Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conservative? and Chomsky
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 85 (581269)
09-14-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by onifre
09-14-2010 7:26 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
And if you don't bother to seek out the true nature of how someone is using the term, how the term is used throughout the entire globe, and what the origins are, then you have a narrow scope on reality.
Words mean things, Oni. We don't live in the world of Humpty Dumpty where when he uses a word, "it means exactly what he chooses it to mean, no more, no less." We don't live in a world where Chomsky can radically re-define, or de-define, the word "conservative" and expect to merely escape all the connotations of that description just because he says he means something else.
Words mean things.
The US doesn't define terms and words the way it wants to, and just because the media has painted a picture of what a conservative is and a liberal is, doesn't mean that is the true definiton of these words.
The "media" hasn't done anything at all. That's what those words mean. When you take a word that has one meaning, and then use it like it means something else, all you're doing is risking unintelligibility.
The only one re-defining terms, here, are you and Chomsky. "Liberal" and "conservative" are words that had a meaning long before either of you came around here, and to say "well, I use the term as they were used in 1776" is all very well and good, but you need to take responsibility for the fact that people are going to be constantly misunderstanding you if they interpret your remarks in the context of the English language, circa 2010. You know, which the rest of us are speaking. Maybe you and Chomsky would like to catch up?
And yet no one has claimed this
Chomsky claims this, and you did, too.
Yes, you keep saying this, but you have shown no proof of it.
You've shown the proof, Oni. I don't need to lift a finger, you've already proven my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by onifre, posted 09-14-2010 7:26 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by anglagard, posted 09-14-2010 11:32 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 21 by onifre, posted 09-15-2010 7:42 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 17 of 85 (581270)
09-14-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
09-14-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
crashfrog writes:
Chiomsky is a liberal regardless of what he calls himself.
I am not at all persuaded that Chomsky is liberal.
I agree that he isn't conservative in the way that term is tossed around today. I guess that we could say that he is Chomskyan. His particular mixture of political positions does not seem to be widely shared.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2010 6:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 18 of 85 (581302)
09-14-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
09-14-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Dump for crashfrog
crashsnob writes:
Words mean things, Oni. We don't live in the world of Humpty Dumpty where when he uses a word, "it means exactly what he chooses it to mean, no more, no less." We don't live in a world where Chomsky can radically re-define, or de-define, the word "conservative" and expect to merely escape all the connotations of that description just because he says he means something else.
Words mean things.
So you have appointed yourself the final arbiter of the English language like the French Academy is the final arbiter of the French language. Good luck sucker.
Chomsky has clearly defined his political belief system as syndico-anarchist libertarian, if you don't understand what that means, look it up. Maybe even in Wikipedia.
Unfortunately it appears your monstrous ego prevents you from even allowing people to define themselves. Indeed does this not represent the ultimate authoritarian position?
I have just started although I am a very busy person, my primary job being teaching junior college students the truth in a less than favorable atmosphere. However, if you insist on your self-declared perfection, I personally guarantee I will puncture your balloon.
Please feel free to tell both Chomsky and I (as an admirer) believe, and indeed who we are, you may be surprised.
Edited by anglagard, : last sentence, clarity

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2010 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2010 1:43 AM anglagard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 85 (581318)
09-15-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by anglagard
09-14-2010 11:32 PM


Re: Dump for crashfrog
So you have appointed yourself the final arbiter of the English language like the French Academy is the final arbiter of the French language.
Not at all. I am merely an observer of the meaning of English words, not the arbiter of them.
Chomsky has clearly defined his political belief system as syndico-anarchist libertarian
Which is by definition pretty much the exact opposite of "conservative."
I'm fine with Chomsky using obscure terms to classify his belief system, but Oni seems to feel there's absolutely nothing anyone can object to if Chomsky decides to use the wrong term.
Unfortunately it appears your monstrous ego prevents you from even allowing people to define themselves.
Chomsky is allowed to define himself any way he pleases. He simply doesn't get to define the words the rest of us may use.
If Chomsky would like to define himself as "conservative", on the principle that when he uses a word it means exactly what he intends it to mean (no more and no less), then by the same principle I choose to define him as a "double-decker ham sandwich."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by anglagard, posted 09-14-2010 11:32 PM anglagard has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


(2)
Message 20 of 85 (581320)
09-15-2010 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Artemis Entreri
09-08-2010 8:03 PM


