Noam Chomsky: “We’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history”

[Professor Emeritus]

Btw I think Tucker is quite eloquent and insightful.

 

[NZA]

Btw I think Tucker is quite eloquent and insightful.

 

[Pressure]

Fascism is bad, but without nukes and climate collapse it's just a phase, not an existential threat to humanity. That's the point of the video that you missed. This is the first time in human history that we've had some many deranged fascists with access to nukes as well as the first time we've had potentially irreversible environmental damage on such a large scale.

This disregards the fact that the only people t9 use nukes weren't fascist.

And it presumes the fascists care about future change enough that it will pressure them into war. Because truthfully any current leader will be long gone before any catastrophic affects of climate change take place.

I called it historical and cultural pessimism for a reason. Argue with that.

 

[Pressure]

Cultural pessimism arises with the conviction that the culture of a nation, a civilization, or humanity itself is in a process of irreversible decline. It is a variety of pessimism formulated by a cultural critic.

@DEAD7 commonly calls this out by pointing to the fact the folks don't think technology nor capitalism will work to solve societies problems in any way shape or form because the wealthy have a desire to maintain their wealth and continue to enjoy a bountiful world.

 

[Strapped]

They murdered a million in the middle east & we should be worried now that the world sees the man for what he is

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This disregards the fact that the only people t9 use nukes weren't fascist.

In what manner is a single data point from a historically unique and unreplicable circumstance supposed to inform anything? Unless you have something more to go on beyond, "Well, that one time..." then your point is meaningless.

And it presumes the fascists care about future change enough that it will pressure them into war. Because truthfully any current leader will be long gone before any catastrophic affects of climate change take place.

Did you mean to reply to someone else or are you just misreading my post? Nothing I said presupposes this at all. I was making the point that fascism accelerates climate change, not that climate change accelerates fascism (though that indeed will be true soon enough as well).

 

[Pressure]

In what manner is a single data point from a historically unique and unreplicable circumstance supposed to inform anything? Unless you have something more to go on beyond, "Well, that one time..." then your point is meaningless.





Did you mean to reply to someone else or are you just misreading my post? Nothing I said presupposes this at all. I was making the point that fascism accelerates climate change, not that climate change accelerates fascism (though that indeed will be true soon enough as well).[/QUOTE WHAT'S changed between then and now?

While I don't roll with any of their leaders, I don't see them as nearly so personally insecure as the three I just mentioned. Xi at least fronts like he secure as hell, India and Pakistan at each other's throats but I still don't see them launching those nukes in a million years, and I don't think Iran has nukes at all.

Trump, Putin, and Kim give of the kinda vibe that you can imagine they'd start a nuclear war rather than face personal and professional humiliation.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

[some total mess]

Your reading comprehension is as poor as your formatting. What do you think my argument was that that statement somehow relates to it?

I can't tell if you're responding to my first statement or my second, because the quote doesn't work as a counterargument to either. Can you state in a plain sentence how you think you've disproved or countered my argument?

 

[Broke Wave]

I've never considered your ego to be my problem.






That would be an outright lie. He explicitly said their welfare should be looked out for so they don't starve. Here to see you walk it back with a, "Well, maybe he didn't say that but he did say" and take zero responsibility for lying about his stance, even though such a statement already positions you as more "off your rocker" than Chomsky is.






Trump was never "banned from all media", at all times he maintained the capacity to reach out to a massive audience via media whenever he felt like it. If you actually, "suspended from a few historically novel social media outlets", I'd agree that was not indicative of a healthy democracy, in the same way that, say, arresting a president for treason would not be indicative of a healthy democracy. But if a president was committing treason, would you avoid arresting him just to maintain appearances? The threat to democracy was the shyt Trump did to get himself suspended, not the reaction to said shyt.

Point 1. Thanks

Point 2. 'How can we get food to them?' asks Chomsky. 'Well, that's actually their problem”

Nice try though. Chomsky is a washed up out of touch 90 something year old elitist fake leftist. That’s my take. Manufacturing consent is a classic book. Have you read it? Edward Herman did the intellectual heavy lifting. You should read his work regarding genocides and how the west uses them to cause further destruction… But I digress.

Point 3. Stop the semantics. Trump is banned from social media where 99 percent of people get their information. That’s truly authoritarian. Hillary was saying the election was rigged literally the election before 2020 when she lost to Trump. She still and her supporters still don’t accept the results of 2016. Total hypocrisy.

I appreciate the well written and measured response.

 

[Shogun]

Seems to be an objectively undeniable claim. The minute nuclear weapons were successfully tested we entered the most dangerous point in human history.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

Buddy, check my join date. Check my post history. I was also on the podcast recently you can hear my opinions on there too. Btw I think Tucker is quite eloquent and insightful.

