expert until I've successfully performed a lot of them.
- robinthehood, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7Ok. Go by that. What experience did Aristotle have outside of punditry and criticisms? How about Jean-Jaques Rousseau? How about Karl Marx? They were all commenting on society as they saw it from their own experiences. One could argue that only political theorists like Thucydides and Machiavelli were the only ones basing their beliefs on actual personal experience.
IMHO, you either can see things without that veil of media or you can't. True politics really don't have a left or right. They may not even have a right or wrong (who knows long term). But anyone can research history, politics, etc on their own right and be an expert.
Just because you have a doctorate in something does not make you an expert. It just means you have more training. - niczar, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5So you can't be an expert student of war without having started a few yourself?
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4Yes, you can, assuming you've been directly involved somehow.
- robinthehood, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3So therefore Alex De Touqueville's book "Democracy in America" is basically trash because, you know, he's not American and wrote it after only 9 months in the country researching American prisons? Surely he couldn't have become a master of American politics and society in a mere 9 months? Yet his book "Democracy in America" is required reading in many circles when understanding political theory.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4Yes, you can, assuming you've been directly involved somehow.
- robinthehood, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7Ok. Go by that. What experience did Aristotle have outside of punditry and criticisms? How about Jean-Jaques Rousseau? How about Karl Marx? They were all commenting on society as they saw it from their own experiences. One could argue that only political theorists like Thucydides and Machiavelli were the only ones basing their beliefs on actual personal experience.
- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -12/+9Anyone CANNOT be a "scholar of history". Choosing to study one particular aspect of history on your own does not instantly make you a "scholar of history," unless you want to severely devalue the word "scholar".
But assertions like yours are why Digg is filled to the brim with armchair know-it-alls, many are full of ***** in claiming to be a scholar but their ideas are simultaneously far more relevant and implementable than Chomsky's.
Chomsky wants the U.S. destroyed. That is his only motivation for writing such articles. Well, also because its fun to accuse bad people of doing bad things, it makes you feel self-righteous and like you're on the "Good Side."
Too bad the "Good Side" never has any "good ideas." Chomsky's big solution to the problem? It INVARIABLY is along these lines:
" If I were asked to recommend a policy I wouldn’t know what to say."
(FTA)- robinthehood, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7Can tell you don't read history... You do realize that Socrates was killed by the city of Athens because he was viewed as dangerous for being dissenting? Are you saying that Socrates was not a scholar and that he wanted Athens "destroyed"?
Dude, I am far from a know-it-all. I may very well be wrong, but at least I've read up on history to defend where I'm coming from. Where are your point-by-point counterpunches refuting myself OR Chomsky?
Oh that's right, you're just spouting rhetoric with your opinion.- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -6/+5because it doesn't require a point-by-point analysis to see Chomsky's agenda written on the wall: America needs to be razed so that the rest of the world may have a "fairer shot" at making it.
What he doesn't seem to realize is that without America, for all its imperfections and atrocities, there would be no Noam Chomsky. Without the intellectual atmosphere created by Western academic institutions, he would have never been able to make the advances in psycholinguistics that he did, and our understanding (the understanding by civilization as a collective whole) of language and the brain would not be at the place where it is today.
So, yes, its true, Bush is an idiot and has dug us into a giant hole internationally, and especially deeper in the middle east. But Chomsky has NO SOLUTIONS. Why? Because his solution is the destruction of America.
Why don't _you_ provide _me_ with an example of Chomsky defending the right of the existence of America?- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5Why don't you provide me an example of YOU defending the right of the existence of my country, the U.S.A.?
Don't have one? Oh, maybe that's because all of us were born here and didn't have to give Oaths of Loyalty.
Email him and ask him for one, I'm sure he'd give it to you.
Here's mine: My country, the USA, has the right to exist.
Where's yours? - robinthehood, on 01/25/2008, -4/+5Well here you go for starters:
http://www.antiwar.com/gancarski/?articleid=1321
quote - "Does Noam Chomsky hate America, as Fox News personality Sean Hannity might put it? It depends on what your definition of America is. If America is defined by its global military presence, then Chomsky despises it to its core. He's been around long enough to see "full-spectrum dominance" for the sucker bet it is; an enrichment scheme for those who benefit from US dominance of "mineral-rich" states.
But if you define America as the sum of its people, their aspirations, their hopes for the future, then Chomsky can't be said to hate America. The thousands who heard him speak on a balmy Tuesday evening at Gainesville's O'Connell Center would attest, in fact, to Chomsky's love for America and its people, as embodied by his unsparing quest for truth in the briar patch of lies that is Washington politics." - bullcutter, on 01/26/2008, -4/+4I hate the new comment system.
"But if you define America as the sum of its people, their aspirations, their hopes for the future, then Chomsky can't be said to hate America."
Why not? This article does not say that Chomsky actually said he embraces all these things. The author is just making ***** up as far as I can tell, in defense of his utter callousness towards those who died on 9/11. If you don't remember, Chomsky pretty much said they deserved it. - Xenufield, on 01/26/2008, -2/+4Define America by the principles on which it was founded and created.
It's the best way to judge a person's love or hate for the country at its core. To twist that because of politicians that seek power makes people no better than those who call every democrats a moonbat or every conservative a neocon.
Chomsky is not an expert at world politics any more than Steven Hawkings is an expert on global climate change. I question anyone who likes the man yet thinks he's not of the mind that the US is and has been the greatest evil on earth for decades. - wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1You're a paranoid, willfully ignorant moron. Barking like a dog at everything you don't understand, and strangling truth with a flag, doesn't make you a patriot. Chomsky is critical of the American Federal Empire that has grown like a tumor on our once virtuous Republic, and now challenges the Constitution - the DNA of our Government - itself. You, more than anyone, need to read, think about, and understand what Chomsky has written about your country. The rest of the world has.
- bullcutter, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2"You, more than anyone, need to read, think about, and understand what Chomsky has written about your country. The rest of the world has."
Actually this is a pretty moronic statement, given how the exact opposite is true. The rest of the world (>6 billion people) could give a flying ***** about Chomsky. I am one of the few who HAS read Chomsky, which is how I know better than to offer him blind support in the hopes that he has our best interests in mind. HE DOES NOT!
