Noam Chomsky's views of the Internet

Question: What do you think about the Internet?

I think that there are good things about it, but there are also aspects of it that concern and worry me. This is an intuitive response--I can't prove it--but my feeling is that, since people aren't Martians or robots, direct face-to-face contact is an extremely important part of human life. It helps develop self-understanding and the growth of a healthy personality.

You just have a different relationship to somebody when you're looking at them than you do when you're punching away at a keyboard and some symbols come back. I suspect that extending that form of abstract and remote relationship, instead of direct, personal contact, is going to have unpleasant effects on what people are like. I will diminish their humanity, I think.

I think the man has a point - does anyone agree?

K.A.

Calypso on Friday, December 3, 1999 - 06:50 pm:

Can I ask a stupid question?
Suuure 🙂

Why is Russia so determined to hang onto Chechnia,
when it is obvoius that they want independence?

First of all, i havn't seen democratic referendum by chechen people; have you? What other bases are there to proclaim the independence (by a couple of terrorists)?
Secondly, the current conflict had started not over "independence" issue. Apart from years of kidnappings, appt. bombings and other terrorist acts, this summer chechens carried an assault on Dagestan which is a part of Russia, therefore forcing Russia to react accordingly (as any country would react against the one who violates its territorial integrity)

why do the chechen rebels think they can defeat russia?
That's what they USED to think. I bet they now are biting their fingers. First war was started since chechen commandoes thought that Russia in '91-94 was too week to do anything with it (and were partially correct). This time they didn't realize that most of russians would SUPPORT this war, that some ordinary chechens after 3 years of pseudo-independence hell would be fed-up with it, and also that Russia now is much more stable to wage a proper offensive. And lastly, they hoped for international intervention (which didn't happen). Now the only ones who believe in victory are muslim fanatics (sometimes you can spot one or two of them on this board 🙂

Do these rebels really care about the chechen people.
No they don't:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Russia/chechens021299.shtml

Why do these muslims want an Islamic state
Because they are fanatics and according to them poeple of othr religions are to be considered enemies (just look at jacka$$ berstein postings, you'll see what I mean).

is Putin the only candidate in the russian elections?
Ok, this is a stupid one :). Is VicePres A. Gore only presidentian candidate?

bernstein, how bout you dont call kissie your 'sister', 'kay? for you the phrase "jewish nazi" is just too obvious, too cliche.
===
verily, kym, i've had more than one weird 'relationship' with a buncha words onscreen.

but i think of much of the words, in a place like here, as grafitti...some outside on a wall, but most of it in a bathroom stall when it comes to this place.
and the best of 'em tend to not get any mo' never mind than the worst of 'em.

kym, cheri, isnt the question more like "what ==isnt== diminishing our humanity?"

thanks for the post, knowing it went sailing over the heads of the worst of 'em.

""

OK SMART ARSE WHO ELSE IS STANDING, AND WHAT DO THEY STAND FOR.
CAN ANYONE AROUND HERE ANSWER A SMEGGING QUESTION
WITHOUT BEING A SNIDE BASTARD.

SECONDLY, HAS RUSSIA OFFERED THEM A REFERENDUM?
THE CALLS FOR INDEPENCE STARTED LONG BEFORE
DAGASTAN. SO IF THE PLACE IS JUST FULL OF TERRORISTS,WHY DOESN'T RUSSIA JUST WASH THEIR HANDS OF IT. THEY HAVE LET OTHER POST-SOVIET STATES GO. WHAT'S THE SCORE WITH CHECHNIA?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.............

Right does anyone have a less biased and more informative response to what I readily admit are stupid questions?

Calypso

By Calypso on Friday, December 3, 1999 - 08:48 pm

You ended up to be dumber than i thought.
SECONDLY, HAS RUSSIA OFFERED THEM A REFERENDUM?
They didn't ask. They simply proclaimed.
THE CALLS FOR INDEPENCE STARTED LONG BEFORE
Prove your claim
DAGASTAN
It's Dagestan
THEY HAVE LET OTHER POST-SOVIET STATES GO
Not states, idiot. Republics. They had constitutional right to do so. Noone gave the right for Chechnia to separate without 50%+1 majority vote. Learn some facts before making radiculous claims; and don't get pissed CAPS are indicataion of the amount of "grey matter" in your brain

Fenriz

Heilige Maria,
Das gibt's doch nicht!!!
Der einer Fanatiker greift dem anderen an.
Sind aller Massenmoerder hier representiert?
Es fehlt nur noch der Khmer Rouge!!!

