So... go for it.
And I'm not talking about hoodlums who stir up shit at otherwise peaceful demonstrations. I'm talking about real anarchy: where people are in charge of themselves and their actions/choices. (as we all are anyway, whether we recognize it or not)
Are you an anarchist? Why, or why not?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-04 19:18
>>80 you think Chomsky is some kind of wizard with all the answers
Nice straw man, dickface. I don't remember reading anything of the sort in >>78
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 6:07
Wow, I never thought that mentioning chomski would have this effect! I think it is fucking stupid to discard academics like this. Whether you agree with them or not, these people spend all their lives trying to understand things and test their understanding as part of their everyday life. They can't all be right and of course we shouldn't take everything they say for granted, but at least we need to have proper arguements in a conversation rather than performing ad hominem (attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments).
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 10:04
>>81
Why shouldn't I compare a professor at MIT with Glenn Beck? MIT does not hire based entirely on merit, they include race, political connections and money as factors when discriminating against people, in fact the only reason they hire based on merit is to bolster the image of those who were not hired based on merit.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 11:48
>>82 i think its pretty easy to discard somebody when he tells others that your beliefs support tyranny
its no different then if i were to say that all socialists support tyranny
and personally i am tired of socialist leaning individuals using " well chomsky says this about you " as their argument against libertarianism
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-06 2:41
I don't know man. He makes sense to me. Stil i can't say I have fully understood what libertarians believe in and he points out (in the video above) that the word libertarian has a different meaning in the US than it does for the rest of the world. This is something I was trying to say earlier in this conversation and I think it did make sense to link this video. Obviously I struck some kind of endo-US flame war between chomski and , well I don't undersand who else exactly. Anyway, I think the opinion of a linguist on the meaning of a word in different places of the world was not only relevant but also necassary in order to clarify things in a conversation between people from different parts of the world.
PS. This is how you substantiate an answer with proper arguements.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-06 2:46
PS2 The previous PS was intended for people like 79 and 80, not the previous poster.
>>83 MIT does not hire based entirely on merit, they include race, political connections and money as factors when discriminating against people, in fact the only reason they hire based on merit is to bolster the image of those who were not hired based on merit.
Even if that we're true --even if you weren't entirely fucking clueless as to who MIT hires and why-- you can't possibly deny that being a professor there does require at least some merit that Glenn Beck will never have.
And hell, look at Beck's career. Do you really think that people get hired in the radio business based solely on merit?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-06 4:04
so its more like " in the us libertarianism means tyranny, but in everywhere else it means my brand of socialism?"
or?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-06 8:38
Ok. The only times i've heard of libertarianism in europe was in the case of libertarian communism - a.k.a. anarco-communism. I can't say I've completely understood the use of the term in the US, so I really don't have an opinion on whether it's tyranny or not. For example, libertarian communism in wiki redirects directly to 'anarchist communism'. Looking a bit further into it, I noticed that there is also 'libertarian socialism' also called 'social anarchism'. Now, looking up the term 'libertarianism' on it's own revealed that apparently there are left libertarians and right libertarians. I believe that this is where the confusion is drawn from.
Apparently, the first use if the word DID refer to anarchocommunism. The term libertarian was used to seperate anarchists from communists at the very first stages.
"The use of the word 'libertarian' to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[17][18][19] Hence libertarian has been used as a synonym for left-wing anarchism or libertarian socialism since the 1890s.[20]"
>>87
>And hell, look at Beck's career. Do you really think that people get hired in the radio business based solely on merit?
There are different definitions of "merit" bro - and a major component of that in the radio business would be getting (and keeping) listeners.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-08 6:28
>>87 fucking clueless
You call me clueless yet you believe in argument from authority logical fallacies.
I would respect the opinion of a theoretical physicist on theoretical physics or the opinion of a cellular biologist on cellular biology, but because I won't respect the opinion of a linguist (which is considered by many logicians and discrete mathematicians to be a pseudo-science, much like sociology) on politics you instantly throw a hissy fit and repeating your same argument "HE'S SMART AND YOU'RE STUPID, BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE TELLS YOU".
Glenn Beck is in the same intellectual ball park as Chomsky, the far-left is the same as the far-right in it's use of appeals to emotion, appeals to authority and exploitation of neuroses and mental illness in their followers, such as projective defense mechanisms.
That's all I'm saying, I don't understand why you're getting so mad. >>90
I don't know what you're saying. Spell it out for me.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-10 12:01
"HE'S SMART AND YOU'RE STUPID, BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE TELLS YOU".