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+5Why don't you provide me an example of YOU defending the right of the existence of my country, the U.S.A.?
- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -6/+5because it doesn't require a point-by-point analysis to see Chomsky's agenda written on the wall: America needs to be razed so that the rest of the world may have a "fairer shot" at making it.
- sites, on 01/25/2008, -6/+5You sound like Sean Hannity. * *nasal tone** "I'm a great American! Lib this, Lib that."
Chomsky is clearly against American Imperialism. Not the nation's existence.- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4actually I hate Sean Hannity more than I hate Chomsky. He is a more vocal and infectous perverter of the truth, but not by much... to me, its not about left or right, its about attacking whoever is currently getting away with the most *****..
Chomsky clearly IS against the nation's existence. After 50 years of political commentary, whatever position he takes, it is always on the side that opposes America.
"The U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients." - said a couple months after 9/11
He said this in 1955:
"The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor led to many very good things. If you follow the trail, it led to kicking Europeans out of Asia--that saved tens of millions of lives in India alone."
Yeah and it also led to the death of millions in other Asian countries.
He said this in 1990:
"In comparison to the conditions imposed by U.S. tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise."
Hahahaha... Yeah that's why millions of people are still immigrating from there to here every decade.
The point is, the guy is a total douchebag. He is no doubt a brilliant individual and has some very valid points and breathtaking observations, but that doesn't mean that he won't say anything that will help his cause (aka the downfall of America), no matter how disgusting, inappropriate or inaccurate it might be...
If you are at all interested in reading about why I might have such crazy assertions, please consult any of the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Noam_Cho ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Read ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_16_ ...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/shapiro/625.h ...- noodless, on 01/26/2008, -4/+1Have you actually read about the terrorism the US supported in latin america? Chomsky has delved into that topic deeply and so its tottally understandable that he would say that. I think you might say it too if you would educate yourself.
He hates the crimes of us govt policy, what you are saying is like saying he hates the people of cambodia because of pol pot or the people of russia for stalin or the people of italy for mussolini, its *****. - bullcutter, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2what i'm saying is, he would prefer it if the United States didn't exist, along with most other wealthy, powerful western governments. that's why i don't like him: he's an unrealistic *****.
- noodless, on 01/26/2008, -4/+1Have you actually read about the terrorism the US supported in latin america? Chomsky has delved into that topic deeply and so its tottally understandable that he would say that. I think you might say it too if you would educate yourself.
- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4actually I hate Sean Hannity more than I hate Chomsky. He is a more vocal and infectous perverter of the truth, but not by much... to me, its not about left or right, its about attacking whoever is currently getting away with the most *****..
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Chomsky wants the US destroyed!
You are just so very threatened by the truth he speaks, aren't you. It's ok, you'll be fine. Calm down, have some warm milk.
- robinthehood, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7Can tell you don't read history... You do realize that Socrates was killed by the city of Athens because he was viewed as dangerous for being dissenting? Are you saying that Socrates was not a scholar and that he wanted Athens "destroyed"?
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -10/+11But that doesn't make them an expert. You'd better have some damn good experience in something to be called an expert. Chomsky has none outside of punditry and criticisms. I could read a lot of books on brain surgery, but I'm not an expert until I've successfully performed a lot of them.
- bigjimslade, on 01/25/2008, -17/+9Buried as inaccurate:
- he is NOT a foreign policy expert
- list of supposed "qualifications" did not include "Marxist"- 4lun, on 01/25/2008, -3/+2So?
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3He is a foreign policy expert for the following reasons:
1) He is a genius
2) He is the most prominent academic in linguists in his generation
3) About ~30 years ago or more he decided to study foreign policy using the same level of thoroughness and insightfulness he learned as a master academic.
He lacks a Ph.D. in foreign policy, politics, or whatever, but as anyone who knows about academics in the humantities, those students do nothing different than Chomsky did. And Chomsky's been doing it for consistently for decades, which for all intensive purposes makes him a Ph.D. many times over. Now add in Chomsky's genius level intelligence, and he can and has taken apart professor after professor and "expert" after "expert."
Your last dig, that he's a marxist, is wrong, but is more importantly irrelevant and is an ad hominem attack meant to discredit the content of all his speech. This is the technique used by all the people who are unable to counter the truth in what Chomsky says -- why open oneself up to losing an argument badly, when you can just try to delegitimize everything Chomsky says through the use of dysphemisms and ad hominem attacks.
Grow up and stop being a coward.- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4your forgot:
4. He is my HERO and I get wood just thinking about generative grammar.- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Don't you have homework to do?
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4your forgot:
- arugulord, on 01/26/2008, -4/+2Have a cognizant opinion on 'foreign policy? Think it's good/bad to bomb other countries? Hurrah, you're now an 'expert'.... Or at least you're as much of an 'expert' as the self-described 'experts' trundled forth on corporate television.
- Scyla, on 01/25/2008, -20/+9Chomsky is an idiot. Its easy to point out problems and criticize, it is hard to point at problems and come up with solutions.
Believe it or not the USA has one of the best functioning government in the world. Dont believe it? Go anywhere else. Every country has its pros and cons, but out of them all the US has got it somewhat together.
Chomsky is a left-wing nut who thinks Chavez and Castro are the very example of what a president should be. Yet, we consider Bush the biggest idiot in the world? Id be afraid to see any of the left wing dictators in the world that Chomsky supports leading a nation as powerful as the US is.
Food for tough.- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+7"Food for tough."
Nuff said, you moron.- csw1342, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2And typo of the year goes to . . . .Whoa two in one post the winner is ***** of the year. Congrats Scyla
- 507projex, on 01/25/2008, -6/+1I'd consider your argument if you could spell "thought" decently. And no, it is not easy to point out problems and criticize as few in the media seem to be capable of doing so. Chomsky merely points out facts that most of us would not know unless we had the time to read and research.
- blackjack75, on 01/25/2008, -6/+4While you're at it why not back up your claims about his affinity with Chavez? I mean you could easily find some... deep in your imaginary world.
- trickster878, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3Thank you, another moron making empty claims based on their own conservative predilection. Do us a favor, go back, think about what you write and give us something we can use. Ending your comment with horrible grammar doesn't make it anymore valid.
By the way, there's never one person that comes along and works on these solutions, there are entire committees and consortium's of experts that work on societies ills. Bush sits and flips a coin (or whatever his daddy tells him) to make the "tough decisions he makes".
Food for thawt.- Scyla, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4Im not a native speaker and while my granmar is not perfect, I think you could counter my arguments instead of attacking my granmar. I am not a native American speaker and probably speak mroe languages than the four above posters combined.
Chomsky is an admirer of Chavez and Castro. Ever heard of Google?
Bush is an idiot, the American media sucks.. but Noam Chomsky is also an idiot and you are idiots for supporting him.
- Scyla, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4Im not a native speaker and while my granmar is not perfect, I think you could counter my arguments instead of attacking my granmar. I am not a native American speaker and probably speak mroe languages than the four above posters combined.
- Jack9, on 01/25/2008, -4/+2Making up BAD solutions that do not address the problems, is not helpful. Typically, they are destructive in terms of wasted time, resources, and missed opportunities. Stop posting your drivel.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+7"Food for tough."
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 01/25/2008, -21/+5How in the HELL is he a foreign policy expert? He has no real experience in that field outside of criticism and punditry. Buried for a *****, Chomksy-fellating headline.
- arugulord, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2You're implying noone can comment about the war in Iraq, the Palestinian dilemma, or anything external to the US without a PhD. That's completely preposterous. Have an opinion on the war in Iraq? Good, you're now an expert, or at least as much of an 'expert' as the so-called 'experts' regularly dredged-up by CNN and corporate media.
- 507projex, on 01/25/2008, -4/+15Whether you love or hate Chomsky, at least he opens discussion on aspects of foreign policy issues that others ignore or dismiss.
- Hittman6, on 01/25/2008, -14/+7I call Godwin's law. Bzzt, you lose, Noam.
Yes, he makes a point or two, but his real skill making himself sound good, good enough to cover the fact that he's pretty clueless when it comes to anything outside of the ivory tower where he's spent his life.- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6TACTIC:
1) Distract from the content of the speech, and cast doubt upon its veracity, by insinuating that the speaker is motivated only by personal benefit.
2) Use the tried-and-true dysphemism of the Academia as an Isolated Castle meme as an ad hominem attack, distracting from and delegitimizing the content of the speech. - Jack9, on 01/25/2008, -4/+7Not sure what your point is, other than you dont understand the nature of UN policies and obviously don't care.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6TACTIC:
- MrErr, on 01/25/2008, -4/+15Excellent article. He has a good grasp of history too. What I do not understand is why he is getting dugg down and why there are many negative comments.
- vinbot, on 01/25/2008, -3/+6Because this is the internets! Where retards can at long last share their opinions with the masses!
- JigoroKano, on 01/25/2008, -4/+9Blind Nationalism.
- bullcutter, on 01/26/2008, -5/+3Because Chomsky wants to see America destroyed. He just won't come out and directly admit it (yet).
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1YES CHOMSKY WANTS AMERICA DESTROYED.
He has organized a serious of underground "fight clubs" where he is building his army.
You are just such an unbelievable moron.
Are you part of the megaphone brigade? Do you know someone who is?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1YES CHOMSKY WANTS AMERICA DESTROYED.
- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -12/+7Chomsky wants the U.S. brought to its knees, as this is the only way the world will become "fair again." He has been all but saying this since 1967!
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfi ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20 ...
He obviously does not give a rats ass about finding a more viable solution to so many of the problems he names, otherwise he would be able to do better than this:
"If I were asked to recommend a policy I wouldn’t know what to say."
(FTA)
Have fun celebrating your hipster anti-icon (ala Karl Marx, Che Guevara or Hugo Chavez), who probably despises you more than you love him. Sorry to get in the way of the good times.- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3I don't think that Chomsky wants a blowjob from the U.S. -- He's happily married.
TACTIC:
The criticism someone offers is true, so say they are not offering any solutions to take the focus off the criticism and delegitimize that someone at the same time. If successful, one never needs to address the truth in the criticism in the first place.- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4I already knew anybody can be a critic. Its especially unoriginal to be a critic of George Bush's policies in the middle east (people who actually _have_ spent their careers analyzing this region do a far better and more accurate job than Grampa Choms). So I don't understand what your point is. This is the best the Pro-Chomsky crowd can do?
- wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1What a schmuck...
- bullcutter, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2again, this is the best the Pro-Chomsky crowd can do?
what a bunch of whiney idiots.
i certainly doubt they are capable of intellectually digesting Chomsky, which means they can't defend his points, which means they shouldn't even be here in the first place.
- bullcutter, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2again, this is the best the Pro-Chomsky crowd can do?
- wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1What a schmuck...
- bullcutter, on 01/25/2008, -1/+4I already knew anybody can be a critic. Its especially unoriginal to be a critic of George Bush's policies in the middle east (people who actually _have_ spent their careers analyzing this region do a far better and more accurate job than Grampa Choms). So I don't understand what your point is. This is the best the Pro-Chomsky crowd can do?
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -6/+3I don't think that Chomsky wants a blowjob from the U.S. -- He's happily married.
- nastronomical, on 01/25/2008, -14/+6Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert = ACCORDING TO HIMSELF AND THE IDIOTS WHO FOLLOW HIM!
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -3/+7Buried for being wrong and lame on a breathtaking number of levels
- raskali, on 01/25/2008, -7/+19Wow, Chomsky really hits a nerve with the crazy right-wingers.
- manstein01, on 01/25/2008, -10/+5To be expected, the same way Anne Coulter hits a nerve with crazy left wingers.
One is no more relevant than the other.- notque, on 01/25/2008, -4/+8Great use of a logical fallacy there.
- manstein01, on 01/25/2008, -8/+4Um, no, they both create numerous lies and half-truths to blend the world into a logical balance with their own distorted views. One just has the backing of the numerous far-lefties in American Universities.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -5/+2So, what lies does Chomsky say?
Also, "half-truths" is an invalid tactic that means "even though what he said is right, if you had this mystical knowledge I do you would see this truth is actually a lie."
In either case, nobody believes thes megaphone brigade's attempt to brand Chomsky some sociopathic liar. Thats YOU GUYS.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -5/+2So, what lies does Chomsky say?
