Chomsky advocated for putting the unvaccinated on an island. It shows you the power of propaganda, that a guy who's spent his life criticizing the regime, can be so easily taken in by regime narratives, and become even more extreme than the regime itself.
Except he's not right on that particular issue. He's describing something that leftists have been doing for centuries, that he himself has done to others, and bemoaning the concept of it righteously blowing back on him.
It's hypocritical as hell and has all the intellectual weight of "no u."
Except he's not right on that particular issue. He's describing something that leftists have been doing for centuries, that he himself has done to others, and bemoaning the concept of it righteously blowing back on him.
...that would mean that he's right. If this is how rulers limit debate (and I think it is one of the ways), then it wouldn't matter if "leftists" have done it in the past or indeed if he himself has done it.
This is why I am totally sceptical of any pushback against the troon shit by big name individuals like JK Rowling and Matt Walsh. The elites have simply decided to use the most useless of all their servants as fodder to allow normies to feel like things are finally going to return to "normal." To get all the froggies back to a slow boil. Of course, nothing is ever going to be done about troons, the slope is going to get even more slippery, but so long as we have all these celebs championing this one cause (and none others) we can get our dopamine hits from their slam dunks against the left and live vicariously through their supposed triumphs, thus freeing us from any obligation to do any work ourselves.
The best thing about the frog in the pot experiment was that the frog had been lobotomized - it was the whole point of the experiment to see if and how lobotomies changed behaviour.
NORMAL frogs are intelligent enough to jump out when they start to feel uncomfortable.
Humans are kind of like retarded frogs, and it's nothing new, it's what forged the twisted path that wound us up here in the first place.
My main beef with the trans stuff is that people are getting attacked for saying normal things like men are not women and there seems to be a massive campaign to force it along with lgbt stuff on everyone whether they want it or not
Yup. Although I've always found the whole crossdressing/transexual stuff quite weird, it was never a huge point of issue for me.
My two main objections to the modern version is the targeting of children and culture, and the targeting of reality and language.
You want to dress up as a woman? I don't give a shit. Just don't force it on me, don't force it on kids, and don't try to force me or society to pretend you're a woman.
Tranny bullshit offends me not inherently because of tranny bullshit, but because it's simply counter to reality. That's what offends me. It's the lie, not the crossdressing or whatever.
Likewise, the whole 'women's sports' issue. I don't care about women's sports. But, if "women's sports" is a category...obviously men shouldn't be in it. And obviously people should be free to say that it's kinda weird. Anything else is an affront, not to the sports, but to basic reality.
When the commies tell you what they are doing, believe them.
For instance, no one is talking about bringing back Adultery or Sodomy laws. That would benefit civilization immensely, but it's not even thought about.
I'd even be ok with making Lying a serious crime, when its deception that could be damaging to someone. Frankly we wouldn't go wrong moving closer to a Ten Commandments based society.
You can learn a lot about people who you thought were decent upstanding citizens when you propose this kind of thing and watch which ones react aggressively to the idea.
I'd rather we just returned to religion so those standards become effectively self-imposed because I certainly don't trust the government to handle arbitrating what constitutes telling a lie.
Yes, far-left. Like Russell Brand, except that Brand supported civil liberties during Covid and Chomsky was even more anti-civil liberties than the regime.
It should though, because he used to be of the Glenn Greenwald variety. He supported civil liberties for everyone, including Holocaust deniers and Nazis - regardless of the merits of his political views, which are not great.
I mean that was one of the few things I agreed with leftists about back in the day. “I may hate what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”.
That guy fought for the freedom of his country, against the russians. I seriously can’t understand the outrage. Who do these fucking retards think were fighting the russians during WW2?
Just curious, as I hadn't really thought about it, but do you think Brand can still be called far left? I doubt he's recovered from all hist socialist nonsense, and he's definitely not right wing, but I don't think he's far left. For one thing, as you said, he believes in liberty. I'd say he's more left libertarian now, if I had to label him.
