Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#2Lots about the US, not much about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a pawn on a board for two nations to play with, it's a country.
NC makes good points if that's how you see the world but his opinions are outdated. People deserve to have self-determination now that it's a modern, globalized world (I mean they always did, but nation states matter even less now).
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#3Lots about the US, not much about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a pawn on a board for two nations to play with, it's a country. NC makes good points if that's how you see the world but his opinions are outdated. People deserve to have self-determination now that it's a modern, globalized world (I mean they always did, but nation states matter even less now).
> People deserve to have self-determination now
Sentences in passive voice always obscure the true meaning. For example when people say “everyone deserves healthcare” that means “taxpayers should pay for other people to have healthcare.” So what do you mean in this context, expressed as an active voice sentence?
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#4Lots about the US, not much about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a pawn on a board for two nations to play with, it's a country. NC makes good points if that's how you see the world but his opinions are outdated. People deserve to have self-determination now that it's a modern, globalized world (I mean they always did, but nation states matter even less now).
> People deserve to have self-determination now Sentences in passive voice always obscure the true meaning. For example when people say “everyone deserves healthcare” that means “taxpayers should pay for other people to have healthcare.” So what do you mean in this context, expressed as an active voice sentence?
The sentence you quote is in the active voice.
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#5Lots about the US, not much about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a pawn on a board for two nations to play with, it's a country. NC makes good points if that's how you see the world but his opinions are outdated. People deserve to have self-determination now that it's a modern, globalized world (I mean they always did, but nation states matter even less now).
Sorry, but might makes right and it will always be so.
You're welcome to your utopian view, but that is exactly what it is.
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#6Lots about the US, not much about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a pawn on a board for two nations to play with, it's a country. NC makes good points if that's how you see the world but his opinions are outdated. People deserve to have self-determination now that it's a modern, globalized world (I mean they always did, but nation states matter even less now).
Sorry, but might makes right and it will always be so. You're welcome to your utopian view, but that is exactly what it is.
No. Might makes it happen, but it doesn't make it right. That's the difference between "is" and "ought".
The alternative is that we have no category for "ought" or "should be" - that "is" is all there is, that there is no hope to improve the world, nor any way to suggest a direction to improve it in. That's a pretty hopeless outlook, and one that I reject.
But you're right that "should" or "ought" often needs to have some might behind it before it becomes an "is"...
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#7I find the idea of 'globalization', where somehow countries that don't have huge stockpiles of weapons think that they stand on an equal footing with the 'big boys' hilarious because what, if they get out of line we won't trade with them anymore? We'll cut them off from the Internet?
Er, what?
I mean, you're welcome to believe whatever you like. You can believe the sky is yellow if you like but it doesn't necessarily make it true. And definitely your belief that the sky is yellow should not factor in to major decisions regarding the future of countries, continents, humanity.
All countries are not and will never be equal, so long as any one of them has a bigger stick than the others. Water is wet. Snow is cold. This is reality.
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#8Lots about the US, not much about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a pawn on a board for two nations to play with, it's a country. NC makes good points if that's how you see the world but his opinions are outdated. People deserve to have self-determination now that it's a modern, globalized world (I mean they always did, but nation states matter even less now).
Sorry, but might makes right and it will always be so. You're welcome to your utopian view, but that is exactly what it is.
> might makes right
Often yes.
> it will always be so.
That's definitely not a certainty.
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but might makes right and it will always be so. You're welcome to your utopian view, but that is exactly what it is.
No. Might makes it happen, but it doesn't make it right . That's the difference between "is" and "ought". The alternative is that we have no category for "ought" or "should be" - that "is" is all there is, that there is no hope to improve the world, nor any way to suggest a direction to improve it in. That's a pretty hopeless outlook, and one that I reject. But you're right that "should" or "ought" often needs to hav…
Sorry but this is a simple binary: the person with no gun will always do what the person with the gun tells them to, or they will get shot and probably die. That's reality.
For the last 20 years or so we've been living in a world where the US called the shots pretty much everywhere, and we were cool with it because (most of us here) were on the US 'side'. 'Globalization' during this period was and is a complete sham, meant to sell people on the idea that their countries were independent and not subject to the Pax Americana.
But make no mistake, they were absolutely subject to the Pax Americana.
And now, China is challenging that, Russia is challenging that, and we're back to the people with the biggest guns win, as it has always been.
If you had hope it was a false hope, an illusion, sold to you by Uncle Sam, who was secretly manipulating the policy of most of the governments on the planet while spruiking 'democracy' and 'independence' that only exists so long as you do what Sam wants.
Re: Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War, the Media, Propaganda
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but might makes right and it will always be so. You're welcome to your utopian view, but that is exactly what it is.
> might makes right Often yes. > it will always be so. That's definitely not a certainty.
I'd love to hear how you imagine we can change that. In a practical way.