Much of our conception of intellectuals is mired in the image of the Academic. And while intellectuals which come out of academic circles are important, I think we actually need to push instead for a popular intellectualism which is not just independent of academia, but actively pushes it's obsolescence.
There have been scenes, areas and movements of popular intellectualism in the past. The Lower East Side in the 1910's for instance.
I think Chomsky is an incredible political analyst and thinker, and I appreciate the work he's done immensely. But I think it's important also to consider how important it is that we do not separate ourselves or others from "The Intellectuals", that we don't acquiesce to a certain academic dilettantism instead of building a culture of intellectualism for ourselves and others.
The major steps towards that are to first drop any pretense that intellectualism comes from a specific context, whether academia, the middle classes, white, male, etc. Wholeheartedly adopt, instead, the idea that anybody can and should be encouraged towards intellectualism.
In short, replace The Intellectual, with a culture of intellectualism.
Secondly, to encourage the importance of facts, the complexity of the world, and infinity of ideas. Intellectualism doesn't thrive when people choose strict ideologies, and argue them stubbornly. Instead, encourage people to accept being wrong, to revel in it, even, and to put their ideas up to scrutiny like a scientist.
The internet puts us in an incredible point in history where facts are non-exclusive. We have all the facts we could ever need, and it's gotten easier and easier to locate them. This major barrier to being an intellectual, historically provided by academia, is almost completely gone. It's time we learned how to move forward with the rest of it.
The internet puts us in an incredible point in history where facts are non-exclusive. We have all the facts we could ever need, and it's gotten easier and easier to locate them. This major barrier to being an intellectual, historically provided by academia, is almost completely gone.
I agree the internet makes it even easier, but access to raw facts hasn't really been a barrier for decades, if not a century, at least in the United States. The average person has long had access to a ton of information they simply didn't use, via libraries, especially in major cities with good library systems. You occasionally read about people even some decades ago who became experts in a field by just sitting in the New York public library reading all the books on the subject they could get their hands on, but it's not the usual case. Many university libraries are open to the public as well, but most of the public doesn't take them up on that offer, either.
Maybe the internet will be what changes that, but I have some doubts. My guess is that the people who will use information on the internet to truly become experts on a subject overlap heavily with the kinds of people who, 50 years ago, would've been in the library becoming experts on the subject (though it's probably the case that there will be more of them).
If anything, the library is probably still a better resource, at least for now. If someone wants to learn physics on their own, to the point where they could really be an expert in some area, grabbing a bunch of the best physics books they can find and reading them cover-to-cover is going to get them there faster than reading physics blogs and Wikipedia will (though blogs and Wikipedia do have some quite good information, and are good for keeping up on recent advances).
though it's probably the case that there will be more of them
Someone pointed out below the issue of time investment in order to be an intellectual. The internet makes searching, information retrieval, access to experts, etc. so much less time consuming, that it becomes perfectly reasonable to work a full time job, have a family, and still slowly build a repertoire around a subject. So that does mean more people can become intellectuals.
And that increase in numbers can build momentum, but what I'm suggesting is to not just bank on that as a natural occurrence, but to actively work towards a culture of public intellectualism.
Others down below let their skepticism get in the way, and that's exactly one of the problems I think we all need to overcome. Of course, it's difficult, a lot of people have grown up in a culture of anti-intellectualism, of ideological stubbornness, or of passive acceptance.
Think of it this way, the first step in changing a culture is to no longer accept that a culture must be the way it is. It doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly become Noam Chomsky, but instead of simply accepting the goal as impossible, take it as a challenge: How do we get from here to there?
If you want to learn physics, reading all the physics blogs on the internet is probably not as good an approach as picking up the best 20 or 30 physics books you can find and reading them cover to cover.
Sure, blogs aren't great, physics books are much better, but we now also have MIT OpenCourseWare, Connexions, etc. I can almost completely get a full MIT education, sometimes including lectures, without ever having to get accepted into MIT.
But the most important thing is that books and lectures aren't everything, so the next step isn't just about people taking the initiative to self-learn a subject, but to actually build free institutions where people can meet with others working in the field, hobbyists, etc.
In past popular intellectual movements, that has meant something as simple as a coffee shop. LUGS are a good example of that kind of common interest organizing. In the future, more structured places of intellectualism will be necessary, much like universities, but explicitly free of charge and without any purpose of degree or accreditation.
I teach (mediocre) college students. And I disagree.