$ 3/4 "Freude Schoene Goetterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium. Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlisher, dein Heiligtum. Deiner Zauber bindet wieder, was die Mode streng geteilt. Alle Menschen werden Brueder, wo dein samfte Fluegel weilt."

Es gab eins Dichter und Denker, statt Richter und Henker!!!

Schiller

Dear Fenriz,

I made the mistake of asking you.
You obviously can't answer, without resorting to
cheap shots.
I'm sure there are more enlightend people who can answer my questions.
Did it occur to you that some people visiting this site might just be interested in learning,
rather than shouting people down. Maybe you should tone your comments down a bit, there are enough know-it-alls round here as it is.

At least I had the courage to ask the questions, nobody else has answered yet, cause they take it for granted, that everyone knows what they know.
If attacking my ignorance, makes you feel less awful about yourself, then so be it.

Find someone else to bore.

Calypso

Here's one for our religious fundamnetalists to chew on:

"The question is: What is the relation of complete political emancipation to religion?

If we find that even in the country of complete political emancipation, religion not only exists, but displays a fresh and vigorous vitality, that is proof that the existence of religion is not in contradiction to the perfection of the state.

We no longer regard religion as the cause, but only as the manifestation of secular narrowness. Therefore, we explain the religious limitations of the free citizen by their secular limitations. We do not assert that they must overcome their religious narrowness in order to get rid of their secular restrictions, we assert that they will overcome their religious narrowness once they get rid of their secular restrictions.

We do not turn secular questions into theological ones. History has long enough been merged in superstition, we now merge superstition in history. The question of the relation of political emancipation to religion becomes for us the question of the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation.

The contradiction between the state and a particular religion, for instance Judaism, is given by us a human form as the contradiction between the state and particular secular elements; the contradiction between the state and religion in general as the contradiction between the state and its presuppositions in general.

The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and, in general, of religious man, is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, from religion in general.

In its own form, in the manner characteristic of its nature, the state as a state emancipates itself from religion by emancipating itself from the state religion -- that is to say, by the state as a state not professing any religion, but, on the contrary, asserting itself as a state."
(K.M.)

K.A.

Look, Callipso

You posted questions, you've got answers.

If you have problems with answers provided, you should state why and we can discuss it in a civilized manner. Instead you launched a personnal attack without absolutely no bases ( I bet my PC it's because you are greatly biased to the bone yourself and due to apparent lack of any knowledge whatsoever couldn't come up with anything better). Therefore, you got what you deservedv and shall get the similar remarks in future (incidently, Adam R. spotted your biasing and radiculous statements from before; too bad I missed them; it would have prevented me to waste time on you)

Fenriz

Why the fake address, Adam?
Why bother?

Fenriz,

"Can I ask a stupid question?
Suuure :)"

"is Putin the only candidate in the russian elections?
Ok, this is a stupid one :). Is VicePres A. Gore only presidentian candidate?"


OK, I overreacted, but I felt attacked myself.
I genuinely want answers, but not to be kicked for asking.You end up on the defensive round here

I apologise.
As for previous comments, just mucking about.
Anyway, how you can call that crap biased-I didn't say anything.

As for your p.c, start packing.
My you're a hard man

"If you have problems with answers provided, you should state why and we can discuss it in a civilized manner."

I guess I do have a problem with the answers, they seem too simple, somehow.

OK take the referendum thing,surely the first war in chechnia was about Independence, right. So in the meantime, have there been any moves by Russia to find a way of solving the conflict. And before you shoot me down in flames- what were they?

BTW "radiculous claims"= ridiculous. Tell you what if you don't correct my spelling, I won't correct yours.

