Noam Chomsky - The Tolerated Critics

Source: • Young Noam Chomsky on ...

[@lasseskoulindstad8047]

Chomsky on fire

[@stumcfadzen5645]

Every time we watch a Chomsky video or RATM music video our internet crashes. We are unemployed and not citizens or residents of the US. Dear Sir/Madam NSA/CIA operative please let us watch utube in peace. We are not a threat. Your resources would be better spent elsewhere.

[@RootinrPootine]

Great clip

[@coreycox2345]

I can see no reason why that would not sometimes work. Force is the weapon of the weak.

[@petersmythe6462]

"Came into existence to realize an already-existing purpose." This is SORT OF true of all revolutionary societies, but of course countries re-imagine their purpose all the time.

[@naveed210]

Capitalist "democracies" work really hard to convince the masses that the system they wish to implement is simply human nature.

[@Aaron-wy9nb]

What is crazy is that this clip is from 1978 and the bit about Hans Morgenthau at the end was almost said verbatim in a talk given in April of 2021, including the part where Chomsky mistakenly calls the book "The Purpose of America" instead of "The Purpose of American Politics".

[@caramio437]

Which talk are You referring to?

[@Aaron-wy9nb]

@@caramio437 kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4qxoKtrl5mBrtU Starts talking about Morgenthau at around 47:16

[@dkim2011]

Sounds rather like a more confident incarnation of Norman Bates.

[@animefurry3508]

🌶Spicy🔥 that was oof! ... gOod!

[@blues8785]

PARA DISFRUTAR DE UNA MENTE TAN BRILLANTE, NESECITAMOS SUBTITULOS EN CASTELLANO, POR FAVOR . MUCHAS GRACIAS............

[@dereksmallsuk]

BLUES CELESTE.. Pardon?

[@hoogmonster]

I think Celeste wrote "To enjoy a great thinker we need subtitles in Castilian please, many thanks"

[@Vifnis]

5:35 yeaaaaah... Soviet logic!!

[@PappyMandarine]

Troll mode: ON

[@waindayoungthain2147]

How’s to feat if’s democratic leadership has never made any decisions on the human beings just ideological ways of propaganda protecting themselves🙏🏻😊, please🤥.

[@marcusaurelius9407]

Interesting. The error of atheism. So American has some high minded stated objectives and in reality they fall short. So do we demand rhetoric and action match up or do we need a new set of ideals?

[@kentallard8852]

>but in reality they fall short ~ no, they don't, the stated interests are simply smoke screen.

[@andrewtoebbe3885]

More modern, transcendent, renewing of the old, original ideas

[@owfan4134]

If I had to guess your perspective, Marcus, I'd say we should ideally do both, but realistically we can only ever do that for ourselves personally. before you criticize another, be sure to ask yourself how you are guilty of the thing you are criticizing in them, no? after doing this and after much reflection, our next choice regardless of outcome is always to adhere to virtue; the execution of the latter depends entirely on the advice of the former. if I had to give my perspective, I'd say that I agree with you, but to remember that these principles only affect others if they are willing and capable of introspection to begin with. without the colorful hues and marvelous embroidery of emperorship to act as a beacon for social convergence, you are bound to less dramatic individual interactions with the people- who only perceive in you as much as is necessary to perpetuate the narrative of their life. in general, those who devote themselves fully to the pursuit of virtue are few, and for good reason. to imagine that your individual contribution will change the system, while not directly your goal, is still highly unlikely to put it mildly. I think that the best shot we have is to impact the people closest to you as much as possible, surrendering any lofty ideal or goal of changing the world to the whim of fate. indeed, this world does not implicitly reward virtue with change, it exploits virtue to further the machinations already in place. the psychological term is "confirmation bias", it indicates the aspect of human nature whose role is to retain a psychic homeostasis. people will almost always rather adapt information to suit their individual biases than significantly disrupt their lives, it is typically the role of trauma, whether positive or negative, to facilitate this change. it's not your fault, of course. the true difficulty of leadership is in expanding your awareness fully into every aspect of the domain you are responsible for keeping; you could never be expected to fully perceive the narrative of the common man from his perspective any more than we could that of an emperor. you operated on the advice of men just as flawed as yourself who implicitly projected their agendas onto facts which are distorted naturally by the limitations of speech. if you could understand how deeply flawed your understanding was, you would rectify it immediately and with great enthusiasm, I am sure. the irony is that despite being incapable of omniscience and perfect wisdom, you held it as your standard, and became renowned as a legend who had obtained something very close.

[@ovariantrolley2327]

the books called ' the purpose of american politics' and it came out in 1960. if u wanna tell us a books publishing date at least get the name right so you can then get the name wrong and be half right, chommers.

[@omarmahfouz5599]

you are being silly