Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conservative? and Chomsky
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 46 of 85 (581659)
09-16-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by onifre
09-16-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
Um, no, he participates in global political issues, specifically those where the US is involved.
How does he "participate", as opposed to just "comments on"? Be specific.
Interesting, since anarcho-socialism is by defintion communitarianism, which, by defintion, is totally opposed to liberalism
"Totally opposed"? Did you even read your own quote? Allow me to hoist you on your own petard:
quote:
Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
In other words - not at all "totally opposed", on the right track but not taken far enough.
But we're not, in anyway, discussing US politics.
Of course we are. Don't be ridiculous. We're two US citizens discussing the perspective of a third US citizen named "Noam Chomsky", one of the nation's most famous liberals behind Saul Alinsky and Michael Moore.
Automatically? Never said that...
I didn't say you said "automatically", which is why I didn't put it in quotes. But you didn't answer the question. Why is propaganda automatically an incorrect use of the word? After all, you did say this:
quote:
So, if the word is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons, it is the US who has re-defined the word to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Those are your words, are they not? So, answer the question - why is it automatically "incorrect" (your word) to use a word for "propaganda reasons" (your words)?
Chomsky called himself a conservative and a Libertarian/Socialist. He didn't say he was a conservative because he was a Libertarian/Socialist.
No, but you said that:
quote:
And by all definitions of this political philosophy, they are conservatives, so what, if anything, is your point?
Are those your words, or aren't they? Is someone typing in words you didn't actually say?
So you're saying the US is a double-ended dildo?
No. Declaring the US a double-ended dildo would not make it so. Declaring you a double-ended dildo wouldn't make you one. Declaring yourself "conservative" doesn't make you one, either, unless you hold to conservative positions and ideologies, because words mean things.
Do words mean things, Oni, or don't they?
This is what you still haven't done, present your evidence that shows Chomsky is a liberal, specifically a liberal.
I already had, and now I don't need to. You've already proven it.
You can ramble on about anarchism and liberaterain-socialism, but when these political philosiophies are in directly opposed to liberalsim, the is no reason to proclaim as you have that Chomsky is a liberal.
As I've shown, even the material you've put in support of your contentions proves you wrong - the philosophies are not "directly opposed" to classical liberalism. Socialist-libertarianism is a philosophy that believes that classical liberalism doesn't go far enough. That's not at all direct opposition, because, again, words mean things.
But you will have to eventually show evidence to support your claim that some how he is a liberal, or you can concede that he is not a liberal.
At some point, Oni, you're going to have to admit that your own evidence has proved that Noam Chomsky is accurately regarded as "liberal". Don't worry; we can keep going with this as long as it takes for you to either drop it or admit that you're wrong. I wasn't even going to chase you down about it, but you just had to bump the thread at me, so that's how it's going to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 09-16-2010 5:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by onifre, posted 09-16-2010 10:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 47 of 85 (581686)
09-16-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
09-16-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
How does he "participate", as opposed to just "comments on"?
By speaking to people, at their request, on how to oppose government and build from his model of anarchism, throughout the world. You can find plenty of youtube videos about this.
But for those reading:
University of Dublin and with Amnesty International on Libertarian Socialism
Hugo Chavez recommending Chomsky's books
Noam Chomsky meeting with Hezbollah leaders
That's just a few videos. There is a collection of of his work on the internets discussing most major world issues and lecturing on how to overcome capitalism and instill his model of politics.
"Totally opposed"? Did you even read your own quote?
Oh snap! You got me! No wait, you should have included the entire quote:
quote:
Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds.
Opposes it on those grounds.
As for the piece you quoted, you almost understood it:
quote:
Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized in liberal theories of justice.
Liberal theories of justice.
Swing 'n miss...
We're two US citizens discussing the perspective of a third US citizen named "Noam Chomsky", one of the nation's most famous liberals behind Saul Alinsky and Michael Moore.
And how is this us discussing US politics?
Why is propaganda automatically an incorrect use of the word?
It isn't automatically an incorrect use of the word.