After I was introduced to the work of Chet Bowers [C. A. Bowers, Online articles and books ] I developed an appreciation of what conservative should mean. For me, conservative now refers to indigenous peoples, and modern groups such as the Mennonites and Amish who like indigenous peoples take the long term survival of the group as the most important value. They evaluate change based on how it will affect not only the present but many generations down the line.
In America most of those who call themselves conservative, such as Republicans and libertarians, are market liberals and imperialists. They tend to put great value on the individual allowing greed and stupidity to degrade and destroy the environment. I am outraged that these market liberals have successfully displaced and marginalized true conservatives and replaced conservatism with a very radical and destructive philosophy of imperialism and individualism that is destroying the environment and the very conservative people who proved themselves to be capable of living sustainably in their world for generation after generation.
Having read Derrick Jensen, Alan Ereira, Morris Berman and many others, I have become skeptical and critical of the claim that civilization is superior to indigenous tribal societies. I am outraged by the claim of both honest liberals, and the dishonest market liberals (who falsely label their radical individualism as conservatism) to superiority over the indigenous "savage" peoples of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-08-2010 8:03 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Artemis Entreri, posted 09-15-2010 9:42 PM lfen has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 21 of 85 (581348)
09-15-2010 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
09-14-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
We don't live in a world where Chomsky can radically re-define, or de-define, the word "conservative" and expect to merely escape all the connotations of that description just because he says he means something else
But he isn't doing that, he is using the word by it's well established definition. It may not be equal to what the US neo-cons defines a conservative as - the way you seem to have blindly accepted the word - but then that's the whole point Chomsky is making.
That's what those words mean.
Ok then, since you haven't given any set definitions for these words except point to the different arguments each side favors, what do those words mean?
"Liberal" and "conservative" are words that had a meaning long before either of you came around here, and to say "well, I use the term as they were used in 1776" is all very well and good, but you need to take responsibility for the fact that people are going to be constantly misunderstanding you if they interpret your remarks in the context of the English language, circa 2010.
It is the way the word is used today aroud the world.
The US definition of the word is the propaganda version. I provided links for all these facts, you should read them so you don't continue to make an ass out of yourself by not wanting to accept the evidence.
Chomsky claims this, and you did, too.
Neither Chomsky nor I have claimed that Chomsky gets to define his own words; the way he uses the term conservative has a very well established definiton. Its in books and everything. Chomsky is a socialist/libertarian, that political philosophy is older than Chomsky and had already established it's beliefs long before he got there. He is just repeating what is already known about socialist/libertarians. Thay are conservatives.
You've shown the proof, Oni. I don't need to lift a finger, you've already proven my point.
So I was right in the other thread, you won't concede. Now you even refuse to show evidence to support your position by claiming I've proven it for you.
Aight then, dude, let me try it another way: Do you have any evidence of Chomsky supporting a liberal agenda?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2010 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2010 9:37 AM onifre has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 85 (581365)
09-15-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by onifre
09-15-2010 7:42 AM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
But he isn't doing that, he is using the word by it's well established definition.
In the context of the politics of America - you know, where Chomsky lives and votes - he's using it according to an archaic definition - which, again, is totally fine except for the part where it's an obstacle to communication with people who use terms according to their modern, present meaning.
It may not be equal to what the US neo-cons defines a conservative as
"Neo-con" is something very different than "conservative", apparently you're not aware. No, I'm not conflating the terms - you are.
It is the way the word is used today aroud the world.
Chomsky lives in the United States, where these terms have meaning.
The US definition of the word is the propaganda version.
So? That doesn't justify Chomsky's attempts to re-define words wholesale for everybody else, eve if it's true.
Neither Chomsky nor I have claimed that Chomsky gets to define his own words; the way he uses the term conservative has a very well established definiton.
Just as "computer" had a well-established definition, at one time, as "a person hired to perform computations." But if you go around saying you had your computer look something up on the internet, people are going to assume that you sat down, used a mouse and keyboard and Firefox, not that you sent your manservant down to the library to Google something.
Words mean things - usage is the arbiter, not any individual and not the dictionary. People use these terms in a radically different way than Chomsky does, and he's simply inviting confusion and misunderstanding when he insists "oh, no, I'm the one using the term the right way, not everybody else."
He is just repeating what is already known about socialist/libertarians. Thay are conservatives.
They're not. They can't be, since no government has ever been socialist/libertarian - there's nothing to conserve.
Do you have any evidence of Chomsky supporting a liberal agenda?
Sure: he's a socialist/libertarian, as you've demonstrated. QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by onifre, posted 09-15-2010 7:42 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 09-15-2010 11:44 AM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 23 of 85 (581383)
09-15-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
09-15-2010 9:37 AM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
he's using it according to an archaic definition
No he is not, if you'd follow the links I provided, his use of the word is quite modern, it is the way it is used throughout the rest of the world, currently, today.
Chomsky lives in the United States, where these terms have meaning.
But the meaning for the word in the US is unique only to the US. And, for that reason, is not properly used. That is the whole point Chomsky is making by using the word with their propery definiton.
Oni writes:
The US definition of the word is the propaganda version.
CF writes:
So?
So? So, if the word is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons, it is the US who has re-defined the word to mean whatever they want it to mean. The US doesn't get to do that, when the entire world uses it differently, then claim it is the correct use of the word, when clearly it is not.
That doesn't justify Chomsky's attempts to re-define words wholesale for everybody else, eve if it's true.
No matter how much you try to establish that he is using it on his own terms, he is not. He is using it the correct way, the way it is recognized in the rest of the world. Especially in that part of the world where English, the language, originated.
People use these terms in a radically different way than Chomsky does, and he's simply inviting confusion and misunderstanding when he insists "oh, no, I'm the one using the term the right way, not everybody else."
People in the US are using it radically different from what the word was actually meant to define, that is the point. You are advocate the improper use of the word, and because you happen to live in the place where it is being misused, doesn't make your argument a good one. The point is to recognize that people in the US are misusing the word so you don't get confused when others use it correctly.
They're not. They can't be, since no government has ever been socialist/libertarian - there's nothing to conserve.
You do understand that, one, a socialist/libertarian is not in favor of a governing body, right? So that would eliminate the need for an established government, in fact, it would be ridiculous to to say something like that. It would be like someone claiming they are a Marxist government, yet Karl Marx himself, and his description of communism in his manifesto, was completely anti-government. How on earth can you have a Marxist government, or an anarchist government? The two don't go together.
So that's one thing, socialist/libertarians are opposed to structured government, it's anarchism for tiny, infant baby Jesus' sake!
Two, you do realize that we are talking about political philosophies, and there doesn't need to be an actual representative of any philosophy for the ideologies within the philosophy to still be describable and understandable, right?
What are they trying to conserve? Really? You clearly have not even bothered to read about it if you're asking that kind of question.
Sure: he's a socialist/libertarian, as you've demonstrated.
And by all definitions of this political philosophy, they are conservatives, so what, if anything, is your point?
Or are you changing the very defintion of social/libertarians to fit YOUR narrow defintion of the word? Are you subjecting socialist/libertarians to the US definition only?
You still haven't presented one single shread of evidence to support your notion that Chomsky is a liberal. You are now claiming that by him declairing to be a socialist/libertarian that that makes him a liberal, when the only known defintion of that political philosophy declares itself conservative. Are you really that stubborn as to not see the problem with that?
Concede that you've made a mistake in judgement and walk away with dignity, it's the right thing to do. C'mon froggy, you know I'm right in this matter. Just say it, say I'm right...
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"Noam Chomsky is a liberal. He's like the nation's most infamous liberal, for Christ's sake."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2010 9:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2010 10:32 AM onifre has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 10:49 AM onifre has replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 24 of 85 (581471)
09-15-2010 6:39 PM


