Support NeoGAF

[Boney]

Democracy Now! sat down with the world's most important dissident for a 70 minute interview. Watch it here https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/4/full_interview_noam_chomsky_on_democracy

Headlines:

Noam Chomsky: Trump Administration Is Aiming to Decimate All Programs to Help Working People

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I think it was captured pretty well by a Los Angeles Times editorial, which simply called it a "train wreck." But it’s very consistent, very systematic. Anything that can be of assistance to ordinary people, working people, middle-class people, people on the street—any such program has to be decimated. Anything that adds to wealth and power or that increases the use of force, that we carry forward.

And it’s done with—there’s kind of a two-tiered system working—I presume, consciously, so systematic it’s hard to question. The Bannon-Trump team wants to make sure that they dominate the headlines. So, whatever they do, that’s what people look at, and one crazy thing after another, the assumption apparently being you’ll forget the old ones by the time the new ones come in. So, no one talks anymore about the 3 million illegal immigrants who voted for Clinton. That one, we’ve forgotten. We’re on to the next one, and we’ll go on to the next one. While this is going on in front, the Paul Ryan-style budgetary and planning operations are going on quietly in the back, ripping to shreds any element of government that can help people either today or tomorrow. That’s the point of the destruction of the environmental system. It’s not just the EPA which was slashed. Most of the environmental programs were actually in the Energy Department. Their research and activist programs were slashed very seriously.

Chomsky: It's As If Trump Administration Is Flaunting That U.S. Is Run by Goldman Sachs

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as you say, they’ve run it all the time. The simple measures, like campaign funding alone, simple measure like that, is a very close predictor, not only of electoral victory, but even of policies. That’s been true for a century. And if you take a look at the analysis of public attitude—a major topic in academic political science is comparing popular attitudes with public policy. It’s pretty straightforward. Public policy, you can see. Popular attitudes, we know a lot about from extensive polling. And the results are pretty startling. Turns out that about 70 percent of voters, which is maybe half the electorate—about 70 percent of voters are literally disenfranchised, the lower 70 percent on the income scale, meaning that their own representatives pay no attention to their—to their attitudes and preferences. If you move up the income scale, you get a little more correlation, more—a little more influence. The very top, which is probably a fraction of 1 percent, if you could get the data, it’s where policy is set. Now, the Trump administration is kind of a caricature of this. It’s always pretty much true. But here they’re—it’s as if they’re kind of purposely trying to flaunt the fact that this country is run by Goldman Sachs and billionaires, and nobody else counts.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Right, all of them. I mean, it’s almost like a shocking parody, as if they’re trying to show, "Yeah, what we all know is true is dramatically true, and we’re going to show it to you."

The interesting—an interesting question, the one you raise, is: How are they maintaining support among the people they’re kicking in the face? That’s not uninteresting. And if you look into it, there’s a number of factors. One—first of all, many of the Trump voters, white working-class voters, quite a few of them voted for Obama in 2008. You go back to the Obama campaign, the exciting words were "hope" and "change." I don’t usually agree with Sarah Palin, but when she asked, "Where’s this hopey-changey stuff?" she wasn’t talking nonsense. It quickly became clear there’s no hope and there’s no change. And the working people were significantly disillusioned. You could see it right in Massachusetts, where—when Kennedy died, you know, the "liberal lion." There was going to be a vote for—to replace him, 2010. Amazingly, a Republican won, in Democratic Massachusetts, Kennedy’s seat. And union voters didn’t vote for the Democrats. They were very upset by the fact that they had been cheated, they felt, rightly, by the Obama campaign of promises. And they turned to their bitter class enemy, who at least talks the words. The Republicans have mastered the technique of talking words as if you’re sort of an ordinary guy, you know, kind of guy you’d meet in a bar, that sort of thing. It goes back to Reagan and his jellybeans, and Bush, you know, mispronouncing words, and so on and so forth. It’s a game that’s played. And it’s a con game. But in the absence of any opposition, it works.