As I said:
quote:
So, if the word is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons,
If the word is being used incorrectly, then it is incorrect. And if it is being used incorrect for propaganda reasons, then it is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons.
Declaring yourself "conservative" doesn't make you one, either, unless you hold to conservative positions and ideologies, because words mean things.
But Chomsky DOES hold conservative positions, by the US definition that you're using even. Yet you have not provided one single shread of evidence of him supporting liberal ideologies, not ONE.
I linked all those lovely videos on the other thread, about 5 of them, of Chomsky expressing, by US definiton, so you don't get sand in your vagina, conservative views. Go back and check them out, it'll learn 'ya something.
As I've shown, even the material you've put in support of your contentions proves you wrong - the philosophies are not "directly opposed" to classical liberalism.
Interestingly enough, that's exactly what it says:
quote:
Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds.
Words mean things crashfrog, and when those words say exactly what I'm saying, that means I'm right and you're wrong.
At some point, Oni, you're going to have to admit that your own evidence has proved that Noam Chomsky is accurately regarded as "liberal".
I tell you what, if you'll allow it, let other people chime in on this thread and lets get their opinion. So we don't have to keep going back and forth.
Is Chomsky a liberal or not?
And again, can you provide evidence to support that he is a liberal? As in, his position on Obama, healthcare, the tea party...something like that.
In fact, here is a video of Chomsky siding with the issues of the Tea Party:
I wasn't even going to chase you down about it, but you just had to bump the thread at me, so that's how it's going to be.
Dude, you don't have to chase me down, I'll come find you.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 7:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 11:22 PM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 85 (581692)
09-16-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by onifre
09-16-2010 10:46 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
By speaking to people, at their request, on how to oppose government and build from his model of anarchism, throughout the world.
So, he just comments then. Exactly what I thought.
Opposes it on those grounds.
Right - "those grounds" being that classical liberals don't take collectivism far enough.
It's not "total opposition," Oni, when your beef with the other team is that they're a lot like you, only not enough so.
Liberal theories of justice.
Right. Liberal theories of justice.
And how is this us discussing US politics?
Well, we're talking about Chomsky and his place in US politics. Don't you remember how all this got started, Oni? Don't tell me you've forgotten:
quote:
But they still have a vote. I get what you mean by fuck 'em, but I think educating them and not allowing the media to control our every thought might be a better solution. How do we get control of our media again? I don't know. But "fuck 'em" is not the answer.
One thing I counldn't agree more with Omni on was, there was once a time when even if they disagreed they would still work together for the greater good of the country.
These days that's gone, because you say fuck 'em and they say fuck you.
"The country." Our country, the United States. Remember? I was refuting your notion that neither conservatives nor liberals have the answers the American people want and need.
If the word is being used incorrectly, then it is incorrect. And if it is being used incorrect for propaganda reasons, then it is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons.
But your only evidence that it's being used incorrectly - as opposed to just "being used differently than Chomsky uses it" - is that it's being used in propaganda. Remember? That's how we got on the propaganda thing - you asserted that my usage of the term was from propaganda, and therefore incorrect.
So answer the question, for the third time: why is propaganda automatically an incorrect use of the word?
But Chomsky DOES hold conservative positions, by the US definition that you're using even.
No, he doesn't. He's opposed to American military adventurism. He's opposed to capitalism. He's opposed to social mores being informed by Christianity and especially opposed to the notion that the law should impose those Christian norms. He's opposed to reverence of tradition.
He's a socialist-libertarian. That can't be squared with any definition of "conservativism", and especially not in the Burkean, Oakeshottean mold that predates Chomsky by more than 200 years.
Interestingly enough, that's exactly what it says:
Can you show me where "directly opposed" appears in that material? Not just "opposed", but "directly" or "totally" "opposed", as you claimed.
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by onifre, posted 09-16-2010 10:46 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by onifre, posted 09-16-2010 11:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 49 of 85 (581696)
09-16-2010 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
09-16-2010 11:22 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
So, he just comments then. Exactly what I thought.
Not at all. He is a political activist, worldwide. Now you're just being a prick.
Right - "those grounds" being that classical liberals don't take collectivism far enough.
