I'll wait until the legit report comes out before I make a call. There is a fuck ton of smoke so there has got to be a fire.
Noam Chomsky - Trump-Russia Collusion is and always has been a total joke
- Thread starter Deleted member 21339
- Start date
I think we are broadly agreed. The liberal failure I refer to came in 20 years ago when they didn't nuke Fox News or do other stuff that might've infringed on "free speech". That is, the reason why we felt so outgunned right now is because we inherited a do-nothing party who built their platform on feel good legislation without addressing systemic issues and now all the problems they ignored during their time, inequality, climate change, civil rights, technology, foreign interventionism are coming home to roost during what should be the peak of our lives.
I only suggest a liberal propaganda network as a hypothetical asset we might have right now if liberals had been proactive for the last half century rather than reactive, if there were more voices like Chomsky who got a boost in media, who looked at our internal problems first instead of always looking for a foreign or domestic bogeyman.
To me the most crucial fights of the century were lost before many of us were even alive, we were born into a retreating army that only knows how to retreat, never having seen another way.
Last edited:
It's easier to blame Trump getting elected on Russian than the terrible trainwreck that was the 2016 democratic campaign.
To be fair, there was a time even Republicans would have considered Russia successfully attacking America bad.
The title of this thread is a little misleading - if you listen carefully to what Chomsky actually says you'll his position is more complicated.
Unfortunately a number of people in this thread are making the same mistake and not correctly assessing what Chomsky is saying.
So, a few things to consider:
- Chomsky is a pretty straight-shooter, which means he just says what he thinks and is very brusk. He sounds dismissive here because he is - that's how he's always talked.
- The question Chomsky is initially answering is initially answering is in question to the media's portrayal of 'Russia-Gate'. He says its "so farcical that I barely read the reports. It's a joke." So he's talking about the media circus - not the 'interference itself'.
- Specifically, he says "If there was any interference by the Russians, it was undetectable...there is no sign of any Russian effect".
Later on he says "There is no evidence of any Russian effect on the Presidential election".
What's important here is to separate the idea of Russian influence from it's effect. Chomsky is not saying that there's no evidence Russians attempted to interfere. He is saying that any effect from the Russians' ploys were negligible at best. In other words, in his view of the research, it didn't change the outcome of the campaign. Yhis is important because it's important not just whether or Russia sort to influence the election - but whether their interference did anything.
When Chomsky says, that from his analysis of the studies there is no clear evidence of any effect - he's basically right. Most commentators seem to say that it's impossible to measure any effect. I know that political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson believes there was an effect - but I can also see that she was selling a book on the subject. I cannot find a peer reviewed study from here confirming what effect the Russian interence had. I would certainly be interested in reading one if anyone could supply it to me.
- Chomsky calls the whole situation "a bad joke". Why - Is he not concerned about election interference?
Well, actually, he is concerned. He's concerned about the actual effect of other major plays in the US elections.
- Firstly, he points out Israel's influence on American politics - something clear to everyone.
- Then points that the corporate America buys the elections - and that this isn't even a secret. There's actual, demonstrable evidence and studies to this effect. In other words, this real and constant interference should be everyone concern at all times. To pass this by to focus on what Russia did is to miss the forest for the trees. "The election system is deeply corrupt, right at its core, in many ways."
- When questioned more pointedly about whether Trump colludes with Russia, Chomsky acknowledges it as a possibility. But he believes any corruption would be of the basic kind (e.g. a Trump hotel in Moscow). Chomsky rightly sees that the entire system is filled with this kind of corruption. If you have an entirely corrupt system its not surprising to have a corrupt President.
- Chomsky sees that, in terms of Trumps actual policy, it has largely not been favorable to the Russians.
- As usual, Chomsky is also keen to point that the US has a long history of interfering with elections across the world and overthrowing governments they don't like. It's pretty important to keep this context in mind - not to dismiss it, downplay it or ignore it - but to face it head on and accept it's importance.
