Noam Chomsky: Trump is a Distraction

[Hognoxious]

Yeah that guy needs to go. Probably won't take long. Can't recall a post I've seen that has ever been more wrong.

Might I recommend a safe space for you?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Might I recommend a safe space for you?

Trolling aside, how can you justify your claim given Trump's actions? Maybe define "controlling elite"?

 

[Gandhi]

You are so smart, that you failed to debunk anything that I said, while tagging every like minded Marxist you could think of. So brave and intellectual of you.

@PolishHeadlock our resident Marxist smh......

 

[helltoupee]

This is silly.
Ants are more organised than us.
And, our ability to organise is what's enabled the absolute worst of what we've done as a species: organised crime, organised religion, exploitative governments, war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc, etc, etc.
So, "social value" should generally be tempered with a healthy respect for the value of the individual - whose personal wants generally motivate and shape organisation into something more than simply keeping the wheels turning.

While it has played no small part in elevating us to a level above the rest of the animal kingdom, an ability to organise would not have brought us to where we are without our having enough imagination to fuel a perpetual dissatisfaction with whatever the status quo happens to be, combined with a healthy dose of personal avarice.
Greed has probably done more for us as a species than "an ability to organise".

I don't think it's silly at all. Social cooperation is our key for survival and reproduction as a species.

Ants and bees can also work together in large numbers, but they do so in a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of other individuals that they know intimately. Sapiens can cooperate in extremely flexible ways with countless numbers of strangers.

One man can invent a vaccine for polio. However, this would do nothing for the species without the organizational skills of humans to realize his discovery. Further, said individual would've never had the opportunity to invent that vaccine if he didn't benefit from language, sciences, math, the study of those who came before him, the tools he uses for research, etc. Our very ability to pass on sophisticated knowledge, in an organized manner, should be enough for you to understand what I'm talking about.

I never stated that there should not be a balance between our collective abilities, and a healthy respect for the individual.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

If Trump is a distraction then who's to blame for keeping you dunces distracted with 200 stories a day about him? And who is forcing you to watch CNN 24/7 and subjecting yourselves to the distraction tactics?

Start approaching American politics with some clarity and a little less hostility because if Trump is the distraction that keeps the left from really seeing what's going on, then the hysterical behaviour of the media and the left in reaction to him is the distraction that's keeping anyone on the right from seeing it either.

Stop blaming everyone else and take some ownership for your own despicable behaviour.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Trump isn't serving the elites. That's what Hillary was meant to do. That's why all the media and academia hate him. You know who works for the controlling elite? Chomsky. When was the last time he proposed the ending of the Fed? Global Warming isn't an 'issue' except for the controlling elite who want to use it as a pretext for One World Government. Trump is the enemy of Chomsky's elite because he's not on their team.

Why do you weirdos talk about a one world government? The Roman Empire fell, and it was the one world government to the idiots you enshrine. It's like talking about space rapists.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Well, I don't think anything of this sort is set in stone. It's part motivations, part capabilities, and partly even the collective. In the end, each play a role in enabling the others. The subject could be speculated upon endlessly. I don't necessarily even disagree with the original poster, as organizational and social skills are definitely a large part of why humans have been able to develop civilizations, and thus, concentrate resources and efforts. But to put primary focus on the human ability to coordinate, might be missing the point quite a bit. It's a huge factor but not necessarily the key factor which separates humans from any other species.

I think it's generally best to acknowledge that our "collective" shouldn't be treated in such simple terms as a collective of insects or animals. In many cases our collective results are the conglomeration of individual efforts, not all of which are necessarily even driven by the same objectives. If our efforts to progress were driven by a collective hive mind, we would not have taken into account many of the possibilities that have enabled our current existence, some of which are the results of friction rather than cohesiveness.

For example, Europe could've simply called it a day in medieval times, and seen themselves best fit to be governed by theocracy and monarchy, a state of existence that had continued for close to a thousand years. It was the act of rebellious individuals that led to the establishment of countries like the United States. That's why, in America in particular, the emphasis is greatly on the acts of individuals over the collective, though this sometimes leaves the Americans blind to the part that the "collective" plays in shaping their lives.

