Convince me not to hate this man. I consider myself one of the furthest left people on Veeky Forums, so I'm confused as to why so many people here think he's great when I've found everything he's said insufferable
Convince me not to hate this man. I consider myself one of the furthest left people on Veeky Forums...
Luke Ortiz
Other urls found in this thread:
mashable.com
chomsky.info
igmchicago.org
thehill.com
twitter.com
Joshua Diaz
>I consider myself one of the furthest left people on Veeky Forums
>I consider myself one of the most enlightened redditors
Chase Miller
He's just a confused old man. Not worth hating. It's not his fault that legions of retards think his logic-free pontification is deepity. It's not the retards' fault either, actually. They were born that way.
Asher Jackson
Yeah, i feel you. I never really hated him, nor did i enjoyed him, i tolerated his ideas.
But for me the trigger to dismiss him completely was him backing up Hillary, the reason being because Trump is worst kek.
What kind of revolutionary is that? Politcs isn't like sports competitions ffs. We're talking about people's life here.
Justin Perry
Fun Fact: When the Americans murdered him and raided his compound, they found Chomsky books among his collection.
>mashable.com
Was his violent life merely the result of American aggression and capitalist exploitation of the Middle East? Or did he want to believe the Muslim world was oppressed and exploited by outsiders, and turned Chomsky and Hedges to affirm what he wanted to be true?
Isaac Sullivan
I mean when the Americans murdered bin Laden, my bad.
Alexander Cruz
I'm not sure how this has escaped you, but the reality is that there's a 99.9% certainty that you get either Trump or Clinton. One is a politically savvy corrupt neocon who deliver more of the same politics as ever. The other is a blustering idiotic trust fund baby who might literally crash the world economy with his stupidity.
Brody Green
>If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice
This from the man who was defending the Khmer Rouge in 1977. Pathetic.
Caleb Carter
le tips le fedora XD
Mason Hernandez
>This from the man who was defending the Khmer Rouge in 1977. Pathetic.
Chomsky has taken back those views. He said at that time, it was reasonable to believe:
>Journalist Christopher Hitchens defended Chomsky and Herman. They "were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretations."[21] Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."[22]
I like Chomsky's analyses of global problems, but I don't agree with his solutions. He's not always right, but he does back up his assertions well.
Samuel Collins
>i'm different
>my views are unique
>look at these contrary opinions I hold
>LOOK I SAID
ew.
William Ortiz
That's actually not true. During the 70s, he called out some Western media outlets for misquoting primary sources regarding the Khmer Rouge killing fields. He still mentioned that the Khmer Rouge were committing atrocities. Because of this (and his repeated comparison of the Khmer Rouge killings with the American-backed East Timor killings, about which the media here is almost totally silent) conservative "experts" have been screaming since then about him denying the Cambodian genocide and supporting the Khmer Rouge.
Brody Powell
It's literally their only criticism against Chomsky.
If people actually read Chomsky's books, then they'd see how well he backs each of his claims.
Easton Gutierrez
...
Nathaniel Long
He learned from his mistake
Nolan Brooks
>I consider myself one of the furthest left people on Veeky Forums
Yeah?
Ethan Wilson
That seems like a dumb assertion but whatever
Justin Rogers
>One is a politically savvy corrupt neocon who deliver more of the same politics as ever.
Which is becoming less and less feasible since the American people are getting poorer than ever.
>The other is a blustering idiotic trust fund baby who might literally crash the world economy with his stupidity.
What's stupid about wanting to block the TPP?
What's stupid about wanting to repeal NAFTA?
What's stupid about using tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations?
What's stupid about not wanting to go to war with Russia?
Jose Flores
>That's actually not true. During the 70s, he called out some Western media outlets for misquoting primary sources regarding the Khmer Rouge killing fields. He still mentioned that the Khmer Rouge were committing atrocities. Because of this (and his repeated comparison of the Khmer Rouge killings with the American-backed East Timor killings, about which the media here is almost totally silent) conservative "experts" have been screaming since then about him denying the Cambodian genocide and supporting the Khmer Rouge.
Holy shit he openly said the survivors were exaggerating. It literally takes 5 seconds to find. chomsky.info
Thomas Foster
>What's stupid about wanting to block the TPP?
there are legitimate reasons against it but nothing trump says about it is reasonable.
>What's stupid about wanting to repeal NAFTA?
95% of economists agree it was a good thing (0% disagree) igmchicago.org
>What's stupid about using tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations?
tariffs are stupid and bad for us too, trade wars are even worse.
>What's stupid about not wanting to go to war with Russia?
that's one way of putting "sucking putin's dick".
Benjamin Reed
>I consider myself one of the furthest left people on Veeky Forums
How many Ukrainians do you starve per day?
Zachary Howard
>there are legitimate reasons against it but nothing trump says about it is reasonable.