- As a side note, here's another video interview with Chomsky on the same subject. Here, he gives some interesting background as to why the US and Russia's relationship is so strained (e.g. because of US action) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsyHuT0TmD0
Unfortunately a number of people in this thread are making the same mistake and not correctly assessing what Chomsky is saying.
So, a few things to consider:
- Chomsky is a pretty straight-shooter, which means he just says what he thinks and is very brusk. He sounds dismissive here because he is - that's how he's always talked.
- The question Chomsky is initially answering is initially answering is in question to the media's portrayal of 'Russia-Gate'. He says its "so farcical that I barely read the reports. It's a joke." So he's talking about the media circus - not the 'interference itself'.
- Specifically, he says "If there was any interference by the Russians, it was undetectable...there is no sign of any Russian effect".
Later on he says "There is no evidence of any Russian effect on the Presidential election".
What's important here is to separate the idea of Russian influence from it's effect. Chomsky is not saying that there's no evidence Russians attempted to interfere. He is saying that any effect from the Russians' ploys were negligible at best. In other words, in his view of the research, it didn't change the outcome of the campaign. Yhis is important because it's important not just whether or Russia sort to influence the election - but whether their interference did anything.
When Chomsky says, that from his analysis of the studies there is no clear evidence of any effect - he's basically right. Most commentators seem to say that it's impossible to measure any effect. I know that political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson believes there was an effect - but I can also see that she was selling a book on the subject. I cannot find a peer reviewed study from here confirming what effect the Russian interence had. I would certainly be interested in reading one if anyone could supply it to me.
- Chomsky calls the whole situation "a bad joke". Why - Is he not concerned about election interference?
Well, actually, he is concerned. He's concerned about the actual effect of other major plays in the US elections.
- Firstly, he points out Israel's influence on American politics - something clear to everyone.
- Then points that the corporate America buys the elections - and that this isn't even a secret. There's actual, demonstrable evidence and studies to this effect. In other words, this real and constant interference should be everyone concern at all times. To pass this by to focus on what Russia did is to miss the forest for the trees. "The election system is deeply corrupt, right at its core, in many ways."
- When questioned more pointedly about whether Trump colludes with Russia, Chomsky acknowledges it as a possibility. But he believes any corruption would be of the basic kind (e.g. a Trump hotel in Moscow). Chomsky rightly sees that the entire system is filled with this kind of corruption. If you have an entirely corrupt system its not surprising to have a corrupt President.
- Chomsky sees that, in terms of Trumps actual policy, it has largely not been favorable to the Russians.
- As usual, Chomsky is also keen to point that the US has a long history of interfering with elections across the world and overthrowing governments they don't like. It's pretty important to keep this context in mind - not to dismiss it, downplay it or ignore it - but to face it head on and accept it's importance.
- As a side note, here's another video interview with Chomsky on the same subject. Here, he gives some interesting background as to why the US and Russia's relationship is so strained (e.g. because of US action) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsyHuT0TmD0
Oh for sure, but it was dems turn for an easy scapegoat.
There's truth in all of this but it was more of death by 1,000 cuts. The problems really began for the Dems/liberals in the 70s. The big wins on civil rights issues that proceeded the decade made liberals complacent and allowed Reagan, who more closely resembles the "truthful charismatic leader" Chomsky described, to swoop in pull the country hard right. Instead of rebuilding the party on the ideals that were so successful for them in the past, the Dems chose instead to simply be like Reagan in most respects save social issues. Without a true left party the country was left to swing hard-right and Hillary's campaign in 2016 reflected how far the Democrats had stayed to the center. While you can't put 100% of the blame for what happened on Russian interference, the mistakes made by the Democrats over the last several presidencies they held made the race close enough to be influenced.
I'd like to think that we've learned some stuff since 2016 and 2018 midterms gives me a lot of hope that Russian influence won't be enough to put Trump over the top again.
It's amazing how many people are apparently incapable of being concerned about more than one thing at a time, and so project that weakness onto others.
Returning to our original disagreement, regarding the honesty point, I thought about it some more and I have to admit that Chomsky was wrong where I was wrong as well, which is thinking that objective reality would win out in the end. What actually wound up happening was the ascension of a charismatic charlatan who was capable of bending the truth around him. No one was fully prepared for post-truth politics.