Everybody has to have their take on what a word means.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 09-15-2010 7:08 PM Tram law has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 25 of 85 (581474)
09-15-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tram law
09-15-2010 6:39 PM


Everybody has to have their take on what a word means.
What do you mean?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tram law, posted 09-15-2010 6:39 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Tram law, posted 09-15-2010 10:31 PM onifre has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 26 of 85 (581504)
09-15-2010 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by lfen
09-15-2010 1:55 AM


For me, conservative now refers to indigenous peoples, and modern groups such as the Mennonites and Amish who like indigenous peoples take the long term survival of the group as the most important value. They evaluate change based on how it will affect not only the present but many generations down the line.
For me that would be called socialism
In America most of those who call themselves conservative, such as Republicans and libertarians, are market liberals and imperialists.
if by market liberals you mean classic liberalism, then i do not disagree, but imperialists is way off.
They tend to put great value on the individual allowing greed and stupidity to degrade and destroy the environment.
ORLY
things in the past may have occured due to lack of knowledge, but to call it stupidity is a bit pretentious, after all you are defending multiple vague peoples, many of whom never invented the wheel. The strongest and most advanced animal comes to dominate the enviroment (Homo sapiens sapiens), and to assume that indgenious peoples did not destroy the evironment is a bit naive. What happend to the Moa bird? [rhetorical], what about the Plestiocene Mega-fauna extinctions? [rhetorical] sorry but even your "Noble Savages", have caused a lot of environmental damage.
Ever heard of the Bush meat problem in Africa today?
I have become skeptical and critical of the claim that civilization is superior to indigenous tribal societies.
its a good idea. It is not superior just different, although your comparison is rather vague.
Are the Fulani indigenious tribals? Were the Cahokia? Were the Aztec? Are/were the Wolof? What about the Vikings, they were not city dwellers. I can think of hundereds of peoples that may or may not fit your contraints, would you mind being a bit more specific.
The Amish are civilized
I may just be not understading you, I think the dividing line is Agriculturalists vs. Hunter Gatherers when the question is about civilization vs. barbarians. Agriculturalists tend to bunch up and form villages (small civilizations).
I am outraged by the claim of both honest liberals, and the dishonest market liberals (who falsely label their radical individualism as conservatism) to superiority over the indigenous "savage" peoples of the world.
funny that the liberals are honest and we market liberals are the dishonest ones, that's quite a bias you have there. I see it as simply different groups of the same animal competing for the same resources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lfen, posted 09-15-2010 1:55 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 09-16-2010 11:41 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 27 of 85 (581516)
09-15-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by onifre
09-15-2010 7:08 PM


