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

341–350 of 500 posts

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

#341

Post by martin82 »

credit_guy wrote: post #193
sitkack wrote: post #71

I love Noam Chomsky so much. To me he is epitome of what a rational caring intellectual should be. Number one, he strives for the truth and while can have intellectual blind spots, isn't afraid of calling them out. We had him has a guest speaker for an internal presentation at Google and of course we had some hyper-rational libertarian eastern block swe kid who was going to take him down and Noam was super respectful…

> 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...

Russia's action are absolutely up for debate.

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

#342

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

xg15 wrote: post #301
crazygringo wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of articles by respected international relations and Russia experts you can find that explains it quite clearly. The IR community does not share Mearsheimer's take. He is very much known to be the exception. Which is why he's the only one we're referring to by name here, because his analysis is so contrary to the overwhelming consensus of experts.

Could you share some of those? I'd be interested. (Having both "pro-russian" and "pro-western" family members, so I'm engaged in lots of discussions currently and would be glad for new information, no matter which side) I think it's important which countries the experts are coming from. That our own IR/Russia experts are sharing this view doesn't seem very surprising to me - it's a war situation after all. I just not…

> I think it's important which countries the experts are coming from.

I don't think it's important to engage in prejudice based on national origin.

> I just notice that a lot of non-Western countries seem to be at least undecided which narrative to follow

141 countries decided that Russia's aggression is deserving of condemnation and must stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

Additionally, the court with relevant jurisdiction (composed of impartial judges from western and non-western countries) has decided that Putin should be arrested and tried for his crimes: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-is...

Doesn't seem too undecided.

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

#343

Post by spdgg »

tim333 wrote: post #323
spdgg wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not fresh on the specifics of this controversy, my implicit understanding through Manufacturing Consent was that the Cambodian genocide was more likely a consequence of the United States bombing Cambodia's arable farmland into a booby trapped hellscape, which caused many people to flee to the capital. After some geopolitical games the US played, a psychopath became head of state for Cambodia, and one of those i…

>It makes a lot of sense that many people died of famine as a direct consequence of US destruction of arable farmland I don't think that makes sense - they only bombed a small percentage of Cambodia but no doubt the turmoil helped Pol Pot get into power.

Assuming that small percentage were most of the arable farmland in Cambodia, would it make more sense? That is to say, if you were misled to believe the impact was smaller than reality would it make you think differently? Small being a relative term. IIRC, IT WAS 25% of Cambodia's landmass and most of its good farmland.

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

#344

Post by corimaith »

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.

It wouldn't, because their SSBNs and their hidden silos would ensure the counter strike afterwards.

USA isn't counting on a 15 minute warning either, MAD is ensured via second strike capability AFTER the first strike, if you are counting for the first strike you've already lost.

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

#345

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #274
slantedview wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. This is a mischaracterization. He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That's different than endorsing the invasion, which he did not.

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…

[deleted]

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

#346

Post by darby_nine »

crazygringo wrote: post #296
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?

There are plenty of articles by respected international relations and Russia experts you can find that explains it quite clearly. The IR community does not share Mearsheimer's take. He is very much known to be the exception. Which is why he's the only one we're referring to by name here, because his analysis is so contrary to the overwhelming consensus of experts.

[flagged]

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

#347

Post by darby_nine »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #342
xg15 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you share some of those? I'd be interested. (Having both "pro-russian" and "pro-western" family members, so I'm engaged in lots of discussions currently and would be glad for new information, no matter which side) I think it's important which countries the experts are coming from. That our own IR/Russia experts are sharing this view doesn't seem very surprising to me - it's a war situation after all. I just not…

> I think it's important which countries the experts are coming from. I don't think it's important to engage in prejudice based on national origin. > I just notice that a lot of non-Western countries seem to be at least undecided which narrative to follow 141 countries decided that Russia's aggression is deserving of condemnation and must stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... Additiona…

This doesn't seem to contradict Chomsky's take, who doesn't seem to endorse any kind of war or violence at all. Hence his take seems to be a critique on western behavior that seems fair and warranted.

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

#348

Post by hollerith »

corimaith wrote: post #344
hollerith wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It wouldn't, because their SSBNs and their hidden silos would ensure the counter strike afterwards. USA isn't counting on a 15 minute warning either, MAD is ensured via second strike capability AFTER the first strike, if you are counting for the first strike you've already lost.

Russian SSBNs stay pretty close to base. They don't range over the world's oceans like US ones do, and ISTR an expert opining that the US can probably track them.

But on second thought, I concede that the shortened warning time relative to ICBMs is probably not a major cause of Russia's anxiety about Ukraine.

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

#349

Post by hindsightbias »

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.

Years Ukraine not admitted to NATO: 1992-2022

But it was going to happen any minute now. I wonder if these sme people think Turkey is going to be admitted to the EU…

There’s a sucker born every minute.

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

#350

Post by throwaway81523 »

ImAnAmateur wrote: post #156

Could anyone recommend a Noam Chomsky talk about language? I'm curious about his work but have never read or listened to anything from the man.

Look for "Language and problems of knowledge : the Managua lectures" which are about Plato's problem. It's reasonably introductory and accessible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_problem

Post reply on HN