Lmao, what? Chomsky's a lot of things, but he's not a tankie. It's one of the reasons hardcore MLMers prefer Michael Parenti over Chomsky, since Chomsky has no problem calling the Soviets an abject failure of socialism.
Chomsky believes that simply gathering and arranging facts is enough for people to see the truth.
Chomsky doesn't believe in the need to go out into the public space and actively seek to change people's minds.
This is an unfortunate mistake because it cedes the public space and media to those who seek to manipulate and deceive others. The net result of this is the rise of charlatans like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and others.
I think it's a mistake to 'outsource' your understanding or reality itself to "experts". There are very few subjects outside the realm of understanding for your average person, and politics certainly isn't some uniquely complicated affair.
For examplle, to examine "Trump on Russia" we just need to have a basic understanding of the history of the relationship between the US and Russia, as well as what both countries national interests are. From there, we can consider for ourselves whether Trump is helping of hurting them. (I didn't even realise the US pulled out of the INF treaty. That's crazy!).
Last edited:
At worst, people followed logic about Russia.
A) strange ties with now convicted criminals including Trump's campaign manager
B) Trump's favoritism to Russia along with his trusting of Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence communities
C) He and others demonstrable and repeated lies about the nature of certain meetings with Russians.
These are objective, non-partisan truths. To not investigate (along with glut of other stuff) would've been foolish and partisan in favor of Trump. It's NOT partisan to want to ensure your President is not a Russian puppet.
People don't seem to get that Democrats aren't scared about learning Trump is innocent, they're scared of not knowing if he is/or not. That's where we STILL are because of the way this report is being held currently. Combined with Trump's continued gaslighting and discrediting tactics - it's really frustrating and brashly un-American. I can't imagine being a big enough loser to subscribe to his brand of humanity.
A) strange ties with now convicted criminals including Trump's campaign manager
B) Trump's favoritism to Russia along with his trusting of Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence communities
C) He and others demonstrable and repeated lies about the nature of certain meetings with Russians.
These are objective, non-partisan truths. To not investigate (along with glut of other stuff) would've been foolish and partisan in favor of Trump. It's NOT partisan to want to ensure your President is not a Russian puppet.
People don't seem to get that Democrats aren't scared about learning Trump is innocent, they're scared of not knowing if he is/or not. That's where we STILL are because of the way this report is being held currently. Combined with Trump's continued gaslighting and discrediting tactics - it's really frustrating and brashly un-American. I can't imagine being a big enough loser to subscribe to his brand of humanity.
Really I can't even give Trump and these guys that much credit. In fact in some ways as disgusting of an excuse of a human being as Trump is he's kind of a victim of propaganda himself. You can't call what they're doing deceiving people because the things that they do and say are the things that their followers want to hear. Can you really call something deception when even the slightest effort to investigate the false claims will lead you to the truth? Can you call it deception when your own eyes and ears can tell you that it's false and you willing choose to ignore it? Can you call it deception when your own loved ones tell you that you're wrong but your only response is "FAKE NEWS!!!"?
I remember a really long time ago I was having a deep discussion with a classmate and he told me that he doesn't have beliefs, he has ideas and the reason for this is that you can change your ideas but not your beliefs. America and a lot of the western world is struggling with a belief system crisis right now and that's what Trump and these other conmen are exploiting.
Good post, thanks. I actually have an undergrad linguistics degree and my program was almost entirely steeped in Chomskian linguistics, but that was a long time ago, and even then you could tell that there was some troubling gate keeping going on with the field via him and his inner circle, regardless of his own ideas merits. I think he contributed to the field to an amazing degree, but the unfalsifiable nature of many of his claims makes me receptive to new approaches.
I never put too much stock into Russian Collusion. It's everything else he does that's infuriating.
I think you linked the wrong video at the end. I'm curious about the one you're referring to.
Good post
No it's not, it's Chomsky, the guy blames NATO for Russian aggression.
You know, blaming NATO for Eastern bloc nations begging to be part of a western alliance because they were terrified of Russia just invading them in the near future.
