Chomsky on the Republican Party.

[Happiness]

Ciao.

If you're going to disagree with the world's experts on climate, at least get your goodbyes correct.

Chow is food btw (or half a dog).

 

[splendica]

Ciao.

If you're going to disagree with the world's experts on climate, at least get your goodbyes correct.

Chow is food btw (or half a dog).

But seriously, you'd think the banks would quit lending 20+ year mortgages to oceanfront properties worth trillions world wide. Unless, of course, there's literally nothing to it and the average person is being very purposefully duped.

Allow the 3rd world to catch up to the debt structure of the first world for a bunch of decades. World equalization based on a hoax.

And you're right, it's Ciao.

 

[Happiness]

But seriously, you'd think the banks would quit lending 20+ year mortgages to oceanfront properties worth trillions world wide. Unless, of course, there's literally nothing to it and the average person is being very purposefully duped.

Allow the 3rd world to catch up to the debt structure of the first world for a bunch of decades. World equalization based on a hoax.

And you're right, it's Ciao.

Umm, Even if those properties were wiped out the morgagees would still have to pay the bank.

Insurance companies, which are more pertinent to your argument, are greatly increasing coverage costs on beachfront properties and are now beginning to refuse coverage.

Stop watching YouTube for your information; the climate change deniers are almost all paid shills.

Watch Merchants of Doubt or read the book.

If you want a credible and well researched YouTube channel regarding climate change, peruse potholer54's channel. He has decades of experience working as a science journalist.

 

[forum poster]

The thing is, though, what Peterson is saying is often good (occasionally nutty, though), but pretty much commonsense stuff that everyone knows..

Often good, yes. But he mixes in a lot of "post-modern neo-marxists" and feminists are the biggest threat to civilization rhetoric. As well as posting climate change denial blogs and other stupid things on his social media. I'd say the biggest problem with at the moment is his cult like following that hangs on his every word, like Sam harris had a few years ago. But I'm sure it will die down in time.

 

[forum poster]

I didn't know that there was such thing as a smart person who wasn't a fan of Noam Chomsky.

Beyond being a brilliant theoretician and social commentator, he's also just ridiculously even keel and engaging with fans/critics. Heck, he even responded thoughtfully to an email question/concern I sent him many years ago when I was a young revolutionary socialist.

So it was YOU that wrote that email??

 

[Happiness]

So it was YOU that wrote that email??

Lol.

 

[funcrusher2007]

bumped

@Happiness

Though this is a great read it’s worth Checking out the comments by a guy named griffon in the comments section. Dude is pretty badass aswell.

 

[funcrusher2007]

ahoy Happiness,

i think Noam is a fun read, always. makes me embarrassed to be a happy-go-lucky oblivious American, just about every time.

i don't think the world Chomsky would want is possible, in much the same way i can't picture a day America will lose its fetish for guns (and the propensity to misuse them) - because my fellow citizens are schmucks.

and yes, Noam is very hard on the GOP....but to be fair, he feels Clinton is a war criminal. Chomsky also feels that Carter belongs in a cell in the Hague.
i mean, he's no fan of US foreign and domestic policy under either party.

- IGIT

I think he went in pretty hard on Hillary here..if anything I think the writer who titled the piece was going for the cheap click bait with the “Chomsky thinks that republicans are the most dangerous “ hyperbole.

I have to reread but I left with the impression Chomsky hates Clinton/dnc , despises the right in America for turning there back on climate change,and is way way to gracious in his assessment of Bernie Sanders..

I thought the meetoo pivot was funny...even Chomsky isn’t touching that poison.

 

[funcrusher2007]

But seriously, you'd think the banks would quit lending 20+ year mortgages to oceanfront properties worth trillions world wide. Unless, of course, there's literally nothing to it and the average person is being very purposefully duped.

Allow the 3rd world to catch up to the debt structure of the first world for a bunch of decades. World equalization based on a hoax.

And you're right, it's Ciao.