What do you mean?
Everybody seems to be saying "Chomski's this", "No he's this" so on an so forth.
My only pet peeve, and yes this is somewhat ironic considering my post, is when people combines anarchy with anything else. Because anarchy means having no government. Not a minimal, not a partial, but no government. Anarcho Socialist is wrong, anarcho libertarian is wrong, because a libertarian is not against some government, they just want it to a bare minimum. At least to my understanding. And anarcho-Socialism is actually mob rule, in other words a true democracy. At least to my understanding whenever I hear a person describe it. Which is is not the true meaning of anarchy.
Basically, it just smacks of political trickery. If you rename something you control the debate. like how torture becomes "improved interrogation techniques". It's very disingenuous.
We might as well have an anarcho-capitalist, or an anarcho-president.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by onifre, posted 09-15-2010 7:08 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 28 of 85 (581558)
09-16-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by onifre
09-15-2010 11:44 AM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
Oni writes:
Just say it, say I'm right...
I think you are right.
But the American use of the word is becoming ever more prevalent and I suspect will dominate before too long.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 09-15-2010 11:44 AM onifre has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 85 (581559)
09-16-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by onifre
09-15-2010 11:44 AM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
No he is not, if you'd follow the links I provided, his use of the word is quite modern, it is the way it is used throughout the rest of the world, currently, today.
Chomsky doesn't live in "the rest of the world", he lives in the United States and participates in US politics.
Therefore US political definitions are most appropriate. And, sorry, but there's no place in the world where "conservative" means "anarcho-socialist." By definition.
But the meaning for the word in the US is unique only to the US.
Which is where Chomsky lives, you live, and I live. So US definitions would seem apropos considering we're talking about US politics.
So, if the word is being used incorrectly for propaganda reasons
Whoah, hold on a second. From what basis do you assert that "propaganda" is automatically an "incorrect" use of a word? Incorrect word use obscures meaning and makes communication more difficult. Wouldn't propaganda that was difficult to understand and failed to communicate ideas be ineffective? What would be the incentive by a propagandist to misuse a word, since that would only make his propaganda less effective?
Propagandists still have to communicate clearly with their audience. More so than other writers, I would think, since the intent is to motivate and influence as many people as possible.
No matter how much you try to establish that he is using it on his own terms, he is not. He is using it the correct way, the way it is recognized in the rest of the world.
I'm sorry, Oni, but no - there's nowhere in the world where "conservative" means "anarcho-socialist." "Conservative" means "resistant to change", but enacting the anarcho-socialist agenda would mean changing nearly everything. You can argue that it's conservative to radically undo modern changes, but no government has ever been anarcho-socialist, so there's no prior anarcho-socialist state to return to.
Anarcho-socialism can never be conservative, by definition. Not by any definition of the term at use in the English-speaking world.
In the US, of course, where you live, I live, and Chomsky lives, conservative means all of the above plus highly religious social policy, tax cuts for the rich, and interventionist foreign policy: none of which Chomsky supports. There's just no sense in which Chomsky can be described as a "conservative." Not in the US, not in the Burkean sense, not in the sense of any political environment anywhere in the English-speaking world.
What are they trying to conserve? Really? You clearly have not even bothered to read about it if you're asking that kind of question.
Sounds like I made a point you lack the capacity to refute.
You are now claiming that by him declairing to be a socialist/libertarian that that makes him a liberal, when the only known defintion of that political philosophy declares itself conservative.
It can declare itself a double-ended dildo, for all I care. Self-declarations are meaningless, as I've shown. By any definition of "conservative" in use in the English-speaking world, socialist-libertarians are not conservatives. Conservativism is a political philosophy that resists radical societal change, but enacting the socialist-libertarian agenda would mandate enormous change at every level of society. Hence, the notion cannot be said to be "conservative."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 09-15-2010 11:44 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2010 10:58 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 09-16-2010 5:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 85 (581563)
09-16-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
09-16-2010 10:49 AM


Re: Bump for crashfrog
Crash writes:
Propagandists still have to communicate clearly with their audience. More so than other writers, I would think, since the intent is to motivate and influence as many people as possible.
Propagandists take words that have positive connotations for those that they wish to motivate and re-appropriate those words to meet their own ends through subtle redefinition. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 10:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2010 11:01 AM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024