No, not because of collectivism.
The quote yet again:
quote:
Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds.
It is ontologically and epistemologically incoherent. Opposes it on those grounds.
Well, we're talking about Chomsky and his place in US politics.
We're discussing whether Chomsky is a conservative or not, you are trying to shove that into a discussion about US politics. But for the word conservative we must view the entire world.
Don't you remember how all this got started, Oni? Don't tell me you've forgotten:
DIfferent thread, different issue. This is soley on Chomsky and why he considers himself a conservative.
So answer the question, for the third time: why is propaganda automatically an incorrect use of the word?
Holy infant baby Jesussssss, it is not automatically incorrect when used for propaganda. In this case it is being used incorrectly by the US and their propaganda.
He's opposed to American military adventurism.
Finally you go where you should have gone.
Does Obama and the liberal party really oppose the military?
He's opposed to capitalism.
Liberals oppose capitalism!? You're killing baby Jesus, dude!
He's opposed to social mores being informed by Christianity and especially opposed to the notion that the law should impose those Christian norms.
So he supports the separation of church and state and this is solely a liberal position?
He's opposed to reverence of tradition.
Show me the proof.
Can you show me where "directly opposed" appears in that material? Not just "opposed", but "directly" or "totally" "opposed", as you claimed.
Ontologically and epistemologically incoherent... maybe I used "totally" too frivilously, but it is without a doubt opposed to it on the grounds of it being incoherent.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 11:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2010 12:04 AM onifre has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 50 of 85 (581697)
09-16-2010 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Artemis Entreri
09-15-2010 9:42 PM


Very brief and partial reply here. I did not mean that liberals are honest and conservative dishonest in all areas, I meant that liberals honestly identify themselves as liberals and market liberals mis identify themselves as conservative.
The important thing to grasp is that conservatism implies that people are reluctant to change what works. If you want to equate tribalism with socialism, I suppose that works, though it is also very participatory democracy. The major thing is that the well being of the group and of future generations is much more important than individual gratification. I strongly belief that it is not conservative to advance individualism and individual rights at the expense of the well being of current and future members of the group.
Aztecs were civilized. They had cities. The Mayan were also civilized but returned to agarian life when their cities proved unsustainable. Yes, tribal societies have made poor decisions. Jared Diamond in Collapse details some of those.
I first of all want to challange the the dominant mythologies off civilization that protect the destructive practises engaged in. I also realize that at this time in my life I really can't take the time to participate in any depth at all in this discussion. That is one reason I've cited books and a web site because the truly conservative peoples of this world even to the Amish in the US are being pushed to the brink of extinction by the greed of liberals and market liberals.
I would like market liberals to be so labeled and the term conservative to be used for those peoples I've mentioned who do not advocate rampant individualism and exploitation of the environment and other countries and peoples. Winston Churchill for example is listed as conservative but he was a brutal imperialist as witness India and South Africa. I don't know what the neo in neo cons stood for but Iraq was a war of imperialism for individual gain for example. It was not a conservative endeavor.
The United States after WWII emerged as the inheritor of British Imperialism. The corruption and decadence we are seeing is the result of that. Imperialist powers slowly bleed themselves to collapse by their expenditures for militarism. And the United States is doing that. These cycles of empire go back to Sumer, Babylon, etc. Nothing I can do about. But I can't stand the lies and hypocrisies that market liberals and liberals engage in to sugar coat their brutal exploitation of the poor and indigenous peoples of the world.
I just lost a paragraph do to some weird delete action and I've no time to repeat it tonight. It's bad the suffering that Bush and Cheney inflicted on people in order to make their buddies in business rich by ripping off ordinary tax payers, but when they lie about being conservative it makes me sick. We don't see the Amish and Mennonite or Native Americans advocating war and running scams to get rich. It is wrong for evil doers to claim that their evil doing is conservatism. Some one needs to be saying that the emperor has no clothes on.
If people knew what conservatism really was they could make informed choices. Perhaps they would prefer the liberal and market liberal world of consumerism and militarism and the wealth that flows into the United States from the exploitation of third world peoples, but at least real conservative would receive respect.
