search results matching tag: Noam Chomsky

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (191)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (24)     Comments (332)   

TDS: Judge Andrew Napolitano Discusses Slavery with Jon

Yogi says...

If you provide evidence that's compelling and can be verified there is no reason why a serious academic shouldn't take it seriously. There are a lot of echochamber and lazy academic bullshit that bounces around. I'm not going to deny that I hate it and see it constantly.

But I cite again when Noam Chomsky makes an argument against something like that, he provides a mountain of fucking evidence. This video doesn't do that sir, it's a debate that should've been had after the material say a book or study or essay had been presented and a challenge had been thrown down. We've skipped a bunch of fucking steps here, we're basically sitting in a garage with some beers arguing whether or not Beiber should be legally sent back to Canada.

So far no one has been able to point me towards someone who's done serious academic work on this subject. Heck no one is even claiming like Donald Trump that they've already done the work on it.

To your point about Christopher Columbus, when I was in High School I found this out when I was given "A People's History of the United States." The reason why it was compelling to me was the shear volume of material on the subject as well as it's references. In contrast my history book had one paragraph on Christopher Columbus's finding of the nation, it was preposterous.

chingalera said:

Would you argue that whatever academics say about major world conflicts if they aren't parroting other agreed-upon-by-experts musings could be part of the overall codification of these events in world subconscious and conscious with a view to shaping minds for the next conflict to be orchestrated and implemented? The simple or complex aspects of any sacrificial lump of money and people can always be rendered into the essence of the insanity of the same with a simple and universally-agreed-upon homo-sapient common-sense.
Eveyone thinks 'ol Tom Edison was a goddamn genius and that Chris Columbus wasn't a complete cockbag posing as some ground-breaking explorer as well. What does the tinkerer and and a boat captain have in common? A lot of assholes have written tomes about both of them to deify them. One was an egotistical half-ass and the other a dirty fucking example of a Spaniard working for a cunt whore empire-builder.

ChaosEngine, your lack of any point reads COMPLETELY retarded.

Most Shocking Second a Day Video

A10anis says...

Actually, you would be better crawling up your own ass - as you so intelligently put it - rather than reading the doom and gloom, west hating bile of your hero Noam Chomsky.

chingalera said:

Again and again, your repeated statements reflect only your assumptions of my motivations based on the written words. If you'd like to know who and what I am you have but to inquire. I'll let you in on a little secret if you'd like a clue:

These are the absolute best of times to be alive in on planet now. If you want my opinion of the manner in which you and others of similar ilk conduct themselves on this site and others concerning a dissenting opinion or alternatives to run-of-the-mill editorials concerning world affairs anchored in parroting party-line opinions, you may crawl up my ass to find the answers for yourself.

As for anarchy well, you may look to geopolitics as reflected in the current paradigm, and perhaps you'll see that us common-folk haven't really got a clue of the debauch enjoyed by those involved in that sort of inhumanity.

enoch (Member Profile)

How To Beat Flappy Bird (Best Method)

A10anis says...

Well, that was an irrelevant, left wing, rant.
You managed to not only be obtuse, but turn it into a political statement.
It is really very simple my friend; Pointless destruction is what kids do when they can't control themselves, or don't get their own way. Yes, it is his property. Yes, he is free to do with it as he wishes. But it is also immature, unnecessary, and not in the slightest funny.
Your own problem is clear to see. You resent corporations who, incidentally, provide the money to develop the technology you are using. You don't like the system? Fine, off you go and develop another one. In the mean time don't read so much Noam Chomsky that you become a slave to other peoples philosophy. Think for yourself.
This started, on my part, as an observation regarding the wanton destruction of a phone, but you managed to turn it into the evil of CEO's etc...Jeez, I'm done.

Chairman_woo said:

1. So you are suggesting people who live on 40p a day would give two squirty shits about a smartphone? That is a result of global economic issues of which one person smashing a phone (they presumably own) is negligible to the point of complete irrelevance. Non sequitur, if this is really a concern to you then you need to go after the corruptions and inequalities in our very financial system. Handing down a phone (which is likely near the end of its useful life anyway) is not going to change anything of significance here.