- manstein01, on 01/25/2008, -8/+4Um, no, they both create numerous lies and half-truths to blend the world into a logical balance with their own distorted views. One just has the backing of the numerous far-lefties in American Universities.
- notque, on 01/25/2008, -4/+8Great use of a logical fallacy there.
- manstein01, on 01/25/2008, -10/+5To be expected, the same way Anne Coulter hits a nerve with crazy left wingers.
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -12/+8Another day, more Notque transcriptions from Chomsky's cave:
Moral equivalence of the US to Nazi Germany. Check
Semantic games that ignore the meaning of words and that there's a reality that grounds them. Check
Moral support for the Mullahs in Iran. Check
It's all the fault of the US and Israel. Check
This interview is not all bad, Chomsky actually manages to get some facts right in this one. Only about half the sentences are lies and misrepresentations- Jack9, on 01/25/2008, -4/+6Which are those?
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -4/+7Actually, your list itself is a group of misrepresentations of Chomsky's words.
And then you had to blow it completely by saying that moronic bit about half his sentences being lies and misrepresentations. We're not speaking in childish hyperbole here.- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -4/+4While not as bad as some of the fanboys on Digg there's plenty of childish hyperbolic drooling over Chomsky. And, no hyperbole, some of Notque's submissions have been sentence after sentence of distortion. This one is better because there's a lot of straightforward recitation of history,for which you might as well credit Chomsky for getting the color of the sky right. Chomsky, not surprisingly for a linguist, uses language very carefully for his propaganda.
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1Propaganda can only be made by some sort of organized group. You're misusing the word.
fanboys?
This isn't fark.
AND YES HE USES HIS LINGUISTIC SKILLS IN A SUBVERSIVE NEFARIOUS MANNER. HE DRAINS THE BLOOD OF INFANTS ON THE WEEKENDS.
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1Propaganda can only be made by some sort of organized group. You're misusing the word.
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -4/+4While not as bad as some of the fanboys on Digg there's plenty of childish hyperbolic drooling over Chomsky. And, no hyperbole, some of Notque's submissions have been sentence after sentence of distortion. This one is better because there's a lot of straightforward recitation of history,for which you might as well credit Chomsky for getting the color of the sky right. Chomsky, not surprisingly for a linguist, uses language very carefully for his propaganda.
- Leadman584, on 01/25/2008, -11/+8American "Primacy" is an illusion. We don't own the world.
For 55 years, the US foreign policy has supported our oil companies.
"WE" keep supporting the most oppressive regimes on Earth, because they promise to protect our corporate oil interests.
We are one nation under GOD (Gold, Oil, and Drugs).
When these people have had enough, we will all suffer.
Too bad we can't get a president willing to extract us from this mess.
Oh well, back to the OS bashing.- JigoroKano, on 01/25/2008, -4/+7It's not that America actually owns the world, but that America acts and reacts on the global stage as if we (America) believe we own the world, i.e. as though we are afforded special rights to operate in a manner that we would not allow others to. He gave an example to go along with that which I quoted above.
- Xenufield, on 01/26/2008, -3/+1If oil owns our policy then what does GE own since it has twice the lobbying presence as all Big Oil combined?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Not as much because Cheney and Bush are oilmen. You do understand that right?
Influence != # of lobbyists
Did someone give you that fact to use?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Not as much because Cheney and Bush are oilmen. You do understand that right?
- dkern, on 01/25/2008, -14/+5Personally I am getting tired of Chomsky's intellectual barbs and opinions as they come across snobbish and elitist themselves. Why doesn't he just grow a dick and talk like a man. If he did he would probably be dismissed as lunatic fringe. Also his opinions read as if things are not at critical mass, which they are. A calm rational voice to to soften the truth in reference to the global elite is as plausible as saying Hitler had his reasons and many people believed them at the time, and here is why it happened.
Who gives a *****! I say pop some caps into the skulls of the global elite. Get rid of them all and restructure society so the benefits are enjoyed by all living creatures.
This 99% of the wealth being enjoyed by 1% of the population is clearly indisputable evidence that the global elite is in the minorty thus their value is of little or no use use to the majority on any level.
Throwing nickel words and seemingly educated babble around for the masses to discuss is yet another distraction from the actions of the elite to the detriment of the majority.
Enough talk. Lets do SOMETHING about it already.- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+3Are you working for the FBI or DHS, and trying to ferret out violent extremists? "pop a cap?" You don't sound nearly realistic enough. Work on it.
- Mesmorize, on 01/25/2008, -9/+12His logic is contradictory. Iran is allowed to exercise power in its "region" and this is totally acceptable to Chomsky. However, arguably the world has changed. The only thing that defines a country's "region" is the extent of its military power and diplomatic influence. The world is so global that one could argue there are no definite bounds or regions. Certainly not for military operations.
So if the entire world is one region who is allowed to exercise power? Only third world countries? Chomsky set the precedent that Israel is not allowed to exercise power, so first world countries must be out.
So should we draw from Chomsky's logic that only third world countries are allowed to exercise power at all? I see no "regions" anymore except the entire globe.- manstein01, on 01/25/2008, -6/+6It's basically anybody besides the US and Israel are allowed to support their own influence/culture/values/etc.
This is the same man who wrote 50 years ago that Stalin wanted peace in Europe. What do you expect, really?- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7Gawd, do you have that quote about Stalin on a list to draw from?
And please, don't talk about my country like we're the maligned parties with no freedom. It's just so utterly idiotic.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+7Gawd, do you have that quote about Stalin on a list to draw from?
- Jack9, on 01/25/2008, -3/+3It's basically anybody besides the US and Israel are allowed to support their own influence/culture/values/etc. There is no mention of culture/values but lots of references to using force in another sovereign country and how American political standards are out the window. His "I have no answer" is related to the fact that leaving is just as destabilizing as staying, after our posturing. The Administration has set up our enemies to ready for war, and leaving the arena wont make them stand down. Well played Bush. War for others or more war for America. The winners being private American and Israeli companies.
I'm really surprised that someone would waste time on Digg, trying to attack a Chompsky article.
P.S. Stalin did not go on to invade other sovereign countries he did not like to plunder resources. Like Administrations over the 5000 years, he simply didnt give up what ground he took in repelling an invasion. There's a ***** PEACE PRIZE named after him you moron.- Mesmorize, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3Oh my god, he just defended Stalin. Worst comment ever.