It is not lack of access to information ('facts') that is a barrier to being an intellectual. It is a combination of inability/unwillingness to think analytically about information and ideas. IMHO.
My though process often clashes with somebody who have a very different assumption about how political systems should be organized.
I sometime recognize that the discussion is going nowhere because the difference in ethical and principles are too great.
One example of this is the concept of democracy and the idea of popular consent. I am extremely distrustful of human beings, so my political ideology tend to have a strong anti-authoritarian bent.
I had the exact same objection to the parents argument. IMHO, your experience with college students is a direct consequence of what we know all too well from the discouraging PISA results...
"The internet puts us in an incredible point in history where facts are non-exclusive."
I was watching an interview with Chomsky on hulu the other day and they asked him what he though about blogs and the Internet vs. traditional news papers and it seemed like he thought the destruction of newspapers was a very bad thing and that blogs were not a suitable replacement.
Seeing as newspapers have had decades upon decades to mature, and blogs are less than a decade and a half old, for now, I would agree with him.
However, I don't think that will be the case forever, and once independent internet journalism catches up, the net result will be a much better situation.
i agree with all of what you said, but not necessarily in the way you express it (or the examples/references used)
i prefer the term "intelligence" rather than intellectual. any idiot (every one of us) operates on intelligence, tho it might not be well developed for all domains.
i'm unsure if intellectualism was historically provided by academia tho. nor whether that matters. intelligence is everywhere, and can manifest itself in any place and medium.
Chomsky is an incredible writer. His style reminds me of Orwell (what do you guys think about that?).
This is interesting, and something that (rather importantly) shatters many Americans' world views :
"It surpasses belief, that is, unless we look at the matter from a more historical point of view ... No one would be disturbed by an analysis of the political behavior of the Russians, French, or Tanzanians questioning their motives and interpreting their actions by the long-range interests concealed behind their official rhetoric. But it is an article of faith that American motives are pure, and not subject to analysis".
This ability to shatter a world view is why I appreciate and support Noam Chomsky and Wikileaks and Colbert and anything else that challenges the duping.
That comment is a banality and I'm pretty sure it was a banality in 1967. It is, and I think always was, for "intellectuals" at all levels of ability and arrogance to criticize their families/ethnicies/classes/governments/nations and embrace the "other" in every category. It's a really common pose.
Perhaps it also speaks to the fact that the way we analyze the political behavior of other people is too simplistic and reductive? It took a long time to convince economists to stop treating people as rational automatons that always make the best choice available, maybe soon political scientists and historians will follow suit.
I realize that this is an especially old article (1967), but I found it pertinent when I read:
> With respect to the responsibility of intellectuals, there are still other, equally disturbing questions. Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions.
"The facts are known to all who care to know. The press, foreign and domestic, has presented documentation to refute each falsehood as it appears. But the power of the government’s propaganda apparatus is such that the citizen who does not undertake a research project on the subject can hardly hope to confront government pronouncements with fact."
This speaks to the great failing of today's media. Who has time to stay current on all the world's events? I can hardly keep up with my Hacker News RSS feed! We rely on the media to do this research that Chomsky speaks of (or at least to use sources that have done said research). Given limitations on our time and focus, we have no choice but to accept what the media reports at face value. The more information proliferates, the more important becomes the filter.
The only thing which is different 40 years later is that corporations -- certainly together, some in cooperation, and some even alone -- maintain more power and apparatus of propaganda than the government.
That is why populist Libertarianism (Randian muck) and the ghastly half'n'half-baked ideology of the Tea Party are so awfully (and often ironically) misdirected these days.
check out the documentary on chomsky "manufacturing consent". this is partly addressed there.
all these things are toys and distractions. it's up to you to choose what to follow: the false prophets or the real ones. the issues that actually matter or the ones that actually don't.
the main thing i have found is that it all feels impossible/insurmountable in the beginning. but as with anything else, it gets much easier over time as long as the work and effort is there. e.g. "programming is too hard". but in reality EVERYTHING is "too hard". nothing is easy. nothing is black and white. etc.
The way the wikileaks thing went down made me want to grow dreadlocks and become a marxist.
This guy comes out and contributes to what the press should have been doing the last 10 years, and what happens? The cable news networks spend all their time talking about his "motivations" and how "anti-american" he is or isn't. Or who on the washington circuit is saying he's anti-american and how that fits into the political gossip column. What about the damned cables!?
