Here's a video interview with Chomsky linked to within the OP's link ("What do Takism Square, Google Glass, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NSA data gathering have in common? Find out in this interview with Noam Chomsky.") http://grittv.org/?video=noam-chomsky-on-secret-trade-deals-...
That reminds me of a question I've pondered - what will the impact of Snowden's NSA leaks be on a. the perception of Google Glass and b. on sales?
Chomsky: spying does not protect you
21–30 of 72 posts
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#22Here's a video interview with Chomsky linked to within the OP's link ("What do Takism Square, Google Glass, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NSA data gathering have in common? Find out in this interview with Noam Chomsky.") http://grittv.org/?video=noam-chomsky-on-secret-trade-deals-...
That reminds me of a question I've pondered - what will the impact of Snowden's NSA leaks be on a. the perception of Google Glass and b. on sales?
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's about as practical as asking people to kindly stop flying planes into buildings or blowing up buildings with day-care centers in them.
It may sound crazy to you, but yes you do actually stand a greater chance of making peace with enemies and therefore reducing attacks from them if you stop shooting at them and bombing them and ask them kindly why they are flying planes into your buildings and then make a good faith effort to address those issues.
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#24It's a fact that humans are products of their environment[1,2]. This has been known for quite some time. However the degree to which we are products of our environment has always been a hot topic of discussion. On one side we have a status quo in the medical profession that insist we are pre determined for disease both physically and mentally. On the other side we have social scientists that say we are solely products of our environment and genetics only gives us predispositions to things like mental illness or obesity and so on.
I tend to agree with the social scientists. We have triggers; genetically. They are either pulled or left alone. The environment in which you live is the catalyst for that type of action.
Going off of that I'll point to Michel Foucault, a mid-twentieth century philosopher and social critic. The bulk of his work focuses on dissecting the ideas of power and knowledge. He understands these two entities to be synonymous with each other, which lays the foundation for his critique of governmental and institutional power. Through his critiques, Foucault positions himself as a post-modernist philosopher interested in the societal controls of modernity. He believes power, and therefore knowledge is not absolute; it is defined, enforced and accepted within the society in which it’s institutionalized. This of course is the opposite of modernism, which exercises the belief that science and reason possess the knowledge for an ultimate truth. Stemming from the industrial revolution, modernity reigned supreme through much of the twentieth century and arguably still does today.
Without the willingness to accept that our environment effects so much of what we do we will never understand the means in which to change it. The ideas of violence and power are not born inside of our minds. They grow, over time, from our perceptions. Forcing an ideology or a standard on an environment will not change the behavior of the individuals occupying it; it will only enforce the causation of negative action.
1.) http://www.mindingourbodies.ca/sites/default/files/suicide_a...
2.) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007....
+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucauldian_discourse_analysis
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the way to deal with those outlying cases is to start wars and cause widespread violence that will generate 1000x more terrorism?
I am not saying that and don't want to enter into an infinite discussion about terrorism. Just saying that the problem is complex. I don't live in US and my country was attacked twice, a hundred people killed, in the last 20 years.
These wars created multiple large transnational extremist anti-US movements that now have advanced military equipment, are skilled veterans of war, and are spreading their influence to neighboring countries.
Not a great trade.
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's about as practical as asking people to kindly stop flying planes into buildings or blowing up buildings with day-care centers in them.
It may sound crazy to you, but yes you do actually stand a greater chance of making peace with enemies and therefore reducing attacks from them if you stop shooting at them and bombing them and ask them kindly why they are flying planes into your buildings and then make a good faith effort to address those issues.
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not saying that and don't want to enter into an infinite discussion about terrorism. Just saying that the problem is complex. I don't live in US and my country was attacked twice, a hundred people killed, in the last 20 years.
Well, the US has had 3k or so killed in the past 15 years. In response it killed hundreds of thousands and caused widespread devastation and misery in several foreign wars. These wars created multiple large transnational extremist anti-US movements that now have advanced military equipment, are skilled veterans of war, and are spreading their influence to neighboring countries. Not a great trade.
Imagine if a crazy guy in my country uses our nuclear capabilities as an answer? can I justify them?
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's about as practical as asking people to kindly stop flying planes into buildings or blowing up buildings with day-care centers in them.
It may sound crazy to you, but yes you do actually stand a greater chance of making peace with enemies and therefore reducing attacks from them if you stop shooting at them and bombing them and ask them kindly why they are flying planes into your buildings and then make a good faith effort to address those issues.
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may sound crazy to you, but yes you do actually stand a greater chance of making peace with enemies and therefore reducing attacks from them if you stop shooting at them and bombing them and ask them kindly why they are flying planes into your buildings and then make a good faith effort to address those issues.
[deleted]
The most dangerous person in the room is the one with nothing to lose. One way, quite possibly not the only way, to stop them being so dangerous is to give them something of worth, then they'll have something to lose. Social security, good healthcare, foreign aid, and taxes do serve some purpose for the greater good.
There is justice and pragmatism, the best solutions solve both.
Re: Chomsky: spying does not protect you
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may sound crazy to you, but yes you do actually stand a greater chance of making peace with enemies and therefore reducing attacks from them if you stop shooting at them and bombing them and ask them kindly why they are flying planes into your buildings and then make a good faith effort to address those issues.
You're right, it sounds completely crazy to me. Nobody really bombed or shot Timothy McVeigh. Or the RAF. Or the Brigate Rosse. They did all their shooting and bombing all by themselves, at the cost of hundreds upon hundreds of innocent lives. It's not that the questions of causes or morality of our own actions are illegitimate - they aren't. The idea that we're going to practically stop amoral nutjobs by just being…