And what happens when there is an opposition? That’s very striking. The most astonishing fact about the last election, which is the Sanders achievements, that’s a break from a century of American political history. As I said, you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone. There’s other factors that intensify it. Here comes Sanders, somebody nobody ever heard of. No support from the wealthy, no support from corporations. The media ignored or disparaged him. He even used a scare word, "socialist." Came from nowhere. He would have won the Democratic Party nomination if it hadn’t been for the shenanigans of the Obama-Clinton party managers who kept him out. Might have been president. From nothing. That’s an incredible break. It shows what can happen when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns of much of the population.

Chomsky: Our Privatized U.S. Healthcare Program is an "International Scandal"

NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, there was a pretty interesting poll about it that came out a couple of days ago, simply asking people what they preferred. The Republican proposal was the lowest of the choices available. I think about 15 percent of the population were willing to accept it. Somewhat higher was the existing system, so-called Obamacare. And on that, it’s worth bearing in mind that a lot of people don’t know that Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. So you have negative attitudes towards Obamacare, thanks to lots of propaganda, but more positive attitudes towards the Affordable Care Act, because of what people see.

Most popular of all—over half—was the so-called public option, a government-guaranteed healthcare program, which is pretty remarkable because no one publicly advocates that. But it’s been a consistent polling result for decades, that when people are asked what they want, they say that’s their choice. And, in fact, that’s about the only proposal that makes any sense. The U.S. healthcare system is an international scandal. It’s roughly twice the per capita costs of comparable countries, and some of the worst outcomes, mainly because it’s privatized, extremely inefficient, bureaucratized, lots of bill paying, lots of officials, tons of money wasted, healthcare in the hands of profit-seeking institutions, which are not health institutions, of course. And for decades people have preferred what every other country has, in some fashion: either straight national healthcare or heavily government-regulated healthcare like, say, Switzerland. Sometimes the support is astonishingly high. So, in the late Reagan years, for example, about 70 percent of the population thought that guaranteed healthcare should be a constitutional guarantee, because it’s such an obvious desideratum. And about 40 percent thought it already was in the Constitution. The Constitution is just this holy collection of anything reasonable, so it must be there.

But it just doesn’t matter what people think. When Obama put through his own program, I think support for the public option was almost two-thirds, but it was simply dismantled. When this is—occasionally, this is discussed in the press, New York Times, others. And they mention it. They say it’s a possibility, but it’s called politically impossible, which is correct, which means you can’t pass it through the pharmaceutical corporations and financial institutions. That’s politically possible in what’s called democracy. Sometimes they say "lacking political support," meaning from the institutions that really matter. There’s kind of this population on the side, but we can dismiss them, yeah.

Chomsky: With U.S. History of Overthrowing Govts, Outrage over Russian Hacking Claims is Laughable

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a pretty remarkable fact that—first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn’t just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn’t like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone—it’s the least of it—the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it’s considered—it’s turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world.

So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump’s programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That’s—the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can’t believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, "Sure, that’s just what they ought to be doing."

So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That’s not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it.

When Scapegoating Immigrants No Longer Works, Would Trump Stage an Attack to Maintain Power?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, actually, the statement I made was pretty muted. It wasn’t quite as strong as the headlines indicated. What I pointed out—and what everyone, I think, is aware of—is that sooner or later this con game is not going to work. People will understand he’s not bringing back jobs. He’s not going to recreate the partly illusory, partly real picture of what life was like in the past, with manufacturing jobs and a functioning society, and you could get ahead, and so and so forth. He’s not going to create that.

What happens at that point? Something has to be done to maintain control. The obvious technique is scapegoating. So blame it on immigrants, on Muslims, on somebody. But that can only go so far. The next step would be, as I said, an alleged terrorist attack, which is quite easy. It’s, in fact, almost normal to—like Condoleezza Rice’s mushroom clouds. That’s easy to construct, alleged attacks. The other possibility is a staged attack of a minor kind. And how hard would that be? Take the FBI technique, which they’re using constantly, of creating situations of entrapment. Well, suppose one of them goes a little too far, that you don’t stop it right in time. That wouldn’t be hard to work out. I don’t particularly anticipate it, but it’s a possibility. And this is a very frightened country. For years, this has been probably the most frightened country in the world. It’s also the safest country in the world. It’s very easy to terrify people.