Last edited:
Sort of, a lot of times it's used for that, and America certainly isn't perfect and criticism needs to be made and responded to.
But ignoring what we do well also has the effect of stymieing the promoting doing more toward that goal. It's fair to be a harsh critic of the US, but don't also downplay legit mob states like Russia in the process. Chomsky makes some good points sometimes. He's also way off kilter and a nut in other areas.
At the risk of sounding Chomskyean, I have a hard time coming up with a list of things "we do well", aside from making a lot of money and exporting a lot of entertainment/technology.
Maybe it should be "what we do better than most countries" then. I think we're about on par with most western democracies. We are lacking in many areas, maybe equal in others, and maybe better in others.
The US has myriad issues, yes. But, humanity in general does, which I think drives the issues the US has. By our nature, humans are kind of shit bags. In the context of the history of the world and as it currently exists today though, we've got plenty of examples of much worse results than the US. That doesn't excuse us or the need to get better, but it's a starting place.
My issue with some of the Chomskyisms is basically illustrated by this: the US has capital punishment. Saudi Arabia also has capital punishment. I believe capital punishment is immoral. Are the US and Saudi Arabia therefore equivalently immoral in this regard?
The answer is no. The answer is no because of all the inputs into when capital punishment is applied (the US justice system vs Saudi Arabia's). The answer is no because of how capital punishment is applied (lethal injection vs public beheading). The answer is no because one system of government is a representative democracy with a bill of rights and the other is a monarchy.
This is where people who criticize the US really start to lose me. It's not that the the US doesn't need to get its shit together, and if the past couple years are anything to go by the situation is worse than we previously thought, but don't also lump it in with these other much worse examples of nations that need to get their shit together. Again, humanity in general needs to stop fucking around with tribalism, bigotry, warmongering, greed, etc. These factors that influence why the US is shitty in various ways exist everywhere. As a general statement though, I think the US does pretty alright when compared to most of the world.
Sorry for the late reply, got pretty busy.
Anyway, I think using the term "analytic", which was always ill-defined since its inception except as "not all the other philosophies", is particularly not very useful these days following the rejection of any of the fundamental arguments it put forth from within and without. It now refers more to a stylistic tradition than anything substantive about the arguments. In the same vein, continental philosophy is so broad that you can't really point to one philosopher like Deleuze and say, "there it is", which is why its always more useful and interesting to talk about particular thinkers and their influences.
Logical positivism definitely isn't an exclusively Anglo-American tradition. Even if we ignore antecedents like Saint-Simon and Comte, the father of logical positivism was a German dude and the emigration of some of those Vienna Circle thinkers is what helped spread the ideas in the US and UK.
This sounds like a silly example. Here's my counter example. The US claims it's for human rights across the world, that it's for democracy, and it's against authoritarian theocracies. Yet it sells weapons to Saudi Arabia for their war in Yemen, and sells weapons to Israel which contributes to their colonization of Palestine. The government only voted to stop the arms supply to Saudi Arabia just a few months ago: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/6761...-to-end-u-s-military-support-for-war-in-yemen Which was at the urging of leftist pariah, Bernie Sanders, who is like the Chomsky of the Senate being an old, long time, agitator that the political center has obstinately tried to ignore.
I don't even need to mention how our support of Israel is going.
Given this, what moral ground does America claim to be the arbitrator of human rights and democracy across the world, except, as you said "we're not as bad as Saudi Arabia". Not as bad as Saudi Arabia, clearly, or China, or Russia but not above selling arms and weapons to Saudi Arabia, if it's good for business.
I think it's fallacious to blame these things on "just problems with humanity". The problem is, in my view, capitalism, and the US is one of the chief exporters of capitalist ideology as well as one of the load bearing walls of the global capitalistic economy. The world was remade in the image of the US during and through the end of the Cold War, and what we're seeing is the logical end result of Americanisms spread throughout the world. We get pissy at China for doing their own arms deals, but they took their cues from us, they exploit markets we created and abandoned, they follow the blueprint of global hegemony we made after "triumphing" over the Soviet Union, before many of us were born.
