The poor female is being ignored while the alpha male of the trio is just interested in impressing the guy next to him (who is sucking up to the alpha male so much anyway!)
@aMagicalUnic0rn The poor commenters name is magical unicorn. Perhaps he watches My Little Pony, because he was ignored as a child and now seeks to restore part of his past by filling it in with MLP, or maybe he just feels the need to poke fun at religious people to make himself feel as if he is more powerful than he actually is.
They really are trying to dumb down America. Have you watched "TLC" aka the learning channel? How many shows can you watch about housewives and home make overs? Seriously?
I'm not totally on the brain washing band-wagon, but I think we as humans use what we get. No matter what society dishes out, the people in power use it to influence us. I don't agree that they created it all to do so. This doesn't really make it any better though, and that's what matters.
Wake up, stop buying crap you can't afford and don't need. Share your voice and let's change the damn country.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfully framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
wish they included the caller at the end of this episode.... he was smarter then the people that usually call in and actually made the episode interesting.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
i dunno if it's as deliberate as chomsky makes it sound..the entertainment industry has an innate tendency to target fools. so, fools naturally become the target demographic. why does this happen? capital gain of course. does the government get involved? i'm sure they do..but, i think it's more a case of the government exploiting the natural order. they let it all unfold naturally, and then while everyone marinates in apathy, key figures can make amendments, or seize power.
I'd imagine the diversionary "tactics" they're talking about here are indeed accidental for the most part, though there is actually an entire industry dedicated to altering the public's perceptions and "manufacturing consent" (public relations; "Toxic Sludge is Good For You!" is a particularly good book on the subject).
@itzahazylife yeah with these matters i always prefer the organic bottom up approach myself, though a top down approach may be possible i think largely its bottom up, even the nazis came bottom up, the climate already existed after WWI and the collapse of the german economy and the already extant antisemitism (thank you catholic church) which made the rise of someone like hitler almost certain. not that i condone hitlers actions obviously but he didnt create the situation, just capitalized on it
On the sports issue he is merely saying it is 'bread and circuses'. Sport being obviously the latter.
It is true that sport is a distraction from reality. 'Following' this team or that team has become an unhealthy obsession. It started as a joke but it has become a default subject of conversation for the average joe. Someone scored a goal with this illusion and it isn't the average joe. It IS the rich and powerful.
The sports obsessed are largely unwilling to talk about larger issues.
@ecnerwal999 YES! Social Security has killed billions! *for the record, that was sarcasm*
Same goes for nationalized healthcare in Canada. The Canadians are so healthy because their medical system kills 'em when they get sick hence leaving only healthy Canadians around.
Socialism is one thing, communism and totalitarianism is another. Look it up. They're in the dictionary.
@meaninter03 For what it's worth, communism (which, as defined by Karl Marx, is a stateless, classless society) has nothing to do with totalitarianism, it is in fact a form of anarchy. Socialism has killed many people, but that is because it has been executed poorly, Socialism is too broad a thing to dismiss because of previous nations which have misused it, if it were. Then the same argument could against any political system at one point or another.
@garrywarne1 It's because socialism is a fucking pipe dream and would never, and has never worked in practice. It's like us deciding we're just going to live in paradise. Tell that to the criminals.
@meaninter03, Nuh-uh! Fox news says socialism=satanism and taking a small portion of everyone's money to distribute it is evil! Except when we do it to militarize our planet in the name of American Jesus, of course.
The root word of socialism is "SOCIAl", which is derived from "SOCEITY". Soceity is a word reffering to people as a whole. America was founded on a sociaist principle in which all men are to be considered equals. Over time the original consept had to be modified to retain it's spirit meaning ending slavery and descrimination, making sure the working class which makes the majority isn't taken advantage of by the rich 1%, ect. Read a fucking history book moron.
@NUTCASE71733 HAHAHA, WOWWWW. Where did you learn that nonsense. You know nothing of the founding fathers. You should learn about Washington, Jefferson, Franklin etc. They believed in liberty. They were libertarians. The founding fathers didn't want to give the government the power to tax. The only reason they allowed taxation was to fund the military. America was founded on Capitalistic principles. Principles of freedom and private property.
@ecnerwal999 Actually, boys, the founding fathers were a mixed bag of ideologies. You're both a bit right and both a bit wrong.
Now kiss and make up and direct your energies to stirring up a nice revolution against the money men who are fucking us all up the ass with no lube and no reach around.
0:53 “but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason but faith”. He is just another propagandist who idiotically thinks faith is without reason! This is SUCH a lame pill all atheist indenialists have swallowed. The debate among Christians apologists and atheists just proves the stupidity of this claim. In all my comments on AE threads, I will be proving who follows faith and who reason.
8:59“they have some..Psuedo-stories about some “important issue” right..There’s nothing thatreally hasany baring to jow-blow from Idaho..But he’sbeen told thathe should reallycare about somesort of obscuresocial issue happeningto folksacross thecountry.”
What’sthis “he’s been told”about?He is implyingthat the person who does careabout someone else’s socialissue is actually misled into caring. How is that?Whyshouldn’t he care?It’shealthyto sympathize with the injustices of others,it’s Christian!
After 7:00 What’s the point in all that? Yes, religious people may use politics to get done what they think is correct for society. And? So what? Good for them! Doesn’t everybody else do that as well? What do you think voting is about?? You’re just jealous because atheists are a minority & cannot have the same influence, but if you could, you would, so stop this hypocrisy.
After 6:45 He repeats himself in saying that religion is manipulated by political agenda, but notice his emphasis is always onreligion not politics! Go figure! Finally, will these atheists ever get it right?1)Religions are just doctrines of faith.2)Religion hierarchies canbe misled (to mislead their flocks), but that’s becausethey are people,not because of their doctrine.3)Yes,a doctrine maybe used by politicians,but thatalone,says nothing about the correctness or incorrectness of that doctrine.
After 6:30 “….(fundamentalism/religious right) feeding them (Christians) a dogma, in a way that is useful to groups with political agendas”
So, where is the problem? That’s what politics is about, affecting a community. E.g. you using my vote to get somewhere where you can promote at least somethings I agree on, is totally reasonable. Would he prefer if religious people didn’t vote? Probably would.
2#On the other hand, there are new Christian whose morality, is better than others from the start and they build on that. Also, the whole “judging” issue is really silly, since we are never told what each atheist means by judging others, they don’t provide any frame for this word’s definition.
1:55 again proves that he is blaming Christianity for what some Christians do (falsejudgement). He doesn’t even take into perspective (because he is ignorant of the basics)that when someone becomes a Christian, this doesn’t mean that he suddenly became a moral person; he still carries his luggage. It just means that he decided to follow a new difficult way of life, one of love, understanding, etc. As he grows spiritually, this wrong type of judgment is put aside, due to understanding. - - - >2#
1:40 “religion/supernaturalism promoting faith ….(bla, bla)…….leads to complaisent believers believing what their told”-Do you see what he's doing? Doesn’t atheism lead to believers believing what they are told?? I KNOW IT. Where ever there are people who want to be blindly lead, **some people** in politics, philosophical institutes, religions, will be there to lead them. His point is actually deceptive to the masses. He just found an opportunity to unjustly bash faith.