Extraordinarily Dangerous: Chomsky on How Trump's Threats Toward N. Korea Could Backfire

And why are they developing nuclear weapons altogether? I mean, the economy is in bad shape. They could certainly use the resources. Everyone understands that it’s a deterrent. And they have a proposal, actually. There’s a proposal on the table. China and North Korea proposed that North Korea should terminate its further development of nuclear weapons. In return, the United States should stop carrying out threatening military maneuvers with South Korea right on its border. Not an unreasonable proposal. It’s simply dismissed. Actually, Obama dismissed it, too. There are possible steps that could be taken to alleviate which could be an extremely serious crisis. I mean, if the U.S. did decide to use force against North Korea, one immediate reaction, according to the military sources available to us, is that Seoul, the city of Seoul, would simply be wiped out by mass North Korean artillery aimed at it. And who knows where we’d go from there? But the opportunity to produce—to move towards a negotiated diplomatic settlement does not seem outlandish. I mean, this Chinese-North Korean proposal is certainly worth serious consideration, I would think.

And it’s worth bearing in mind that North Korea has some memories. They were practically destroyed by some of the most intensive bombing in history. The bombing—you should—it’s worth reading. Maybe you should read, people, the official Air Force history of the bombing of North Korea. It’s shattering. I mean, they had flattened the country. There were no targets left. So, therefore, they decided, well, we’ll attack the dams—which is a war crime, of course. And the description of the attack on the dams is—without the exact wording, I hate to paraphrase it. You should really read the—they were simply exalting, in the official histories, Air Force Quarterly and others, about the—how magnificent it will be to see this massive flood of water coursing through North Korea, wiping out crops. For Asians, the rice crops is their life. This will destroy them. It will be magnificent. The North Koreans lived through that. And having nuclear-capable B-52s flying on their border is not a joke.

But, most significantly, there’s a record of partial success in diplomatic initiatives, total failure with sanctions and harsh moves, and options that are on the table which could be pursued. Now, instead of concern about whether somebody talked to the Russians, this is the kind of thing that should be—that should be pursued very seriously. That’s what the Democrats or anyone hoping for some form of peace and justice should be working for.

Why Does U.S. Consider Iran the Greatest Threat to Peace, When Rest of World Agrees It's the U.S.?

Why is Iran regarded here as the greatest threat to world peace? Well, we have an authoritative answer to that from the intelligence community, which provides regular assessments to Congress on the global strategic situation. And a couple of years ago, their report—of course, they always discuss Iran. And the reports are pretty consistent. They say Iran has very low military spending, even by the standards of the region, much lower than Saudi Arabia, Israel, others. Its strategy is defensive. They want to deter attacks long enough for diplomacy to be entertained. The conclusion, intelligence conclusion—this is a couple years ago—is: If they are developing nuclear weapons, which we don’t know, but if they are, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, why is the United States and Israel even more so concerned about a deterrent? Who’s concerned about a deterrent? Those who want to use force. Those who want to be free to use force are deeply concerned about a potential deterrent. So, yes, Iran is the greatest threat to world peace, might deter our use of force.

shenanigan me if old

 

[Xe4]

So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That's not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it.

No, Noam, Russia interfering in the US election is a pretty fucking big deal. So is the god damn president of the mother fucking US potentially colluding with them. That's an earth shatteringly big fucking deal. Not that he cares, seeing how I have the feeling he'd love to see America fall.

God dammit. Add that to his Whataboutism in the paragraph proceeding, and I'm reminded why I can't stand what he says 90% of the time.

