A Quote by Noam Chomsky

Whenever there is injustice, oppression, aggression, violence, it's standard for it to be supported by those we now call "intellectuals," but typically not by all; there is typically a fringe of dissidents. With very rare exceptions - in fact, it's hard to think of any - they suffer in one or another way; how depends on the nature of the society.
Sometimes that irrational commitment to principle is what society needs to survive. Whenever you talk about radicalism, whenever you talk about activism, whenever you talk about progressive activity, that sort of moves the measure of liberty in human society forward, makes us all enjoy a better standard of liberty, it typically starts out criminal. It typically starts out a little bit shaky, and rather radical. And that's irrational to put yourself up to do that.
With rare exceptions, Hollywood typically casts Spec Ops guys as macho, swaggering strongmen. As usual, Hollywood's got it wrong.
The roles that men and women play are no longer the standard traditional roles of way back when but are those of two very individual people living their lives. I think it's been a hard transition in society - just take a look at the divorce rate - to figure out what that means now. How do you resolve that?
I don't typically pay attention to most things in life, let alone award season. Not because I think it's silly. I just don't typically get caught up in it.
I actually feel pretty inspired and hopeful by the fact that protests are becoming the norm now. They're less part of fringe society and more a part of mainstream society. That's exciting. There is no fringe anymore. We should all be included.
I know the Cubs don't typically do six- or seven-year deals, but I think there are obviously times when there should be exceptions. I think I've done pretty well here.
science has now been for a long time - and to an ever-increasing extent - a collective enterprise. Actually, new results are always, in fact, the work of specific individuals; but, save perhaps for rare exceptions, the value of any result depends on such a complex set of interrelations with past discoveries and possible future researches that even the mind of the inventor cannot embrace the whole.
So many people around the world have used nonviolence as a way to resolve a conflict that they faced in their lives. And they continue to use it everywhere all over the world there. And I think, in a way, nonviolence is our nature. Violence is not really our nature. If violence was our nature, we wouldn't need military academies and martial arts institutes to teach us how to kill and destroy people. We ought to have been born with those instincts. But the fact that we have to learn the art of killing means that it's a learned experience. And we can always unlearn it.
You typically find stereotypical female characters that are people pleasers, where they are wives and girlfriends, typically, who are in the background.
Mayors typically don't do the things we're trying to do... Revolutionaries aren't typically Mayor.
Typically, when you sell your story rights to a movie production company, they can do whatever they want with it. The writer is typically not involved anymore.
All music now, I think, is fair game for jazz musicians to interpret, and they have been. I would consider those songs standards now. "Norwegian Wood" is a standard; "Call Me" is a standard.
Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
How a society channels male aggression is one of the greatest questions as to whether that society will survive. That's why I am not against violence in the media, I am against the glorification of immoral violence.
I typically don't get into predicting the success of my projects. I've been involved with a lot of projects that I thought should have really gained notoriety and furthered my career, only to be met with the cold grasp of disappointment. So I typically stay away from predicting how a film will do.
I am not saying that a female-dominated or Amazon society based on the oppression of men is any more "just" than is a male-dominated society based on the oppression of women. I am merely pointing out in what ways it is better for women. [¶] Perhaps someday a choice between forms of injustice will not be necessary.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!