This argument is weak..Just this weak I’ve seen and responded to another poster on here who said the exact same thing you did.

“If climate change is real...Why would banks give mortgages to Beach front property buyers?”

The same reason they do to Southern Californian residents that live in brush fire areas during fire season..

The same reason they give mortgages to people who live in hurricane alley..

The same reason They give mortgages to people who live in flood zones..

The same reason they give mortgages to people who can’t even afford the mortgages...


These lenders/banks caused The biggest economic recession in us history.

Never underestimate there greed.

 

[splendica]

This argument is weak..Just this weak I’ve seen and responded to another poster on here who said the exact same thing you did.

“If climate change is real...Why would banks give mortgages to Beach front property buyers?”

The same reason they do to Southern Californian residents that live in brush fire areas during fire season..

The same reason they give mortgages to people who live in hurricane alley..

The same reason They give mortgages to people who live in flood zones..

The same reason they give mortgages to people who can’t even afford the mortgages...


These lenders/banks caused The biggest economic recession in us history.

Never underestimate there greed.

I disagree with all of this. The permanent submersion of the of the city of New York isn't the same as mortgage property in areas as you described.

Big banks are still lending long term in areas that were already supposed to be permanently submerged by early climate change doomsayers.

 

[splendica]

Also, I like Thomas Sowell on "Intellectuals and Society." His comment on Noam Chomsky is pertinent:



Interestingly, Noam Chomsky's Theory of Language has been under much persuasive rebut for some time:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/

"The idea that we have brains hardwired with a mental template for learning grammar—famously espoused by Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—has dominated linguistics for almost half a century. Recently, though, cognitive scientists and linguists have abandoned Chomsky’s “universal grammar” theory in droves because of new research examining many different languages - and the way young children learn to understand and speak the tongues of their communities. The work fails to support Chomsky's assertions."

And, that whole Sowell interview is worth watching (untimestamped).

Spoiler

 

[Jack V Savage]

Often good, yes. But he mixes in a lot of "post-modern neo-marxists" and feminists are the biggest threat to civilization rhetoric. As well as posting climate change denial blogs and other stupid things on his social media. I'd say the biggest problem with at the moment is his cult like following that hangs on his every word, like Sam harris had a few years ago. But I'm sure it will die down in time.

That cult-like following could be doing much, much worse, though.

 

[ultramanhyata]

That cult-like following could be doing much, much worse, though.

Peterson believes, and I have heard him make this assertion twice now, using personal anecdotes, that if you grew up in a small town and opted to stay in that town, not get a graduate degree, and work a routine 9 to 5 job, focusing on spending time with your friends, parents and children, yours is a wretched, pitiable failure of a life.

One of my primary concerns for Peterson's followers has to do with the vast percentage of them that will grow even more despondent and self-loathing than they were prior to discovering his work.

In a way, all of Peterson's directives and life lessons set him up as the idealized Ubermensch. The whole Peterson thing is like a crazy, personal ego trip carried out by a massively insecure individual in need of being hailed "the winner" by all those around him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Peterson believes, and I have heard him make this assertion twice now, using personal anecdotes, that if you grew up in a small town and opted to stay in that town, not get a graduate degree, and work a routine 9 to 5 job, focusing on spending time with your friends, parents and children, yours is a wretched, pitiable failure of a life.

One of my primary concerns for Peterson's followers has to do with the vast percentage of them that will grow even more despondent and self-loathing than they were prior to discovering his work.

In a way, all of Peterson's directives and life lessons set him up as the idealized Ubermensch. The whole Peterson thing is like a crazy, personal ego trip carried out by a massively insecure individual in need of being hailed "the winner" by all those around him.

I agree that a lot of his followers are despondent and self-loathing, but I don't agree that he'll make it worse. The view that you described in the first paragraph wasn't invented by Peterson, after all, and while I'll take your word that he's said that, I don't see it as being the main takeaway that people are getting from him.