 

[Amir0x]

I've only read a few of the points so far, but Noam Chomsky's argument about the Russia hacks/election interference is laughable garbage. His argument is the equivalent of New York getting bombed and then saying "Why are people focusing on this? The US bombs other countries every day, illegally. So it's not like we don't do it, and anyway we needed to ease tensions with the country who bombed us so why are we taking issue with direct treasonous collusion with them?"

I haven't read the full article or all the points yet, but that one stuck out to me immediately. Of course countries are going to sometimes do wrong things and then hypocritically get angry when it is done to them, that doesn't mean it's strange or outrageous that the country is, in fact, angry about it and wants something fucking done.

Similarly, the idea that it isn't scandalous that the campaign that won may have colluded with the Russians in some fashions to try to win the election is just sheer bird patty. I'm surprised he didn't vomit all over the interviewer as he said it since it was so dumb.

Noam is very intelligent and often makes good points, but that question was him at his worst.

 

[CoolOff]

Actually, there was a pretty interesting poll about it that came out a couple of days ago, simply asking people what they preferred. The Republican proposal was the lowest of the choices available. I think about 15 percent of the population were willing to accept it. Somewhat higher was the existing system, so-called Obamacare. And on that, it's worth bearing in mind that a lot of people don't know that Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act. So you have negative attitudes towards Obamacare, thanks to lots of propaganda, but more positive attitudes towards the Affordable Care Act, because of what people see.

Most popular of all—over half—was the so-called public option, a government-guaranteed healthcare program, which is pretty remarkable because no one publicly advocates that. But it's been a consistent polling result for decades, that when people are asked what they want, they say that's their choice.

If all this is the case, then I have zero sympathy for an electorate where only 58% bother to vote, and basically half of that go to the GOP. Reap what you fucking sow.

 

[Boney]

If all this is the case, then I have zero sympathy for an electorate where only 58% bother to vote, and basically half of that go to the GOP. Reap what you fucking sow.

Didn't you read the earlier bit of public opinion has absolutely no impact on policy unless you are rich? Second, you can't vote for the public option, since nobody is running with it. Certainly not Dems.

 

[cackhyena]

I've only read a few of the points so far, but Noam Chomsky's argument about the Russia hacks/election interference is laughable garbage. His argument is the equivalent of New York getting bombed and then saying "Why are people focusing on this? The US bombs other countries every day, illegally. So it's not like we don't do it, and anyway we needed to ease tensions with the country who bombed us so why are we taking issue with direct treasonous collusion with them?"

I haven't read the full article or all the points yet, but that one stuck out to me immediately. Of course countries are going to sometimes do wrong things and then hypocritically get angry when it is done to them, that doesn't mean it's strange or outrageous that the country is, in fact, angry about it and wants something fucking done.

Similarly, the idea that it isn't scandalous that the campaign that won may have colluded with the Russians in some fashions to try to win the election is just sheer bird patty. I'm surprised he didn't vomit all over the interviewer as he said it since it was so dumb.

Noam is very intelligent and often makes good points, but that question was him at his worst.

Yep, feel the same.

 

[Haly]

I can't really support his stance on North Korea and Russia. It's just too utilitarian for my tastes. But I agree with a lot of the other stuff he said. I'm leery of his summation of the Sanders situation, though.

 

[wordballoons]

Democracy Now! sat down with the world's most important dissident for a 70 minute interview.

Lolol, so are you in the first or second year of coursework for your poli sci major?

 

[Black_Sun]

Lolol, so are you in the first or second year of coursework for your poli sci major?

He is pretty highly regarded just not in America since he's so critical of them

 

[guek]

Nah Noam. You're a smart guy but this is not an administration that sensible people can work with in good faith.

 

[Black_Sun]

Nah Noam. You're a smart guy but this is not an administration that sensible people can work with in good faith.

I don't think that's what he's advocating

 

[wild wild rice]

Thank you OP I need to make time to check the whole thing out.

 

[guek]

I don't think that's what he's advocating

All this chastising of democrats supposedly chasing the wrong issues sure makes it feel that way to me.