I don't know what you mean by "imperialist is way off." What is Manifest Destiny? The wars against the Native Americans, Spain, Mexico, on and on, gun boat diplomacy? If that isn't imperialism what is?
no more time to edit. this will have to stand for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-15-2010 9:42 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-17-2010 11:50 AM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 51 of 85 (581698)
09-16-2010 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
09-16-2010 4:16 PM


Re: Forget Chomsky and Cameron
Hear! Hear! Well said. Thankyou.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2010 4:16 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 85 (581700)
09-17-2010 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by onifre
09-16-2010 11:39 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
It is ontologically and epistemologically incoherent. Opposes it on those grounds.
Incoherent because they don't take enough of a commitment to collectivism. Are you even reading your own links, Oni?
We're discussing whether Chomsky is a conservative or not, you are trying to shove that into a discussion about US politics.
US politics has always been the context, that's where we started and that's where we still are.
But for the word conservative we must view the entire world.
Yeah? Did you read Burke and Oakeshott yet?
In this case it is being used incorrectly by the US and their propaganda.
Then, for the fourth time, please demonstrate that by recourse to something other than propaganda, or answer the question I originally posed: why is propaganda automatically an incorrect use of the word?
Further - "their" propaganda? Whose? The United States? Like, you're saying the government is issuing propaganda about conservatives and liberals? Can you provide an example of this propaganda, please?
Does Obama and the liberal party really oppose the military?
I didn't say "the military", now did I? Are you going to respond to my points, ever, or just keep attacking things I never actually said? You have somewhat of an honesty problem in these discussions, Oni.
So he supports the separation of church and state and this is solely a liberal position?
It is a liberal position, yes. The separation of church and state is inherently liberal, and conservatives are opposed to it. Chomsky does not take that position, now does he?
maybe I used "totally" too frivilously
So you admit that they're not totally opposed, just opposed in ontological grounds. Progress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by onifre, posted 09-16-2010 11:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 09-17-2010 7:36 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 53 of 85 (581717)
09-17-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
09-16-2010 4:18 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
CF writes:
They don't seem to be talking about the same thing at all. Did you notice that Chomsky was talking about the United States and that David Cameron is in the UK? Just wondering.
The fact that the term has come to mean something different in the US is Chomsky's point. So it seems you and Chomsky are in agreement on that at least.
But none of this has any bearing on the fact that your assertion that Chomsky is inventing his own personal meaning of the term conservative has been demonstrated to be false.
CF writes:
So, David Cameron is more proof for the notion that libertarianism isn't conservativism. Check.
Nobody has claimed that the two are equivalent or even necessarily related. As used by Chomsky and Cameron it is perfectly possible to be a conservative with or without being a libertarian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 4:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 85 (581718)
09-17-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
09-16-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
Both Cameron and Chomsky are describing themselves as conservatives on the basis of a belief in state minimalism and an advocacy of devolved power. As per the quotes provided from both. Aside from a shared declaration of distrust in statism I have little doubt that they are politically poles apart in nearly every other way.
CF writes:
I really can't help it, Stragg, if you're determined to read every single post of mine in the same asshole voice.
Oh don't get me wrong. I am quite a fan of your "asshole voice". But let's not pretend that you don't have a certain means of expression that can accurately be described in such terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 4:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 55 of 85 (581720)
09-17-2010 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
09-17-2010 12:04 AM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
Incoherent because they don't take enough of a commitment to collectivism. Are you even reading your own links, Oni?
Yes I am, and it doesn't say "because they don't take enough of a commitment to collectivism."
US politics has always been the context, that's where we started and that's where we still are.
Sorry, crash, but I am not strickly speaking about US politics. I have repeatedly said that his definition is how the word is used throughout the rest of the globe. And it is, since there are even conservative-liberal parties in other countries - Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, Liberal Party of Australia. You seem to be stuck on conservative meaning anti-gay marriage and pro-life, when that, again, is the contemporary use and has nothing to do with the classical conservative movements, since those pre-date the anti-gay marriage and pro-life arguments.