Any critique of the US that does not investigate the aftermath of its wake throughout the 20th century is no full and proper critique. It is not enough to say "we're better at stuff like human rights and democracy today", but we also need to look at how we used our position of power and influence during the restructuring of the world order after WW2, and how much of what's wrong now, can be traced back to things we did a couple of decades ago.
This sounds like a silly example. Here's my counter example. The US claims it's for human rights across the world, that it's for democracy, and it's against authoritarian theocracies. Yet it sells weapons to Saudi Arabia for their war in Yemen, and sells weapons to Israel which contributes to their colonization of Palestine. The government only voted to stop the arms supply to Saudi Arabia just a few months ago: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/6761...-to-end-u-s-military-support-for-war-in-yemen Which was at the urging of leftist pariah, Bernie Sanders, who is like the Chomsky of the Senate being an old, long time, agitator that the political center has obstinately tried to ignore.
I don't even need to mention how our support of Israel is going.
Given this, what moral ground does America claim to be the arbitrator of human rights and democracy across the world, except, as you said "we're not as bad as Saudi Arabia". Not as bad as Saudi Arabia, clearly, or China, or Russia but not above selling arms and weapons to Saudi Arabia, if it's good for business.
I think it's fallacious to blame these things on "just problems with humanity". The problem is, in my view, capitalism, and the US is one of the chief exporters of capitalist ideology as well as one of the load bearing walls of the global capitalistic economy. The world was remade in the image of the US during and through the end of the Cold War, and what we're seeing is the logical end result of Americanisms spread throughout the world. We get pissy at China for doing their own arms deals, but they took their cues from us, they exploit markets we created and abandoned, they follow the blueprint of global hegemony we made after "triumphing" over the Soviet Union, before many of us were born.
Any critique of the US that does not investigate the aftermath of its wake throughout the 20th century is no full and proper critique. It is not enough to say "we're better at stuff like human rights and democracy today", but we also need to look at how we used our position of power and influence during the restructuring of the world order after WW2, and how much of what's wrong now, can be traced back to things we did a couple of decades ago.
Bro, I don't disagree that the US is imperfect, that the imperfections have had extensive negative ramifications, and that there are hypocritical policies in place.
My point is not that it couldn't be much better, but if you're looking at everything on a whole, it could also be much worse. The US emerged as the big dog after WWII. The big dog gets to set the tone in a lot of ways. In a lot of ways the US fucked up. But there are many worse alternatives to how things have turned out.
It's easy to nitpick what the US has done wrong or mishandled, but not so easy to both have a solid idealistic and realistic alternative to propose and realistically implement it. That's all I'm saying
I'd argue it's the hardcore Russia alarmists that are incapable of being concerned about more than one thing. It's my concern about America's broad failure as any kind of champion of human rights and dignity that makes me shun Russia as any kind of salient or important issue, as there are probably thousands of more important issues and dozens if not hundreds of equally or more efficacious interferences into the sovereign political spheres of other countries perpetrated to at least some extent BY America.
This is actual whataboutism. Can you tell me what specifically about american hegemony demanded the deaths of millions in Korea, Vietnam or East Timor? The destabilization of almost every single country in Latin America? Holding some hypothetical alternative that history never gave us is not close to sufficient to rationalize those and uncounted other crimes, crimes which also carry the stench of hypocrisy because the world is forced to also suffer an America that positions itself as the global defender of justice and liberty.
Even in relations with a country like Canada, which have been fairly above board, the US consistently attempts to undermine and twist the interpretations of trade agreements that it was the dominant power in crafting to maximize the advantage of its domestic firms. This is not simply something that "Everyone is doing", it breaks the basic principles of reciprocity. It also refuses to subject itself to the ICC.
So no, fuck the US and fuck its apologists
The big dog gets the blame for everything that happens after the big dog takes over, that's the price of being the big dog.
Saying "the alternatives would've been worse" doesn't exonerate the big dog, and the big dog has yet to pay for its crimes.