I realize not all HN readers support Wikileaks. I used it as an example b/c it is one of the few controversial entities left to support (or not). Pretty much everyone opposes slavery, hunger, etc.
I do, I'm sure there are many who do. You shouldn't be ashamed of standing up for truth (unless, of course, you feel that doing so is causing more harm than good, and there's the rub, but I feel Wikileaks is on the whole a force for good, and the world is better off with it than without).
Just as an example of someone of prestige and integrity, standing up for Wikileaks and kicking ass while doing so (on national television), is Ray McGovern, "former high-ranking CIA official":
Is it the responsibility of intellectuals to cheer-lead for Hezbollah? To label a Holocaust denier and anti-semite "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort"? To minimise the Cambodian genocide?
You say that you are "less a fan of lies ... or false conclusions... ". Thus, I will be charitable and conclude that, rather than willfully mischaracterizing what I wrote and ignoring the evidence for it, you simply didn't read it very carefully.
1) "chomsky doesn't "cheerlead for hezbollah"
"Chomsky hails Hezbollah on TV" (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=36210): 'Hosted by Hezbollah, leftist professor Noam Chomsky ended his visit to Lebanon with a tour of Al-Khiam Prison where he declared the terrorist group's success in removing Israel from the south was "a victory for all the peoples that fight injustice and oppression."
In a broadcast by Hezbollah's Al Manar television Sunday, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Chomsky was shown embracing Hezbollah leader Nabil Qauq at Al-Khiam, where Israel kept prisoners during its occupation of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah was credited with liberating the area after Israel withdrew in 2000.'
2) "chomsky doesn't deny the holocaust"
I didn't say that Chomsky denied the Holocaust. But he engages in apologetics for those who do, specifically Robert Faurisson, who he knew denied the Holocaust yet termed him a "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" and referred respectfully to his work as "extensive historical research."
3) "chomsky isn't an anti-semite"
I didn't say that Chomsky is an antisemite, but again, he throws in his lot with blatant antisemites. For example, Chomsky praised the Israel Shahak, a bizarre Israeli antisemite (really) who propagated slanders such as ""both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshipping God... but on the other he is worshipping Satan." Chomsky praised Shahak on the cover of the book in which this quote appeared as "an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge" and went on to say "[h]is work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value."
You may dislike Chomsky for whatever reasons and that is your prerogative†. However, putting to one side that you have issues with the messenger, what do you think about this one particular issue? Do you agree with the sentiment?
Besides, I think you may be veering off-topic and just using this brief chance to get the boot in. That type of opportunism is unhelpful, distracting and poisonous.
I personally believe that this topic (the responsibility of intellectuals) touches upon an issue that troubles me a huge amount. Assume that one isn't an intellectual but that you have gone out of your way to discover the truth about the world around you and how your government and other governments act. Assume that you have developed a layer of cynicism, skepticism, mistrust, and now have a healthy wariness of propaganda. If you do not act on this knowledge, how culpable are you with respect to the actions of your representatives? Do you donate to just causes that try to prevent or undo the harm done to others in your name? Do you sign petitions? Do you write your representative? Do you organize meetings to talk about these issues? Do you protest on the street? Do you write articles and books? Do you run for office? I do none of these things and I _hate_ myself for it. I feel that I have done the easy part, I have made myself informed - it is our responsibility to get informed and I have done that part. But the responsibility must go further or society won't change - we get a nation of informed but glassy eyed proles. I am that prole and it saddens me greatly.
† but I'd sure avoid chatting to you at a cocktail party :) haha, joke! No I'm sure you're a lovely person really.
I'll take a couple of examples of where Chomsky and the left wing position (that I've read) is strange. (Any reader might want to skip to "And so on.")
The condemnations of US foreign policy is weird. Consider that countries (including democracies) implement realpolitik. And all (I know of) lie about it.
It is ridiculous to condemn a group (US) for playing a game where their lives are at stake and acting like the other players. Instead, note that the game is bad -- and how it could be changed (implement more democracies).
For a second example, I'll take Israel. I'll compare it to Bangladesh.
Even with an extreme description of Israel in 1948, the treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh has been much worse for much longer (the Hindus are also citizens, not in the middle of a civil war without an existing country. Etc).
No one cares! (Well, the Hindus driven away care. And the ones lynching them.)