Which, to be fair, is a pretty small group of people. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if over time he did become more right wing. He's a genuine leftist, but you can't exist that way for long as a dissident leftist. I'd imagine he'll shift rightward, similar to someone like Sargon. It's hard being a dissident leftist, because the left is so purist and loves their purges. You can only hang on so long.
Just curious, as I hadn't really thought about it, but do you think Brand can still be called far left? I doubt he's recovered from all hist socialist nonsense, and he's definitely not right wing, but I don't think he's far left. For one thing, as you said, he believes in liberty. I'd say he's more left libertarian now, if I had to label him.
I mean, this is exactly why I don't like left-right labels, but in my understanding, far-left is not necessarily inconsistent with being pro-liberty. I think people like Max Blumenthal of the Gray Zone would describe themselves as far-left, but they were still very strong in opposing a lot of the Covid nonsense.
In any case, Brand is definitely to the left of a lot of the neoliberal people we don't like. But I was rather impressed by how people here and elsewhere on the right, despite long bragging that they don't care if someone on the left has his free speech taken away, backed Brand to the hilt - despite all that. The left pretends to be better than it is, the right pretends to be worse.
Which, to be fair, is a pretty small group of people. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if over time he did become more right wing. He's a genuine leftist, but you can't exist that way for long as a dissident leftist
For now, there seems to be room for him. And I think it's good. You need sensible leftists out there, if they all become right-wing, leftists who have doubts about all the nonsense will have a choice between moving all the way over to the right (which is often a bridge too far), or putting up with all the nonsense.
It's hard being a dissident leftist, because the left is so purist and loves their purges. You can only hang on so long.
Only if you want to be 'accepted' into the left, which most of these people don't seem to care much about.
There's a purity spiral on the right as well, though it's maybe 1/1000 as intense as on the left. I feel very comfortable voicing exactly what I think here, because even if people grumble a bit, they're almost never witch-hunters who dismiss everything you say because they once disliked something you said.
But I was rather impressed by how people here and elsewhere on the right, despite long bragging that they don't care if someone on the left has his free speech taken away, backed Brand to the hilt - despite all that. The left pretends to be better than it is, the right pretends to be worse.
Agreed, but with a caveat. I see some on the right - not all, but enough to be noteworthy - giving a lot more credence to the accusations than I think is correct, just because he's a lefty, and just because he was promiscuous back in the day. Just because he was a degenerate doesn't mean the rape accusations are even partially accurate. Could they be? Sure. But some on the right are just assuming some level of guilt (not fully believing the accusations, but allowing that it's exaggeration instead of fabrication) because they don't like some aspects of Brand's character. They'll still defend Brand, but assume he at least did something wrong. I'm sticking with innocent until proven guilty, especially considering this is obviously a highly orchestrated and predictable hit job. Again, might he have done something wrong? Sure, but I'm not going to assume that, or couch my arguments in that.
When shit like this happens, it doesn't really matter the guilt or innocent, because the accusations are so pointed. Without full information, we simply can't know the truth, and if Brand did something wrong, it would be pure coincidence, given the charged nature of the accusations.
For now, there seems to be room for him. And I think it's good. You need sensible leftists out there...
Agreed, but the problem is two-fold. The left is basically fully captured, so "sensible leftists" often end up having much more in common with the right, and naturally shift that way. The other issue is the purity spiral and purging I mentioned. Sensible leftists aren't welcome on the left. So I do think it's natural that sensible or dissident leftists end up sliding rightward.
Chomsky is a cunt
Absolutely, but if he says 2+2=4 I'll still agree with him on that.
Why?
Why wouldn't I?
Why wouldn't you not have low standards?
I will assume you're misunderstanding me to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't think I misunderstood anything. Apparently something that is within reach of toddlers is praiseworthy?
Yeah you clearly don't understand what I was saying
The truth is a good standard to adhere to you absolute fucking retard.
Basic math is the truth now? We've sunk even lower than not knowing what a woman is then.
I'm not going to praise anyone simply for not being innumerate.
Nobody said anything about praising him you dumb fuck
A cunt can still be right on a given issue.
