Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and the "Green New Deal".

[Gopher Gary]

Maybe I've lost my touch, maybe I expect too much from I2, maybe I'm the only one left to do it to.

Maybe you should piss off to wrongplanet, you sensitive fuck. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.

Brilliant as always. He's pretty sharp for a guy who is about 400 years old.

[Calandale]

One problem I see is with his "almost off the spectrum" statement. Chomsky is a product of an era
when the US was probably the "most equitable" society that it has ever been. The political spectrum,
even in the US, is far broader than he seems aware of. And when you consider that liberal democracies
resulted fascism, or the scope of Roman absolutism, it's a ludicrous stance.

It is hard to take someone seriously when they make statements in ignorance of history - no matter
how well renowned.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Good point. Considering that he is literally the father of modern linguistics and that he wrote articles for his school newspaper about the rise of fascism in Europe during the 30s, he really shouldn't be so loose with the hyperbole. I've seen him pulled up on this when he speaks about Trump and the modern state of politics and he scoffs at any comparison between Trump and Hitler.

[Gopher Gary]

Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.

Are people even still talking about her?  I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.

Are people even still talking about her?  I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. 

I heard she was going to dye herself orange and run for President.

[Gopher Gary]

 

[Calandale]

Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.

Are people even still talking about her?  I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. 

Chomsky's male.

[Gopher Gary]

Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.

Are people even still talking about her?  I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. 

Chomsky's male.

 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.

Well now, this reveals your bigotries now dunnit?

Perhaps my perspective as an Air Force brat is a bit skewed because the US air force had bases around the world and world events could influence our daily lives, so we were generally aware of the politics outside of North America. Even some of my grade school friends who were "locals" seemed pretty aware of what was going on outside the US.

However what you get in Europe is mostly anti US propaganda so I don't expect you to get it right.   

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I find that Scrap’s debating style tends to involve finding a YouTube pundit with similar (usually not particularly progressive) views to Scrap, posting that clip, and then insulting anyone who disagrees with it.

Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.

Brilliant as always. He's pretty sharp for a guy who is about 400 years old.

Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.

And what he really got wrong was that incident with the retarded Swedish bint who stopped that Afghan immigrant from being deported, who turned out to be a rapist. They thought she was a hero for defending a RAPIST.

[Calandale]

Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.

Do you have a time span for these moves? Because, that sounds correct for the last decade or so - but NOT for the
period of my lifetime.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.

Do you have a time span for these moves? Because, that sounds correct for the last decade or so - but NOT for the
period of my lifetime.

Yeah, I guess the Jim Crow south was a bit before your time. Different studies have different begin dates, the earliest I saw was 1972  and the republicans have had only slight oscillations in that time period.

[Jack]

Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.

There's studies that support both views. Poole and Rosenthal made a whole book of it. Here's a link with some nice graphs. https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm Though all of the studies are in polarization, and the results of many are determined by the subject's strength of conviction, if they have no opinion, agree, disagree, somewhat or strongly. Rather than display a shift in views that may be considered extreme left or right, they instead display shifts in political apathy and passion. This doesn't seem to prove either side has more or less extreme views, but instead how strongly they feel about those views.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Jack, I was going to say something similar but your summary and understanding is better. Even though we've obviously got different starting assumptions.

I saw a summary of some of the questions and responses recently and they didn't show anything like what they were being claimed to show.

I'm happy to pull up some of the actual questions and discuss in detail if anyone is interested. I suspect that would be a waste of time.

More to the point is that Trump is electable now. Not that long ago he would have been completely unelectable. Bernie Sanders was probably a lot more electable than the status quo candidate the Democrats put forward last time. Bernie would have been as unelectable as Trump even a decade ago.