 

[Black_Sun]

All this chastising of democrats supposedly chasing the wrong issues sure makes it feel that way to me.

Nah. He's pointing out America's hypocrisy and that Trump's desire to deescalate tensions with Russia is reasonable.

And I mean we've been backstabbing Russia for decades now and egging them on to do something about it which they did this election

 

[Dopus]

Nah Noam. You're a smart guy but this is not an administration that sensible people can work with in good faith.

Did you actually read or watch the interview?

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Noam is very intelligent and often makes good points, but that question was him at his worst.

I'd probably say him cheerleading for the Khmer Rouge and downplaying/denying the Cambodian genocide as US propaganda back in the '70s was him at his worst. Very intelligent people can have very large blindspots.

 

[theWB27]

Nah. He's pointing out America's hypocrisy and that Trump's desire to deescalate tensions with Russia is reasonable.

And I mean we've been backstabbing Russia for decades now and egging them on to do something about it which they did this election

Trump isn't the one that should be spear heading that deescalation.

 

[M0nochromatic]

It's interesting how he just switches from idealistic to cynical. His point about the pursuit of peace being top priority should be more obvious then it is, and indeed it should also be at the forefront of our discussions. The bit about Iran deterring us from using force by obtaining nukes was chilling, as was the NK bombings.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'd probably say him cheerleading for the Khmer Rouge and downplaying/denying the Cambodian genocide as US propaganda back in the '70s was him at his worst. Very intelligent people can have very large blindspots.

Pretty much. Hard to take Chomsky's high horse seriously.

 

[capitalCORN]

Nah. He's pointing out America's hypocrisy and that Trump's desire to deescalate tensions with Russia is reasonable.

And I mean we've been backstabbing Russia for decades now and egging them on to do something about it which they did this election

So now that the status quo is back to authoritarian regime, where the last fair election was the one that installed Putin to power, this is the time to make friends with an obvious opportunistic starving hawk?

 

[Dopus]

So now that the status quo is back to authoritarian regime, where the last fair election was the one that installed Putin to power, this is the time to make friends with an obvious opportunistic starving hawk?

Since when is trying to reduce tensions making "friends"?

 

[~Kinggi~]

So Chomsky has apparently lost it in his old age. Shame.

 

[Zoggy]

Chomsky has been saying the same shit for like 40 years.

You could pull a interview from 1980 and there's basically no difference.

 

[Black_Sun]

So now that the status quo is back to authoritarian regime, where the last fair election was the one that installed Putin to power, this is the time to make friends with an obvious opportunistic starving hawk?

Reducing tensions does not equal making friends.

I'm actually kind of scared how Russia is going to react once we get someone tough on Russia again as president and also what we're going to do.

I might try to immigrate to South America or something until I see things cool down

 

[ZOONAMI]

What a fucking load of shit.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I'd probably say him cheerleading for the Khmer Rouge and downplaying/denying the Cambodian genocide as US propaganda back in the '70s was him at his worst. Very intelligent people can have very large blindspots.

Yeah, it's shocking how more Leftists don't call out Chomsky for his more scummy, tanky-type views.

 

[Zoggy]

Yeah, it's shocking how more Leftists don't call out Chomsky for his more scummy, tanky-type views.

What's a tanky?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

What's a tanky?

Communists who handwave away the crimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and other brutal dictators as either US propaganda (they're not), or as unfortunate but necessary in the grand scheme od establishing global communism (they weren't), or as minor in comparison to US imperialism (also untrue).

 

[kess]

Chomsky must realize the people benefiting from a rapproachment with Russia are primarily oligarchs? The literal mirror image of what he sees wrong in America, really.

 

[Black_Sun]

Chomsky is good to listen to when it comes to the US but he gets hit by hard blind spots when he's talking about the workings of other countries.

 

[Dopus]

Yeah, it's shocking how more Leftists don't call out Chomsky for his more scummy, tanky-type views.