I think you're being too restrictive in defining analytic philosophy by specific positions held by the logical positivists. The early analytic tradition is characterized by more diverse views, debates and methodologies than your definition suggests (for a specific example, consider the distinction within analytic philosophy between ordinary and ideal language philosophy). I can't determine what position a philosopher takes on the question of direct reference, or the correspondence theory of truth, or the logical form of action sentences, simply by virtue of their being deemed analytic. I would argue that the definition points towards broader historical, sociological and political factors than positions, and while the term isn't well-defined, does communicate useful information. For example, I know broadly which philosophers and arguments you are familiar with if you tell me that you studied philosophy of language at an analytic department.
I agree. I used the term mostly because analytic philosophy has concentrated in those universities.
I mean...ok? Giving me a list of fuckups, some of which are debatable, to respond to when I already accept that there is a list of fuckups by the US isn't going to go anywhere. Every alternative, in the better scenario or worse scenario is hypothetical as well. Maybe it's a moot point and not worth discussing then.
Given the actual history of 20th century...I think the US comes out ahead of the alternatives. Spotless? No. Worthy of scorn and criticism? Absolutely. Nowhere near the ideal of what humanity can achieve? Agreed. There's corruption and racism and shortsightedness abound. There's also idealism and principled rationalization of actions taken, even if in hindsight they look idiotic and many backfired. It's not a whataboutism to grade on a bit of a curve, given that human beings have thousands of years of history being total shit bags, and we have real examples of how bad it can get contemporaneously to what the US was up to. And there's a rise in shitbaggery all over western democracies right now. It's a disease that infects everyone. All things considered, I think the US system held up pretty ok.
Nobody is wrong in saying the US has a lot to answer for. Hell, right now it's the policy of the government to rip children away from their parents seeking asylum. This is horrendous. The shittiness is ongoing and is getting worse for the time being. And the treatment of our allies like Canada by the current admin is a source of great frustration for people like me at least. It really fucking sucks working for a multinational company where I interact with Canadians, and Mexicans, and Germans, and so forth, and I feel like my country is treating theirs like shit for no reason. But give that same scrutiny to any other country that is in the position the US has been in...well you really can't because there's nothing comparable in the history of humanity.
You're right. But not exonerating, or excoriating the big dog doesn't need to come alongside diminishing the negative impact of the real life alternatives. That's where Chomsky loses me. I get that the harshest criticism is for the big dog. It doesn't mean the competition should get away with what they get away with.
You're right, it doesn't, but Chomsky has said that he criticizes the US instead of, say, China, because his influence in China is even lower than his influence in the US. At least in the US, he can vote, he can teach, he can help create thinkers and leaders. He's about as far away from affecting China's policies as any of us.
And for the most part, your average liberal American spends more time blaming other countries for their faults rather than trying to create positive change in the US. Your average conservative American doesn't even deserve to be mentioned. That's why our policies, foreign and domestic, can be as bad as they are. We spend too much time, as a nation, criticizing other countries rather than ourselves.
Yeah but that dosent have to be the case. Until we get to such a world I think that dissidence which does not grade on a curve is the morally and practically correct position. There is nothing stopping the US from being better other then capital interests and a desire to maintain a certain image of itself.
I'd also be interested to hear which of my examples are debatable as crimes against humanity. The fact you call them fuckups and not crimes is pretty telling tbh.
For whatever it's worth I wasnt even thinkingabout Trump when I made the reference to treatment of "allies". While Trump is the worst and most naked manifestation of these trends; the interference, duplicity and condescension are pretty much a given across administrations.
Easily the best post in the thread. Summed it up perfectly. Bravo.
I'll preface that Trump can burn in hell.
With that said I agree 100%. I mean listen to what he's saying.
Unless Russia is hacking the voting machines (and I'm not saying they aren't) I honestly couldn't care less what they're doing. Everybody with the capabilities does this to everyone else. You don't even really need proof for that, just a brain imo. Does any of that make it right? Nah. But that's like saying it's wrong or evil to spy on other countries. Same thing. Everyone's doing it to each other.