- Jack9, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Always terrible to cite history when it contradicts you.
- Xenufield, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Stalin didn't go on to invade other countries because the US had just invented a new toy called the Nuke, and Stalin, who wanted to expand, was not going to try and fight the Allies when they had a city-obliterating weapon and he didn't. 'Peace' was made and if you think the USSR didn't try to expand, I'd like to refer you to Afghanistan, and our former ally Osama to help you start your research.
When Stalin was rebuilding Russia before WW2, he made sure to have the massive factories be setup so that they could be converted for wartime use. In doing so Russia was able to produce incredible numbers of tanks and other war equipment.- Jack9, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2"USSR didn't try to expand" the point was not about the USSR, but about Stalin and how Chompsky viewed him and the reality of the time. Stalin had options OTHER than expanding into Europe, like toward China or the middle east. He did neither, although later USSR administrations did send substantial military forces to support a popular (soviet-communist) uprising, like America does all the time when there's a dictator America wants in power.
- solid12345, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Stalin never invaded Sovereign nations? Does Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland ring a bell?
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
- Mesmorize, on 01/26/2008, -2/+3Oh my god, he just defended Stalin. Worst comment ever.
- fknc, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0I disagree. He is not saying that anyone but the U.S. is justified in using power to influence their region. He is simply rejecting the notion that only the U.S. is acting lawfully when doing so. By our (and I mean this, and other administrations) logic, only the U.S. is justified, and anyone else exerting force (besides Israel), whether it be regional or not, is viewed as a criminal, or worse. He does not condone or condemn force by other nations. That's not the point of his response. He is solely pointing out that we hold ourselves to one standard, or lack thereof, while demanding others do as we say, not as we do.
- manstein01, on 01/25/2008, -6/+6It's basically anybody besides the US and Israel are allowed to support their own influence/culture/values/etc.
- Treoinmypocket, on 01/25/2008, -10/+4"Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert"
Correction: Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy commentator."
Chomsky cracks me up because this famed and lauded linguist makes statements like this:
"my personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism"
"traditional anarchist" Really. A traditional anarchist. You know what? People who espouse that they are anarchists and point to their anarchist credentials like Chomsky does with his membership in the IWW; who proclaims his sympathy with "anarcho-syndicalism" are full of *****. He's in a anarchist GROUP? A group? Of Anarchists? And he has published a book on anarchism titled, "Chomsky on Anarchism".......which was published by ....no really, I am NOT making this up...the anarchist book collective. A "collective" ....of ANARCHISTS.
Really. There is no such thing as anarchy because once you get TWO people sharing their "anarchistic" views....IT ISN'T ***** ANARCHY!
Chomsky is a pompous ass.- notque, on 01/25/2008, -5/+4Care to explain what anarchism is? A simple explanation will clear up your misconceptions.
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -5/+4Sigh.
Without refuting your claims about his being an anarchist, or his being a pompous ass, I submit the following:
If Chomsky debated ANYONE in the current administration, he would destroy them, and he would do it with truth, not personal attacks.
That's why people read him, and I imagine that's why he bothers you so much -- he's just to correct for you to stand.- Treoinmypocket, on 01/25/2008, -2/+7"too" correct?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+2Hah! I take others to task for that. touche.
- Treoinmypocket, on 01/25/2008, -2/+7"too" correct?
- kuppoppo, on 01/25/2008, -1/+5"There is no such thing as anarchy because once you get TWO people sharing their "anarchistic" views....IT ISN'T ***** ANARCHY!"
Uh...people can agree on ideas (including ideas about anarchy) without sacrificing a "robust conception of individual autonomy" [Wolff] that supersedes formal government authority.- Treoinmypocket, on 01/26/2008, -1/+4ideas and conceptions - right. Reality? nope.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1You should just read some about anarchy. What academics are talking about when they say "anarchy" is not encompassed by the one-line dictionary definition.
Just like there are many flavors of Socialism, many flavors of Capitalism, and many flavors of Communism.
Because there are many flavors of each, the dictionary definition is either an extreme case or a loose case, which means in either case it's inaccurate and possibly misleading all by itself.
I'm not advocating anarchy here, by the way.- Treoinmypocket, on 01/26/2008, -1/+3I have read quite a lot about anarchy thank you. I have been reading Chomsky and others for decades. THe best way to validate you r own ideas and ideals is to read those with whom you THINK you disagree.
The problem with academicians and the concept of anarchy is that academics MUST reinvent the defintion in order to philosophize about it.
Therein lies the dishonesty. Anarchy is untenable in its pure form and merely Socialism in any other. - chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Replying to Treoinmypocket up a level due to "your session has expired.."
The best way to validate your ideas is to relate them to reality. Reading the critics can be valuable to look for objections that you didn't think of and for polemical purposes. But the ultimate test for an idea is is it true. And the only way you can find that out is to take that idea and relate it to the world. And I agree completely with the rest of your point. - neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Replying to myself because of the same "session expired" message, which I think just limits nesting depth. This is for Treoblahdeblah.
The only dishonesty I feel in this thread comes from you, especially if you've actually read a damn thing about anarchy.
I suggested to you that you read up on anarchy because of my observation that what you think you are proving is incorrect outside of the dictionary definition -- it's a hollow point.
Did you even read my parent post? What's the point of going on if this is just a "wait for my turn to speak" thing?
If you want to prove your point, you need new material, because you aren't saying anything of any substance. But if you like, you can have another pat on the head and a cookie. Good job!
- Treoinmypocket, on 01/26/2008, -1/+3I have read quite a lot about anarchy thank you. I have been reading Chomsky and others for decades. THe best way to validate you r own ideas and ideals is to read those with whom you THINK you disagree.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1You should just read some about anarchy. What academics are talking about when they say "anarchy" is not encompassed by the one-line dictionary definition.
- Treoinmypocket, on 01/26/2008, -1/+4ideas and conceptions - right. Reality? nope.
- Treoinmypocket, on 01/25/2008, -4/+4OK.
1. a state of society without government or law.
But you have anarchists getting together and promoting how things should be done and how they will be done once "they" are in control. That would be a defacto government.
However if that doesn't suit you...
