Chomsky gives advice to Obama

[1tonykirk]

Chomsky is a psyop agent. watch: Hoax of the Bosnian Serb Death Camp - 1/3 on Jared Israels Channel.

Also read: "My Farewell to Israel" by Jack Bernstein, the Mossad killed him for it.

America must rid itself of Electronic Voting Machines. They are equipped with programmable chips that can flip the vote. Proven in California Superior Court and used in the last two POTUS Elections.

Look up Cliff Curtis, the guy who wrote the programs....

[Frasssaanarchy]

Representative democracy is just loose aristocracy.

[EclecticSceptic]

That's a great artwork at the end. It's like a more striking version of the American flag with corporate logos as stars. Actually no, that's terrifying too. :(

[Jaakk0S]

"your role as a leader should be to eliminate yourself" What a twisted perspective! Anyone thinking that way simply wouldn't become a leader. This is an anarchist view talking about what leadership should be from the perspective that leadership doesn't exist. The role of a leader has never been to eliminate oneself but to guarantee good leadership so that bad leaders wouldn't seize power.

I highly appreciate Chomsky's motives but I have no respect for his words.

[nasri1011]

@Jaakk0S

what are you talking about?

there should be no leaders in a democracy only governors/representatives.

it does not matter that you think makes a good leader or not.

they should not exist, in the context Chomsky is talking about.

[Jaakk0S]

@nasri1011 Firstly, the context of Chomsky's views is society, not democracy. Please name one person in history who meant anarchism/leaderlessness with 'democracy'. Secondly, he says that a role of a leader should be to eliminate oneself, which doesn't follow from his premise. In hiw view there should be no leaders (the role of a leader shouldn't exist), but logically this whole sentence must not apply to leaders, since they already exist in a world with leaders.

[Jaakk0S]

And furthermore, this category error is why anarchism, apart from Chomsky, is a form of society supported by virtually no historical thinkers. In my opinion, he, like rebelling teenagers in all generations, doesn't take into account what it means when it is said that some people are natural leaders. Leaders exist in all societies from monkeys to advanced human societies, but a person can well disregard that human feature and idealize a society for non-humans.

[nasri1011]

@Jaakk0S

Am sorry i seem to have mistaken you for a sensible person.

the context is a society with a representative democracy.

watch?v=XUBeqR5f8sA

as for naming one person who want democracy in a leaderless society.

oh i don't know how about Chomsky!

you don't know much about anarchism or Chomsky, so lets forget it.

bye bye.

[Jaakk0S]

@nasri1011 Who the f cares about what Chomsky alone says, he's no God and his views are deemed highly controversial within philosophy. He acts like some sort of absolute truth but rather he is just an intellectual authority and enjoys the position.

[owenhunt]

@Jaakk0S He's a linguist; try and realise that the elimination of the self is the deconstruction of your authority. That is his message. He is talking about entering politics with a view to emancipate through hoodwinking the elite your briefly aquaint with, before backstabbing. He is talking about an elite selling the elite down the river.

[Jaakk0S]

@owenhunt what on earth are you talking about? C. said or meant nothing related to whatever you said can be guessed to mean. "That is his message"... I believe youre talking about the Christ, not Chomsky.

[chinopisces]

@Jaakk0S: You're not very smart.

Every comment that has rebutted against yours is sensible and quite enlightening if you bother to listen and consider them.

And yet you still don't get it. Don't assume to think that you could possibly know what Chomsky thinks. He has forgotten more then you will ever know.

In the words of a troll, do us all a favor and GTFO.

[Jaakk0S]

@chinopisces thx troll i really listened to and considered your rich argument

[ohwell121]

"your role as a leader should be to eliminate yourself"

hah! what a great opener, i'm gonna remmeber that

[ladydzire]

"Remember democracy isn't just voting it's also participation, discussion and interchange.."

[Electrorules]

STOP THE NWO

[PersianGuileAgain]

Noam has really lost it to paranoia.