I like Chomsky but he views everything as a conspiracy.
Its more likely that sports are a diversion against male warrior aggression than against political involvement. Its more likely that efforts to pass Clean Water & Clean Air, Welfare & Unemployment legislation are sincere attempts to help people & the environment than an evil attempt to make people soft & lazy.Even religion I think is more likely a dysfunctional self-reenforcing belief system than a conspiracy to control the world population
... (which is also what the Democrats are banking on in states like Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Ohio in 2012 w/the illegalization of collective bargaining [only in reverse, the people are showing up to PREVENT it's illegalization])
Dude, that last thing they said was SOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking ironic because that's EXACTLY how Bush won in '04...every state under republican control moved to put the illegalization of gay marriage ON THE BALLOT (much like every Red state now is trying to ban abortion), so that people who wouldn't normally care about politics would show up to support banning gay marriage, and to vote for Bush while they were there anyway (which is also what the Democrats are banking on in states like Wisconsin, N
i have to wonder if these people actually watched the entire documentary from which they were sampling. they keep trying to draw parallels to atheist thought where there aren't any. like how they paused after he said something about the stupidity of the average man and his dependence on faith rather than reason. that was a quote from someone else and chomsky was exposing it as the sort of elitist view that the intellectual, financial and academic elite hold in regard to the 'common man.'
sport is a medium of escapism from reality.people participate in or observe sports so as to feel good about themselves.people enjoy following sport because there isn't any demands(physical,intellectual) put on them.They just switch on their tv and enjoy the rollercoaster of emotions associated with their sports team.people who participate get quite a bit more from their chosen sport but just like the sports fan it is time that could be better spent elsewhere.
Wow. Chomsky is basically a retarded conspiracy theorist. Forfucksake society evolves in a reactionary and ad-hoc manner which precludes deliberately manipulating whole demographics. Martin's comment about "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" was never more true.
isnt he idea to support a sports team is to be part of a group. everybody wants to belong I mean thats how gangs function a "family" I think the answer is if the media didnt give it any air time. But the problem is people always have showing interest even before boardcasting. Im not really sure if chomsky has a valid point.
A good example of this is the recent wedding between the royal couple. Here in Australia, we had the media literally pushing the story on us, there was even a newspaper titled: "why you should care about the royal wedding".
It's interesting to see what Chomsky is currently doing, considering what he's done in the past. It's a bit weird to see him go from a linguist that helped to bring down behavorism to this.
@thatamazinggeek who the hell told you that bullshit? There are probably a lot fewer terrorists in the world than, say, people in the US Military. Otherwise, there would be a lot more terrorism, which there isn't.
And it's not a misunderstanding. Tell me, what reason would they have to come after anyone who didn't meddle or appear to meddle in their affairs? Why would they care? Even out of the people who are terrorists, most wouldn't bother with anyone who doesn't come near where they live.
And the terrorists? Well, besides the fact that they are a very small group, Chomsky in no way claims that they aren't evil. They clearly are. But they do have legitimate reasons to be pissed. I hope you can see the difference between being legitimately angry and being justified in slaughtering innocent people If you can't, that seems to imply that you would behave similarly in their situation (I hope not).
As for Chomsky's linguistic theories, they're not all that significant, imo.
@thatamazinggeek that's not really an agenda. And you're wrong, nowhere does he imply that anyone is evil He is, however, questioning the motivations of Foreign policies that are deeply faulted and, after all, created mainly by politicians who often do not have anyone's best interest at heart. I thought that would be obvious.
@thatamazinggeek No, I don't have to agree. OK, so can you show where this spin is and how it presents an untrue picture? I have studied Professor Chomsky, the world's most respected (and widely regarded as the most important) intellectual for many years and have not come across that and only those with wild ideological bias and a clear agenda such as yourself have ever suggested that his carefully and clearly documented research was anything other than correct.
@thatamazinggeek , Ofcourse he chooses which sources to use and which one to not use. Would you get your info from a source that is know for lying and supporting one political party or group? Anyways, he does often use unclassified documents released under the freedom of information act to paint a more realistic picture of our government. His sources are some of the most reliable one's out there. And I am not a commie. I hate communism.
@thatamazinggeek , I would say Chomsky is the definition of anti-propaganda. All of his claims are well documented and factual. How is he a propagandist for telling it how it is?
I don't think Chomsky demonizes the West. (He just speaks the fucking truth about it where few others even dare.) but he does make some excuses for those other regimes yeah.
It's pretty damn clear to me that as soon as you give the local talking apes a smidge of power they start abusing it.
@Shavarnarak ya well I think Chopmsky's point is to point out the flaws in ourselves.. THere are plenty of other people pointing out how bad North Korea is.
@Shavarnarak I have read Media Control and Profit Over People. And I am about to read Manufacturing Consent...I don't see him having any bias. So what bias are you referring to, what book, etc.?
@Shavarnarak ehh, doesnt the guy in the middle have ears he can use, does he have to talk all the time? and why doesnt he turn around and talk to the nice lady? and why do i have to listen to people talk about what chomsky talks about when i can hear it from chomskys documentary directly instead? atheist experience is a great program but this was kinda nerdy....
@Shavarnarak I agree with Chomsky on many points, but on certain foreign policy opinions I don't. I like when he says we should take responsibility as a state, for our own actions, be they immoral, which absolutely true. But nonetheless, America as the most powerful nation in the world, does in fact, contrary to what people think, have a moral obligation to help other nations in their quest for freedom and democracy. The mode with which it is done is not always what it should tho.
The lady said "astrology that is important" (or something like that) I think she must have thought Noam meant astronomy. Astrology is like the zodiac and horoscope. lol.
Your initial discussion, at the first break around 0:58, takes off from Chomsky quoting Reinhold Niebuhr. Chomsky was not making this point as you seem to imply (i.e. "that was an interesting point to make"). He was discussing the attitudes elite liberals like Niebuhr have toward people they feel are below them. Neibuhr is the one claiming (certain kinds of) people rely on faith - I don't think this or has been Chomsky's position.
@FluffyFeralMarmot No, he means things like people being infactuated with celebrities. Atheist/theists are both guilty of this, not that it's a crime, but it can be detrimental to both yourself and everything else.
@thatamazinggeek no, the united states is a polyarchy since you can only ever get one of the two main parties and the people are not represented by politicians at all. It's a cesspool run by big business rights people have are shown as though freedom of speech was something you would not get also in the EU or Australia. You say Iraq needed to be invaded because of atrocities committed there. the same logic applies to the USA too if someone believes that they must be stopped. Get my point?
@thatamazinggeek the it's justifiable if someone invaded the USA for example because there are soo many religious fundametalists there and someone in another part of the world hates that. Should that also be justidfied? or invade the US because of Human Rights violarions in Guantanamo? Think about that for a second and you'll see it's good that states are sovereign.
@thatamazinggeek you cannot just invade and justify it by sayong that they did something bad over there. The USA should deal wit their own problems first before they start deciding what is best for the afghan people who they have no authority over. There was no just cause in this war, just a feeling of revenge that had to be satisfied. I'm sorry but that's nowhere good enough. The situation in afghanistan and iraq is worse now because of the USA. I salute you America, you self-righteous nation.