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
Uh-huh. Anarchy by this definition ignores the fact that actual human beings would be involved and that therefore it will never actually happen. It is simply unworkable. So for all his punditry Chomsky is really just intellectually masturbating over his Christmas list isn't he?
Anarchy - by definition - is an oxymoron.- kuppoppo, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3Marx and the American founding fathers were also just "intellectually masturbating over their Christmas lists" too, since their ideals were never achieved in the real world. Does this diminish the importance and influence of their ideologies?
- Treoinmypocket, on 01/26/2008, -2/+4Nice try - how long did Marx's idea last even in its mutated form again? And the founding Fathers of America did achieve their goal. You forget it is a free society. They envisioned change beyond their ability to predict. Still going strong.
Now, lets take that wet, gooey Christmas list shall we? Has it EVER been tried? Has it EVER come into being in any way?
No. Why? Because it can't. It is a self-contradictory fantasy that isn't possible even for a moment because the very concept excludes itself from being.- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Actually with all the people like you agitating for the silencing of Chomsky, it doesn't feel so free to a lot of us.
And for the last time, yes, *pat on the head*, you have successfully brought to our attention that the two sentences you found in the dictionary indeed seem to contradict one another if you don't know anything else about anarchy as a system.
Now PLEASE go read about it! Wikipedia I imagine will do, but I haven't looked at what they have there for anarchy. If not that, your local library should have a couple of works on the subject. It's still daylight in NY, you've got time.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Actually with all the people like you agitating for the silencing of Chomsky, it doesn't feel so free to a lot of us.
- Treoinmypocket, on 01/26/2008, -2/+4Nice try - how long did Marx's idea last even in its mutated form again? And the founding Fathers of America did achieve their goal. You forget it is a free society. They envisioned change beyond their ability to predict. Still going strong.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1As I said before, anarchy from the dictionary is not what academics are talking about when they say anarchy. If that was the case all the large books about anarchy wouldnt need more than a few pages.
And certainly you can't believe that academics wouldn't have noticed that the definition you are using appears to be oxymoronic. That's the first thing a student says on the first day of class. They quickly dispel this seemingly fatal show-stopper.
You should just read up on it because you're only showing your naivete by belaboring this point. - wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1It's only "unworkable" because of blowhards like you, who conflate their own depravity with "human nature."
- kuppoppo, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3Marx and the American founding fathers were also just "intellectually masturbating over their Christmas lists" too, since their ideals were never achieved in the real world. Does this diminish the importance and influence of their ideologies?
- Jack9, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3Anarchy by this definition ignores the fact that actual human beings would be involved and that therefore it will never actually happen.
An anarchist group seems like an oxymoron if you are 12. More likely, you're incredibly stupid.
You and I are participating in a thread without rules, but are clearly grouped by this new-fangled forum. This must not ACTUALLY be happening.- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1I'm not advocating anarchy, which I don't support, but the one-line textbook definition of anarchy in the dictionary does not describe what anarchy as a system means. Books about anarchy as a system are big fat tomes. If it was just what the definition read, the book wouldn't need to be more than a few pages wide.
That said, modern-day youth who support anarchy really do think it means what you think it means, and they are morons rebelling from their parents.- wakananda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1A good number of them are dutiful shills, giving riot police a graphic excuse to suppress free assembly and free speech. I was at the Seattle WTO protests, and saw more than one black clad "anarchist" with a police radio. And we all saw the police rush past them and start beating the living ***** out of the entirely peaceful moms and dads and college students. They later squatted in an abandoned building, and the police wouldn't go near them. They created real problems - sanitation and otherwise - for the neighborhood, but they had total immunity from the police. The moms and dads and students, however, were rounded up like cattle, shot in the face with rubber bullets, kicked in the genitals, beaten with sticks, strangled and hauled off to a mass detention center on a converted military base.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1I'm not advocating anarchy, which I don't support, but the one-line textbook definition of anarchy in the dictionary does not describe what anarchy as a system means. Books about anarchy as a system are big fat tomes. If it was just what the definition read, the book wouldn't need to be more than a few pages wide.
- mempko, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Yes, even so is he wrong in anything he said in the interview?
- neocognitism, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6What's with all the rabid antigentilism on digg?
- jabberwolf, on 01/25/2008, -12/+5Chomsky doesnt know *****.
Sorry the "lets be nice and the rest of the world will be nice back" is thinking from a sick dillusional man. If you want to talk about truthes. What did leaving Vietnam bring but 1.5 million deaths to vietnamese by the Kmere Rouge and orwellian "educational camps" to those that survived.
The USA is not like USSR where countries thought they could be "nice" and USSR would go away. Most countries are run by those that see "peaceful" as something to take advantage over or invade. Kwuwait is a good example. Kurdistan is not gone.
So please put that fart in a retirement home and give him happy pills.- arethuza, on 01/25/2008, -3/+5The Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia not Vietnam - in fact it was the Vietnamese who invaded Cambodia and removed the Khmer Rouge from power.
- jabberwolf, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Sorry I meant the Communist North Vietnamese.
Another group we deiced to ignore and go the peaveful route! Which led to the communist victors killing hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon, forced more than 1.5 million into "re-education camps" and caused two million others to flee Vietnam altogether.
That is what communism and socialism will get you, their train of thought. Ironic that its idealists that unlease the hiden mosters you ***** always ignore. Especially history you convenienlty avoid because it shows how much retarded you really are.
- jabberwolf, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Sorry I meant the Communist North Vietnamese.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1Gosh you're so angry with him.
As for your Vietnam bit, it was *entering* Vietnam that eventually enabled them to rise to power. Chomsky has a couple of excellent books on the subject, you should check them out.
And you seem to put yourself forward as someone who really gets how the world works, which you put forth as requiring wars. Then I ask, why haven't you joined the military ever, chickenhawk?
And Chomsky will keep speaking the truth until he dies, at which point if you are still around before shipping off to fight, you can dance on his grave and savor the shadenfreude.
- arethuza, on 01/25/2008, -3/+5The Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia not Vietnam - in fact it was the Vietnamese who invaded Cambodia and removed the Khmer Rouge from power.
- dkern, on 01/25/2008, -14/+4I really do not give a ***** whether I get 40+ diggs or 100- diggs. I read all comments, and then come to my own conclusions. +diggs and -diggs are interesting- but they are about as relevant as an IMDB star meter number! Especially when "top diggers" clamor together to digg up or down in an attempt to validate a show of hands.