Chomsky advocated for putting the unvaccinated on an island. It shows you the power of propaganda, that a guy who's spent his life criticizing the regime, can be so easily taken in by regime narratives, and become even more extreme than the regime itself.
All it takes is to scare the wits out of him.
Except he's not right on that particular issue. He's describing something that leftists have been doing for centuries, that he himself has done to others, and bemoaning the concept of it righteously blowing back on him.
It's hypocritical as hell and has all the intellectual weight of "no u."
So of course you loved it.
...that would mean that he's right. If this is how rulers limit debate (and I think it is one of the ways), then it wouldn't matter if "leftists" have done it in the past or indeed if he himself has done it.
No, it means he's afraid of being beaten with his own stick.
Being right would look like basically the opposite of his whole life.
If it's "his own stick", that still means that this is the way that the rulers control discourse.
Which completely irrelevant to his hypocrisy and complicity in doing it.
I don't get it. Are you arguing that his 'hypocrisy' and 'complicity' make his analysis false? If not, then he's right.
Honestly, Noam is probably talking about the suppression of Communism, but he's right.
This is why I am totally sceptical of any pushback against the troon shit by big name individuals like JK Rowling and Matt Walsh. The elites have simply decided to use the most useless of all their servants as fodder to allow normies to feel like things are finally going to return to "normal." To get all the froggies back to a slow boil. Of course, nothing is ever going to be done about troons, the slope is going to get even more slippery, but so long as we have all these celebs championing this one cause (and none others) we can get our dopamine hits from their slam dunks against the left and live vicariously through their supposed triumphs, thus freeing us from any obligation to do any work ourselves.
The best thing about the frog in the pot experiment was that the frog had been lobotomized - it was the whole point of the experiment to see if and how lobotomies changed behaviour.
NORMAL frogs are intelligent enough to jump out when they start to feel uncomfortable.
Humans are kind of like retarded frogs, and it's nothing new, it's what forged the twisted path that wound us up here in the first place.
My main beef with the trans stuff is that people are getting attacked for saying normal things like men are not women and there seems to be a massive campaign to force it along with lgbt stuff on everyone whether they want it or not
Yup. Although I've always found the whole crossdressing/transexual stuff quite weird, it was never a huge point of issue for me.
My two main objections to the modern version is the targeting of children and culture, and the targeting of reality and language.
You want to dress up as a woman? I don't give a shit. Just don't force it on me, don't force it on kids, and don't try to force me or society to pretend you're a woman.
Tranny bullshit offends me not inherently because of tranny bullshit, but because it's simply counter to reality. That's what offends me. It's the lie, not the crossdressing or whatever.
Likewise, the whole 'women's sports' issue. I don't care about women's sports. But, if "women's sports" is a category...obviously men shouldn't be in it. And obviously people should be free to say that it's kinda weird. Anything else is an affront, not to the sports, but to basic reality.
Agreed. I draw the line when people demand I participate in their delusion
Agreed. You watch any movie they deem "non woke" and it's still riddled with girl bosses, feminist lectures, Mary sues, and putting men down.
When the commies tell you what they are doing, believe them.
For instance, no one is talking about bringing back Adultery or Sodomy laws. That would benefit civilization immensely, but it's not even thought about.
I'd even be ok with making Lying a serious crime, when its deception that could be damaging to someone. Frankly we wouldn't go wrong moving closer to a Ten Commandments based society.
You can learn a lot about people who you thought were decent upstanding citizens when you propose this kind of thing and watch which ones react aggressively to the idea.
I'd rather we just returned to religion so those standards become effectively self-imposed because I certainly don't trust the government to handle arbitrating what constitutes telling a lie.
Noam Chomsky is a Bolshevik shitbird who probably should have been strangled as a child.
Referendums are useless. They'll keep having one over and over again until they get the answer they want or just ignore it.
Chomsky is a leftist right? He does make good points at times
Yes, far-left. Like Russell Brand, except that Brand supported civil liberties during Covid and Chomsky was even more anti-civil liberties than the regime.
If your belief in freedom ends with "until" or "unless" you don't believe in it.