This reminds me a lot of the Iraq War in that it is not seen as very appropriate or patriotic to say contrary things about it right now, but it'll be completely obvious in a decade or so.
Edit: Actually there is something there I do not agree with. He handwaves Trumps possible involvement too much. Trump/his campaign may have broken election laws when and if they colluded with Russia, which would make it a crime that should have a punishment. Even if everyone is doing it, the ones that are caught should be held accountable.
With that said I agree 100%. I mean listen to what he's saying.
Unless Russia is hacking the voting machines (and I'm not saying they aren't) I honestly couldn't care less what they're doing. Everybody with the capabilities does this to everyone else. You don't even really need proof for that, just a brain imo. Does any of that make it right? Nah. But that's like saying it's wrong or evil to spy on other countries. Same thing. Everyone's doing it to each other.
This reminds me a lot of the Iraq War in that it is not seen as very appropriate or patriotic to say contrary things about it right now, but it'll be completely obvious in a decade or so.
Edit: Actually there is something there I do not agree with. He handwaves Trumps possible involvement too much. Trump/his campaign may have broken election laws when and if they colluded with Russia, which would make it a crime that should have a punishment. Even if everyone is doing it, the ones that are caught should be held accountable.
Last edited:
I think you're coming to this from the right position. But when you say " There is nothing stopping the US from being better other then capital interests and a desire to maintain a certain image of itself." I have to disagree. What's stopping the US is the same stuff that stops other countries: a large percentage of humans are just shitbags. Period. It's obviously not impossible to overcome, but I don't think the issue is inherent to the US system, I think it's inherent to humans.
As far as the conflicts you brought up: I don't think it's really worth getting off into the weeds about what was justified, what wasn't, what constitutes a crime against humanity, etc. I accept the point that the US has done terrible things, perhaps for right or wrong reasons, and those terrible things have cost the lives of millions and possibly constitute war crimes in some cases. Fair enough?
I'd just say that for me, I don't spend a lot of time trying to justify the shittiness of the US by contrasting it to other countries. I do think some perspective is in order, however, when people seem to simply lump the US in with the worst actors in the world, or act like everything bad that's been done is as bad as what other countries have done. My focus has always been to try to make the shittiness of the US better by promoting better policies, and sometimes that means rooting for what has been done right. I don't think what has been done right excuses what has been done wrong, but it's not a bad thing to point out how we've tried to match our ideals.
I dunno fellas...you're all right in that the US has sucked and still sucks in very many ways. Nobody's going to the gulag over this discussion though.
It's important when you have a right to exercise it, is how I see it. The fact that I'm not going to the gulags over this means I should be as loud as I can, because it'll be too late when Trump or Republicans make their own gulags.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is a mistake that Chomsky makes when he speaks of the matter time and time again, and he does not seem bothered to evolve his position in the years he's repeated this. While it is foolish to proclaim that the election interference was the sole reason for the 2016 loss of Clinton, it is equally foolish to say definitively that it did not. Chomsky is only partially right in that the effect is unable to be measured fully, it makes no sense to then say it was negligible.
While not incorrect, it does not make Trump's collusion with Russia any lesser by comparison. Playing corruption olympics has no productive value.
Corruption has existed, but this particular level of corruption is beyond what has been previously observed. This again reeks of playing corruption olympics with no real actionable conclusion.
If only by accident; Trump has repeatedly attempted to do things to favor Putin's and his band of oligarchs. It would be disingenuous to say this administration has not been friendlier to Russia than, say, Obama's, and that it has not signaled toward actions to benefit Putin. The only real saving grace is the administration's incompetence.
He seems awfully interested in pointing this out repeatedly despite nobody really saying otherwise. It's whataboutism at best, disingenuous distractions at worst. The fact that this isn't repeated in the news cycle every day is not some kind of tacit acceptance of the practice.
Chomsky's arguments simply aren't all that nuanced. He's said the same things over and over before, and they were built on questionable logic all the same back then as well.
It is though. How do you think the current status quo concerning the US-Israel alliance was established? To criticize Israel was made verboten in media and society, and this went on for a couple of decades until you created an electorate that grew up thinking support of Israel is the only possible position to take.