Israel can be condemned on some issues (which is natural, the country is under an existential threat). But to demonize only one side in a conflict when the other side arguably is factors of ten worse?! (Even with antisemitism in their state controlled/censured media!)
And so on.
On the other hand, Chomsky is for me like vim. People whose intellect I respect use vim instead of Emacs. Hence, there should be something in Chomsky.
What speaks against that argument is that even the intelligent followers tend to be idealists and believers regarding their political opinions. (-: Like, well, me and Emacs. :-)
Edit: I should note that I have to run some errands now and probably won't read answers until this evening.
re: US foreign policy, israel, bangladesh, etc.
see the vids i posted elsewhere in this thread here
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2051777
you're right about all your comments and questions
the main issue of confusion i find is that the conversation is all about "chomsky" or "chomsky's hidden intentions", rather than the actual facts/policies
it's like wikileaks/assange deja-vu all over again....
No time for videos, I'll try to remember to check after New Year. Maybe even the vim reference. :-)
I think it is quite clear, really. We seem to agree on that Chomsky isn't arguing honestly. We can end there, since Chomsky's exact motivation for writing propaganda isn't that interesting.
(And re WikiLeaks, see this fascionating little factoid:
re: wikileaks/guardian article
the article states this:
"While this does not affect the credibility of the WikiLeaks revelations..."
it's similar to what i mentioned above about attacking hidden motivations (i.e. discussing everything but the topics and matters at hand). the anti-semitic counsel is something important to investigate, but hopefully it's not being used to detract or deflect attention from the contents of the leaked documents.
chomsky is being pretty honest, while the interviewers (etc.) and the people (mis)characterizing him are being as disingenuous as one can possibly be. again, refer to the vids (the 3rd part is most relevant, plus it's only 7 mins long). would explain MANY of your questions and comments.
My point was that all countries use realpolitik and lie about it, even if democracies are nicer when it doesn't cost anything etc. (Wartime, including the cold war, tends to get moral considerations thrown out.)
It is propaganda to condemn a player morally for acting like everyone else in a game where survival literally is at stake. At a minimum you should talk carefully about the implications.
Also, I noted it is easy to give examples where other countries are much worse, without Chomsky or anyone else caring.
It seems like propaganda.
You wrote that you had no problem with that, you wrote in anothe comment that you are no fan of Chomsky -- and now you are the "opposite"??
you say "Also, I noted it is easy to give examples where other countries are much worse, without Chomsky or anyone else caring". if you watch the videos i mentioned you will get the reply you are looking for to this question and see that this claim is completely false.
thus also false is the claim of propaganda. all i can say is "watch the vids", and until you do there is no point in constantly repeating the above talking point since it's CLEARLY addressed and refuted in the vids mentioned.
again, now you're getting into the "hidden intentions" thing which is completely irrelevant with regards to my not being a fan of chomsky. all i can say is that the world is a complex place, some things i agree with and some things i disagree with. for me to say i'm a "fan" of chomsky is probably as (in)valid as saying that i'm "not a fan" of chomsky.
I got some time and finished this, posting after minimal rereading...
I was more interested in two other statements -- I now really think Chomsky is a propagandist.
A) 5:45, where he explained why he criticizes Israel more than all the other places which are much worse. "He can influence more", because he is American.
That is just not true. It doesn't explain his lack of attention on Sudan, which lacked attention from the international community, when murder/rape by the millions were taking place. If someone with Chomsky's weight had started to make speeches, it would have added needed attention. And probably saved, at a minimum, thousands of lives.
(That Chomsky statement doesn't help explain the total fixation on Israel by all the other left wingers with similar opinions in e.g. Western Europe... Where outright demonization of Israel is more or less standard.)
B) At one minute, Chomsky explains that there is no need to consider the existential threat, because Israel ignored a peace offer from Egypt in 1971... (Despite that Israel has peace with Egypt since a few decades, anyway!)
Whatever, with that an easy standard on blaming the victims, you can motivate anything -- based on what a government did a few generations ago, in a very different world!
(According to the Israeli side, Sadat gave other signals to PLO about supporting them and not really going for peace. I have no idea if that is true or not, neither has Chomsky.)
Democracies tend to go insane over terrorism and throw out human rights (GB, USA, Germany, Israel, etc) -- with Israel we talk about an existential threat…
Israel is the only present democracy with that, but look at different internment camps for civilians in the second world war (including Sweden, which threw lots of communists in jail because they took order from Moscow -- and Sweden wasn't even in the war!).