[InvaderZooych]

you've really lost it to corporate propaganda

[larkydozer]

Yes, because we all know the locus of discretion resides with an M.I.T. linguist and not with an individual who possess free will.

[vktrsx]

"Free will" is a mythological spook, like "natural rights" and the "invisible hand."

[larkydozer]

But of course your comment is not an reasoned argument.

[vktrsx]

I could give one, but probably not in 500 characters or less.

But then I don't need to. It is they who believe in the Free Will Phantom who bear the burden of proof, because it is they who make the outlandish claim that Homo sapiens is a magical creature.

[larkydozer]

Nice deflection. Chomsky does that in debate all the time.

[vktrsx]

It's not a deflection, just a statement of what ought to be self-evident.

It's like gods: there was a time before them, then one day somebody had a big idea. From that day to this, the burden of proof has rested on the shoulders of the believers, not the skeptics (who are still waiting).

Ditto "free will." It's a spook somebody cooked up.

[larkydozer]

You're still deflecting and showing yourself to be on a crusade about religion rather than demonstrating an ability to reason.

You've still not explained why the assumption that the locus of discretion resides with an M.I.T. linguist and not in the individual.

Care to stick to the topic or must you crusade more?

[vktrsx]

Are you sure you meant this in reply to me? I've just gone back over our exchange and all I see is me calling free will nonsense, you saying that's not an argument, me saying there's not enough space, you calling that a copout, me attempting a short elaboration, you jumping the tracks and mumbling something about how I should be defending Chomsky.

Care to explain, or can I just assume you're off your meds?

[larkydozer]

Because you're sloppy, here are the comments you've ignored, once again...

You're still deflecting and showing yourself to be on a crusade about religion rather than demonstrating an ability to reason.

You've still not explained why the assumption that the locus of discretion resides with an M.I.T. linguist and not in the individual.

Care to stick to the topic or must you crusade more?

[vktrsx]

"Still" on religion? Where? My last was about you coming out of nowhere and slapping me with the Chomsky fish.

And there you did it again. Seriously: I don't even know what you're asking me there, regarding Chomsky and MIT.

Elaborate please.

Actually, don't. I don't care about your Chomsky fetish. I was talking about free will, not Chomsky.

Are you SURE you're replying to the right user? Please triple-check next time, because I'm utterly lost. You're babbling incoherently from my perspective

[larkydozer]

Your "perspective" apparently reveals an inability to clearly reason.

One more time, just to give you a third chance to prove you're a rational being....

You're still deflecting and showing yourself to be on a crusade about religion rather than demonstrating an ability to reason.

You've still not explained why the assumption that the locus of discretion resides with an M.I.T. linguist and not in the individual.

Care to stick to the topic or must you crusade more?

[vktrsx]

I made an analogy to the god hypothesis, once. How is that a "crusade about religion"? It sounds like you're on the crusade; you keep harping about something that never happened.

I have NO IDEA what you're talking about regarding Chomsky. Seriously, I'm lost. I CAN'T respond until you explain what "the assumption that the locus of discretion resides with an M.I.T. linguist" relates to.

I'm fairly certain you're just toying with me at this point, so this is your last chance to explain.

[larkydozer]

Your actions demonstrate to me that to look for reasoned debate on YouTube is like expecting good nutrition at Burger King.

If you cannot respond because you need a simple phrase explained to you, I don't imagine that you'd be able to get very far in any of Chomsky's works either.

[vktrsx]

I understand the language, I just don't understand what it relates to, or why you keep harping on me about it. It seems utterly irrelevant to my free will comment.

I've always assumed Burger King was slightly more nutritious than McDonald's, based on the appearance and texture of their respective meat patties. BK seems like actual beef, and is actually broiled. McD's seems like some kind of soy mixture, warmed in a microwave.

Anyway good luck out there debating, you're gonna need it.

[larkydozer]

This is all because you're intellectually bankrupt.