Don't lecture me on logical fallacies when you've been pulling straw men out of your ass. If I seem upset (I'm not) or act nasty to you it's because you're coming across as nothing more than a mildly cunning troll. I'm just treating you accordingly. Glenn Beck is in the same intellectual ball park as Chomsky, the far-left is the same as the far-right in it's use of appeals to emotion, appeals to authority
Funny, I've never seen Chomsky use Nazi imagery or pretend to cry on national television. I never said Chomsky was perfect. Nobody did. But Glenn Beck is on a completely different level. There are different definitions of "merit" bro - and a major component of that in the radio business would be getting (and keeping) listeners.
Fair enough. But getting and keeping listeners absolutely does not make me respect someone's opinion. My point was that the media business is more corrupt than academia, which --don't get me wrong-- is corrupted in its own right.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-10 12:56
>>93
Chomsky and Glenn Beck both intentionally create logical fallacies for propoganda purposes and redirect people's malcontent with corruption towards boogeymen, the only difference is in the subjective tastes that you have been psychologically indoctrinated to actually believe. To you Chomsky seems like an intellectual who has questioned society and has made much legitimate criticism, if you take the impartial perspective then this pattern of acknowledging facts out of necessity then creating a fallacious analysis of the facts to redirect people's attention soon becomes self-evident.
>>94
I'm curious. Could you give some examples of chomsky's logical fallacies? I mean, the guy has written more that i can read, but from what I've read so far, I haven't seen any logical fallacies.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-12 0:02
Let's talk about an-arch-y
Let's talk about you and me
Let's talk about all good things
and all the bad things that may be
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-12 0:17
>>93
Keep up the good fight!
I think you are right on the money re: sophisticated troll.
It's just one troll conflating Chomsky with Beck. Chomsky has written more than is healthy, about topics ranging from linguistics to politics, and Beck is a Fox News™-promoting charlatan with an extremely undeserved career in broadcast television (not that I don't feel the same towards more or less ALL television personalities for that matter), he honestly shouldn't be given an occupation higher than that of a grocery department manager.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-02 8:02
*BUMP*
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-02 8:03
*BOOOOOM*
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-03 8:03
>>102
You don't get it. I'm not comparing Beck to Chomsky because I think Chomsky is intelligent but because I think they are both fallacy promoting charlatans.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-03 8:11
>>105
Care to give us an example of chomsky's fallacies?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-03 12:37
>>106
A common theme are his kierkegaardian leaps of faith and inability to choose the "lesser evil". For instance he opposes neo-liberal free trade because it allows evil corporations to use market cornering tactics to strong arm the various shitty despotic 3rd world countries across the globe into unfair deals, yet trade with these countries is often a lifeline for millions of people who would otherwise be thrown into even deeper poverty and as the evil corporations educate and train workers, build facilities, slip governors bribes so they set up power lines, dams, rails, roads, canals and ports.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-03 12:40
>>106
Oops accidentally clicked reply. Anyway, as the evil corporations build up these countries they give them enough economic power to throw off their shackles and join the modern world. Just look at Hong Kong. Oppressed victim and colony one minute then an egalitarian 1st world democracy the next. Just ask Jackie Chan, go right ahead and send him an e-mail telling him about this thread and he will agree with me. Send one to Chomsky to.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-03 16:01
>>108
Well, that's very arguable you see. From a political point of view, you just disagree with him and you call it a fallacy. I could give you dozens of examples why the neo-liberal agenda is catastrophic but I'm afraid I might not express things well enough and end up confusing you. If you are in the mood for some reading have a look at this (it's not too long):
I totaly agree with marco's analysis of neo-liberalism. I think that choosing the lesser evil will get you nowhere. This way you will never have control over your own life.
I'm not crazy, I'm not a troll. But, I love the Matrix, Stephen King's Dreamcatcher and Food Incorporated.
If any of you hate the corporations like Cargill, Perdue (if you speak french, this name is ironic) and the destruction that others like them are wreaking upon the earth and humanity in the name of profit, then I invite 4chan to expose them. Take the red pill, and the most rocking trip since time began.
If I have inadvertantly posted in the wrong board, please forgive me and direct me to another. This same message will appear again and again until Anonymous finds it and chooses to act. or not. I mean, it's up to them. But, if they've successfully targeted Scientology then American corporations and special interests ought to be a piece of cake.
Ready for the revolution?
Anarchy of the right kind is awesome, by the way. ;)