Eh, it's not as if he still holds those positions. He was wrong then, and has since corrected himself. He talks about it in depth here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf_akyOXOUk

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

I don't see whats wrong with re-establishing Russia ties. No amount of sanctions will ever depose or derail Putin, the best thing to do in the circumstance is ensure peace and hope rising living standards will lead to a true democracy.

Some people here really want to smear Chomsky though lol

 

[Black_Sun]

I don't see whats wrong with re-establishing Russia ties. No amount of sanctions will ever depose or derail Putin, the best thing to do in the circumstance is ensure peace and hope rising living standards will lead to a true democracy.

Some people here really want to smear Chomsky though lol

It's because he just said he thought Bernie was sabotaged by the Democratic Party and that he could've won the presidency. That rankles a lot of people here lol

 

[capitalCORN]

Since when is trying to reduce tensions making "friends"?

What part of a country that makes blatant efforts of micro-aggression against traditional allies, and some hot conflicts around the world as well, makes for good diplomacy.

Reducing tensions does not equal making friends.

I'm actually kind of scared how Russia is going to react once we get someone tough on Russia again as president and also what we're going to do.

I might try to immigrate to South America or something until I see things cool down

Their economy is starving. The sanctions are working as intended. Putin can bellyache all he wants. If the next president wants to get tough on Russia, they can't do shit. Putin isn't an idealogue, he's got his share. There's no reason to signal the launch codes. The only people that will suffer are the citizens.

I don't see whats wrong with re-establishing Russia ties. No amount of sanctions will ever depose or derail Putin, the best thing to do in the circumstance is ensure peace and hope rising living standards will lead to a true democracy.

Some people here really want to smear Chomsky though lol

And at what exact point will Putin surrender the throne? When will the mass media revert to free press? When will the dissidents be released? What about those murdered by the state? Will there be accountability in any of these fronts?

 

[King Tubby]

I don't see whats wrong with re-establishing Russia ties. No amount of sanctions will ever depose or derail Putin, the best thing to do in the circumstance is ensure peace and hope rising living standards will lead to a true democracy.

Some people here really want to smear Chomsky though lol

The problem is that he's almost saying it's a good thing if the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to manipulate the election because hey, we should be friendly with Russians anyway. It's mindnumbingly foolish. This is why I appreciate folks like Chomsky as critics and dissidents but wouldn't want them in actual positions of power.

 

[thehypocrite]

All this chastising of democrats supposedly chasing the wrong issues sure makes it feel that way to me.

Democrats do lack the courage to go bat against the structural economic issues. They are just interested in keeping the party going with their millionaire fundraisers. The social issues are key but it doesn't generate a license for that bullshit.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Chomsky is still alive? I just assumed his head would have exploded, Scanners style during Trump's inauguration.

 

[cryptosporidium]

Fuck you Chomsky, libertarian socialism is not a fucking thing you twat.

 

[Dopus]

What part of a country that makes blatant efforts of micro-aggression against traditional allies, and some hot conflicts around the world as well, makes for good diplomacy.

The fact that further aggravating Russia may cause a regional war. I don't think that would be good for diplomacy. But hey, that's just me.

And you talk of micro-aggressions, do you think the United States in innocent in this?

The thread is a trainwreck at this point, everyone is solely talking about one point in the entire interview which actually isn't that unreasonable.

 

[capitalCORN]

The fact that further aggravating Russia may cause a regional war. I don't think that would be good for diplomacy. But hey, that's just me.

And you talk of micro-aggressions, do you think the United States in innocent in this?

Whataboutism? Really? Considering Russia's aggression is already active in Ukraine again. Do you really expect them to walk away with an offer of an olive branch? And who exactly is occupying Crimea right now? Do you think they'll stop their state sponsoring of far right movements across Europe? Or their funding of Middle East extremists like the Taliban?

 

[Black_Sun]

Fuck you Chomsky, libertarian socialism is not a fucking thing you twat.