Only a child would attempt to reason with you.

[vktrsx]

Then it must be WAY past your bedtime!

[larkydozer]

One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success.

[larkydozer]

Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."

[oldjoe5]

My God.

You are a pompous twit and can't write a lick.

Your pretentious and garbled syntax makes me cringe.

[sophia277]

If one makes the claim that free will is real, then one is claiming that homo sapiens is a magical creature? That doesn't logically follow. Please open bare your presuppositions before you begin spinning in an absurd arguments about what you don't understand. Shouldn't the burden of proof for your unstated position be on you and those who make the argument as well? I hope that's not too much to ask. Please help this confused philosophy student.

[vktrsx]

Sophia, I logged in just to play with the new channel design, so forgive me if I don't respond after this.

I don't deny that the will can (and should) be expressed "freely" (unhindered); I deny that it is self-causing, that it springs magically into our heads.

I've explained already why the burden of proof lies on the free-will believer.

I don't need formal training in philosophy to sniff out nonsense, and I reject attempts by gatekeepers to stop me from calling BS when I smell it.

[sophia277]

And what reasoning have you provided for this "spook" phenomenon? I could easily argue that what you're saying is a "spook" based on your opinionated head. This is not exactly the place to do philosophy. Take a philosophy class and there you can argue all you want about this freewill "spook." The only problem though is that no one will telerate from you unsubstantiated statements.

[sophia277]

Really, what are you talking about? I am not asking to put you down, but I really want to know what you mean by "the locus (place) of discretion resides with an M.I.T. linguist and not with an individual who possesses free will?" Can you please restate that point because you have me and other people pretty puzzled.

[larkydozer]

Truth.

[cayetanoluis]

What do people think about the role of rational and scientific thinking in the running of a workers' society? Does genuine democratic participation in and of itself tend towards producing a society in which rationality comes to the fore? What role will the views of scientists themselves play in this new society, and if they are to be important, how will they come to facilitate and inform effective and humane solutions for running society for the benefit of all?

[ngbdkhg]

yeah i made a mistake, got a bit mixed up there

[BINKIE2000]

You can't accumulate $1,000,000 using just your own labour - you do it by stealing a

little bit of the added value each of your employees produces in HIS labour. So given

that, it seems only fair that YOU should be taxed, and the employee, who has already

made his contribution, not at all.

[BINKIE2000]

In fact, in a truly just system, ALL of the profit you now steal from your employees should be put to the common good, and you should be given the choice of doing something useful (like your employees), or be left to your own devices.

It is wrong for one man to steal from another.

[ngbdkhg]

haha, Noam Chomsky voted for Barack Obama this year

[keytoothed]

No, he didn't.

[DANxCHORIN]

Nope, he voted for Cynthia McKinney

[HauntingTheHoly]

Source? I can quote him as saying "I recommend voting against McCain, and that means voting for Obama without illusions"

[DANxCHORIN]

He said that for those in swing states. Chomsky lives in Massachusetts; a blue state.

So he voted for Cynthia McKinney on the Green Party ticket. Just search "Chomsky endorses McKinney" on Google.

[BINKIE2000]

At a time when there is an upsurge in popular enthusiasm for progressive change, this clip reads as obscurantist doom-mongering, with a video that looks like it was produced by the far-right.

[mutulus]

try the far left. the actual left not fox news's definition of where the center is.

[thorsmitersaw]

binkie: nice false dichotomy. where can I get one?

[braxton427]

this people of this country could never rule themselves. that would be like expecting a farm to run itself without farmhands.

[thorsmitersaw]

I really do not like how comfortable Chomsky is with democracy.