I am not defending putting people in camps -- I'm just noting that in a lot less threatening situation, most everyone was worse -- including my native Sweden.
In conclusion, I have a considered opionion now: Chomsky writes propaganda.
a def'n of propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." (dictionary.com). is this what you're claiming chomsky is doing? if so, what is the info he is spreading and whom is he trying to harm? i believe such a claim is VERY strong, and would fall under the area of mudslinging. it's a popular fox news tactic too.
A) he does NOT criticize israel more than other places (he says something similar many times elsewhere in the 3 vids). he is saying that as an american citizen, the places where the usa has an influence is where he feels he is most obligated to act. thus, if the situation in sudan is not a byproduct of usa policy, he feels the moral obligation is not as strong as in places where the usa has directly affected a region (middle east, south america, vietnam, etc.).
are you assuming that chomsky has said nothing about sudan?
i'm unsure what your critique here is. chomsky is on the record about making comments on (quick, abridged list): serbia/yugoslavia, venezuala, mexico, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, russia, germany, iraq, iran, syria, israel, palestine, lebanon, cuba, canada, usa, china, phillipines, korea, japan, south africa, haiti, honduras, east timor, tibet, india, pakistan, libya, turkey, indonesia, brazil, egypt, jordan, georgia, colombia, cambodia, australia, etc.
another factor: chomsky is american. thus is it "propaganda" if the majority of his writings concern america? isn't this acceptable? the same concern with the fact that he's jewish and has personal ties to israel. thus why is it considered "problematic" if the majority of his words and thoughts concern the 2 things he is a part of? (he even mentions this at 2:00).
further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole. i'm going to ignore that comment. i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole where the demonization of anyone that disagrees with them as more or less standard.
B) by "existential threat", are you referring to "israel's right to exist is questioned"?
i'll also ignore the "sadat and plo" unicorns-are-real statement, since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not.
i'm unsure what the rest of your points are referring to. and i don't see how they support your "chomsky writes propaganda" thesis. it's a very weak thesis (i'm being generous). propaganda involves the spreading of misinformation ("lies" if you will). the only point you've brought up is that "chomsky focuses too much on israel" (he doesn't) and "ignores sudan" (again, wrong). i fail to see the connection to propaganda.
Discussion is over? Well, I guess it ended before the last two comments, since...
tl;dr You didn't answer my arguments based on your reference -- and avoided the same point Chomsky did.
I should also add...
I wrote: "(That Chomsky statement doesn't help explain the total fixation on Israel by all the other left wingers with similar opinions in e.g. Western Europe... Where outright demonization of Israel is more or less standard.)"
The answer: further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole.
That was a non sequitor to what I wrote, since I obviously talked about the many left extremists with similar opinions and that they demonize Israel -- not claiming all left wing extremists agree (But I have seen few disagree.)
I don't think that was a mistake, since you failed to answer my arguments -- and wrote childish insults and fantasies about my opinions. That is not only a lack of arguments, it is a lack of integrity. Or bad trolling, from what looks like a troll account.
i'm missing the references here. see my other post as to what you perceive i'm not addressing.
what were the childish fantasies and insults you are referring to?
thnx for more mud slinging about calling this a "troll account" just because i disagree with you or am trying to shed some light to your original question. it really adds to the conversation. and i agree, childish insults and fantasies should best be ignored.
Oh please, I use it here to mean "non-serious argument to influence opinions".
What other term would you suggest?
Re Sudan... Arguably, even using a Palestinian description of Israel, Sudan is a thousand times worse.
My point was that some attention from Chomsky on that subject could have saved at least thousands of lives. You don't have anything relevant?
>>he is saying that as an american citizen, the places where the usa has an influence is where he feels he is most obligated to act.
No. Note that I am quoting YOUR reference...
What he said, see time in the video above, was that he could do less about Sudan. I argued that was wrong, see previous paragraph.
You didn't even try to argue against my point.
>>further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole.
It is certainly a generalization, but hardly hyperbole. Do you want a long list of examples from all major left wing media in my native country?
>> i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole
You might want to note that I limited myself to West Europe, which I know a bit about. Also, wtf?!
>>since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not.
Note that you totally disagreed with Chomsky here, if you watch what I referenced.
He thought there is no need to make considerations for being under really hard pressure because Israel didn't accept a proposal 40 years ago. He can't know how serious that proposal was assumed to be.
