Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (1/3) has been added as a related post - related requested by lurgee.

Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (2/3) has been added as a related post - related requested by lurgee.

Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (1/3) has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

Chris Hedges Interviews Noam Chomsky (2/3) has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Chris-Hedges-Interviews-Noam-Chomsky-2-3

The interviewer is a "sell-out?" Wrong, he was simply asking what Bland envisaged as an alternative to the present system. Of course he had no alternative except; "revolution man." Jeez, he belongs with the 60's revolutionaries who are now all, thankfully, grown up. I just love it when people like Noam Chomsky and this fool decry and denigrate the system without any coherent solutions to the problems they see. Fine, let's have change, but until you know what that change should be, and are able to offer solutions rather than childish (as you so eloquently put it) Blah, Blah, Blah, be quiet.

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.

You're kidding, right?

We've had Arizona almost pass a law that legalises discrimination, and Uganda actually pass a law that where homosexuality is punishable by death.

Meanwhile 60% of Americans don't accept the reality of evolution.

I wonder where you get the idea that people DON'T listen to really religious people.

And I have watched Chomsky, and I agree that he's a good debater. That said, I've never seen Dawkins be anything other than polite even when dealing with unbelievable idiocy.

I would wonder where in the hell you get the idea that anyone cares what really religious people think. Also why the hell you would think that an "atheist evangelist" would help in anyway shape or form. It just plays right into peoples hands "See he's a psychopath, look at how much of a dismissive dick he is towards differing opinions."

Address criticism and answer to it, I used the example of Chomsky, maybe you should watch something where someone is confronting him in a vigorous manner. He handles himself correctly in my view, my opinion is that Dawkins does not. That he sounds like a dick and he turns people off and it turns out others in the field of science feel the same way. He is not the white knight we're looking for, we want him to grab some pine and shut the fuck up.

Again I don't know where you get the idea where anyone listens to religious people. They're useful to drum up and get votes for but everyone including republicans know they're crazy and do their best to control them rather than do their stupid bidding.

Well ok, but I've always admired Chomsky and how he addresses vitriol and stupidity. Regardless if you agree with the stuff he says, when he's just stating facts or establishing a context he's very calm and collected. You can tell when he's getting mad about something or upset when he's a bit short, but he's very respectful always.

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.

All the time that you've spent telling me to read the Wikipedia article and find the hidden relevance of anomie to Chomsky and the "real" definition of anarchy (that is not the absence of the state) you could have used to simply make your point (if you even had one at all). That, to me, is the definition of evasive.

You don't know what you're talking about, or else you wouldn't be so evasive -- and yet spend so much time writing nothing, name-calling, and trolling.

Six sentences and not one addressing my questions. Clearly 'wasting time' is not a real concern of yours.

Haha! So evasive! If you think I don't know the 'real' meaning of anarchism, or what it has to do with anomie and Chomsky, then asking me to read wikipedia does nothing to support your point (if, indeed, you had one, which it appears, you do not).

I don't think wikipedia will answer what you mean by "people like you" or what the difference between anomie and anarchy has to do with Chomsky.. But if you think it can, I'm all ears.

But you did stumble upon some truth: "it is useless to argue with you." You're right, and I don't know why you would even want to try.

Typical reply, evasion, non-answer.. You can't defend the indefensible. So I doubt I will ever get a coherent argument from your position.

Your video, noam chomsky-how to ruin an economy-some simple ways, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

1. What's the 'real' meaning of anarchism, if not absence of a state?
2. "people like you," meaning what/who?
3. What's the relevance of the difference between anomie and anarchy to Chomsky?