Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumNoam Chomsky: US, a Top Terrorist State
Professor Noam Chomsky says that the United States would be considered a terrorist state if the same standards that we apply to others was applied to us.
Do you agree with Chomsky?
from: https://www.facebook.com/WSBYSO
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)It would be so powerful if more people had a wider spectrum of information in order to liberally inform their views, freshen their opinions and expand their perspectives. Chomsky has always been on the list of intelligent, well-informed, learned and insightful sources and reminds me of a dryer, more laid-back, in-depth version of George Carlin.
This is where the conspiracy theory line is actually drawn and it draws attention to the difference between extremist, sensationalistic, big business conspiracists from Beck to Jones, and on. In fact, my favorite theory is that they thrive and influence people as a way to diffuse and detract from real groups and organizations that, by their nature, utilize misinformation, secrecy and distraction in order to garner support and/or to manipulate perception away from the agendas they have.
What underlies Chomsky's range of knowledge about politics, war, International diplomacy and the like is that he provides compelling, well-researched revelations that, without using the term "conspiracy theory" actually indicate a host of conspiracies that are not only real, but pose tangible threats to life, liberty, justice, the environment, etc.
In most cases, we rely on theory and, to be honest and open about the real nature of this complex and dynamic experience we call reality, it is useful not to lump things together into one bag and call it all garbage. There is usually a spectrum of examples that ranges from over-hyped, attention getting bullshit to in-depth analysis of crucial issues that actually require our attention and vigilance in order to check and avert them, otherwise the bliss of ignorance will assure that our attempts to understand and transform our situation through wisdom will become nothing more than folly.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Two of the best ...and Jeremy Scahill will be another as he gets more seasoned.
http://www.democracynow.org/appearances/jeremy_scahill
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This was a very informative video.
I am curious about who produced it. I need to look them up.
It is always nice to understand the angle that they are working.
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)He could also just be a puffed up asshole. 
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)One of the few great intellectuals I admire is Albert Enstein... not because of his intellect, his accomplishments, nor even because of what he made possible for the world. Rather, I admire him because he was a decent, humble man. These so called genius intellectuals like Noam Chomsky are far too arrogant for my liking - and far too boring.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Dismiss Chomsky for superficial reasons, and walk away from the truth he speaks.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Which is common in so many of today's intellectuals, is not superficial. It is bone-deep. When I find an intellectual that does NOT believe that he or she is somehow superior to us mere mortals, I might take what they have to say more seriously.
It is incredibly superficial to judge Chomsky for being boring - which I confess to doing. It is, however, based on a matter of principle that I take what anyone that breathtakingly arrogant has to say with a grain of salt. I view Stephen Hawking in much the same light.
It is one thing to be blessed with great intellectual ability. It is quite another to have that blessing, and to realize that, by itself, it is not worth much. Intellect is a tool, not a God. It is a servant, not a leader. We would do far better to actually originate and discuss ideas ourselves than to rely on glorified professors like Chomsky to do our thinking for us.
radiclib
(1,811 posts)They all think they're so much better than us, with their high-falutin' theories about climate change and stuff. Americans can think for themselves, dammit!
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)What I said above has absolutely - nothing - to do with climate change. People - should - be able and willing to think for themselves, especially in this age of social media and insanely limited attention spans. Noam Chomsky is not a scientist. I believe he is a Professor of... what is it... linguistics? There is quite a lot of difference between political opinions, and actual science. When I suggest that people should think for themselves, I'm not talking about making up your own scientific facts, as that really would be stupid. I'm talking about original ideas, critical thinking, the notion that someone might have an opinion of their own that isn't simply parroting what a supposedly grand intellectual like Chomsky has to say.
The problem is, lots of Americans either can't, or don't think for themselves. They blindly follow what someone else has told them to believe. Chomsky's opinion on matters that are rather subjective are no more valid than anyone else's - a good deal less so than some. Arrogance has nothing to do with fact, but when you're trying to promote a personal agenda or political rhetoric, when you're essentially trying to sell an idea, it helps to have some measure of humility.