2. I'm suggesting you are making an entirely subjective value judgement about the pleasure and practical use one could derive from the same investment of money/material. Lets not forget he generated around $7000 of personal income from a £50-100 investment. But more than that, perhaps to some people the pleasure and entertainment of smashing that phone was comparable to other activities that might cost the same (e.g. a night of drinking or a weekend away could easily exceed the cost of that handset). Are you suggesting spending £50-100 on leisure activities etc. is morally reprehensible? Let's not forget "smartphones" don't do anything essential for most people, they are luxury items. If you have a problem with 1st world culture that's absolutely fine (laudible even) but you can't be singling out this guy for making a very successful comedy skit when there are people everywhere who's lifestyles could be politely described as "a decadent waste of atoms".

3. Absolutely nothing is stopping that smashed phone from being recycled, many shops would give you a £50-100 trade in on a new handset even in that state as they are typically just melted down anyway (and your new shiny phone contract is worth more to them than caring about the state of your bag of broken phone bits).

Besides as a matter of pedantry my point clearly stands, doing NOTHING in a drawer is clearly inferior to generating $7000, and providing 2mins of hillarity!?!?!?!? (the comparison was between hammer and drawer not drawer and charity) What you did there was called a "straw man" (i.e. twist my word's to make a different argument that helps make your own point)

4. The phone is old and they are not built to last (again feel free to rant on our disposable culture but leave this guy out of it) as @Payback pointed out it's probably knackered anyway.


Somewhere in your argument is some righteous and commendable rage about the inequalities of the global market but you're focusing it in the wrong direction here. Be angry at the CEO and shareholders of Samsung who profit from human death and suffering in the Coltan mines, the Corrupt banks that hold a fake debt over the poor populations of the world or the Complicit governments that support them. Or maybe go after the Ideologues and philosophers that conceived and spread the culture of consumer and corporate greed driven economics.


Basically anything but rage at this guy for making a IMHO pretty funny video on a budget that utterly pales into insignificance compared to just about anything else.



Could he have handed it down? Sure. Could he have traded it for a crate of jack Daniels, a half ounce of weed, an animatronic chicken alarm clock, a present for his wife etc. etc. etc.?

Your argument taken to its logical conclusion would condemn anyone that spends money or resources on anything other than practical necessities or charity. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but that's what your argument as stated invites.

How To Beat Flappy Bird (Best Method)

A10anis says...

Well, that was an irrelevant, left wing, rant.
You managed to not only be obtuse, but turn it into a political statement.
It is really very simple my friend; Pointless destruction is what kids do when they can't control themselves, or don't get their own way. Yes, it is his property. Yes, he is free to do with it as he wishes. But it is also immature, unnecessary, and not in the slightest funny.
Your own problem is clear to see. You resent corporations who, incidentally, provide the money to develop the technology you are using. You don't like the system? Fine, off you go and develop another one. In the mean time don't read so much Noam Chomsky that you become a slave to other peoples philosophy. Think for yourself.
This started, on my part, as an observation regarding the wanton destruction of a phone, but you managed to turn it into the evil of CEO's etc...Jeez, I'm done.

noam chomsky-confronted by right wing zombie

poolcleaner says...

Ahhhh, he must be a drone of the Cult of the Grand HR Machine in action. Simultaneously knocking down radical ideas and then capitalizing upon the innovations of the radical.

Intellectuals are specific cogs for creating ideas. But! their ideas should be designated for their specific quadrant of weapons/systems engineering and never seep into political culture.

WARNING, Noam Chomsky, your views violate the nature of the GHRM.

The GHRM has determined you no longer qualify as a person. Your designation is now: food. Be happy and exercise the remainder of your free will:

Would you like to be converted into solid food or liquefied supplements?

enoch (Member Profile)

noam chomsky-confronted by right wing zombie

SDGundamX says...

Happy to be the 10th vote for this.

That guy was a total twat. I only wish the camera had showed his face so that if I passed him on the street I could call him out for being a twat.

The actual comment from Paul Robinson in the New York Times in 1979 (which Chomsky paraphrased in this talk) is as follows:

"Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual. On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded. The 'Chomsky problem' is to explain how these two fit together."

Chomsky's coming to Japan next month and my wife and I are going to try to see him give a talk on linguistics (unfortunately his other talk on democracy and capitalism booked up as soon as it was announced).

enoch (Member Profile)

NOVA: Secret of the Wild Child

NOVA: Secret of the Wild Child

blankfist (Member Profile)

Yogi (Member Profile)

digitalpimp (Member Profile)

Noam Chomsky on Stupid People

Fletch says...

"Stupid people, these people have power." - Noam Chomsky

Because they seem to keep getting elected by stupid people who vote meaningless litmus-test issues meant to distract and misdirect, rather than their own interests.

Edit: Omg, he ould be talking about voters.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon