ART- Matt has done an outstanding job of pointing out how the left is reducing freedom of speech. And in the process built a large audience of right wing fans.
If you have read his books he is equally harsh on the things the RIGHT has done regarding censorship and if you read his recent book Hate INC he interviews Noam Chomsky at the en…
ART- Matt has done an outstanding job of pointing out how the left is reducing freedom of speech. And in the process built a large audience of right wing fans.
If you have read his books he is equally harsh on the things the RIGHT has done regarding censorship and if you read his recent book Hate INC he interviews Noam Chomsky at the end and Chomsky clearly shows how the RIGHT is the far bigger threat to Censorship.
Think you missed something there: I agreed that Mr Taibbi has pointed out how most recently the Left, led by the DP, has been the greater threat to freedom of speech THESE LAST FEW YEARS. At no point did I attempt to exonerate the Right, which of course over different periods in years gone by has also been in favour of censorship in various areas of public life and threatened freedom of speech in the US. But we are talking about the very recent past .. and NOW! And what has been happening in the US, most especially this past year, is outrageous. I think it notable that Mr Taibbi, himself a man of the Left - but a man with principles and probity - has found it necessary to speak out. Likewise that other decent people "on the Left" - like Brett Weinstein and Glenn Greenwald (to pick out the first names which come to mind) - have been so disgusted by the actions of the broad Left that they too have felt the need to speak out. Most noteworthy too has been the manner in which these people from the Left have been smeared and vilified and instantly branded as "right wing" and "Trump-supporting", not only by the far left but also by many DP supporters.
As for your statement about Chomsky showing "how the Right is a far bigger threat to Censorship", I am afraid this is nonsense; or perhaps merely wishful thinking! (Incidentally, I presume you mean threat to freedom of speech; if the left or right were a "threat" to censorship that would be a good thing :-) ) The drive to censorship has nothing to do with "left" or right persuasion: the Soviet Union, the Japanese Empire, Communist China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Venzuela, Franco's Spain, North Korea etc. etc. prove the fallacy of that assumption. The simple fact is that as soon as any political movement becomes ideological it attracts adherents who convince themselves that they are right about everything; and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and needs to be silenced. It is the mentality of the religious fundamentalist. Reason is thrown to the winds and political repression with varying degrees of violence follows. Arch thugs like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao are the finest examples of this trend of course. Incidentally, as pointed out in an earlier Taibbi post, I wouldn't put too much store by Chomsky in the area of censorship. A single example of his limited intellect & power of judgment is that for years he was a huge fan of Hugo Chávez: a man who once decreed that all TV stations broadcast his interminable speeches daily. I understand that between 15% and 20% of the total population of Venzuela has now left the wreck of a country Chávez and his followers bequeathed to them.
Art - you are funny. You wax on eloquently about how in your view in the past few years the left has been the far larger threat to freedom of speech / censorship than the right and go on to compare the lefts actions to everyone from Lenin and Hitler to religious fundamentalists.
Your comparison is flawed intellectually as evidenced by the FACT that the regimes you note shut down opposition press and murmured dissidents. Rupert Murdoch and Ben Shapiro are not preaching thier vile lies frightened Hillary is going to order them shot as the exit the building
So we now see that hyperbole is your flavor of communications. Not rational evidence based thinking.
So it is not surprise to hear you "cancel" Chomsky based on nothing more than his early support of Chaves, who advocated to end the oligarchy of Venezuelan oil money only to fall to the same corruption (all oppose by Chomsky) that any dictator succombs to.
I think it is safe to say that Matt's opposition to censorship is clear eyed and see's it on the left and the right and also see's clearly those that are opposed to it as evidenced in his strong support for the failed candicy of Nina Turner. He uses this platform to rope in closed minded right wing mostly Trump supporters like you with justified attacks on the Left. I applaud him for it as his attacks are all warrented.
But you my friend just proved you are a close minded, poorly informed partisan hack who see's with his feelings and thinks with his emotions. Right?
Chomsky, Matt and myself all see all sides of these things not just a partisan side.
Which stubbornness echoes his support for Pol Pot, where he (Chomky) very nearly fell into the "if facts disagree with my beliefs, they must be dismissed as propaganda" trap.
Again, a discussion completely derailed by people using "simplified" terminology.
In this case, "the right". When Piketty uses it, he means the evil, shadowy forces of power and wealth, funding grifters to indoctrinate ignorant rubes into believing things that are beneficial to their continued hold on that power and wealth.
When most of us use "the right", we mean ordinary citizens who feel they do not need to be highly educated to know they bear no racial animus, or to determine the biological sex of 98% of their fellow citizens* and who agree with the principle that the most productive should get the greater reward. Also, the people who view the fact that "bonds of family may interfere with loyalty to the state" (or "the cause") as a feature, not a bug.
Pretty small definitional overlap there, for the purposes of discussion or persuasion.