Likewise, many Asians are left blind to the effect of individual actions in shaping society, as their (modern) philosophy is grounded on focusing on the strengths of the collective, over that of the individual's.

Again, I think we agree more than disagree - but there are definitely areas where our presumptions stray from one another.

When you mention that Europe could have decided, "meh, this is good enough," during medieval times (or indeed, any region during any period) it brings me back to humanity's perpetual dissatisfaction with what is and therefore the part that creativity and imagination play in the ongoing evolution of the species as we move toward what might be.
If not for our individual inability to remain satisfied (and, granted, our collective ability to, cohesively or chaotically, pursue the satisfaction of the individual) we'd still be in the caves. It is when the individual is suppressed that progression is halted/slowed - medieval Europe and most of China's history serve as an example of such a situation.

Once more, I defer to cliche: "Necessity is the mother of invention".
In the case of humans, necessity is almost exclusively a fabrication of our dissatisfaction, rather than an actual requisite for ongoing existence.
The state of rebellion (as in the case of those 'rebellious individuals' that led to the establishment of the US) is, in my view, simply the state of being both imaginative/creative and sustainably dissatisfied - which are, likewise, prerequisites for greed.

That is what moves us forward - creativity and dissatisfaction.
Without those, organisational aptitude is no more than an animal trait. It is the equivalent of fucking, fighting or eating. Our organisational efforts and outcomes being 'the conglomeration of individual efforts, not all of which are necessarily even driven by the same objectives' is exactly my point. Without the aforementioned pairing of qualities (and, of course, the traits that enable their existence) organisational efforts result in no more than is necessary for sedentary survival. Not being driven by the same objectives is only possible when there are individual objectives - few, if any, of which are likely to be authentically altruistic.

I took exception to the original poster's remark, because it intimated that our ability to organise is somehow the thing separates us from the rest of the animals. Our ability to organise is a tool; an evolutionary necessity, invented as an answer to a biological design inadequate for long-term survival at the bottom of the food chain.
That is not just a case of overemphasising the importance of the tool, but also of misrepresenting it. The argument of the free market vs state-run amenities is not an argument of organised vs not. It's an argument of how centralised human organisation should be. In order to have that argument in an honest manner, one shouldn't start from a point presuming that a relatively common animal trait is somehow the intrinsically human trait.

Individuals move humanity forward. Organisations maintain the status quo.
Both might be important, but only one is uniquely (and often inconveniently) human.

 

[HAWTRIDDUM]

Noam Chomsky Hasn’t smiled since Andrew Jackson was president.

Grouchy old man.

 

[Trotsky]

You are so smart, that you failed to debunk anything that I said, while tagging every like minded Marxist you could think of. So brave and intellectual of you.

Homer is the only one of the tagged who is a Marxist. The others are capitalists.

Honestly, your post was so mind-blowingly stupid that it's hard to even start calling it out. You're saying that a guy (Chomsky) who has fiercely criticized every adminsitration for its foreign policy and for its policy making for the rich is a servant of the "elites" while another guy (Trump) whose policies are invariably benefiting the ultra rich, redistributing the tax burden onto the middle class, appointing lobbyists, bankers and corporate executives to government positions, deregulating corporations so they can deceive and rip off consumers, pollute the environment, and gamble with ordinary people's money is against the "elite."

You're a colossal moron if you believe even a spec of that. Trump's policies are only benefiting the rich and corporations and invariably hurting workers, unions, the middle class, and the poor. What was anti-elite about trying to throw millions off of healthcare, while increasing the prices and lowering the plan quality for everyone else, just for corporate profit? What was anti-elite about passing a tax code that favored the rich? What is anti-elite about weakening unions, weakening worker protections, and weakening consumer protections so that giant corporations can have more power?

Yeah that guy needs to go. Probably won't take long. Can't recall a post I've seen that has ever been more wrong.

Honestly, that guy is probably a troll or, contrarily, is just terminally stupid. And posters like Contradictor or Yorkist liking his post is par for the course.

But reasonably intelligent posters like @nostradumbass, @Sketch, and @Liquid Smoke cosigning a post that is so ludicrously delusional and counterfactual is truly frightening. To say that a corrupt right-winger who is solely furthering policy that helps the rich and hurts the rest is anti-elite, while saying that the country's most revered anti-elite dissident is not.....just incredible.