[mr1001nights]

thats because u identify democracy w/1 algorithm, w/1 voting pattern; namely majority rule e.g. 51% overriding 49%. What he means is people having a say over decisions in proportion to how much theyre affected by those decisions. This can be 51% over 49% but it can also be 1% having more say than 99%, 25% more than 75% etc. Unless people democratically control their productive lives they wont control their own destinies and thus will remain wage slaves to the state or to capitalists or to both

[thorsmitersaw]

I fail to see how such a principle of RULE, as you defined it here, can even be CALLED democracy. It seems to fly in the face of any historic knowledge I have of what democracy IS or HAS BEEN.

And DAMN your "algorithms", if it is a rights violation of even 1 person I do not give two shits how many people decided upon it or what algorithm under which the decision was made, its unjust.

[mr1001nights]

U shouldn't let elite definitions of democracy affect ur judgement--there r real examples of it, small & large.Those algorithms r the only thing that can protect minority rights. Unless people construct forums in which they strive to have a say over decisions in proportion to how much theyre affected by those decisions, their freedom will be trampled. The only structures that provide for such algorithms in an economy seem to be worker's councils democratically controlling the means of production

[baseballnolie34]

I always wonder this: in your moral system, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread from a wealthy man to feed your starving family?

Say there are two men, one with $1,000 total worth and one with $1,000,000,000. Is it equivalent to:

1) Take $500 from both

2) Take 10% from each

3) Take 10% from 1, 50% the other

Do you believe that "all men are an island", in the sense that they make their own destiny and their lot in life is due only to their own choices?

Thoughts on equality of opportunity?

[Antiks72]

@thorsmitersaw Democracy is just rule by majority. It can be just as tyrannical as the current oligarchial system we live in now.

[KrugmanTheKing]

@thorsmitersaw

Because I breathe here, I forever leave a mark of my passage as I prevent you to breathe this same air. It might seem ridicule an example, but it essentially contains the principle: we cannot devise a single system wherein no one is affected. The reason you believe infringements are always unthinkable is because this prevents you from doing anything to those who want you to believe they neither won't do something to you.

Power is sometime legitimate, but it must be proven.

[pythagoras9]

I agree with you that people need more democracy. Switzerland is a democracy and nobody is forcing anyone to drink hemlock over there. The rich and the powerful don't want the masses to have more democracy and this is because it threatens their own power as well as the manipulative hold that they have over the masses.

[KenCat1337]

I've been told that Obama resembles JFK by older voters many times.. That's what scares me, he may escalate the war he advocates in the middle east even further..

I don't want another Vietnam.

[Staubdumm]

Chomsky: Elimate yourself.

Obama: *BOOM!*

[FailJustPwnd]

Gotta love that Chomsky.

[awesomerepublican]

Smart words. That's why Obama has inspired more voter participation and interest back into politics than any other president in recent history. That's why his campaign has been the most inclusive one as well. Giving voice to the people and putting government accountable to the people again-transparency. Good stuff.

[KenCat1337]

Did you even watch the video?!

[MarxBakuninMe]

How I wish that the likes of Chomsky were given as much publicity as idiots like Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly. It's just depressing, really . . . is this what we fought for in WW2, so differing opinions could be marginalised?

Fuck the media.

[thorsmitersaw]

what we fought in ww2 for was to take the role Germany had. Don't have any illusions about ww2 being some grand and holy war against tyranny. It wasn't. The United States gang saw a opportunity and seized it.

[mikezephyr]

spot on thor!

[bebop54]

...yeah !!!!!!....

[PersianGuileAgain]

Chomsky is presented in countless outlets and is one of the most quoted public intellectuals.

How is it that he is "marginalised" , in light of this?

Really a ridiculous comment that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[Arkinight]

That's exactly why he's marginalized, he even says this himself. But you need to understand by whom he is marginalized - certainly not the population, but definitely the mainstream media and the political class.

[larkydozer]

I may have a great body of work, several books to my name and tenure within an academic institution.

It's hardly my being "marginalized" if media outlets don't see it their duty to disseminate my political opinions.

You don't see Thomas Sowell in the maintstream media and his books are largely ignored, but you wouldn't say he's being marginalized and he certainly doesn't make such a claim.