@thatamazinggeek it's a less of a propaganda than the so-called "democratoc West" that u r defending. America does not run the world and they should respect the sovereignty of other countries and leave other people their way of life. it's this American claim over what is the right way to live that Noam Chomsky criricizes and he is right.
chomsky wasn't saying they don't get involved. he was saying they don't stay adequately informed on issues that matter. shit, if we're talking fundamentalist christians they're probably watching fox news.
Chomsky is an excellent philosopher/thinker. Those who accuse him of propaganda, quite simply, don't know the history of the Middle East and are in fact protecting their Western leaders and their military-political support for dictators.
I also recommend reading Nir Rosen, Robert Fisk and the Cockburn brothers. They will give you a good grounding on the US support for dictators all over the world (other countries did as well, but of course the US is the pre-eminent political power in the West).
Another excellent (and brave) writer is Norman Finkelstein. Which is probably why he and Chomsky are persona non grata both in Israel and in the mainstream US media.
@thatamazinggeek You disagree with Chomsky, but haven't written about what it is you disagree with him on. What did he say that you don't like? Or more importantly, what did he say that is wrong?
@thatamazinggeek I'm seriously not interested in notions like "extreme left". That's all a matter of interpretation and opinion. I'm interested in facts, and evidence. If you have a criticism of Chomsky, beyond your opinion that he's "extreme left", then state it.
@thatamazinggeek You keep saying meaningless things like "extreme left". If you have a criticism of Chomsky, state it. You need to give a specific issue.
@thatamazinggeek I didn't say you were an American. If you want to rename his books that way, fine - but it doesn't follow logically. I've read over a dozen of his books - it ain't what he does.
Chomsky is an American. Therefore, he criticizes his own country because he can actually do something about what happens in his country. If I wrote similar books, I'd write about my own country. Sakharov criticized his own country - see where that got him?
@thatamazinggeek He spends most of his time demonizing the west? His books are essentially propaganda. I'm sorry to inform you that you are incredibly misinformed and judging by what you wrote you have never read Chomsky and know nothing about what he says. You are merely repeating phrases that people from The Church of Secular State Worship constantly bleep out like sheep.
Chomsky doesn't make "excuses" for bad regimes - quite the opposite.
I think the trio missed the point that Chomsky has made. If you examine carefully, probably there is no rational reason as to why one should or should not support his /her school football team? It is the same thread which runs through the group cohesion and solidarity seen in religious fundamentalism.
@thatamazinggeek Could you point me to some examples of him defending dictatorships? I've heard this claim made before but I've never encountered it in any of my reading/listening of him. He seems to be pretty consistent in his opposition to centralized authority, but focuses on the US since that's where he lives. Where I think he goes wrong is in his reactionary opposition to markets, since I see markets playing an important role in an anarchist society. But that's another topic.
I agree. But I think that pointing out potential problems in our society is a good thing, as long as there is good reason to do so. Let's face it, the West has some major problems. There is not a region that doesn't. So pointing out or demonizing certain harmful aspects can be healthy. Public awareness is crucial for developing solutions.
And I am not saying Chomsky is right about anything, I just feel that we need people like him.
What Chomsky is talking about is the concept of the noble lie. The two big noble lies are religion and patriotism. These are two methods used to control the population by a noble elite. This concept was revised by leo Strauss and is part of the school of neoconservatism. Think of the run up to the Afghan and Iraq wars. What was the rhetoric? Didn't they suck people into a popular patriotic movement?
I'm an atheist, and I don't watch sports, but Chomsky strikes me as a typical "ivory tower professor type" who when asked would proudly say: "I don't watch TV". He is the kind of intellectual idiot who feels he is smarter than everyone else, and only people like himself should have power to decide about "important issues". That's We have a media and political elite that thinks they are smarter than everyone else and therefore have the right to tell everyone else what to do and how to live. Sad
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams I think one of the tenets of Chomsky's political work is the dichotomy between the opinion of the intellectual/political elite and the actual wants of the people (which he favours) and the policies which are carried out by the elected governments. It seems to me that he is generally in favour of greater influence of the people's opinion (but it is this opinion that is moulded by media controlled by elites according to his model). In other interviews he shows more humility
@ikwillet This is my first exposure to Chomsky so maybe I shot a bit from the hip. But in this audio clip he seems to be whipping the old dog that we are living in 1984 (or They Live) and that our world is one big conspiracy. I've heard this from the left, I've heard this from the right, and though I understand there are groups looking to manipulate the public, I don't really believe in this idea of everything existing to fool us and push us where "they" like. Do you?
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams Well, politicians will pursue own goals (this is not always the same as interest/gain) and politics consists of allying, singling out and 'conspiring' (they noticed that in the social behaviour of primates too). And politics and the financial elite(and therefore their media) are tied on many levels. (e.g. Bilderberg group). Is this democratic? Not in the strictest sense. Is this always malevolent? No, since the interests are dynamic and conflicting and can result in
@ShaundalynChic Chomsky did NOT, I repeat did NOT defend the susbstance of Faurisson's ideas; he defended his right to publish whatever he believed on free speech grounds, no matter how detestable. Chomsky has made that clear HUNDREDS of times since and I think you probably know that. We defend the right of Neo-Nazis to march, etc. This tired old accusation has been refuted too many times to have any more sting. Nice try.
@2Majesties "Chomsky did NOT, I repeat did NOT defend the substance of Faurisson's ideas"
That's not really relevant to the complaint I made. When the ACLU or other civil rights groups defend the right of the KKK or Neo-Nazis to speak, they make good and clear they don't like them, aren't endorsing their views, etc. They don't call them "respected professors". How in the world did Chomsky decide to call the guy a respected professor instead of calling Faurisson a lying holocaust denier?
@ShaundalynChic Go back. Check the facts. Do a little research. Read the published dedication. Read Chomsky's explanation. Chomsky's made it cear many times that he and any rational person can easily find countless resources documenting the Holocaust, but that in a free society, irrational/paranoid/delusional "historians" have a right to publish their ridiculous theories/denials, no matter how offensive or ahistorical we find them. It's ok not to like Chomsky, but this is so easy to figure out.
"Chomsky's made it cear many times that he and any rational person can easily find countless resources documenting the Holocaust"
So what? Chomsky isn't being accused of denying the holocaust himself. He is being accused of describing a Holocaust denier as a "respected professor". Other "free speech" supporters always make clear that groups like the Neo-Nazis are despicable even while supporting their right to speech. They don't call them respected professors. Why did Chomsky call him that?
@ShaundalynChic Last reply. Chomsky "called" him nothing. He signed a petition letter of free expression which described Faurisson as a respected professor in his field of French literature, which he WAS, and that he should be free to publish his opinions/findings/research on other subjects. Just because a person is a foul anti-semite doesn't mean he can't be competent, even brilliant in another area. History is full of such scholars. Again, this is ridiculously easy if you just READ THE RECORD.
"He signed a petition letter of free expression which described Faurisson as a respected professor"
That's all I am saying, doing that is outrageous. It doesn't matter how competent at French Literature the guy was. Would you talk to the family of victims of a serial killer about how good the serial killer was at French Literature, what wonderful classroom manners he had? No. Same with defending the holocaust denier by describing his best traits, competence at French Literature or whatever.