Calypso

Callipso:

"Can I ask a stupid question?
Suuure :)"
It was a joke, OK?
I would have never guessed you wouldn't realize that. Nevermind.

I guess I do have a problem with the answers, they seem too simple, somehow.

Now, come on....i really don't want to waiste energy to write doctorial papers here when 90% of posts in here are of moronic/provocative nature.

As for simplicity, it's the mother of all 🙂

Ok, Independence question; Let us start first that there never been such a country as Chechnia ever before. There are more than 50 diff. nationalities that live on Caucas; chechens simply happenned to be one of them. Unlike most of other nationalities (north osethians, dagestani, etc) chechens never had an established agriculture/economy (in 10-19 century terms), so they historically were known to others as "poeple from the mountains" (Abreks) who live by attaking other people properties and were famous for that before russians came along in 19 century. Biased or not, it's a historical fact.

Futher, in early 80s Chechen mafia grew from being influential to dominant in former Soviet Union. They were able to take underground activities under their control in Moscow and (former) Leningread. The enormous revenues generated from thei activites would in a future sponsor the first war.

In '91 when the whole country was in complete chaos a self proclaimed leader (Dudaev) with few other realized that it's a good moment to "declare independence" (note that the "movement" started not by ordinary folks but by known gangsters - imagine how good it might feel to have a kingdom of your own). No referendum, no respect for russian law; nothing. Russia was in turmoil to do anything tangible at the moment. Meanwhile, all local russian population (mostly oil industry engineers and their families) was evicted/slautered untill virtually no one left there. With "independence" arose lawlessness (imagine a county without any kind of constitution). There were a lot of cases for example when trains that ran though Chechnia were stopped by "Wolves of Islam" and passengers of non chechen origin were robbed in the middle of nowhere and some younger women raped. These are facts. I can name lots of other activities going on in region but I just won't.

In '94 Russia was fed up; I ask you who wouldn't?
Imagine an Idaho militias self proclaim the independence and then terrorize anyone who opposes it. What USA would do? Nevermind. I personnaly opposed to that war since Russia was doomed to loose it and it wasn't worthy to commit so many lives to that. Obvously it only made it worse to turn the civilian population against themselves; which was a tragic mistake.

As you might have known, in 96 russia conceded offencive and GAVE Chechnia a pseudoindependence status temporarily untill situation eases up and referendum would take place.....so far so good (note that NONE of the countries accepted Chechnia independence, not even Iran 🙂 .

Well, the situation grew from bad to worse. Over 3 years of pseudo-status chechnia enjoyed things really got of hands within and outside the region a lot more people left the region (incidently, 2/3 of chechens before this war started were living outside Chechnia). Ok, not a problem; if some foreiners' heads are being chopped off in chechnia it's this foreighners problem, right?

This summer for the reasons I might/might not state later (as there were a lot of others who did already) Chechens attacted russian territory of Dagestan (remember japaneese and Pearl Harbor in WWII). This is nothing but act of war. Only today's Russia is not '94 Russia so it acted. Why shouldn't it act I'm asking you? After freeing Dagestan (with great help of local citizens btw) Russia moved to counter offensive to Chechnia (attack the bush ant it will bite you, attack its roots and it will wither). The botom line is that instead of pushing its way to a free society during a 3 year period, Chechnia brought a great deal of suffering to locals and to people outside and every month it was getting worse; I dare you to name any place on earth that resembles hell more than that.

The current campain is NOT about independence but for wiping out everyone who is responsible for all
subhumane activities during the years; god forbid, it would happen anywhere else ( yep, these doddamn roots)

An eye for an eye.

PS: I don't care for your spelling but it's nice sometimes to know names of geographic regions (not a subject to MS Word spellcheck 🙂

Fenriz

Russia a sad story.
hate to amit it folks we have again gone down the wrong road when fighting those chechens.
hope our butt doin get kicked
but i think we will get a good llicking

to russian and his people
got yer butt kicked in afganistan.
got yer butt kicked in chechnya 94-96
and by the will of Allah yer gonna get second helpings.