 

[Hognoxious]

Homer is the only one of the tagged who is a Marxist. The others are capitalists.

Honestly, your post was so mind-blowingly stupid that it's hard to even start calling it out. You're saying that a guy (Chomsky) who has fiercely criticized every adminsitration for its foreign policy and for its policy making for the rich is a servant of the "elites" while another guy (Trump) whose policies are invariably benefiting the ultra rich, redistributing the tax burden onto the middle class, appointing lobbyists, bankers and corporate executives to government positions, deregulating corporations so they can deceive and rip off consumers, pollute the environment, and gamble with ordinary people's money is against the "elite."

You're a colossal moron if you believe even a spec of that. Trump's policies are only benefiting the rich and corporations and invariably hurting workers, unions, the middle class, and the poor. What was anti-elite about trying to throw millions off of healthcare, while increasing the prices and lowering the plan quality for everyone else, just for corporate profit? What was anti-elite about passing a tax code that favored the rich? What is anti-elite about weakening unions, weakening worker protections, and weakening consumer protections so that giant corporations can have more power?



Honestly, that guy is probably a troll or, contrarily, is just terminally stupid. And posters like Contradictor or Yorkist liking his post is par for the course.

But reasonably intelligent posters like @nostradumbass, @Sketch, and @Liquid Smoke cosigning a post that is so ludicrously delusional and counterfactual is truly frightening. To say that a corrupt right-winger who is solely furthering policy that helps the rich and hurts the rest is anti-elite, while saying that the country's most revered anti-elite dissident is not.....just incredible.

It was unintentional, but by your response, I can tell that I struck a nerve. Calling names as the basis for your argument does not help your cause. Maybe you don't work for a living. If you haven't noticed though, the working class is doing better under Trump. I am enjoying my tax cut along with a reduction in red tape in my line of work.

 

[Trotsky]

It was unintentional, but by your response, I can tell that I struck a nerve. Calling names as the basis for your argument does not help your cause. Maybe you don't work for a living. If you haven't noticed though, the working class is doing better under Trump. I am enjoying my tax cut along with a reduction in red tape in my line of work.

You did strike a nerve: not because you said something inexplicably stupid (and which you've failed to even try to explain), but because other people bought it.

Also, I work for a living, and I earn in a tax bracket that actually was helped by Trump's tax cuts. You, if you are a member of the working class, got peanuts while the rich got a windfall and the deficit expanded - and you'll be bearing the weight of the burden of paying it back, whereas in previous years I would have.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

But reasonably intelligent posters like @nostradumbass, @Sketch, and @Liquid Smoke cosigning a post that is so ludicrously delusional and counterfactual is truly frightening. To say that a corrupt right-winger who is solely furthering policy that helps the rich and hurts the rest is anti-elite, while saying that the country's most revered anti-elite dissident is not.....just incredible.

Since you've appealed to my ego, I'll give you an honest reply.

All candidates have two groups to which they are beholden: those who pay the bills and their voting base. The primary beneficiary of the election will always be the sugar daddies while the plebs will get just enough crumbs to keep them coming back to the polls.

Trump and Literally Hillary may have a different group of elites and unwashed eaters that they are indebted to. But the functional apparatus behind their electoral strategy is the same.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But reasonably intelligent posters like @nostradumbass, @Sketch, and @Liquid Smoke cosigning a post that is so ludicrously delusional and counterfactual is truly frightening. To say that a corrupt right-winger who is solely furthering policy that helps the rich and hurts the rest is anti-elite, while saying that the country's most revered anti-elite dissident is not.....just incredible.

Disagree on Nostra being reasonably intelligent. No way that dude has a triple-digit IQ.

Trump and Literally Hillary may have a different group of elites and unwashed eaters that they are indebted to. But the functional apparatus behind their electoral strategy is the same.

This is poorly thought-out on its own, but more importantly, it's not a defense of the original claim, which was that Trump is NOT "serving the elites" and that people who are fighting for the working class ARE. You're just saying that you think they are both "serving the elites." Also WTF was up with the "ending the Fed" stuff?