@ShaundalynChic He defended his right to say he denied the holocaust, as should everybody who supports freedom of speech. That does mean we agree with it, obviously denying the holocaust is ridiculous.
@JJbubbs I would have no problem if that were all he did, defend free speech. He did more than that, signing a petition describing the holocaust denier as a "respected professor". You should defend free speech, but in doing so make clear you aren't admiring the actions and words of the holocaust denier. Signing a petition calling him a respected professor is simply outrageous. It is something different than defending free speech.
I like Chomsky's argument about the power elite wanting to distract the public. Fundamentalism is an interesting case. I'd argue it simultaneously distracts them from real issues while mobilizing them as a mindless political base. The perfect example of this is the Islamic community center planned a few blocks from ground zero. By distracting people from real issues, it keeps these people from caring about and taking actions to deal with real issues. Their only involvement is voting partisan.
I'm of a frame of mind that sports fanatacism is no different to religious fundamentalism. Try telling an England supporter that their team is shit and that your national squad are better. You'll be looking at the same kind of argument as you would from any religious fundamentalist.
For americans it would be your NFL team or Basketball team. The attitude is the same. A belief that their team is almost divine in it's standing.
@sum1otosh1 Yeah, I agree. I see people, quite literally, worship NFL teams.
I also agree with Martin, in that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't see anything wrong with enjoying a sport, if you don't get overly wrapped up into it. I am also not convinced that sports are a conspiracy to dumb us down. It might be the case that it does, in fact, distract us, but it's not some larger conspiracy to do so.
@village1diot as a conspiracy I agree, it's not a conspiracy to dumb us down. But I fail to see how any controlling body would have the qualifications to be a controlling body if they couldn't see the opportunities that people's natural affinity to animalistic and ritualistic worship or sports hold for them. Not a conspiracy to dumb down and distract, more a happy coincidence that is quite regularly used.
@sum1otosh1 That could be something worthy of consideration, if there is "a controlling body" that can be pinned down.
We, the people, controlled by media and government. Government controlled by corporations and media. Media controlled by the corporations. Are corporate guru's the top of the food chain? Or are the world bankers controlling them? Is it about greed, control, and/or global domination?
I need something tangible before I buy. But by then it's probably too late.
@village1diot World bankers are corporations. Its hard to see where its a "conspiracy" and where its just the effect of stuff that happens. But we can experiment to see. We could try to subvert one aspect to make the world better. You would expect that vested interest to complain and try to stop it. But if all corporate interests try to stop it, then you have evidence.
@adolthitler I do know that there have been attempts to get rid of the Fed. I cant remember details, but it was successful for a while, until, the Fed got reinstated. This would be an example of subverting an aspect of power. And the WB tried very hard to stop it, and in the end, they got their way.
There is, without doubt, greedy asshats trying to do what they can to get very rich. It has been said that wars are started by these guys, but I don't know. How far do you think they would go?
I love that girl on the left. She gives me hope there are actually intelligent women still living. (And that's not a slam on ALL women - just the ones I've dated :))
Should have called this episode "A moment spent fondling Noam Chomsky's balls"
doksekko 5 days ago
Ha Ha...Martin likes football
55chh 2 weeks ago
High school football is distracting from education in schools and DOES encourage collectivist views and submission to authority!
PolitcalIslam 2 months ago 2
The poor female is being ignored while the alpha male of the trio is just interested in impressing the guy next to him (who is sucking up to the alpha male so much anyway!)
aMagicalUnic0rn 2 months ago
@aMagicalUnic0rn The poor commenters name is magical unicorn. Perhaps he watches My Little Pony, because he was ignored as a child and now seeks to restore part of his past by filling it in with MLP, or maybe he just feels the need to poke fun at religious people to make himself feel as if he is more powerful than he actually is.
stinnetbennet 1 month ago
Lose the sound effects, guys.
hznfrst 3 months ago
They really are trying to dumb down America. Have you watched "TLC" aka the learning channel? How many shows can you watch about housewives and home make overs? Seriously?
18booma 3 months ago in playlist Keryn Glasser
I'm not totally on the brain washing band-wagon, but I think we as humans use what we get. No matter what society dishes out, the people in power use it to influence us. I don't agree that they created it all to do so. This doesn't really make it any better though, and that's what matters.
Wake up, stop buying crap you can't afford and don't need. Share your voice and let's change the damn country.
shabido1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Even non-religious people know this.
The homosexual agenda is not good for anyone, including those who consider themselves "gay".
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfully framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Hey guy in the middle, stop ignoring the lady. geezuz.
15hmael 3 months ago
Dr. Dan Everett PWNS Dr. Chomsky in terms of lingustics.
WingDiamond 4 months ago
wish they included the caller at the end of this episode.... he was smarter then the people that usually call in and actually made the episode interesting.
Swingfinger 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mankind is due for moving to a higher consciousness plane. The same way the suffering of gazelles killed by lions make the species stronger, the suffering of mankind will help us move to the next consciousness level. A greater good comes for the species. The next level is the rejection of greed, materialism and selfishness. Our current capitalist system need to collapse in order to achieve this. If you're not ready spiritually, and doesn't move up, you'll suffer. This is happening now, seek God.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
i dunno if it's as deliberate as chomsky makes it sound..the entertainment industry has an innate tendency to target fools. so, fools naturally become the target demographic. why does this happen? capital gain of course. does the government get involved? i'm sure they do..but, i think it's more a case of the government exploiting the natural order. they let it all unfold naturally, and then while everyone marinates in apathy, key figures can make amendments, or seize power.
itzahazylife 5 months ago
@itzahazylife
I'd imagine the diversionary "tactics" they're talking about here are indeed accidental for the most part, though there is actually an entire industry dedicated to altering the public's perceptions and "manufacturing consent" (public relations; "Toxic Sludge is Good For You!" is a particularly good book on the subject).
Wolfwood824 5 months ago
@itzahazylife yeah with these matters i always prefer the organic bottom up approach myself, though a top down approach may be possible i think largely its bottom up, even the nazis came bottom up, the climate already existed after WWI and the collapse of the german economy and the already extant antisemitism (thank you catholic church) which made the rise of someone like hitler almost certain. not that i condone hitlers actions obviously but he didnt create the situation, just capitalized on it
tuseroni 5 months ago
On the sports issue he is merely saying it is 'bread and circuses'. Sport being obviously the latter.
It is true that sport is a distraction from reality. 'Following' this team or that team has become an unhealthy obsession. It started as a joke but it has become a default subject of conversation for the average joe. Someone scored a goal with this illusion and it isn't the average joe. It IS the rich and powerful.
The sports obsessed are largely unwilling to talk about larger issues.
themec 5 months ago
I didn't know Jeff Daniels was on TAE (jk never seen that guy before)
concord327 5 months ago
Chomsky is a socialist. He knows nothing about the world. LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
@ecnerwal999
And you are an idiot. Socialist is not a dirty word.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 "Socialism" is a disgrace. It has killed millions of people. It doesnt' work. Why do you hate liberty so much?
ecnerwal999 5 months ago
@ecnerwal999 YES! Social Security has killed billions! *for the record, that was sarcasm*
Same goes for nationalized healthcare in Canada. The Canadians are so healthy because their medical system kills 'em when they get sick hence leaving only healthy Canadians around.
