Yes. This what I didn't get about people cheering him on for going after Chomsky.
His and BJG's position on the election is fundamentally to the right of Chomsky's. Chomsky's point is that withholding your vote isn't going to lead to the democratic party being more accommodating to socdems in the future and that social change doesn't come directly from voting anyway.
Chomsky was pretty bird-brained when it comes to the idea of what constitutes "activism" (which seems to be liberal pressure groups like Sunrise movement). Still, his argument is fundamentally sounder.
Eventually they did start asking him more questions and trying to say okay so then what happens after the election, after Biden, etc. but he was stuck on a loop about the 10 minutes on November 3rd.
yeah that was rough, but the questions didn't get off a main point very much. i think i was hoping for a "if you're not an activist, how can you be more than just another Biden voter?" but it was a good chuckle regardless, it really sounded like Chomsky took BJG as a Trump supporter in Berniecrat clothing. lol. Bad Faith much? Marianne's episode was waaaay more of the activist spirit than what Chomsky was hammering constantly which wasn't as fulsome as i had hoped from the notoriously detailed professor.
Yea Marianne had a much better vote for Biden argument.
What I found confusing about Chomsky was he was saying that voting isn’t activism and the Democrats won’t listen to you regardless of if you vote, which makes sense, but simultaneously voting for Biden is the most important thing in the world and will save humanity.
Chomsky undermined his own point by continually admonishing them TO vote "just five mins bruh" so I am led to conclude that his original point about voting not bringing about social change is not something he actually believes, which your honor leads to only one conclusion...
The thing is, for most people voting does take just 5 mins. You obviously have examples of voters in GOP states with tough rules for vote by mail and active disenfranchisement where voting takes longer, but that's not the overwhelming experience.
And there's better holes to point out in Chomsky's argument than that. The one that comes to top of mind is that his examples as "activism" are basically liberal pressure groups that still rely on electoral means - not communist or radical orgs that attempt to build power outside of electoral politics, like a communist party that directs unions on strikes, has an armed wing to confront right-wing forces in the streets, etc.
Again, neither side presented a great argument. But the base of Chomsky's argument was stronger.
Yes. This what I didn't get about people cheering him on for going after Chomsky.
His and BJG's position on the election is fundamentally to the right of Chomsky's. Chomsky's point is that withholding your vote isn't going to lead to the democratic party being more accommodating to socdems in the future and that social change doesn't come directly from voting anyway.
Chomsky was pretty bird-brained when it comes to the idea of what constitutes "activism" (which seems to be liberal pressure groups like Sunrise movement). Still, his argument is fundamentally sounder.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Eventually they did start asking him more questions and trying to say okay so then what happens after the election, after Biden, etc. but he was stuck on a loop about the 10 minutes on November 3rd.
yeah that was rough, but the questions didn't get off a main point very much. i think i was hoping for a "if you're not an activist, how can you be more than just another Biden voter?" but it was a good chuckle regardless, it really sounded like Chomsky took BJG as a Trump supporter in Berniecrat clothing. lol. Bad Faith much? Marianne's episode was waaaay more of the activist spirit than what Chomsky was hammering constantly which wasn't as fulsome as i had hoped from the notoriously detailed professor.
Yea Marianne had a much better vote for Biden argument.
What I found confusing about Chomsky was he was saying that voting isn’t activism and the Democrats won’t listen to you regardless of if you vote, which makes sense, but simultaneously voting for Biden is the most important thing in the world and will save humanity.
it makes sense given i'm positive he's concerned of our current ability to vote and any future ability to do so.
you go ahead and vote for the rapist but I hope the piss lake overflows and drowns us all
deleted by creator
it. made. me. cringe. still laughing, honestly, at how that went down and how just "fuck you" energy Chomsky was at. lol. :gold-anarchist:
This, assuming you intend to vote. There's nothing else to say, is there?
Chomsky undermined his own point by continually admonishing them TO vote "just five mins bruh" so I am led to conclude that his original point about voting not bringing about social change is not something he actually believes, which your honor leads to only one conclusion...
....Chomsky is a lib....and a liar
The thing is, for most people voting does take just 5 mins. You obviously have examples of voters in GOP states with tough rules for vote by mail and active disenfranchisement where voting takes longer, but that's not the overwhelming experience.
And there's better holes to point out in Chomsky's argument than that. The one that comes to top of mind is that his examples as "activism" are basically liberal pressure groups that still rely on electoral means - not communist or radical orgs that attempt to build power outside of electoral politics, like a communist party that directs unions on strikes, has an armed wing to confront right-wing forces in the streets, etc.
Again, neither side presented a great argument. But the base of Chomsky's argument was stronger.