You're a joke

 

[acri1]

climate change pushes us closer to other threats, including nuclear

Climate change is still the much bigger and overriding threat. Nukes can simply not be used if the right people are in power, and in fact we've successfully avoided using them the last couple decades.

OTOH there's no good news on climate. A lot more people have already died and will die due to climate change (directly and indirectly) than due to nukes. Long term I just find that to be a much bigger issue.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Point 2. 'How can we get food to them?' asks Chomsky. 'Well, that's actually their problem”

Nice try though. Chomsky is a washed up out of touch 90 something year old elitist fake leftist.

And you purposely omit his very next line?

"Of course, if they really become destitute, then you have to move in with some measure to secure their survival."

That directly contradicts your claim that "Chomsky was saying the unvaccinated should be starved to death". Nice try though, as you say. If you have to explicitly lie to make your point, then your point is probably wrong.

Point 3. Stop the semantics. Trump is banned from social media where 99 percent of people get their information.

Bullshyt. Again, if you feel like you have to lie to get your point, it's probably a bad point.

When you actually look at what people use as their top news source, only 11% of Americans prefer social media. 35% prefer television, 26% prefer a news website, 12% prefer search engines, 7% prefer print and 5% prefer radio. If you go to where they get their news from "often", only 23% of Americans "often" get their news from social media - compared to 40% for television, 34% from news websites, 23% from search engines, 16% from radio, and 10% from print.

There were numerous ways for Trump to continue reaching out to people other than a few social media sites. And even those sites were still broadcasting Trump's message via other people. You. Were. Dead. Wrong.

That’s truly authoritarian.

A few corporate heads kicking someone off their platform is "truly" authoritarian? You are "truly" ignorant as to what that word means.

Hillary was saying the election was rigged literally the election before 2020 when she lost to Trump. She still and her supporters still don’t accept the results of 2016. Total hypocrisy.

Disingenuous as fukk. Trump did not get kicked off of social media because he felt bad about the election results.

 

[el_oh_el]

Point 1. Thanks

Point 2. 'How can we get food to them?' asks Chomsky. 'Well, that's actually their problem”

Nice try though. Chomsky is a washed up out of touch 90 something year old elitist fake leftist. That’s my take. Manufacturing consent is a classic book. Have you read it? Edward Herman did the intellectual heavy lifting. You should read his work regarding genocides and how the west uses them to cause further destruction… But I digress.

Point 3. Stop the semantics. Trump is banned from social media where 99 percent of people get their information. That’s truly authoritarian. Hillary was saying the election was rigged literally the election before 2020 when she lost to Trump. She still and her supporters still don’t accept the results of 2016. Total hypocrisy.

I appreciate the well written and measured response.

This some high level unserious bullshyt stated here. You generally come off as competent, but end up having some of the worst takes I’ve read on here. So bad that it’s damn near malicious. Equating Trumps sorry ass getting kicked off social media for continued lies and ignorance after being warned several times more than others would be is some high level purposeful ignorance, and topped it off with some good ol made up metrics to drive the point home. Terrible post.

 

[Broke Wave]

And you purposely omit his very next line?

"Of course, if they really become destitute, then you have to move in with some measure to secure their survival."

That directly contradicts your claim that "Chomsky was saying the unvaccinated should be starved to death". Nice try though, as you say. If you have to explicitly lie to make your point, then your point is probably wrong.






Bullshyt. Again, if you feel like you have to lie to get your point, it's probably a bad point.

When you actually look at what people use as their top news source, only 11% of Americans prefer social media. 35% prefer television, 26% prefer a news website, 12% prefer search engines, 7% prefer print and 5% prefer radio. If you go to where they get their news from "often", only 23% of Americans "often" get their news from social media - compared to 40% for television, 34% from news websites, 23% from search engines, 16% from radio, and 10% from print.

There were numerous ways for Trump to continue reaching out to people other than a few social media sites. And even those sites were still broadcasting Trump's message via other people. You. Were. Dead. Wrong.






A few corporate heads kicking someone off their platform is "truly" authoritarian? You are "truly" ignorant as to what that word means.








Disingenuous as fukk. Trump did not get kicked off of social media because he felt bad about the election results.

“If they become destitute then some measures should be taken…” he’s quite benevolent isn’t he?

And do you really believe that in 2022 11 percent of Americans get their news from Social Media and 10 percent get it from print? In 2022? The link you posted urself said 8 in 10 get their “news” from their cell phone. Furthermore, there is a taboo associated with saying that you prefer social media as your news source Downplaying the relevance of Twitter and Instagram in 2022 politics is strange too because in 2016 they grilled Facebook for Russian bots and misinfo. 99 percent is what’s called a hyperbole. There’s no way for me to actually quantify Twitters impact but it is totally authoritarian for them to remove Trump. Social media is the public square where people disseminate ideas and remains the place where people receive the vast majority of information. Not just “preferred as news” , but general information.