Brain-dead Europeans often make this argument: yeah, we have freedom of speech, but it's not UNLIMITED.
Well then so has North Korea.
Well you know (((Chompsky))) means there's one topic that's off limits.
Chomsky defended a guy who denied the Holocaust, and even wrote a foreword for one of his books saying that it was serious scholarship...
I will believe that this guy believes in free speech when I see it.
Which denier?
Some French professor. By no means endorsing Wikipedia, but here you can get the gist of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair
Wow. I guess that doesn’t surprise me about Chomsky
It should though, because he used to be of the Glenn Greenwald variety. He supported civil liberties for everyone, including Holocaust deniers and Nazis - regardless of the merits of his political views, which are not great.
I mean that was one of the few things I agreed with leftists about back in the day. “I may hate what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”.
Turns out, for most of them that applied only to speech they agreed with. Oh, and to members of the Waffen SS.
I guess you are right
That guy fought for the freedom of his country, against the russians. I seriously can’t understand the outrage. Who do these fucking retards think were fighting the russians during WW2?
You sound very confused.
Just curious, as I hadn't really thought about it, but do you think Brand can still be called far left? I doubt he's recovered from all hist socialist nonsense, and he's definitely not right wing, but I don't think he's far left. For one thing, as you said, he believes in liberty. I'd say he's more left libertarian now, if I had to label him.
Which, to be fair, is a pretty small group of people. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if over time he did become more right wing. He's a genuine leftist, but you can't exist that way for long as a dissident leftist. I'd imagine he'll shift rightward, similar to someone like Sargon. It's hard being a dissident leftist, because the left is so purist and loves their purges. You can only hang on so long.
I mean, this is exactly why I don't like left-right labels, but in my understanding, far-left is not necessarily inconsistent with being pro-liberty. I think people like Max Blumenthal of the Gray Zone would describe themselves as far-left, but they were still very strong in opposing a lot of the Covid nonsense.
In any case, Brand is definitely to the left of a lot of the neoliberal people we don't like. But I was rather impressed by how people here and elsewhere on the right, despite long bragging that they don't care if someone on the left has his free speech taken away, backed Brand to the hilt - despite all that. The left pretends to be better than it is, the right pretends to be worse.
For now, there seems to be room for him. And I think it's good. You need sensible leftists out there, if they all become right-wing, leftists who have doubts about all the nonsense will have a choice between moving all the way over to the right (which is often a bridge too far), or putting up with all the nonsense.
Only if you want to be 'accepted' into the left, which most of these people don't seem to care much about.
There's a purity spiral on the right as well, though it's maybe 1/1000 as intense as on the left. I feel very comfortable voicing exactly what I think here, because even if people grumble a bit, they're almost never witch-hunters who dismiss everything you say because they once disliked something you said.
Good point and, yeah, the labels often suck.
Agreed, but with a caveat. I see some on the right - not all, but enough to be noteworthy - giving a lot more credence to the accusations than I think is correct, just because he's a lefty, and just because he was promiscuous back in the day. Just because he was a degenerate doesn't mean the rape accusations are even partially accurate. Could they be? Sure. But some on the right are just assuming some level of guilt (not fully believing the accusations, but allowing that it's exaggeration instead of fabrication) because they don't like some aspects of Brand's character. They'll still defend Brand, but assume he at least did something wrong. I'm sticking with innocent until proven guilty, especially considering this is obviously a highly orchestrated and predictable hit job. Again, might he have done something wrong? Sure, but I'm not going to assume that, or couch my arguments in that.
When shit like this happens, it doesn't really matter the guilt or innocent, because the accusations are so pointed. Without full information, we simply can't know the truth, and if Brand did something wrong, it would be pure coincidence, given the charged nature of the accusations.
Agreed, but the problem is two-fold. The left is basically fully captured, so "sensible leftists" often end up having much more in common with the right, and naturally shift that way. The other issue is the purity spiral and purging I mentioned. Sensible leftists aren't welcome on the left. So I do think it's natural that sensible or dissident leftists end up sliding rightward.