Chomsky has become passive-aggressive blow hard and propagandist *****-stirrer. People will agree with him simply because he is considered one of the most innovative thinkers of all time- regardless whether or not there are facts to support his theories. This is why it is so easy to manipulate public opinion. Throw in some special effects and sensationalized drama as if its popular, and every side-show freak who was never loved or appreciated will mistake it as an opportunity to finally belong- even if its contrary to what they actually believe. At this point truth, facts and evidence become irrelevant.- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Heh you do pretty good with all them words strung together likes that.
Let's break it down:
1) Chomsky is a "passive aggressive blow hard"
2) Chomsky is a "propagandist *****-stirrer"
3) People who agree with him are idiots
4) Chomsky doesn't tell the truth and distorts facts
Well, you've just described Ann Coulter. There's something. Did you take these words from a post about her?
Just need to comment on #2 a bit. You really can't be a propagandist unless you're pushing some established party. Chomsky just does analysis and is an independent. Look the word up.
Do you use the megaphone software or know someone who does?
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Heh you do pretty good with all them words strung together likes that.
- joshbradley, on 01/25/2008, -6/+16I beg all of you to read Chomsky's work before attempting to discredit him.
Chomsky is a foreign policy expert.- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6I have better things to do with my life thanks. And at the rate Notque's going he should be finished posting everything Chomsky's written or said by 2010 anyways.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Yeah, why can't we just shut people like him up! Let's pass a law so these seditious types get what's coming to them, am I right my brother?
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Why don't you go ask Chomsky? In this article he rationalizes the behavior of the Iranians, they imprison and murder the people who disagree with them. How many killers of dissidents has he shook hands with anyways? And killing dissidents is the inevitable result of his philosophy.
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1How dare he not completely dehumanize the chosen enemy of Israel!!! We must think of them all as dogs, like we do the Palestinians, so we can then nuke them out of existence like they deserve. It wouldn't be genocide this time because they're just scum, right?
Do you use the megaphone software or know someone who does?
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1How dare he not completely dehumanize the chosen enemy of Israel!!! We must think of them all as dogs, like we do the Palestinians, so we can then nuke them out of existence like they deserve. It wouldn't be genocide this time because they're just scum, right?
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Why don't you go ask Chomsky? In this article he rationalizes the behavior of the Iranians, they imprison and murder the people who disagree with them. How many killers of dissidents has he shook hands with anyways? And killing dissidents is the inevitable result of his philosophy.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Yeah, why can't we just shut people like him up! Let's pass a law so these seditious types get what's coming to them, am I right my brother?
- solid12345, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Chomsky is NOT a foreign policy expert. He knows nothing of realpolitik or the real reasons for our policy of the last 50 years. He thinks everything is corporate greed guided but in reality our relationship with suspect regimes was due to Cold War politics, i.e buy any ally we can even if that means befriending communist China. In the end of the collapse of the USSR is the long-term goal.
- jabberwolf, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1He's a foreign policy expert? Why because he ignores most of history and never really dealt with any politicians from other countries? None that are actually in power...?!?!
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6I have better things to do with my life thanks. And at the rate Notque's going he should be finished posting everything Chomsky's written or said by 2010 anyways.
- Vodka2389, on 01/25/2008, -5/+13Noam Chomsky is a genius.
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -9/+2Yup, and that is what makes what he is doing all the more unforgivable.
- Jack9, on 01/26/2008, -4/+7Describing what ppl already know is just plain anti-american. That bastard.
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -3/+4All hail the left cognisenti! Enlighten us with your wisdom and tell us how to think. How many self-loathing lashes are prescribed for today? Do we do them in the name of Gaia most holy or the poor most oppressed. Surely, Jack of nine, priest of the Chomsky, you can give the ppl the wisdom of the Chomsky without claiming all know it and believe it true! Surely there must be some more to be converted. Avail thee, quest and seek others to enlighten with Chomsky's all-knowing glow!
- chicofaraby, on 01/26/2008, -3/+2So, you are completely unable to dispute Chomsky. We all knew that already.
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2replying to chico up a level due to stupid session expired msg...
And grant you the premise that your (and Chomsky's) statements are honestly made? Why should I bother? My right to exist, as a person and as a citizen of my country, and my country's right to exist is not up for debate. Chomsky is ultimately after both. He and you can both got to hell.
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -3/+4All hail the left cognisenti! Enlighten us with your wisdom and tell us how to think. How many self-loathing lashes are prescribed for today? Do we do them in the name of Gaia most holy or the poor most oppressed. Surely, Jack of nine, priest of the Chomsky, you can give the ppl the wisdom of the Chomsky without claiming all know it and believe it true! Surely there must be some more to be converted. Avail thee, quest and seek others to enlighten with Chomsky's all-knowing glow!
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Yeah, Chomsky deserves to go to jail for what he's said!
Sorry, not in our country, megaphoneman.- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2TESTING 1-2-3
YOU SEEM TO HAVE CONFUSED ME WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD GO LOOKING IN ANOTHER THREAD?
- chrissandvick, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2TESTING 1-2-3
- Jack9, on 01/26/2008, -4/+7Describing what ppl already know is just plain anti-american. That bastard.
- jabberwolf, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah so was MARX but that led to the USSR and Stalin killing 15-20 million.
And North Vietnam Communists killing hundreds of thousands more and puting over 1.5 into "re-educational" camps, 2 million more fleeing the country.
That's what Chomsky's appeasement gets, monsters, even MORE death, and refugees on a massive scale. That is soooo much better then actually fighting for ideals right?
Or do you want to ignore history and think of only "being nice and others will be nice back" ideals. He and those that follow are idiots responsible for more human suffering than any wars have produced trying to defend invaders.
- chrissandvick, on 01/25/2008, -9/+2Yup, and that is what makes what he is doing all the more unforgivable.
- Look4Truth, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4But...but...I thought all that New World Order stuff was just a conspiracy theory. But...but...
- martinbowling, on 01/26/2008, -5/+6i love reading chomsky, he truly is one of America's Treasures
- Waterrat, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2 He is indeed...I don't know why you are being dugg down.