Um, yes it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Educate yourself

 

[leroidys]

The NK nuclear program at this point is roughly 100% about lil' Kim staying in power indefinitely and 0% about US bombing 60 years ago. Give or take.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Um, yes it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Educate yourself

Pretty sure he was alluding to it not being a thing that's reasonable for feasible.

 

[King Tubby]

The thread is a trainwreck at this point, everyone is solely talking about one point in the entire interview which actually isn't that unreasonable.

People are harping on that point because it actually isn't reasonable at all.

 

[Black_Sun]

Whataboutism? Really? Considering Russia's aggression is already active in Ukraine again. Do you really expect them to walk away with an offer of an olive branch? And who exactly is occupying Crimea right now? Do you think they'll stop their state sponsoring of far right movements across Europe? Or their funding of Middle East extremists like the Taliban?

Crimea wants to be part of Russia not the Ukraine. The people there speak Russian, consider themselves Russian and want to be part of Russia. And it's a response to Ukraine trying to join NATO.

Now, I don't support what happened but I'm not sure I'd call it an occupation.

 

[Black_Sun]

The NK nuclear program at this point is roughly 100% about lil' Kim staying in power indefinitely and 0% about US bombing 60 years ago.

Sort of. You have to take into account that crushing sanctions we have in place that's making them desperate.

 

[Dopus]

Whataboutism? Really? Considering Russia's aggression is already active in Ukraine again. Do you really expect them to walk away with an offer of an olive branch? And who exactly is occupying Crimea right now? Do you think they'll stop their state sponsoring of far right movements across Europe? Or their funding of Middle East extremists like the Taliban?

That "Whataboutism" is important to understand the context behind why Russia feel the way they have done historically. It's such an easy thing to say, but when trying to understand for instance the eastward expansion of NATO after the reunification of Germany you need to know the historical context. You also need to understand the implications that sanctions have had on an already wailing economy.

Who said offer them an olive branch? When you're edging closer to regional war there are two avenues. Keep treading the path or look for other solutions for de-escalation. Nobody is asking to be friends.

And what, now you're trying to list out the crimes of the Russian state? You realise the US list would be far longer and heinous, right? Or is that "Whataboutism" too? How can you even have a discussion if that is what you're going to resort to.

 

[capitalCORN]

Crimea wants to be part of Russia not the Ukraine. The people there speak Russian, consider themselves Russian and want to be part of Russia. And it's a response to Ukraine trying to join NATO.

Now, I don't support what happened but I'm not sure I'd call it an occupation.

You mean the referendum that took place after Russian military occupation, and vastly denounced by the majority of the UN assembly?

That "Whataboutism" is important to understand the context behind why Russia feel the way they have done historically. It's such an easy thing to say, but when trying to understand for instance the eastward expansion of NATO after the reunification of Germany you need to know the historical context. You also need to understand the implications that sanctions have had on an already wailing economy.

Who said offer them an olive branch? When you're edging closer to regional war there are two avenues. Keep treading the path or look for other solutions for de-escalation. Nobody is asking to be friends.

And what, now you're trying to list out the crimes of the Russian state? You realise the US list would be far longer and heinous, right? Or is that "Whataboutism" too? How can you even have a discussion if that is what you're going to resort to.

You seem to have either a short memory, or be rather young to understand the scope and intensity of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was well beyond precipitous before it's collapse. American GIs did not tear down the Berlin Wall. Restricting a MAD scenario seems like a sane course of action. And those sanctions you speak aren't simply shackles for a fallen foe. It was punitive against an consensus of aggression against a independent state. And if you want to talk about blood on your hands, which American Cold War leader would you like to compare to Stalin?

 

[kame-sennin]

Lolol, so are you in the first or second year of coursework for your poli sci major?

this shit is so dumb.

especially considering the topic is about Chomsky and he's like a 100.

 

[C4Lukins]

Chomsky is the left wing version of Alex Jones. Well his education and linguistics put him at a higher education level, it is the same sort of philosophy. Hate your country first, defend dispicable other nations, and demonize everything about the nature of your own government. It is a career built on self deprecation and conspiracy nonsense.