My starting point here is that the impulse toward conservatism is going to exist always and everywhere and that there is a lot of wisdom in conservative thought. "Conservatism" as I'm describing it isn't right-wing libertarianism or the kind of angry tribalistic CTism that dominates on the right, but those are directions the impulse can lead. So the key is to link the impulse with the wisdom. From what I can see, Peterson does that.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I agree that a lot of his followers are despondent and self-loathing, but I don't agree that he'll make it worse. The view that you described in the first paragraph wasn't invented by Peterson, after all, and while I'll take your word that he's said that, I don't see it as being the main takeaway that people are getting from him.

My starting point here is that the impulse toward conservatism is going to exist always and everywhere and that there is a lot of wisdom in conservative thought. "Conservatism" as I'm describing it isn't right-wing libertarianism or the kind of angry tribalistic CTism that dominates on the right, but those are directions the impulse can lead. So the key is to link the impulse with the wisdom. From what I can see, Peterson does that.

I fully understand why someone who exists where you do on the spectrum would see much to commend in Peterson's support of a dominance hierarchy meritocracy. Just wanted to express my own opposition.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I fully understand why someone who exists where you do on the spectrum would see much to commend in Peterson's support of a dominance hierarchy meritocracy. Just wanted to express my own opposition.

It's not a matter of where one stands on the spectrum. The point is that the view you ascribe to him is actually very common.

I think there are differences in the way different ideologies deal with "dominance hierarchy meritocracy" (to the extent that I follow you there). Liberals want to tame and frustrate dominance urges, leftists want to sublimate (or deny) them, and the right wants to honor them.

 

[Prokofievian]

I agree that a lot of his followers are despondent and self-loathing, but I don't agree that he'll make it worse. The view that you described in the first paragraph wasn't invented by Peterson, after all, and while I'll take your word that he's said that, I don't see it as being the main takeaway that people are getting from him.

My starting point here is that the impulse toward conservatism is going to exist always and everywhere and that there is a lot of wisdom in conservative thought. "Conservatism" as I'm describing it isn't right-wing libertarianism or the kind of angry tribalistic CTism that dominates on the right, but those are directions the impulse can lead. So the key is to link the impulse with the wisdom. From what I can see, Peterson does that.

If he stayed out of political philosophy I really wouldn't care. He's just not well read enough to offer anything of substance, and he lashes out angrily at any sort of counter argument in often bizarre ways. Did you know that you can't draw a distinction between Stalinism and Marxism in general? If you disagree with him on that point, you ought to be punched in the nose, apparently. This is a rather bizarre argument from him. Specifically since he does in fact claim to draw a causal link between modern identity politics and the terrors of Stalinism, he subsumes the ability to understand Stalinism's causes. What is unconscionable to him, however, is the notion that anyone could do anything about them (which is what he's attempting to do, incidentally).

Specifically on this issue, he does a tremendous disservice in dissuading (by threat of hypothetical physical violence) any investigation on the part of his followers of the single most interesting question of the Russian revolution: the one we ought to discuss if we're to discuss the revolution at all. Specifically, is Stalinism its logical end? Instead we are to assume a specific conclusion, or get punched in the nose. It's boring.

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's not a matter of where one stands on the spectrum. The point is that the view you ascribe to him is actually very common.

Peterson is a psychologist. His perspective on mental health and happiness being directly tied to one's attained position on the "dominance hierarchy" is beyond uncommon within that discipline. It is crank-level.

 

[splendica]

Peterson believes, and I have heard him make this assertion twice now, using personal anecdotes, that if you grew up in a small town and opted to stay in that town, not get a graduate degree, and work a routine 9 to 5 job, focusing on spending time with your friends, parents and children, yours is a wretched, pitiable failure of a life.

I've never heard him say anything like this.

 

[splendica]

Peterson is a psychologist. His perspective on mental health and happiness being directly tied to one's attained position on the "dominance hierarchy" is beyond uncommon within that discipline. It is crank-level.

Wow, this is so off it's scary.