KEK
>95% of economists agree it was a good thing (0% disagree)
Free trade increases GDP, sure. It's also undeniable that it causes wage depression and job losses. The consumer price index has seen prices on pretty much everything but electronics steadily rising over the past two decades. NAFTA is bad for the poor, plain and fucking simple.
>tariffs are stupid and bad for us too, trade wars are even worse.
Bad for employers, yes. Not bad for workers. Next you're gonna argue unions are 'bad for us'.
>that's one way of putting "sucking putin's dick".
As opposed to literally threatening to go to war because Hillary was exposed as a corrupt piece of shit?
Aaron Williams
>Free trade increases GDP, sure. It's also undeniable that it causes wage depression and job losses. The consumer price index has seen prices on pretty much everything but electronics steadily rising over the past two decades. NAFTA is bad for the poor, plain and fucking simple.
the economists aren't monster shills who just like seeing numbers go up, free trade raises real income (i.e how much you can buy) by making goods cheaper, job losses affect workers temporarily and isn't nothing but long term the cheaper goods help poor people more than they help rich people.
Bad for employers, yes. Not bad for workers. Next you're gonna argue unions are 'bad for us'.
You realize that letting businesses make cheaper goods helps everyone. I don't love unions, there are good aspects and bad ones.
>As opposed to literally threatening to go to war because Hillary was exposed as a corrupt piece of shit?
Read it until you understand what she's saying Hillary never threatened to go to war. Cyber attacks by foreign governments shouldn't be ignored.
Jace Kelly
>long term the cheaper goods help poor people more than they help rich people
>You realize that letting businesses make cheaper goods helps everyone.
This must be why wealth disparity has done nothing but grow over the past two decades, right? This is why the cost of food has risen, right? This is why wages have been depressed, right? You can't deny that any of these things are caused by free trade. All you can do is claim there are magical long term benefits poor people will see 'in the long run'. Free trade is the new trickle down economics.
Keep in mind that no one is anti-trade. But free trade between nations with a thriving middle class and nations with barely subsisting poor class will wipe the middle class out. That's what it's doing right now, and people know it, GDP growth or not.
>Read it until you understand what she's saying Hillary never threatened to go to war.
In her own words:
>“As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack,” the Democratic presidential nominee said. “We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.”
thehill.com
Ethan Thompson
>This must be why wealth disparity has done nothing but grow over the past two decades, right? This is why the cost of food has risen, right? This is why wages have been depressed, right? You can't deny that any of these things are caused by free trade. All you can do is claim there are magical long term benefits poor people will see 'in the long run'. Free trade is the new trickle down economics.
mfw compartive advantage is magical.
>Keep in mind that no one is anti-trade. But free trade between nations with a thriving middle class and nations with barely subsisting poor class will wipe the middle class out. That's what it's doing right now, and people know it, GDP growth or not.
Yep you know better than 22 of the best economists in the world. They couldn't care less about GDP.
>“We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.”
"if you attack us we will retaliate", she's not saying we'll go to war when she gets elected, she's saying she will respond properly to an attack against the US.
Robert Jenkins
>mfw compartive advantage is magical
There is no advantage for Americans when the differences between countries is 'one has a middle class with strong wages' and 'one has sweatshops with shitloads of impoverished people'. The 'comparative advantage' is that wages fall to shit.
>Yep you know better than 22 of the best economists in the world.
None of them would disagree with me that free trade causes wages to be depressed and jobs to be lost.
>"if you attack us we will retaliate"
Yes, if Hillary Clinton gets hacked and exposed as dogshit, we need to send American soldiers to fight a nuclear superpower. This is reasonable.
Jaxon Robinson
>There is no advantage for Americans when the differences between countries is 'one has a middle class with strong wages' and 'one has sweatshops with shitloads of impoverished people'. The 'comparative advantage' is that wages fall to shit.
Part of trade deals (yes even the evil tpp) is to include a minimum labor conditions. Over time they rise as countries get richer from free trade. But even ignoring that yes there is, there is always comparative advantage between any 2 countries.
>None of them would disagree with me that free trade causes wages to be depressed and jobs to be lost.
I don't either, temporarily they do, almost all of them believe the benefits outweigh the costs.
>Yes, if Hillary Clinton gets hacked and exposed as dogshit, we need to send American soldiers to fight a nuclear superpower. This is reasonable.
google "Cyber attack".
Levi Wright
Not going to look it up now but I want to say even basic shit like Pol Pot's identity was still secret in 1977. The Khmer Rouge were more secretive, and more successfully secretive than North Korea is today. Very little of what happened was known until well after it happened.
Dylan Jones
>I consider myself one of the furthest left
quit trolling shitposter
Kayden Morgan
>survivors were exaggerating.
Was ever banned from Germany for this?
Chase Johnson
*he