[Mustang1]

jeff744 jeff744:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

jeff744 jeff744:

So every history student has photographic memory? gotcha. What I remember are historians that discuss things I am interested in reading about for more than a single paper, after several years you forget things (I know people that were fully fluent in a second language, after a few year of no use it was largely forgotten), you are expecting something most people would be hard pressed to do.

"Photographic memory"? Nope, but the competent ones do have an excellent ability for recall which often times translates into superior arguments. This is a basic intellectual requirement, i'm not about to lower the bar.

$1:

I also read the books at a time when I burned through one every few days, the title and author were the last thing that I worried about, I was more concerned with the content of the book itself instead of the name.

Then you conducted crappy history. The author is paramount in constructing a historical narrative - history 101. And how exactly did you evaluate the content without assessing the author? Again, rudimentary history.

I do read the bio on the author using whatever the internet would tell me on them. I don't try to remember most of the stuff I did in the first year as it was not what interested me (other than reading Admiral Nelsons letters, those were cool). I rarely bothered to memorize the names of authors until this semester because I was studying something because there was a poor selection, the upcoming one has a far better selection.

Again...not good history and even poorer historiography.

[Thanos]

That garbage Chomsky, Finklestein, Alperovitz, and Zinn peddled over the year certainly caused a lot of damage. The revisionists of the far left are just as bad as the slime on the far right (e.g David Irving, Pat Buchanan, and Ernst Zundel) are.

[Lemmy]

Thanos Thanos:

That garbage Chomsky, Finklestein, Alperovitz, and Zinn peddled over the year certainly caused a lot of damage. The revisionists of the far left are just as bad as the slime on the far right (e.g David Irving, Pat Buchanan, and Ernst Zundel) are.

I agree with the argument, but Chomsky on the left? Uhh, no.

[Thanos]

How so?

[Lemmy]

I wouldn't put libertarians on the "left" of the political spectrum.

[Thanos]

I have to disagree. Chomsky might be some kind of socialist anti-state libertarian but he'd hardly be welcome among the shoot-first-ask-questions-later psychos in the Ron Paul crowd. They might have some shared anti-war sentiments crossing over but I highly doubt that Chomsky would be very welcome among the neo-libertarians in the Tea Party or by FOX News or Glenn Beck. If anything Chomsky probably utterly hates FOX because he'd see it as the ultimate confluence of foreign imperialism mouthpieces being fused together with free market radicals and a thoroughly corrupted and compromised corporate media monster.

[Lemmy]

Thanos Thanos:

I have to disagree. Chomsky might be some kind of socialist anti-state libertarian but he'd hardly be welcome among the shoot-first-ask-questions-later psychos in the Ron Paul crowd.

I agree. Not being on the lunatic right doesn't mean you're not still on the right. Some even use the term "libertarian socialist". I quite like it. Libertarianism in the scope of humanitarianism. Small government, social provision of necessities and regulation.

Thanos Thanos:

They might have some shared anti-war sentiments crossing over but I highly doubt that Chomsky would be very welcome among the neo-libertarians in the Tea Party or by FOX News or Glenn Beck. If anything Chomsky probably utterly hates FOX because he'd see it as the ultimate confluence of foreign imperialism mouthpieces being fused together with free market radicals and a thoroughly corrupted and compromised corporate media monster.

All those are good things about Chomsky, aren't they? Like I've said to you on previous threads, you don't need to be a nut to be a libertarian. There are lots of small government-minded folks that aren't tea baggers or members of the American Libertarian party. Chomsky's one of them.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I wouldn't put libertarians on the "left" of the political spectrum.

But certainly you would put a socialist on the left side of the political spectrum. Libertarian socialism would not really fit on the right side of the political spectrum.

[Khar]

Chomsky actually refers to himself as a "left-libertarian." While I have no idea how far left he considers himself or how far we can take him along it ourselves if we feel the need to apply a prescriptive label, he defines himself upon the political spectrum as well left of center, from my understanding.

I know that left-libertarianism has drawn some criticism from libertarians, Rights and Lefts alike, and has a fair few socialist ideals intertwined in it's ideology, but I don't know a horrible lot beyond that.

[Zipperfish]

I don't know what left-libertarian means either. CHomsky struck me as your kind of standard agitating lefty. Actually, he's qauite aligned with me politically--a small-government lefty. Kind of the opposite end (on the two-dimensional political scale) of the big-government social conservative.

I find that his arguments lack the intellectual rigor his fans ascribe to him. I wouldn't put him in the same league as the demagiogues though. Michael Moore is more of a comparison to Rush Limbaugh than Chomsky is.

[Mustang1]

A lot of ideological variants of libertarianism do fall on the right, but you can have a socialist stream of libertarianism. Many times, it falls under anarchism, so due to its rather porous ideological membrane, left-libertarianism is legit.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Actually, he's qauite aligned with me politically--a small-government lefty. Kind of the opposite end (on the two-dimensional political scale) of the big-government social conservative.

Which describes my political persuasion as well. But that persuasion still falls far to the right of any mainstream western political parties.

[TuavDan]

"Slap on the hand," is all Japan walked away with. Read the "history Books," The Japanese military were more ruthless than the Germans. Not saying Germany wasn't bad.

[jeff744]

TuavDan TuavDan:

"Slap on the hand," is all Japan walked away with. Read the "history Books," The Japanese military were more ruthless than the Germans. Not saying Germany wasn't bad.

Because having two cities virtually wiped out, all major cities losing 60-70% of all infrastructure, losing all offensive military, having foreign military bases placed on their soil, and having to live with the fact they lost the war shoved in their faces on a regular basis as well as living with the shame of what they did is just a slap on the hands?

[ShepherdsDog]

Shame?? To this day they don't think that they did wrong. Have you actually read any history regarding Japan, what they did, and their refusal to admit their war crimes? Speaking of slaps, you could use one up side your head.