I'm not really sure why I bother. You don't need me to point these things out, you're just attempting to ridicule.
radiclib
(1,811 posts)because your anti-Chomsky rant is only worthy of ridicule. You offer nothing but a personal agenda baselessly attacking his character without offering anything at all regarding the content of his ideas. When did he ever refer to himself as a "grand intellectual", or imply that no one had a right to dissent?
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)That the US is a top terrorist state? Our government and government agencies do a number of things internationally that I find despicable, most of us here find them entirely despicable. For this supposed intellectual though, to compare us to suicide bombers, or to fanatics who would have everyone in the world live under Sharia law or perish - is ridiculous. Generally, when someone who is hailed as a great intellectual has something to say, you might expect it to be at least moderately intelligent.
I have watched Chomsky videos in the past, they are long on rhetoric and ramble but short on anything that is actually useful. He is a celebrity in much the same way that many rich and useless people are celebrities, the difference being that he is a celebrity because he is some kind of (supposed) intellectual giant. Am I supposed to be impressed that this guy can come up with rhetoric that is very much akin to what you might expect from Alex Jones?
It is implied, endlessly here, that no one has the right to dissent. This can be recognized from the fact that any time someone does, or has the nerve to say something unkind about Mr. Chomsky, there is a devoted fan base here that jumps down their throat. It would be cute if it wasn't so annoying.
Will you tell me that he is NOT a grand intellectual? No? Well then, perhaps my baseless attack on his character is an effort to convince people to think for themselves, without the need for grand intellectuals to do it for them. In any event, I am hereby exercising my right to dissent.
And my right to yawn, and to go to bed. Goodnight.
radiclib
(1,811 posts)maybe you'd care to define "terror" for us. Oh, never mind.
I hope you slept well.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Just because somneone is articulate and intelligent is not a reason to hate them, unless, of course, one is a moran and believes lies. Them the intelligent people may seem arragant.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)More should be expected than a "Look at me!" on a regular basis. Intellect, by itself, is not terribly valuable, ask any number of people who are unemployed, broke, or even homeless. Intellect - and a token, will get you a ride on the subway. It's what you DO with it that counts, not the mere fact that you have it.
I do not despise people for being articulate and intelligent. However, I do not think more highly of them for that reason alone, either. Character and intellect are very different things.
SitchaChante
(1 post)Branding Noam Chomsky as arrogant seems to me more of a reflection on you rather than him. Just to be clear, Chomsky does "not do our thinking for us". In fact, if you listen to his lectures, which you probably find too "boring", he implores his listeners to not take his word for it but to look it up for yourselves. Most of his lectures are based on direct references to official state documents which he quotes verbatim.
If you spend any time with professor Chomsky, you realize that he is a very decent humble man who opposes state violence no matter the perpetrator. What seems to bother most of his critics is the fact, and I stress fact, that the United States is responsible for much of the violence and terror in the world, and has been for most of its history.
The truth hurts.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)I do not find Chomsky arrogant. In fact, just the opposite. His views are honest and usually evident if you bother to check. Of course, he is hard to hear clearly (to me) while not acting folksy (just the facts or implications of such). I would so enjoy actually having some one-on one time with him, he is so intelligent.
I can see such a difference in the current DU posters and those of 2 years ago. I can never remember anyone denigrating Chomsky on DU. Yes, he has probably not graduated from toastmasters, and he is a bit stuffy and (yes) boring unless you actually listen to what he says.
I think that I have probably worn out my welcome on DU if the (so far) consensus is that Chomsky is arrogant and a windbag.
I have noticed a few posters who prefer to disrupt an OP by arguing with (usually rudely) anyone whose views differ from theirs.