Really, it makes no sense without defining "the elites," but it seems that with regard to Clinton you're defining it as workers (or at least organized labor). And with Chomsky, well, he doesn't even fit there. My guess is that you just saw the guy saying something that gave your tribe the good feels and didn't think it through. Should have just said that.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Disagree on Nostra being reasonably intelligent. No way that dude has a triple-digit IQ.

I feel @nostradumbass has earned the right to respond to this if he chooses.

This is poorly thought-out on its own, but more importantly, it's not a defense of the original claim, which was that Trump is NOT "serving the elites" and that people who are fighting for the working class ARE. You're just saying that you think they are both "serving the elites." Also WTF was up with the "ending the Fed" stuff?

Really, it makes no sense without defining "the elites," but it seems that with regard to Clinton you're defining it as workers (or at least organized labor). And with Chomsky, well, he doesn't even fit there. My guess is that you just saw the guy saying something that gave your tribe the good feels and didn't think it through. Should have just said that.

You sure bro?

You should reread Orwell's Animal Farm. In the end it was hard to tell the difference between man and pig...

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's like talking about space rapists.

The threat is real. But we're on it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I feel @nostradumbass has earned the right to respond to this if he chooses.

I'm sure it's something he's heard his whole life.

You sure bro?

You should reread Orwell's Animal Farm. In the end it was hard to tell the difference between man and pig...

I'm sure, yes. And I've read everything Orwell has written. You're kind of skipping to the end here (and ignoring the point). The other guy said that Trump was not serving the elites. How on Earth can anyone justify that claim? Rich guy whose policy initiatives have been almost exclusively focused on making sure that rich guys get a bigger share of the pie (not just the tax cuts, but helping scam colleges rip off poor people, helping financial advisers rip off their clients, enabling more polluting, etc.). Meanwhile Clinton's platform was moving in the opposite direction (stronger protections for workers, the environment and consumers, and higher taxes on the rich to pay for various opportunity and quality-of-life enhancements for the middle class and below).

 

[b-hop]

So the guy that have all the media against him, the pope, the avengers, the hollywood, the cucks.. pretty much everyone, except the people.. is actually serving the elites.

Cool Story bro.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

I'm sure it's something he's heard his whole life.



I'm sure, yes. And I've read everything Orwell has written. You're kind of skipping to the end here (and ignoring the point). The other guy said that Trump was not serving the elites. How on Earth can anyone justify that claim? Rich guy whose policy initiatives have been almost exclusively focused on making sure that rich guys get a bigger share of the pie (not just the tax cuts, but helping scam colleges rip off poor people, helping financial advisers rip off their clients, enabling more polluting, etc.). Meanwhile Clinton's platform was moving in the opposite direction (stronger protections for workers, the environment and consumers, and higher taxes on the rich to pay for various opportunity and quality-of-life enhancements for the middle class and below).

Major Donors to Clinton 2016
Source: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&src=c&type=f
Alphabet Inc $1,604,837
University of California $1,596,903
Microsoft Corp $906,705
Harvard University $770,411
EMILY's List $757,477
US Dept of State $690,838
Stanford University $666,877
Apple Inc $653,584
US Government $634,945
Morgan & Morgan $628,361
Columbia University $575,148
JPMorgan Chase & Co $558,281
Time Warner $557,183
Bank of America $550,531
Kaiser Permanente $541,091
New York University $535,968
Comcast Corp $522,850
Wells Fargo $479,483
Facebook Inc $478,466
Morgan Stanley $471,841

 

[nostradumbass]

I feel @nostradumbass has earned the right to respond to this if he chooses.


You sure bro?

You should reread Orwell's Animal Farm. In the end it was hard to tell the difference between man and pig...

It's hack savage, for Christ's sake. Does anybody take that guy's comically hackish posting seriously? Even other left wingers have called the guy a dildo for trying to rewrite history and his asinine claims that CNN is too pro-Trump. The guy's said enough stupid shit to have been several people's sigs.

 

[tonni]

It's hack savage, for Christ's sake. Does anybody take that guy's comically hackish posting seriously? Even other left wingers have called the guy a dildo for trying to rewrite history and his asinine claims that CNN is too pro-Trump. The guy's said enough stupid shit to have been several people's sigs.

@Jack V Savage