Again, you can't seem to break out of the US propaganda based definition.
Yeah? Did you read Burke and Oakeshott yet?
You have provided no links to support your position, if there is something you want me to read give me the link, as I've done for you, and I'll read it.
Further - "their" propaganda? Whose? The United States? Like, you're saying the government is issuing propaganda about conservatives and liberals? Can you provide an example of this propaganda, please?
I'm saying the word is being used incorrectly, and in that incorrect definition are the anti-gay marriage, pro-life, pro-gun arguments that have been described as conservative positions. But they are not in the classical sense. The fact that the US continues to do this is the propaganda.
I didn't say "the military", now did I?
You said military adventurism, which means they support the military. Or can you explain that better?
I'm not trying to be dishonest, that's how I read it. Don't be a prick, if I read it wrong or you didn't mean that then just explain it better.
The separation of church and state is inherently liberal, and conservatives are opposed to it.
Evidence please...or am I just supposed to accept all these bare assertions?
So you admit that they're not totally opposed, just opposed in ontological grounds. Progress.
Yes, they are opposed to it. You don't like my "totally" in there, cool, I'm a nice dude, I'll take it out. Doesn't change the fact that they are opposed to liberalism which cannot by definition make them a liberal. Which you have at least accepted, I have to go to extremes to double back to my point with you I see...either way, progess.
Now it seems like the examples you gave to show Chomsky is a liberal have failed (military, church and state - unless you provide evidence, capitalism) - so, got anything else? Any other reason position he has that makes him a liberal?
Please note that I have shown he is opposed to Obama, against pornography and prostitution, sides with he issues of the Tea Party, hates NPR, and recognizes that both sides of the prolife/choice debates make valid points. For any other person, you would considered a conservative, at the very least, a moderate, yet you stubbornly remain unconvinced of it?
What more do you need?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2010 12:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2010 1:42 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 56 of 85 (581721)
09-17-2010 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
09-16-2010 4:16 PM


Re: Forget Chomsky and Cameron
Mod writes:
Forget Chomsky and Cameron
I kinda wish we could.
Mod writes:
That's real conservativism!
I am inclined to agree in terms of genuinely original meaning. But terms do undeniably change meaning over time. "Conservative" as being used by Cameron and Chomsky in the quotes provided is a common use of the term throughout the world. The meaning of "conservative" as being advocated by Crash is the most modern and increasingly prevalent use of the term (arguably due to US cultural and thus linguistic dominance).
The question in this thread is not whether or not the term has changed meaning in regard to common usage. I think we all agree that it has. The question is whether or not the modern US meaning has been intentionally modified for purposes that can accurately be described as propaganda.
Crash's conflations of different political positions and assertions regarding Chomsky inventing his own personal language are kind of obscuring that this is the issue. But that remains the core issue under discussion.
I am interested to see where Oni goes with this. Which is why I found Crash's distractions annoying enough to inspire me to embroil myself in an attempt to move the discussion forwards.
On reflection I am not sure that I am particularly helping on that front.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2010 4:16 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 09-17-2010 10:24 AM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 57 of 85 (581746)
09-17-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Straggler
09-17-2010 7:36 AM


Re: Forget Chomsky and Cameron
The meaning of "conservative" as being advocated by Crash is the most modern and increasingly prevalent use of the term (arguably due to US cultural and thus linguistic dominance).
This is the main point to focus on, IMO. And while I do recognize the fact that the US's version is the most modern and increasingly prevalent, I also recognize the one advocated by Chomsky and consider both relevant defintions - arrived at by different means, but relevant in their own right nonetheless.
I am interested to see where Oni goes with this.
Crash's typical argumentative distractions not with standing, I think I have made my point quite coherently. Current use of the word -vs- traditional use of the word - Chomsky favors the traditional use, which is relevant, used globally, and there is no reason to think it's wrongfully used.
Also, I have presented evidence showing Chomsky favoring, by the US defintion of the word, a conservative positions on many issues. Any one else would have been considered a conservative and at the very least a moderate, yet Crash stubbornly holds that he is the most infamous liberal known to mankind. Which is crazy to consider an Obama hating, anti-porn, Tea Party issues supporter a liberal.