You totally ignored this, my other point.
Then I discuss where you end up if you consider how countries function under existential threats. Arguably, Israel is better than most.
Chomsky won't touch that subject - you don't want to, either.
>>very weak thesis
In that case, why couldn't you give relevant answers to my arguments? You even misquoted Chomsky on what he said in the video you linked to youself...
And that type of defense of Chomsky is quite fun with your claim of not being a fan... :-)
hi berntb,
thnx again for the time to reply. upvoted you again.
re: propaganda.
if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. which term you should have used is a concern for you, not for me. if you aren't using the correct terms to convey what you are trying to say then there is no way i can help you choose the appropriate words since i have no idea what it is you mean. basically, operate on the safe side of things and don't throw labels around if you're unsure about what you're trying to convey.
chomsky is participating in a "non-serious argument"? are you serious? and he is trying to "influence opinions"? again, really? do you seriously stand by these accusations? if so, you'll have to provide evidence for these accusations. otherwise you're participating in further hyberbole.
sudan is a 1000 times worse. yes, even chomsky said that in the vids (if not a million times worse). so you agree with chomsky. no one is arguing that.
you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. how can you come up with a correlation between chomsky talking about something and having saved sudanese lives??? how can he have saved one life, or 1 million? as mentioned, chomsky made comments in the past about the bombing of an american pharmaceutical company. how many 1000s of sudanese lives did those comments save? i believe you're overestimating chomsky's influence on the political arena here.
and further, how do you know chomsky has not discussed sudan? my initial take (why this thread started) is that you were not aware that chomsky discussed anything but israel. we've already established that is a false conclusion (as long as you don't perform the experiment, you can pretend every conclusion is true).
re: quoting my reference. i'm unclear what you're referring to here. what reference of mine are you quoting? i must have missed the point (therefore not provide a comment on it)?
re: "all left wingers" and hyperbole.
by "all left wingers" i interpreted that as not just "all left wingers in sweden" (i have no idea what the left in sweden is like, probably in a similar way that you might not have an idea as to what the left is like in other countries). and it might appear to you that ALL demonize israel. if you're willing to admit that you're overgeneralizing then i'm willing to retract my claim of hyperbole.
i had no idea you were limiting your comments to a subset of people you were referring to. i agree with "wtf", because my comment was a reflection of my reaction to your overgeneralization. the statement was intended to be ironic.
re: "no one knows whether it's true or not" about sadat and the plo.
i'm missing something here. where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky.
i wasn't ignoring anything. i stated i wasn't clear about the rest of your points were in regards to (e.g. i didn't understand what you meant by "existential threats"). i'm asking you to clarify them if you can.
unsure what you mean by "israel is better than most" as well. i'm happy to touch any subject (i can't speak for chomsky tho). i just don't understand the subject you want me to touch.
which arguments did i not address and i'll be happy to address them? i think you're being VERY disingenuous here by saying i'm avoiding anything. you don't know me well enough at all to sling mud my way. that's not cool.
keep in mind, i'm NOT arguing here, just having a discussion and hoping everyone is clarifying what they are interpreting. if i'm wrong or misinformed, i'd GLADLY revise my statements or opinions. it's part of the learning process. hopefully you, and everyone else, would do the same when presented with new perspectives on the way they view life.
what did i misquote of chomsky from the vid? (you're going to have to be much clearer in your claims/accusations since this conversation is getting pretty nested.)
again, i'm not a fan of chomsky. i'm not sure what else you want me to say about that. the discussion began with "chomsky focuses on israel and ignores everything else", to which i replied that it was a good observation, and provided a video which addresses that concern.
You are just writing lots of text twice without touching my arguments -- from a previously unused account. You seem like a troll.
I'll go over my original simple points about your video again, then I'll stop feeding you.
>>if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term.
AGAIN: "Propaganda" is not a good term for (quote of me) "non-serious argument to influence opinions"? What other term would you suggest?
>>you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers.
You do know, you're trolling. Your still haven't written anything relevant to the original simple point:
A) 5:45, where he explained why he criticizes Israel more than all the other places which are much worse. "He can influence more", because he is American.
That is just not true. It doesn't explain his lack of attention on Sudan, which lacked attention from the international community, when murder/rape by the millions were taking place. If someone with Chomsky's weight had started to make speeches, it would have added needed attention. And probably saved, at a minimum, thousands of lives.