Socialism is one thing, communism and totalitarianism is another. Look it up. They're in the dictionary.
meaninter03 5 months ago 11
@meaninter03 For what it's worth, communism (which, as defined by Karl Marx, is a stateless, classless society) has nothing to do with totalitarianism, it is in fact a form of anarchy. Socialism has killed many people, but that is because it has been executed poorly, Socialism is too broad a thing to dismiss because of previous nations which have misused it, if it were. Then the same argument could against any political system at one point or another.
garrywarne1 1 month ago
@garrywarne1 It's because socialism is a fucking pipe dream and would never, and has never worked in practice. It's like us deciding we're just going to live in paradise. Tell that to the criminals.
doksekko 5 days ago
@meaninter03, Nuh-uh! Fox news says socialism=satanism and taking a small portion of everyone's money to distribute it is evil! Except when we do it to militarize our planet in the name of American Jesus, of course.
TheBoxingCannabyte 6 days ago
@TheBoxingCannabyte Amen. :D
meaninter03 6 days ago
@ecnerwal999
The root word of socialism is "SOCIAl", which is derived from "SOCEITY". Soceity is a word reffering to people as a whole. America was founded on a sociaist principle in which all men are to be considered equals. Over time the original consept had to be modified to retain it's spirit meaning ending slavery and descrimination, making sure the working class which makes the majority isn't taken advantage of by the rich 1%, ect. Read a fucking history book moron.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 HAHAHA, WOWWWW. Where did you learn that nonsense. You know nothing of the founding fathers. You should learn about Washington, Jefferson, Franklin etc. They believed in liberty. They were libertarians. The founding fathers didn't want to give the government the power to tax. The only reason they allowed taxation was to fund the military. America was founded on Capitalistic principles. Principles of freedom and private property.
ecnerwal999 5 months ago
@ecnerwal999 Actually, boys, the founding fathers were a mixed bag of ideologies. You're both a bit right and both a bit wrong.
Now kiss and make up and direct your energies to stirring up a nice revolution against the money men who are fucking us all up the ass with no lube and no reach around.
ciaochowbella 4 months ago
@ciaochowbella: You are correct. Madison, as an example, was against Democracy.
chinopisces 4 months ago
@ecnerwal999: You're an idiot to make such an unfounded statement. Your spam will not be tolerated here.
chinopisces 4 months ago
0:53 “but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason but faith”. He is just another propagandist who idiotically thinks faith is without reason! This is SUCH a lame pill all atheist indenialists have swallowed. The debate among Christians apologists and atheists just proves the stupidity of this claim. In all my comments on AE threads, I will be proving who follows faith and who reason.
outofthebox7 6 months ago
8:59“they have some..Psuedo-stories about some “important issue” right..There’s nothing thatreally hasany baring to jow-blow from Idaho..But he’sbeen told thathe should reallycare about somesort of obscuresocial issue happeningto folksacross thecountry.”
What’sthis “he’s been told”about?He is implyingthat the person who does careabout someone else’s socialissue is actually misled into caring. How is that?Whyshouldn’t he care?It’shealthyto sympathize with the injustices of others,it’s Christian!
outofthebox7 6 months ago
After 7:00 What’s the point in all that? Yes, religious people may use politics to get done what they think is correct for society. And? So what? Good for them! Doesn’t everybody else do that as well? What do you think voting is about?? You’re just jealous because atheists are a minority & cannot have the same influence, but if you could, you would, so stop this hypocrisy.
outofthebox7 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After 6:45 He repeats himself in saying that religion is manipulated by political agenda, but notice his emphasis is always onreligion not politics! Go figure! Finally, will these atheists ever get it right?1)Religions are just doctrines of faith.2)Religion hierarchies canbe misled (to mislead their flocks), but that’s becausethey are people,not because of their doctrine.3)Yes,a doctrine maybe used by politicians,but thatalone,says nothing about the correctness or incorrectness of that doctrine.
outofthebox7 6 months ago
After 6:30 “….(fundamentalism/religious right) feeding them (Christians) a dogma, in a way that is useful to groups with political agendas”
So, where is the problem? That’s what politics is about, affecting a community. E.g. you using my vote to get somewhere where you can promote at least somethings I agree on, is totally reasonable. Would he prefer if religious people didn’t vote? Probably would.
outofthebox7 6 months ago
Comment removed
outofthebox7 6 months ago
2#On the other hand, there are new Christian whose morality, is better than others from the start and they build on that. Also, the whole “judging” issue is really silly, since we are never told what each atheist means by judging others, they don’t provide any frame for this word’s definition.
outofthebox7 6 months ago
1:55 again proves that he is blaming Christianity for what some Christians do (falsejudgement). He doesn’t even take into perspective (because he is ignorant of the basics)that when someone becomes a Christian, this doesn’t mean that he suddenly became a moral person; he still carries his luggage. It just means that he decided to follow a new difficult way of life, one of love, understanding, etc. As he grows spiritually, this wrong type of judgment is put aside, due to understanding. - - - >2#
outofthebox7 6 months ago
1:40 “religion/supernaturalism promoting faith ….(bla, bla)…….leads to complaisent believers believing what their told”-Do you see what he's doing? Doesn’t atheism lead to believers believing what they are told?? I KNOW IT. Where ever there are people who want to be blindly lead, **some people** in politics, philosophical institutes, religions, will be there to lead them. His point is actually deceptive to the masses. He just found an opportunity to unjustly bash faith.
outofthebox7 6 months ago
I like "Gnome" Chomsky from Left 4 Dead better than the real one.
shady9321 6 months ago
I like Chomsky but he views everything as a conspiracy.
Its more likely that sports are a diversion against male warrior aggression than against political involvement. Its more likely that efforts to pass Clean Water & Clean Air, Welfare & Unemployment legislation are sincere attempts to help people & the environment than an evil attempt to make people soft & lazy.Even religion I think is more likely a dysfunctional self-reenforcing belief system than a conspiracy to control the world population
rubberbaby00 6 months ago
... (which is also what the Democrats are banking on in states like Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Ohio in 2012 w/the illegalization of collective bargaining [only in reverse, the people are showing up to PREVENT it's illegalization])
macgeek2004 6 months ago
Dude, that last thing they said was SOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking ironic because that's EXACTLY how Bush won in '04...every state under republican control moved to put the illegalization of gay marriage ON THE BALLOT (much like every Red state now is trying to ban abortion), so that people who wouldn't normally care about politics would show up to support banning gay marriage, and to vote for Bush while they were there anyway (which is also what the Democrats are banking on in states like Wisconsin, N
macgeek2004 6 months ago
i have to wonder if these people actually watched the entire documentary from which they were sampling. they keep trying to draw parallels to atheist thought where there aren't any. like how they paused after he said something about the stupidity of the average man and his dependence on faith rather than reason. that was a quote from someone else and chomsky was exposing it as the sort of elitist view that the intellectual, financial and academic elite hold in regard to the 'common man.'
reggiejax 7 months ago
sport is a medium of escapism from reality.people participate in or observe sports so as to feel good about themselves.people enjoy following sport because there isn't any demands(physical,intellectual) put on them.They just switch on their tv and enjoy the rollercoaster of emotions associated with their sports team.people who participate get quite a bit more from their chosen sport but just like the sports fan it is time that could be better spent elsewhere.
johnken35 8 months ago
Wow. Chomsky is basically a retarded conspiracy theorist. Forfucksake society evolves in a reactionary and ad-hoc manner which precludes deliberately manipulating whole demographics. Martin's comment about "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" was never more true.