- boutmuet, on 01/26/2008, -3/+6I always wondered how a linguist gained so much credibility.
- heuranit, on 01/26/2008, -3/+7Calling him a linguist is simplistic. His life has been devoted to Mathematics and Science too and he is one of the most important intellectuals of the century. One gains credibility when one shows that what one states has a solid ground behind it. He gave a completely new and revolutionary insight in linguistics as it had never been analyzed before and that gave him credibility as a scientist. He gained that credibility because he did something that made the world change in some way and that can always be applied in other fields.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1Well I would wonder the same thing if I had never read any of his umpteen books or articles.
And you guys keep pushing the word "credibility." Don't you know that ad hominem attack vector no longer has any credibility? Get in the know already.- heuranit, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2that might be why people use 'credibility' ad libitum ;)
- dragonDC, on 01/26/2008, -5/+4Noam Chomsky for President!!!!
- heuranit, on 01/26/2008, -3/+8The fact that he speaks out and denounces certain perspectives of the US policy doesn't mean that he is anti-American. I think assuming that is quite off and not even the point. If being American implies attacking other countries, being abusive towards them and still occupying them without any kind of consideration...then I understand that he might not quite like that. Neither do most of the rest of the countries in the world.
- solid12345, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1I don't mind that he denounces American foreign policy but I get offended when he says we, a 1st world nation with 97% literacy rate are the ignorant ones and the 3rd world nations we allegedly bully where barely 50% of people can read or write somehow know more about history and politics than we do.
- heuranit, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1And that's precisely what's dramatic. That as you well point out, a 1st world nation with 97% literacy rate keeps being so 'ignorant' on how to rule its own government and foreign policy.
- solid12345, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1I don't mind that he denounces American foreign policy but I get offended when he says we, a 1st world nation with 97% literacy rate are the ignorant ones and the 3rd world nations we allegedly bully where barely 50% of people can read or write somehow know more about history and politics than we do.
- Rintrah23, on 01/26/2008, -3/+2I own many of Chomsky's books. My understanding of past US foreign policy mostly comes from him. He opened my eyes to how the media works. He claims he is a libertarian socialist. Which is kind of an impossible thing to be. He (possibly) attacked Ron Paul and said he'd never vote for him. I cannot understand that. Him of all people should be a supporter. I am highly suspicious of him now. In the past I heard rumors of him being a Spook with government contracts at MIT. I dismissed them as absurd at the time. But now I wonder.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"spook with government contracts" Oh, you mean grants to do research in linguistics? Oooooooh!
Good lead in though, you had me going. - mempko, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Chomsky does not support Ron Paul's capitalistic libertarianism where property is viewed as the most important thing to liberty. (vs morals, love of humanity, etc). Chomsky does support a more socialist libertarianism where human needs and good trumpt legal contracts that Ron Paul talks about. Chomsky gave his thumbs up to Mike Gravel however and If you like Ron Paul's view of foreign policy, Mike Gravel's is even more peaceful!
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- joshbradley, on 01/26/2008, -2/+1Chomsky voting for Ron Paul? The most conservative canadate running?
That would be the day.- mempko, on 01/26/2008, -0/+2Chomsky gave a thumbs up to Mike Gravel however. Chomsky does not agree with Ron Paul's capitalist libertarianism.
- fknc, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0Chomsky rejects libertarian views when it comes to the domestic role of the federal government. Especially the idea that property rights and the enforcement of contracts could alleviate problems when regulations are removed. Of course, it's entirely logical that the States would intervene and boost their already present laws and regulations. No one is going to be allowed to take a job locked in a closet for little pay (this being a specific example cited by Chomsky) just because federal labor laws restricting this are suddenly removed from the books. Many states already trump federal regulation when it comes to such instances, and the idea that individual states are better apt to regulate themselves seems to escape Chomsky.
- neocognitism, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1ATTENTION MEGAPHONE BRIGADE
You need to learn the following words because the lack has caused you to lose all sense of reason, and turned you into horrible anti-American bigots. Please stop wrongfully branding people antisemites, because that act in and of itself brands you as an, describes you as, and supports (respectively)
ANTIGENTILE
ANTIGENTILISTIC
ANTIGENTILISM
Stop being a rabid antigentile and realize that your hatred is screwing up my country, and your preferred one. - neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1http://digg.com/world_news/Anti_Semitic_incidents_ ...
- krazz, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1Chomsky is a ***** ass-clown! Isn't this the same ***** who has repeatedly denied the Holocaust? Isn't this the same ***** that openly backed Pol Pot? The only ones that take this douchbag seriously are the retards that spit on Vets and vote the Socialist ticket.
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1No, he did none of those things.
Although for believing the extremist literature that branded Chomsky as such kind of paints you as that, how did you say, clown-of-the-ass?
- neocognitism, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1No, he did none of those things.
- solid12345, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Chomsky is a kook and doesn't live in reality. He states Saudi Arabia is an extreme, fundamentalist tyrannical state (which it is) but glosses over Iran's record and portrays them as almost some sort of Jefferson-esque Republic trying to defend itself from imperial America?
He also fails to realize the reason the Arab states do not want war with Iran is they are scared ***** of them, not because of "Muslim brotherhood". Talk to any average Sunni Arab online and they will say they hate Iran even more than Israel due to centuries of Sunni/Shia rivalry. I actually had one Egyptian guy tell me once "Iranian's aren't true Muslims they are heretics". - thepractice12, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0Chomsky wants to be a Libertarian so bad, but pulls out at the last minute. Kinda reminds me of Allen Greenspan. The only way to prevent a few capitalists from owning the world is by allowing Free Markets to reign. Free Market pressure naturally eats away at overlarge and cumbersome monopolies. Only when these monopolies are reinforced by Governments do they become so enduring and pernicious.
Chomsky vs. Ron Paul debate. I would pay to see that.
http://www.raisinsofwrath.com- postnebulous, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0so would I!
- postnebulous, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0I don't agree with the idea that in general, the more anti-American the sentiment in a foreign country, the more 'correct' a view of history it is, but nevertheless Chomsky makes good points against American aggression that hardly anyone else makes.
- rek2, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1very good article on him I have seen him speak many times, to bad nobody is following his tracks and helping the youth have an independent view of poltics.
http://www.dailyradical.org