On reflection I am not sure that I am particularly helping on that front.
Of course Crash won't everrrr concede because that's what he does, just shifts the argument around and try to distract once he's shown he's wrong but, IMO you have supported my position with your own facts and your own argument. So I for one think you have helped establish the fact that Chomsky is most likely a conservative, if not at the very least a moderate by US standards.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2010 7:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2010 11:32 AM onifre has replied
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 09-17-2010 11:22 PM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 58 of 85 (581755)
09-17-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by onifre
09-17-2010 10:24 AM


Re: Forget Chomsky and Cameron
Wotcha Oni
I don't really have any issue with anything you say above. As far as Crash's position and behaviour goes I think you and I are in strong agreement. But I am particularly interested in the conclusion that the modern American use of the term "conservative" has come about specifically as the result of "propaganda".
I'm not saying it hasn't. My position in this thread with Crash has been that such propagandist tactics are far from unheard of. But I don't claim to know if this is the case in this instance or not. Words do evolve in terms of meaning and this does also occur naturally and without nefarious skulduggery going on. So what leads you (and Chomsky) to the seemingly conspiratorial conclusion of propaganda?
You know my general position on this sort of thing from past conversations. I think it is often all too easy to infer malevolent organised intent where in fact little more than disparate random opportunism is at hand. That the term "conservative" has been commandeered by those in the US with a specific political agenda is pretty indisputable. I just question whether this is a planned act in the way that propaganda seems to suggest or just the result of opportunism, bandwagoning and the natural evolution of language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 09-17-2010 10:24 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 09-17-2010 1:46 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 59 of 85 (581758)
09-17-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by lfen
09-16-2010 11:41 PM


market liberals mis identify themselves as conservative.
ok, but do you imply it is on purpose?
If you want to equate tribalism with socialism, I suppose that works, though it is also very participatory democracy. The major thing is that the well being of the group and of future generations is much more important than individual gratification.
You are really good at providing reference, though it seems you just want me to take your word on this. I really think you have Collectivism confused with Tribalism. If the Well being of the group and future generations was extremely important rather than the now, then why are many tribalistic groups so concerned with violence and war with thier neighbors? Why do they kill each other at alarming rates, including the children of neighbooring tribes? A great example of this is the Huaorani of Ecuador. I think it is tribalism with the mentality of in our group is people, and outsiders are inferior and less than "the people" (Us). If they cared so much about "the group" and "the future generations" then they would most likely be less inclinded to destroy each other over picking fruit, or hunting ungulates. Genocide is the product of tribalism, and the ethnocentric behavior associated with tribalism.
I would like market liberals to be so labeled and the term conservative to be used for those peoples I've mentioned who do not advocate rampant individualism and exploitation of the environment and other countries and peoples.
The problem is that you have mentioned very few peoples that fit the bill. The Amish may, though they are civilized, and not all that different from other rural farming americans, except for thier faith and their lack of the use of technology. I think you would be hard pressed to find a tribal society that is not for the exploitation of other peoples.
But I can't stand the lies and hypocrisies that market liberals and liberals engage in to sugar coat their brutal exploitation of the poor and indigenous peoples of the world.
I am not sure they are always lying, I think they believe they are conservative. as you go on to say "If people knew what conservatism really was they could make informed choices."
We don't see the Amish and Mennonite or Native Americans advocating war and running scams to get rich.
The Amish already are rich, they are quite the shrewd capitalists, with thier hand made furniture, and crafts, in addition to all the land they own. I do not know much about the Mennonite. Yeah the whole Native American Casinos thing I'm sure had nothing to do with getting rich [SARCASM]. And if I remeber my history correctly Native Americans where more than happy to fight in the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War. Oh yeah wasn't that a Native American (Ira Hayes) in the Iconic WWII picture of raising the Flag at Iwo Jima? I hope you just do not know these things rather than being dishonest yourself about them.
I don't know what you mean by "imperialist is way off." What is Manifest Destiny? The wars against the Native Americans, Spain, Mexico, on and on, gun boat diplomacy? If that isn't imperialism what is?
we were talking about two different things, I realize that now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 09-16-2010 11:41 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by lfen, posted 09-18-2010 1:57 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 85 (581784)
09-17-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by onifre
09-17-2010 7:36 AM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
. I have repeatedly said that his definition is how the word is used throughout the rest of the globe.
Except that it's not. What's used is the formulation of conservatism as developed by Burke and Oakeshott, the intellectual fathers of the movement. Cameron is talking about Burkean conservatism. I'm talking about Burkean conservativism (not Rush Limbaugh-style culture war bullshit.) You and Chomsky are talking about a "conservativism" that can't possibly be reconciled with the conservatism of Burke and Oakeshott - a conservatism that predates Chomsky and yourself by a hundred years or more, contrary to your position.
Again, you can't seem to break out of the US propaganda based definition.
I'm still not sure what "propaganda" you're referring to. Can you give an example? I'm talking about the conservatism of Burke and Oakeshott which predates even the United States, is the basis for the "world definition", not "The O'Reilly Factor" or Fox News.
if there is something you want me to read give me the link, as I've done for you, and I'll read it.
I want you to read Burke and Oakeshott, who are the intellectual founders of the conservatism you keep referring to. I want you to do your homework, not have me do it for you.
You said military adventurism, which means they support the military.
What? That's not what "military adventurism" means at all.
Do you just not recognize the term? That's all you have to say and I can try to explain it better, it's really an incidental point and if it doesn't communicate anything useful to you, we can drop it.
Evidence please...or am I just supposed to accept all these bare assertions?
Are you fucking kidding me? Oni, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you can't recognize which positions are liberal and which are conservative, how can you claim that Chomsky is a conservative based on his positions?
Yes, they are opposed to it.
Sure. You can oppose the guys on your side. If you think they don't go far enough, for instance. If you think they're "incoherent on ontological grounds."
Doesn't change the fact that they are opposed to liberalism which cannot by definition make them a liberal.
Well, they're opposed to classical liberalism. I mean you read your own links, right?
Now it seems like the examples you gave to show Chomsky is a liberal have failed (military, church and state - unless you provide evidence, capitalism)
I don't see that any of those have failed; you've not addressed even half of them, and for the rest your attacks haven't succeeded, largely because you don't seem to do your homework or even read links before you quote from or link to them.
Please note that I have shown he is opposed to Obama, against pornography and prostitution, sides with he issues of the Tea Party, hates NPR, and recognizes that both sides of the prolife/choice debates make valid points
What on Earth does any of that have to do with conservatism? If I think Cokie Roberts is a total cunt, does that make me a conservative?
What more do you need?
Evidence that Chomsky is a conservative of the form articulated by Burke and Oakeshott, the intellectual fathers of conservatism as it is internationally understood.
I'll make you a deal. If you can prove that Chomsky holds the following positions - not merely that he says he does by perverting word meanings (for instance by describing socialism as "small government"), I'll admit that I was wrong, you were right, and Chomsky is the only conservative in the world or whatever:
1) supports lassez-faire, free market capitalism to the exclusion of alternative, collectivist economies;
2) believes that government should not regulate the activities of private citizens in matters of individual freedom, including gun ownership in places where that is traditional;
3) reveres tradition in general, including traditional ideas about the importance of marriage (if not traditional ideas about who may marry; gay marriage is a conservative position in the conservatism of Burke and Oakeshott);
4) is more inclined to Austrian economic theories than Keyensian ones;
5) is open to the concept of imperialism as a positive force for societal change when imposed on other cultures;
6) and believes and articulates strongly a "natural law" basis for the above positions.
Demonstrate all that (or link to where you already have), which is "conservatism" as defined for hundreds of years by Burke and Oakeshott long before you and Chomsky, and I'll admit he's conservative and I was wrong. If he really is a conservative then this should be trivial for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 09-17-2010 7:36 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 09-17-2010 5:06 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 09-17-2010 6:00 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024