CeilingCatAKAStu 8 months ago
Astrology is a pseudo science..But you call it legitimate!!!! ... are you kidding me??? Watch
Richard Dawkins - The Enemies Of Reason - Part1 and 2 - Slaves to Superstition
barty1982 8 months ago
OH MY GOD! They all have hair...
Spartan9095 8 months ago
isnt he idea to support a sports team is to be part of a group. everybody wants to belong I mean thats how gangs function a "family" I think the answer is if the media didnt give it any air time. But the problem is people always have showing interest even before boardcasting. Im not really sure if chomsky has a valid point.
slugworth28 9 months ago
Miss Glasser is pretty hot
horbergaren 9 months ago 15
@horbergaren Shes smok'n hot.
jp00000420 9 months ago
@horbergaren fuckin right, id tap that shit any fuckin day nigga, god damn
Account4TheMusic 4 months ago
A good example of this is the recent wedding between the royal couple. Here in Australia, we had the media literally pushing the story on us, there was even a newspaper titled: "why you should care about the royal wedding".
OrthodoxDarwinist 10 months ago
where did that music come from?
hollaboutit 10 months ago
Lulz Chomsky hasn't defended bad regimes, that is probably the most common smear he gets.
SPQRomantic 10 months ago
It's interesting to see what Chomsky is currently doing, considering what he's done in the past. It's a bit weird to see him go from a linguist that helped to bring down behavorism to this.
MrNobody47710 10 months ago
@thatamazinggeek who the hell told you that bullshit? There are probably a lot fewer terrorists in the world than, say, people in the US Military. Otherwise, there would be a lot more terrorism, which there isn't.
And it's not a misunderstanding. Tell me, what reason would they have to come after anyone who didn't meddle or appear to meddle in their affairs? Why would they care? Even out of the people who are terrorists, most wouldn't bother with anyone who doesn't come near where they live.
Brandt761 11 months ago
And the terrorists? Well, besides the fact that they are a very small group, Chomsky in no way claims that they aren't evil. They clearly are. But they do have legitimate reasons to be pissed. I hope you can see the difference between being legitimately angry and being justified in slaughtering innocent people If you can't, that seems to imply that you would behave similarly in their situation (I hope not).
As for Chomsky's linguistic theories, they're not all that significant, imo.
Brandt761 11 months ago
@thatamazinggeek that's not really an agenda. And you're wrong, nowhere does he imply that anyone is evil He is, however, questioning the motivations of Foreign policies that are deeply faulted and, after all, created mainly by politicians who often do not have anyone's best interest at heart. I thought that would be obvious.
Brandt761 11 months ago
@thatamazinggeek what's his agenda? taking over the entire field of linguistics?
Brandt761 11 months ago
I carried Chomsky all the way throug half life and he comes out with this? I thought we were friends!.
IbeeejayI 1 year ago
Man,it's smuggy in here!
seancron 1 year ago
The girl just kind of sat there and echoed.... =(
TheQuiescentSquall 1 year ago
@TheQuiescentSquall Yeah, usually Karyn has tons on input, but she seemed content to just sit by this time.
AmosTheTalented 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek As I say, 'nuff said.
PhilJRose 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek OK, I give up on trying to get you to cite examples. The message is clear. Good day.
PhilJRose 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek No, I don't have to agree. OK, so can you show where this spin is and how it presents an untrue picture? I have studied Professor Chomsky, the world's most respected (and widely regarded as the most important) intellectual for many years and have not come across that and only those with wild ideological bias and a clear agenda such as yourself have ever suggested that his carefully and clearly documented research was anything other than correct.
PhilJRose 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek Can you point to anything that he has said that is untrue? Anything at all, backed up with evidence?
PhilJRose 1 year ago
shows us those Jewish tits Karyn
dhide14 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek , Ofcourse he chooses which sources to use and which one to not use. Would you get your info from a source that is know for lying and supporting one political party or group? Anyways, he does often use unclassified documents released under the freedom of information act to paint a more realistic picture of our government. His sources are some of the most reliable one's out there. And I am not a commie. I hate communism.
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek , Can you tell me one innaccurate thing Noam Chomsky has said?
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
Noam Chomsky has got to be the most honest intillectual of our time.
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek , I would say Chomsky is the definition of anti-propaganda. All of his claims are well documented and factual. How is he a propagandist for telling it how it is?
knowthetruth1492 1 year ago
The woman is completely marginalised in this discussion. She should be in the middle, so that the men would find it more difficult to ignore her.
sptfgpn 1 year ago
more time to think about trivial things like sport leaves less time for revolutionary thoughts
radoa1 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek
I don't think Chomsky demonizes the West. (He just speaks the fucking truth about it where few others even dare.) but he does make some excuses for those other regimes yeah.
It's pretty damn clear to me that as soon as you give the local talking apes a smidge of power they start abusing it.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago 28
@Shavarnarak ya well I think Chopmsky's point is to point out the flaws in ourselves.. THere are plenty of other people pointing out how bad North Korea is.
SHIBBYiPANDA 8 months ago
@Shavarnarak I have read Media Control and Profit Over People. And I am about to read Manufacturing Consent...I don't see him having any bias. So what bias are you referring to, what book, etc.?
0hs0Zen0 6 months ago
@Shavarnarak ehh, doesnt the guy in the middle have ears he can use, does he have to talk all the time? and why doesnt he turn around and talk to the nice lady? and why do i have to listen to people talk about what chomsky talks about when i can hear it from chomskys documentary directly instead? atheist experience is a great program but this was kinda nerdy....
jerjerod999 6 months ago
@Shavarnarak I agree with Chomsky on many points, but on certain foreign policy opinions I don't. I like when he says we should take responsibility as a state, for our own actions, be they immoral, which absolutely true. But nonetheless, America as the most powerful nation in the world, does in fact, contrary to what people think, have a moral obligation to help other nations in their quest for freedom and democracy. The mode with which it is done is not always what it should tho.
Faerlon123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The lady said "astrology that is important" (or something like that) I think she must have thought Noam meant astronomy. Astrology is like the zodiac and horoscope. lol.
y2zgt 1 year ago
Great ...you guys did a whole video of a soundbite where chomsky is quoting someone else lol
Dymdez 1 year ago
Your initial discussion, at the first break around 0:58, takes off from Chomsky quoting Reinhold Niebuhr. Chomsky was not making this point as you seem to imply (i.e. "that was an interesting point to make"). He was discussing the attitudes elite liberals like Niebuhr have toward people they feel are below them. Neibuhr is the one claiming (certain kinds of) people rely on faith - I don't think this or has been Chomsky's position.
peterfdrucker 1 year ago 7
The devil forced me to like this video.
drche420 1 year ago
2:32 "So getting people to care about trivial things more..."
You mean like atheism?
FluffyFeralMarmot 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot No, he means things like people being infactuated with celebrities. Atheist/theists are both guilty of this, not that it's a crime, but it can be detrimental to both yourself and everything else.
AustratheistX 1 year ago
@FluffyFeralMarmot
What?
drche420 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek no, the united states is a polyarchy since you can only ever get one of the two main parties and the people are not represented by politicians at all. It's a cesspool run by big business rights people have are shown as though freedom of speech was something you would not get also in the EU or Australia. You say Iraq needed to be invaded because of atrocities committed there. the same logic applies to the USA too if someone believes that they must be stopped. Get my point?
Regenmacher175 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek the it's justifiable if someone invaded the USA for example because there are soo many religious fundametalists there and someone in another part of the world hates that. Should that also be justidfied? or invade the US because of Human Rights violarions in Guantanamo? Think about that for a second and you'll see it's good that states are sovereign.
Regenmacher175 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek you cannot just invade and justify it by sayong that they did something bad over there. The USA should deal wit their own problems first before they start deciding what is best for the afghan people who they have no authority over. There was no just cause in this war, just a feeling of revenge that had to be satisfied. I'm sorry but that's nowhere good enough. The situation in afghanistan and iraq is worse now because of the USA. I salute you America, you self-righteous nation.
Regenmacher175 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek it's a less of a propaganda than the so-called "democratoc West" that u r defending. America does not run the world and they should respect the sovereignty of other countries and leave other people their way of life. it's this American claim over what is the right way to live that Noam Chomsky criricizes and he is right.
Regenmacher175 1 year ago
@"fundamentalists get more involved"
chomsky wasn't saying they don't get involved. he was saying they don't stay adequately informed on issues that matter. shit, if we're talking fundamentalist christians they're probably watching fox news.
reggiejax 1 year ago
Chomsky is an excellent philosopher/thinker. Those who accuse him of propaganda, quite simply, don't know the history of the Middle East and are in fact protecting their Western leaders and their military-political support for dictators.
I also recommend reading Nir Rosen, Robert Fisk and the Cockburn brothers. They will give you a good grounding on the US support for dictators all over the world (other countries did as well, but of course the US is the pre-eminent political power in the West).
Narwal88 1 year ago
@Narwal88
Another excellent (and brave) writer is Norman Finkelstein. Which is probably why he and Chomsky are persona non grata both in Israel and in the mainstream US media.
Narwal88 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek You disagree with Chomsky, but haven't written about what it is you disagree with him on. What did he say that you don't like? Or more importantly, what did he say that is wrong?
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek It's not baffling - it's meaningless. I can call you extreme left - doesn't mean anything.
If you have a criticism to make of Chomsky, beyond the fact that he rightly criticizes US foreign and domestic policy, then make it.
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek I'm seriously not interested in notions like "extreme left". That's all a matter of interpretation and opinion. I'm interested in facts, and evidence. If you have a criticism of Chomsky, beyond your opinion that he's "extreme left", then state it.
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek You keep saying meaningless things like "extreme left". If you have a criticism of Chomsky, state it. You need to give a specific issue.
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek I didn't say you were an American. If you want to rename his books that way, fine - but it doesn't follow logically. I've read over a dozen of his books - it ain't what he does.
Chomsky is an American. Therefore, he criticizes his own country because he can actually do something about what happens in his country. If I wrote similar books, I'd write about my own country. Sakharov criticized his own country - see where that got him?
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek "he does nothing but demonize the US"
This is the standard line repeated by people (usually jingoist fanatics) who don't like hearing the truth about their own country.
On the rest, you'd have to give specific examples.
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek He spends most of his time demonizing the west? His books are essentially propaganda. I'm sorry to inform you that you are incredibly misinformed and judging by what you wrote you have never read Chomsky and know nothing about what he says. You are merely repeating phrases that people from The Church of Secular State Worship constantly bleep out like sheep.
Chomsky doesn't make "excuses" for bad regimes - quite the opposite.
BrideAndGroomFilmsHD 1 year ago
I think the trio missed the point that Chomsky has made. If you examine carefully, probably there is no rational reason as to why one should or should not support his /her school football team? It is the same thread which runs through the group cohesion and solidarity seen in religious fundamentalism.
gitu1 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek
are you serious?
With Chomsky the modern computer you have this very day would not exist
He is the father of the compiler.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek I have read Hegemony or Survival, his latest book on the subject. I didn't pick up any support for dictatorship.
qrqrqrqr1 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek
You do know Chomsky is the most likely considered "Albert Einstein" of our time correct?
sykeo123 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek Could you point me to some examples of him defending dictatorships? I've heard this claim made before but I've never encountered it in any of my reading/listening of him. He seems to be pretty consistent in his opposition to centralized authority, but focuses on the US since that's where he lives. Where I think he goes wrong is in his reactionary opposition to markets, since I see markets playing an important role in an anarchist society. But that's another topic.
qrqrqrqr1 1 year ago
@thatamazinggeek "duplicitous" I had to look that one up.
I agree. But I think that pointing out potential problems in our society is a good thing, as long as there is good reason to do so. Let's face it, the West has some major problems. There is not a region that doesn't. So pointing out or demonizing certain harmful aspects can be healthy. Public awareness is crucial for developing solutions.
And I am not saying Chomsky is right about anything, I just feel that we need people like him.
village1diot 1 year ago 18
Noam Chomsky needs to stick with linguistics.
RifledParrot 1 year ago
What Chomsky is talking about is the concept of the noble lie. The two big noble lies are religion and patriotism. These are two methods used to control the population by a noble elite. This concept was revised by leo Strauss and is part of the school of neoconservatism. Think of the run up to the Afghan and Iraq wars. What was the rhetoric? Didn't they suck people into a popular patriotic movement?
01bdbark 1 year ago
I'm an atheist, and I don't watch sports, but Chomsky strikes me as a typical "ivory tower professor type" who when asked would proudly say: "I don't watch TV". He is the kind of intellectual idiot who feels he is smarter than everyone else, and only people like himself should have power to decide about "important issues". That's We have a media and political elite that thinks they are smarter than everyone else and therefore have the right to tell everyone else what to do and how to live. Sad
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 year ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams I think one of the tenets of Chomsky's political work is the dichotomy between the opinion of the intellectual/political elite and the actual wants of the people (which he favours) and the policies which are carried out by the elected governments. It seems to me that he is generally in favour of greater influence of the people's opinion (but it is this opinion that is moulded by media controlled by elites according to his model). In other interviews he shows more humility
ikwillet 1 year ago
@ikwillet This is my first exposure to Chomsky so maybe I shot a bit from the hip. But in this audio clip he seems to be whipping the old dog that we are living in 1984 (or They Live) and that our world is one big conspiracy. I've heard this from the left, I've heard this from the right, and though I understand there are groups looking to manipulate the public, I don't really believe in this idea of everything existing to fool us and push us where "they" like. Do you?
SmokeRingsPipeDreams 1 year ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams Well, politicians will pursue own goals (this is not always the same as interest/gain) and politics consists of allying, singling out and 'conspiring' (they noticed that in the social behaviour of primates too). And politics and the financial elite(and therefore their media) are tied on many levels. (e.g. Bilderberg group). Is this democratic? Not in the strictest sense. Is this always malevolent? No, since the interests are dynamic and conflicting and can result in
ikwillet 1 year ago
@SmokeRingsPipeDreams in good things. I tend to agree with Chomsky that the system is not fair to all people (especially on a global scale).
ikwillet 1 year ago
Didn't Chomsky defend Dr. Robert Faurisson, the holocaust denier? Calling him a respected professor?
ShaundalynChic 1 year ago
@ShaundalynChic Chomsky did NOT, I repeat did NOT defend the susbstance of Faurisson's ideas; he defended his right to publish whatever he believed on free speech grounds, no matter how detestable. Chomsky has made that clear HUNDREDS of times since and I think you probably know that. We defend the right of Neo-Nazis to march, etc. This tired old accusation has been refuted too many times to have any more sting. Nice try.
2Majesties 1 year ago
@2Majesties "Chomsky did NOT, I repeat did NOT defend the substance of Faurisson's ideas"
That's not really relevant to the complaint I made. When the ACLU or other civil rights groups defend the right of the KKK or Neo-Nazis to speak, they make good and clear they don't like them, aren't endorsing their views, etc. They don't call them "respected professors". How in the world did Chomsky decide to call the guy a respected professor instead of calling Faurisson a lying holocaust denier?
ShaundalynChic 1 year ago
@ShaundalynChic Go back. Check the facts. Do a little research. Read the published dedication. Read Chomsky's explanation. Chomsky's made it cear many times that he and any rational person can easily find countless resources documenting the Holocaust, but that in a free society, irrational/paranoid/delusional "historians" have a right to publish their ridiculous theories/denials, no matter how offensive or ahistorical we find them. It's ok not to like Chomsky, but this is so easy to figure out.
2Majesties 1 year ago
"Chomsky's made it cear many times that he and any rational person can easily find countless resources documenting the Holocaust"
So what? Chomsky isn't being accused of denying the holocaust himself. He is being accused of describing a Holocaust denier as a "respected professor". Other "free speech" supporters always make clear that groups like the Neo-Nazis are despicable even while supporting their right to speech. They don't call them respected professors. Why did Chomsky call him that?
ShaundalynChic 1 year ago
@ShaundalynChic Last reply. Chomsky "called" him nothing. He signed a petition letter of free expression which described Faurisson as a respected professor in his field of French literature, which he WAS, and that he should be free to publish his opinions/findings/research on other subjects. Just because a person is a foul anti-semite doesn't mean he can't be competent, even brilliant in another area. History is full of such scholars. Again, this is ridiculously easy if you just READ THE RECORD.
2Majesties 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"He signed a petition letter of free expression which described Faurisson as a respected professor"
That's all I am saying, doing that is outrageous. It doesn't matter how competent at French Literature the guy was. Would you talk to the family of victims of a serial killer about how good the serial killer was at French Literature, what wonderful classroom manners he had? No. Same with defending the holocaust denier by describing his best traits, competence at French Literature or whatever.
ShaundalynChic 1 year ago
@ShaundalynChic He defended his right to say he denied the holocaust, as should everybody who supports freedom of speech. That does mean we agree with it, obviously denying the holocaust is ridiculous.
JJbubbs 1 year ago
@JJbubbs I would have no problem if that were all he did, defend free speech. He did more than that, signing a petition describing the holocaust denier as a "respected professor". You should defend free speech, but in doing so make clear you aren't admiring the actions and words of the holocaust denier. Signing a petition calling him a respected professor is simply outrageous. It is something different than defending free speech.
ShaundalynChic 1 year ago
I like Chomsky's argument about the power elite wanting to distract the public. Fundamentalism is an interesting case. I'd argue it simultaneously distracts them from real issues while mobilizing them as a mindless political base. The perfect example of this is the Islamic community center planned a few blocks from ground zero. By distracting people from real issues, it keeps these people from caring about and taking actions to deal with real issues. Their only involvement is voting partisan.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Yes, the islamic center in ny is a perfect example of irrelevant crap that distracts people from important issues.
VesusSheist 1 year ago
Is Karyn relate to Russel, that's probably a stupid question but I don't know. Sister, wife, just curious cause it seems interesting I guess.
joeshmo156 1 year ago
@joeshmo156 atheist-experience . com / people / russell_glasser / says:
Yes, Keryn from the archives is Russell's sister.
HuanManwe 1 year ago
@joeshmo156 bro sis I believe.
herpiethelovebug 1 year ago
Gnome Chompinski
JMetalify 1 year ago
I'm of a frame of mind that sports fanatacism is no different to religious fundamentalism. Try telling an England supporter that their team is shit and that your national squad are better. You'll be looking at the same kind of argument as you would from any religious fundamentalist.
For americans it would be your NFL team or Basketball team. The attitude is the same. A belief that their team is almost divine in it's standing.
sum1otosh1 1 year ago
@sum1otosh1 Yeah, I agree. I see people, quite literally, worship NFL teams.
I also agree with Martin, in that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I don't see anything wrong with enjoying a sport, if you don't get overly wrapped up into it. I am also not convinced that sports are a conspiracy to dumb us down. It might be the case that it does, in fact, distract us, but it's not some larger conspiracy to do so.
village1diot 1 year ago
@village1diot as a conspiracy I agree, it's not a conspiracy to dumb us down. But I fail to see how any controlling body would have the qualifications to be a controlling body if they couldn't see the opportunities that people's natural affinity to animalistic and ritualistic worship or sports hold for them. Not a conspiracy to dumb down and distract, more a happy coincidence that is quite regularly used.
sum1otosh1 1 year ago
@sum1otosh1 That could be something worthy of consideration, if there is "a controlling body" that can be pinned down.
We, the people, controlled by media and government. Government controlled by corporations and media. Media controlled by the corporations. Are corporate guru's the top of the food chain? Or are the world bankers controlling them? Is it about greed, control, and/or global domination?
I need something tangible before I buy. But by then it's probably too late.
village1diot 1 year ago
@village1diot World bankers are corporations. Its hard to see where its a "conspiracy" and where its just the effect of stuff that happens. But we can experiment to see. We could try to subvert one aspect to make the world better. You would expect that vested interest to complain and try to stop it. But if all corporate interests try to stop it, then you have evidence.
adolthitler 1 year ago
@adolthitler I do know that there have been attempts to get rid of the Fed. I cant remember details, but it was successful for a while, until, the Fed got reinstated. This would be an example of subverting an aspect of power. And the WB tried very hard to stop it, and in the end, they got their way.
There is, without doubt, greedy asshats trying to do what they can to get very rich. It has been said that wars are started by these guys, but I don't know. How far do you think they would go?
village1diot 1 year ago
I love that girl on the left. She gives me hope there are actually intelligent women still living. (And that's not a slam on ALL women - just the ones I've dated :))
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago
@YourBrainOnReligion
I hear ya, too many Jesus freaks too few science freaks :)
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally For sure! I feel like a deranged stalker after realizing she didn't barely talk this time... doh! haha
YourBrainOnReligion 1 year ago