- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you could choose one current "intellectual"
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:40 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:40 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Noam
He calls himself an anarchist, but he likes a large federal government to protect us from corporations, while admitting that corporations use that same large government to protect and expand their interest.
He's a convoluted mess at best.
Supposedly he's a brilliant linguist. I know nothing about linguistics, so I'll have to take their word for it.
0
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:47 am to HempHead
Michael Hoffman gets my vote.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 7:56 am to stuntman
Sheldon Richman.
I listened to one of his lectures and became friends with him on facebook. He's a good bridge between left and right.
I listened to one of his lectures and became friends with him on facebook. He's a good bridge between left and right.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 8:33 am to VOR
quote:
And, yes, the foregoing can be characterized as a "dichotomy".
yeah you didn't copy the entire post
quote:
They're a simplistic, highly subjective and personal characterization of differing theories.
well they're simplistic b/c it's the building block of political-socio-psychological philosophy
they are highly subjective b/c they are highly personalized to the individual and how they view humanity. you can't attempt to describe the differences in philosophy of people and how they view society without subjectiveness
how is the concept of how you view the ability of others to make decisions a characterization of different theories?
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 8:37 am
Posted on 2/17/14 at 8:53 am to stuntman
Unfortunately my favorite "Bucky" died a decade ago. Watching him attack liberals arguments was a leg tingly kind of thing to enjoy. He would do it with kid gloves on but make a puddle out of any he debated.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
like i said, his views are hypocritical. his whole schtick is like one big philosophy attempting to gather all talking points/memes of liberal-progressive thought. he uses big words and uses confusing wording to never derive a coherent, single philosophy
he celebrates socialist societies then claims he supports freedom. he calls limited government tyranny and supports anarchism...under a larger federal structure eliminating liberty and forcing a form of organization
I don't think that's true at all. Whether you agree with him or not is one thing, but to say that he is incoherent is to misunderstand him.
He is extremely coherent. He is just more complex than most political types in America, but he does a great job of defining his terms and providing explanation of his position.
Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Syndicalism (Noam Chomsky)
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1. those who see humans as independent and capable of making their own decisions
2. those who see humans as sheep who need herding
all differences boil down to how far down each spectrum you fall
noam falls squarely into group 2
No.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
typically boils down to binary though
I don't think anyone in the thread has a problem with a binary system, generally speaking.
The issue is that you presented a false dichotomy, or false dilemma. And misrepresented Chomsky's views within that oversimplified false dichotomy.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 2:47 pm to inadaze
quote:
I don't think that's true at all. Whether you agree with him or not is one thing, but to say that he is incoherent is to misunderstand him.
Eh. I have to agree with SLP. He tends to hit the right buzzwords that make those with leftist leanings tingle.
I don't have much respect for anarcho-syndicalist, because they seem to have no problem with aggression and being mini-tyrants in the process of making everyone "free." I have my own preferences of economics and self organization, but I don't wish to impose that on anyone else. I've talked to some peaceful ones as well. One of my friends is a christian anarcho-socialist, but he's also a voluntaryist that follows the NAP.
Noam speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
The man I mentioned earlier (Sheldon Richman) is a much more coherent and consistent voice in the hemisphere of left leaning libertarian/anarchism.
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:08 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
Eh. I have to agree with SLP. He tends to hit the right buzzwords that make those with leftist leanings tingle.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not surprised that you are confused on this. I remember that you started the thread on the best pound for pound player in the NFL on the MSB, and you were promptly talked into the notion that the term could only be used when speaking about fantasy and not about reality.
There is no issue here involving buzzwords. SFP came up with this dichotomy:
quote:
1. those who see humans as independent and capable of making their own decisions
2. those who see humans as sheep who need herding
all differences boil down to how far down each spectrum you fall
noam falls squarely into group 2
Now, show me where Noam Chomsky has advocated the idea that people are sheep that need to be herded. He actually supports the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. If you listen to the 30-minute link I provided, that will become plainly obvious, unless you misunderstand him.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:09 pm to inadaze
quote:
I don't think that's true at all. Whether you agree with him or not is one thing, but to say that he is incoherent is to misunderstand him.
He is incoherent because he speaks in post mod.