Literally, to not speak of a problem is to ignore the problem, to ignore the problem is to tacitly accept its existence, that's why the first step towards addressing any societal problem is to speak it out loud, against elements that would suppress you. This has been true of all systemic injustices to my knowledge, the status quo is maintained by silence.
Ironically, the point of freedom of speech is to guarantee the right to speak out against injustice and yet our society is set up to gloss over it to avoid rocking the boat.
.
I really don't understand the acceptance of that summary as a done deal. It's not. It's impossible to sum up 300 pages in 4. Plus the grand jury is still going. This isn't over.
I don't think it will end up in Trump getting removed from office, and impeachment is also pretty unlikely given the Senate, but we need the truth. If the whole 300+ pages really does say there isn't enough evidence, then I'll believe it.
Even if the report is a flashing neon sign saying "he did it!", we still have a ton of problems here to address. 2016 was not purely due to Russian meddling, but I think people really downplay Russia's role in all this. It's not a "fever dream" when there has actually been public evidence of it such as Don Jr. admitting it.
The US-Israel alliance has become extremely problematic bullshit, and has been and is repeated in the news cycle. What isn't repeated, because it isn't news in the journalistic sense, is the historical role that the US has had in its interference in past elections. Neither does it really negate the importance of investigation into Trump-Russia collusion.
"But what about US-Israel" is, quite literally, whataboutism. A problem all the same, but has little to do with the topic at hand.
I'm questioning your logic that not being in the new cycle is not tacit acceptance of a practice, any practice, because it seems to me it is!
Jingoistic and nationalistic trends happen when the news media ignores a country's own flaws. How many people cared or even knew about Gitmo before it hit the news cycle? How many people know or care about it now? How long did general America ignore police homicides against minorities until it became an unavoidable element of the news cycle? We have a society that only cares about things that hit the news cycle but the inverse of that is things that don't make the news don't get any attention.
We had people in one of the Brazil threads taking about military action to defend the Amazon from Bolsonaro. Insanity! And these are probably straight-D Democrats. How did we produce "liberals" who think the proper response to a dictator in Brazil is to send in the military, except that the media has normalized American intervention? Why don't they know about our bloody history of intervention in Latin America? It's because no one talks about it, and when no one talks about the problem, it's accepted as normal.
Chomsky's keen to point it out because he feels not enough people point it out so he's trying to pick up the slack. I think, on balance, he does not do a very good job with that slack, but his intent is sound.
What I find funny about this line is there's evidence of the Trump admin trading favors with the Israeli gov
Chomsky's argument is to support the notion that Trump's corruption is "basic" in that it serves only him.
Blaming leftists for hawkishness and whitewashing the 2016 election....that's quite a take.
As is denying the blatant fact that this did happen.
No one said they stole the election. The investigation was about Russian interference which was confirmed and whether trump team conspired with them which wasn't according to the report. The million times trump people lied about meetings with Russians and business ties to Russia meant it needed to be investigated 100%. It would have been stupid not to. Flynn, manafort, trump Jr all lied about meetings, contacts and deals with Russian government or connected parties. Why not investigate?
Hysteria would be insisting Russia is innocent despite all the indictments and mountains of evidence.
"I don't read the reports but Russia is blameless and the real bad guy is America"
This guy is just a dumbfuck old fossil at this point and shouldn't be listened to.
Congratulations, you pointed out all of his bullshit whataboutisms and handwaving of Russia's responsibility in all of this.
Also, if you're gonna mention that Jamieson was selling a book, why didn't you mention that Chomsky has regularly been on RT?
And this: Noam Chomsky: U.S. Must improve relations with Russia
This guy is just a dumbfuck old fossil at this point and shouldn't be listened to.
Congratulations, you pointed out all of his bullshit whataboutisms and handwaving of Russia's responsibility in all of this.
Also, if you're gonna mention that Jamieson was selling a book, why didn't you mention that Chomsky has regularly been on RT?
And this: Noam Chomsky: U.S. Must improve relations with Russia
Last edited: