Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 500 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#311

Post by epistasis »

objektif wrote: post #279
credit_guy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love Noam Chomsky so much. I don't. There are some things out there that are up for debate. But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Edit: To be sure, I wish him full recovery and many more happy years. https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chom...

Rather he chose to understand the point of view from their side. It is extremely difficult to do so and only a few public facing individuals is able to do ( Jeffrey Sachs etc. )

This is much like trying to understand the US invasion of Iraq from the neoconservative point of view, and parroting it uncredulously. This necessitates dehumanizing the invaded population.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#313

Post by CamperBob2 »

xg15 wrote: post #285
crazygringo wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that's a false narrative. There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine was never Putin's actual reason, which is basically an emotional desire for historical greatness by reclaiming Russia's lost empire, combined with war always being an excellent mechanism for staying in power and…

But how do you know so clearly that the one thing is a lie and the other is the truth? Even if you reject the "encroaching NATO" narrative, what makes "Putin just woke up one day and decided that remaking the Soviet Union and/or the zarist Russian Empire would be a great thing to do in the 21th century" the more plausible hypothesis? What information do you have that Mearsheimer doesn't?

Russia is a nuclear-armed state. They have nothing to fear from NATO. They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever.

Except from within.

Disagree? Answer my questions below, and explain exactly how you would go about attacking Russia.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#314

Post by hollerith »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #313
xg15 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you know so clearly that the one thing is a lie and the other is the truth? Even if you reject the "encroaching NATO" narrative, what makes "Putin just woke up one day and decided that remaking the Soviet Union and/or the zarist Russian Empire would be a great thing to do in the 21th century" the more plausible hypothesis? What information do you have that Mearsheimer doesn't?

Russia is a nuclear-armed state. They have nothing to fear from NATO. They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Except from within. Disagree? Answer my questions below, and explain exactly how you would go about attacking Russia.

>They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever.

Why does thinking about nuclear weapons cause most people to think in absolutist terms like this?

Maybe Russia was counting on getting a 15-minute warning of ICBMs approaching, but if a hostile military can station missile right on their southwestern border (523 miles from the center of Moscow) their plan goes out the window.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#315

Post by CamperBob2 »

hollerith wrote: post #314
CamperBob2 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is a nuclear-armed state. They have nothing to fear from NATO. They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Except from within. Disagree? Answer my questions below, and explain exactly how you would go about attacking Russia.

>They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Why does thinking about nuclear weapons cause most people to think in absolutist terms like this? Maybe Russia was counting on getting a 15-minute warning of ICBMs approaching, but if a hostile military can station missile right on their southwestern border (523 miles from the center of Moscow) their plan goes out the window.

Why does thinking about nuclear weapons cause most people to think in absolutist terms like this?

I don't understand the question. Can you elaborate?

How would you go about invading Russia, as a senior NATO commander? Russia's stated policy is to deploy nuclear arms against any invading force.

As for a hypothetical sneak attack on Moscow, are you familiar with the concept of the strategic defense triad?

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#316

Post by xg15 »

dinglestepup wrote: post #293
xg15 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you know so clearly that the one thing is a lie and the other is the truth? Even if you reject the "encroaching NATO" narrative, what makes "Putin just woke up one day and decided that remaking the Soviet Union and/or the zarist Russian Empire would be a great thing to do in the 21th century" the more plausible hypothesis? What information do you have that Mearsheimer doesn't?

One of Putin's stated goals when he came to power was joining NATO. He did not feel threatened by it until he needed to justify his imperialistic behavior.

Or until the European stance changed, under the influence of the US, from one of including Russia to excluding. At least that's what Ulrike Guerot claims to have experienced.

I have no idea if this is true. I also don't want to say that Russia always tells the whole truth without lies and propaganda. But I'm finding it rather that our own side doesn't behave in the Ukraine conflict as we behave in other conflicts between third countries. We also engage in a lot of propaganda and biased reporting, especially on the topic of Ukraine and Israel (as shown by fair.org), so I've become careful too quickly deciding what the truth is.

(I do disagree in at least one point with all the russia apologists though: Whatever may have happened in Ukraine before the war and whatever the larger context is, what is happening right now there is driven by Russia and is absolutely devastating for Ukrainians. That Ukrainians hate Russia is absolutely understandable. So I think we should continue to support Ukraine. Nevertheless, if there was some hidden context in the lead-up of the war, it would be in our best interests to expose this.)

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#317

Post by Jerrrrry »

darby_nine wrote: post #273
credit_guy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love Noam Chomsky so much. I don't. There are some things out there that are up for debate. But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Edit: To be sure, I wish him full recovery and many more happy years. https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chom...

"Taking russia's side" seems like a wild mischaracterization of the situation.

[flagged]

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#318

Post by Jerrrrry »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #297
slantedview wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is somehow NATOs fault. NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep despite repeated promises not to, and refused to rule out expanding to Ukraine. Russia clearly called this out as a problem for years. Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.

> it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion. Unless you mean, the only way to have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been to accept Ukraine into NATO, I strongly disagree with you here. Russia invaded Ukraine not because Russia is fearful of NATO but because Russia wished to recreate the Soviet empire. It's just plain old imperialism.

[flagged]

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#319

Post by throwawayq3423 »

codr7 wrote: post #264
credit_guy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love Noam Chomsky so much. I don't. There are some things out there that are up for debate. But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Edit: To be sure, I wish him full recovery and many more happy years. https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chom...

Wow. The guy has a different opinion. It's going to happen a lot so maybe better to get used to it?

They guy built a brand (rightfully) opposing US imperialist wars only to side with a Russian imperialist war.

It matters.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#320

Post by FactKnower69 »

glimshe wrote: post #146
bantunes wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal opinion is that he 1) hates the US 2) hates eastern Europe because it defeated socialism. He doesn't hate the US. He hates that the US has been captured by warmongering elites and hates its poor. And he'd probably school you on the USSR's state authoritarian capitalism not being a good example of socialism.

Is there a good example of socialism?

Look up "largest economies by purchasing power", then write me a long reply hemming and hawing about how that's not real socialism
Post reply on HN