I hope that more people like you re-join DU. I like to post on a site where Progressives prefer information over propaganda. A place where people are actually searching for a way to improve the plight of average people and stop the terror. Most Progressives have realized for years that America is a terrorist state. That is obvious and to have an intelligent person expound on that subject is, IMO, well worth listening to.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)It is also, in entirely too many cases, extremely subjective. That the US is like a "top terrorist state" is Chomsky's opinion, not a fact.
Yes, we have been responsible for much of the violence and terror in the world, we have also been responsible for much of the charity, much of the building, much of the lending and much of the feeding - not enough in any instance, I'll grant, but much of it. What does this tell us? That the US is a top terrorist state that is as evil as the enemies we rant about? Or perhaps that in this cultural melting pot, we are more within a shade of grey, that we regularly do both great and terrible things.
Generally when people speak of terror today, they're talking about violent religious fanatics, gangs, criminals, etc. The word is rarely used with any true attention paid to it's meaning. If, by terrorist state, Chomsky is suggesting that we inspire fear in others, then he is correct. If he is comparing us to koolaid drinking lunatics like the ones that blew up the world trade center... he is very much incorrect.
I'm trying to figure out how it is NOT arrogant to compare the US to a top terrorist state. Chomsky's opinions are only opinions.
As someone who is a student in a fairly small university (at least until next year, when there's no financial possibility of going back...) one of the things that bothers me most about my fellow students is the almost complete lack of any original ideas. Chomsky's ideas may be worthy of discussion, but they are not gospel truth, or fact, or indisputable. I'd like to see more from regular people, who, unfortunately, for the most part disappoint me either by not caring, or by merely parroting the ideas of someone else.
Perhaps Chomsky strikes a nerve for me, because I see him as an arrogant intellectual puffed up on his brilliance. Perhaps I'm wrong. I may be entirely unfair to call him arrogant without knowing him personally - but that is how I see him. The vast majority of "intellectuals" I deal with believe they are brilliant because they have memorized someone else's theories, because they know random facts and trivia... not, generally, because they themselves have done anything exceptionally intelligent.
Perhaps my beef is really with how we define intelligence in America...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)really an issue when it comes to personality or entertainment value.
Like Mercury, he is the messenger and the amount of information he brings to the table is as factual as you can get. In fact, if you really want to debate and disagree with someone's points, Chomsky is one of the great sources to do so from.
No need to agree with how he presents his knowledge, but you can easily use it as a springboard to break out of the cocoon that requires knowledge and insight to be some form of exciting entertainment and for people to have celebrity, charisma and acting skills to be able to seem less egotistical.
After years of being debated, marginalized and maligned, Dr. Chomsky is still going strong and clear no matter what kind of show people might want or expect him to put on. Facts and information are the nature of this game.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)It is really easy to throw stones from the anonymous sidelines.
Meanwhile, I'd love to see your vitae and compare it to Norm's. I'm sure I'd be 
Usually, an ad hominem is evidence that you have nothing of substance to add.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)a "puffed up asshole," bears no logical relationship the truth or falsehood of the argument. 
Turbineguy
(37,295 posts)are terrorists against ourselves! There's 70,000 of them meeting in Houston.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)wearing the white hats don't count as terrorism because the same standards applied to others do not apply to us, for we are the self-appointed and anointed righteous. 
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is just plain stupid.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)while the world watches on T-V and we define who is a terrorist (a backpack bomber) and who is not (lots of bombs falling on a city in a sovereign state).
treestar
(82,383 posts)I didn't agree with it, but it wasn't based on a lie. It was a response to terrorism, not terrorism itself.
Iraq was another story, but it wasn't terrorism, it was outright war - although supposedly some Iraqis wanted us to do it, but they had their own agendas.
We are strong enough to start wars, so we don't resort to terrorism.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)That was an aberration of the Bush administration.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)without consequence. Thus, we do, can, and will torture if it suits the powers that be.
Also, we still render to countries, or simply 'outsource' the torturing, which is also torture.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Maybe we just learned to cover-up better!
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Considering those facts, we are the greatest purveyor of terror in the world.
treestar
(82,383 posts)North Korea, Iran, Israel. Not really.