Chomsky is a longtime member of both the Democratic Socialists of America and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:15 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
The man I mentioned earlier (Sheldon Richman) is a much more coherent and consistent voice in the hemisphere of left leaning libertarian/anarchism.
I'm not familiar with Richman, but I'll check him out. The way you've described him has piqued my interest.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:23 pm to inadaze
quote:
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not surprised that you are confused on this. I remember that you started the thread on the best pound for pound player in the NFL on the MSB, and you were promptly talked into the notion that the term could only be used when speaking about fantasy and not about reality.
That's some revisionist history. People in the thread said that the term only really makes sense in boxing and other forms of fighting where they have divisions of weight class. I'm not a boxing guy, so I wasn't really aware of it's origins and original meaning, but rather the layman's understanding of it. I'm not sure where you got the fantasy thing from.
Anyway, there are some things I agree with Chomsky about, especially about the media. He had an interesting comment about how "support the troops" is used. It's kind of empty statement that elicits these strong emotions in people, and it's become almost beyond reproach. You're sort of a terrible person if you question it.
quote:
There is no issue here involving buzzwords. SFP came up with this dichotomy:
I was speaking SLP other comments about Chomsky, not the one you quoted. That's on me. My apologies.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:24 pm to Zach
quote:
He is incoherent because he speaks in post mod.
Chomsky is a longtime member of both the Democratic Socialists of America and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.
Can you show me specifically where he has been incoherent when speaking?
I'm not trying to make a defense for everything the man has ever done. He's been politically active for longer than I've been alive. But, to dismiss him as incoherent, and analogously misrepresenting his views with sheep herding is unfair.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:28 pm to inadaze
quote:
Now, show me where Noam Chomsky has advocated the idea that people are sheep that need to be herded.
pretty much any comment he makes about consumerism or media/elite control requires this underlying theme
if we are capable of making our own choices, then we choose this style of media and corporate power
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:35 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
That's some revisionist history. People in the thread said that the term only really makes sense in boxing and other forms of fighting where they have divisions of weight class. I'm not a boxing guy, so I wasn't really aware of it's origins and original meaning, but rather the layman's understanding of it. I'm not sure where you got the fantasy thing from.
Well, the argument from the boxing side in that thread was that the term only applies to fantasy, not reality.
quote:
I was speaking SLP other comments about Chomsky, not the one you quoted. That's on me. My apologies.
No worries.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:37 pm to inadaze
here's a great one that illustrates my point pretty well
quote:
"The public relations industry, which essentially runs the elections, is applying certain principles to undermine democracy which are the same as the principles that applies to undermine markets. The last thing that business wants is markets in the sense of economic theory. Take a course in economics, they tell you a market is based on informed consumers making rational choices. Anyone who’s ever looked at a TV ad knows that’s not true. In fact if we had a market system an ad say for General Motors would be a brief statement of the characteristics of the products for next year. That’s not what you see. You see some movie actress or a football hero or somebody driving a car up a mountain or something like that. And that’s true of all advertising. The goal is to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices and the business world spends huge efforts on that. The same is true when the same industry, the PR industry, turns to undermining democracy. It wants to construct elections in which uninformed voters will make irrational choices. It’s pretty reasonable and it’s so evident you can hardly miss it."
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
pretty much any comment he makes about consumerism or media/elite control requires this underlying theme
Link it. If you can show me that the herding of sheep analogy was justified, I will retract my earlier statements.
quote:
if we are capable of making our own choices, then we choose this style of media and corporate power
You're misunderstanding him. He's saying that the current power structure takes decision-making power away from people. He really supports the opposite of sheepherding.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
here is a quote about libertarianism
quote:
Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes. The assumption is that by some kind of magic, concentrated private power will lead to a more free and just society…that kind of libertarianism, in my view, in the current world, is just a call for some of the worst kinds of tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 3:45 pm to inadaze
quote:
He's saying that the current power structure takes decision-making power away from people.
but we still have choices
...he just doesn't like the choices society is making, and calls it a function of corporate propaganda (and not a function of individual choice).
if chomsky's philosophy was correct, no big company would ever fail. big companies cannot fail if the public only makes the choices the big companies tell them to make. if the public makes its own choices, big companies can fail.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News