*-to be expressed, suppressed or satisfied howeverthefuck they want, no homophobe here, though that term (homophobe) is yet another that's been ginned-up as a tool for discussion avoidance.
ART- Matt has done an outstanding job of pointing out how the left is reducing freedom of speech. And in the process built a large audience of right wing fans.
If you have read his books he is equally harsh on the things the RIGHT has done regarding censorship and if you read his recent book Hate INC he interviews Noam Chomsky at the end and Chomsky clearly shows how the RIGHT is the far bigger threat to Censorship.
So what are you talking about
Think you missed something there: I agreed that Mr Taibbi has pointed out how most recently the Left, led by the DP, has been the greater threat to freedom of speech THESE LAST FEW YEARS. At no point did I attempt to exonerate the Right, which of course over different periods in years gone by has also been in favour of censorship in various areas of public life and threatened freedom of speech in the US. But we are talking about the very recent past .. and NOW! And what has been happening in the US, most especially this past year, is outrageous. I think it notable that Mr Taibbi, himself a man of the Left - but a man with principles and probity - has found it necessary to speak out. Likewise that other decent people "on the Left" - like Brett Weinstein and Glenn Greenwald (to pick out the first names which come to mind) - have been so disgusted by the actions of the broad Left that they too have felt the need to speak out. Most noteworthy too has been the manner in which these people from the Left have been smeared and vilified and instantly branded as "right wing" and "Trump-supporting", not only by the far left but also by many DP supporters.
As for your statement about Chomsky showing "how the Right is a far bigger threat to Censorship", I am afraid this is nonsense; or perhaps merely wishful thinking! (Incidentally, I presume you mean threat to freedom of speech; if the left or right were a "threat" to censorship that would be a good thing :-) ) The drive to censorship has nothing to do with "left" or right persuasion: the Soviet Union, the Japanese Empire, Communist China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Venzuela, Franco's Spain, North Korea etc. etc. prove the fallacy of that assumption. The simple fact is that as soon as any political movement becomes ideological it attracts adherents who convince themselves that they are right about everything; and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and needs to be silenced. It is the mentality of the religious fundamentalist. Reason is thrown to the winds and political repression with varying degrees of violence follows. Arch thugs like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao are the finest examples of this trend of course. Incidentally, as pointed out in an earlier Taibbi post, I wouldn't put too much store by Chomsky in the area of censorship. A single example of his limited intellect & power of judgment is that for years he was a huge fan of Hugo Chávez: a man who once decreed that all TV stations broadcast his interminable speeches daily. I understand that between 15% and 20% of the total population of Venzuela has now left the wreck of a country Chávez and his followers bequeathed to them.
Art - you are funny. You wax on eloquently about how in your view in the past few years the left has been the far larger threat to freedom of speech / censorship than the right and go on to compare the lefts actions to everyone from Lenin and Hitler to religious fundamentalists.
Your comparison is flawed intellectually as evidenced by the FACT that the regimes you note shut down opposition press and murmured dissidents. Rupert Murdoch and Ben Shapiro are not preaching thier vile lies frightened Hillary is going to order them shot as the exit the building
So we now see that hyperbole is your flavor of communications. Not rational evidence based thinking.
So it is not surprise to hear you "cancel" Chomsky based on nothing more than his early support of Chaves, who advocated to end the oligarchy of Venezuelan oil money only to fall to the same corruption (all oppose by Chomsky) that any dictator succombs to.
I think it is safe to say that Matt's opposition to censorship is clear eyed and see's it on the left and the right and also see's clearly those that are opposed to it as evidenced in his strong support for the failed candicy of Nina Turner. He uses this platform to rope in closed minded right wing mostly Trump supporters like you with justified attacks on the Left. I applaud him for it as his attacks are all warrented.
But you my friend just proved you are a close minded, poorly informed partisan hack who see's with his feelings and thinks with his emotions. Right?
Chomsky, Matt and myself all see all sides of these things not just a partisan side.
Which stubbornness echoes his support for Pol Pot, where he (Chomky) very nearly fell into the "if facts disagree with my beliefs, they must be dismissed as propaganda" trap.
Again, a discussion completely derailed by people using "simplified" terminology.
In this case, "the right". When Piketty uses it, he means the evil, shadowy forces of power and wealth, funding grifters to indoctrinate ignorant rubes into believing things that are beneficial to their continued hold on that power and wealth.
When most of us use "the right", we mean ordinary citizens who feel they do not need to be highly educated to know they bear no racial animus, or to determine the biological sex of 98% of their fellow citizens* and who agree with the principle that the most productive should get the greater reward. Also, the people who view the fact that "bonds of family may interfere with loyalty to the state" (or "the cause") as a feature, not a bug.
Pretty small definitional overlap there, for the purposes of discussion or persuasion.
*-to be expressed, suppressed or satisfied howeverthefuck they want, no homophobe here, though that term (homophobe) is yet another that's been ginned-up as a tool for discussion avoidance.