>>where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky.
You have still not addressed my second point:
B) At one minute, Chomsky explains that there is no need to consider the existential threat, because Israel ignored a peace offer from Egypt in 1971... (Despite that Israel has peace with Egypt since a few decades, anyway!)
I'll go over this a THIRD time:
At one minute, the journalist talks about the literal threat to existence -- start listening at 45 seconds if you really don't get it. When discussing the threat to existence of Israel, the interviewer says: "If you listen to what [Hamas, etc] say, there is an immediate threat to Israel".
Chomsky doesn't touch that or the history of wars trying to eradicate Israel etc -- he starts talking about an Egypt peace offer in 1971!!
(That is both damn long ago to judge a present time -- and also ignoring that none of us know how serious that peace offer was thought to be. Which is a side point.)
My point is that Chomsky didn't touch the status of being under an existential threat. Then I discussed what that means:
Democracies tend to go insane over terrorism and throw out human rights (GB, USA, Germany, Israel, etc) -- with Israel we talk about an existential threat… [Edit: Which is obviously factors of ten worse than terrorism. Just to be clear]
Israel is the only present democracy with [an existential threat], but look at different internment camps for civilians in the second world war (including Sweden, which threw lots of communists in jail because they took order from Moscow -- and Sweden wasn't even in the war!).
To be absolute clear: When discussing a country's behaviour, you really should consider the situation(!). Israel doesn't seem extreme to me, compared to e.g. Sweden or any other democracy.
Was THAT really so hard to understand, that you had to write walls of text twice? Hardly.
I'll comment myself, to say that I'll probably not check for an answer, because if you haven't answered my reactions to your video reference by now, you won't do it.
I always get this experience when reading/hearing Chomsky.
First I notice something weird, like point "A)" above:
What... Chomsky says he could not influence the atrocities in Sudan?! What the Hell, it would have major impact if the foremost academic critic of USA/Israel said in multiple speeches: "Darfur/South Sudan is a total genocide that must be stopped -- and the muslim world is pure evil when supporting the Sudan junta!". There is obviously a high probably that would have saved lots of lives.
I write this -- and don't get a serious answer, like e.g. "A point, Chomsky is full of sh-t there" -- or "Wrong, that was incomplete source about Chomsky's position. See X and Y".
Instead, you Chomskyists/trolls refuse to understand what I write and/or write flames and/or write large text blocks on trivialities.
(Was that the third or fourth time I explained that trivial point? Never mind...)
Some of the most murderous dictators in recent century were celebrated by Western intellectuals - Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. There's nothing about being an "intellectual", whatever this means, that makes you a better judge of reality.
Which is what Chomsky points out constantly in his writings -- how often Western "intellectuals" cheer and march under the drum beat of government propaganda, when one would expect them to expose and challenge the lies.
Celebrated by intellectuals with a vested interest in the outcome. Chomsky is talking about the other intellectuals that should see through this and make noise.
It's not a responsibility of intellectuals, it's a responsibility of individuals to think critically about what they are being told and for the most part ignore appeals to ethos and pathos. In theory the sophists were wrong, but in practice they were right. Assume that when a person speaks it is for their own personal benefit. Most people are talking their book.
i agree with the first half. tho not necessarily with the second. i have no idea where the illusion that writing books is a way to "get rich quick" came from. more like "get rich never".
People who only have time to make ends meet usually only 'recycle' quotes by intellectuals and those in power, they go with the accepted as they cannot afford to think about it deeper.
I'm sure Chomsky acknowledges that. Even more back in the time he wrote the article, access to information and having the time to disseminate it was very uncommon. Which is why it is important that the people who have such a luxury use it responsibly.
There have been scenes, areas and movements of popular intellectualism in the past. The Lower East Side in the 1910's for instance.
I think Chomsky is an incredible political analyst and thinker, and I appreciate the work he's done immensely. But I think it's important also to consider how important it is that we do not separate ourselves or others from "The Intellectuals", that we don't acquiesce to a certain academic dilettantism instead of building a culture of intellectualism for ourselves and others.
The major steps towards that are to first drop any pretense that intellectualism comes from a specific context, whether academia, the middle classes, white, male, etc. Wholeheartedly adopt, instead, the idea that anybody can and should be encouraged towards intellectualism.
In short, replace The Intellectual, with a culture of intellectualism.
Secondly, to encourage the importance of facts, the complexity of the world, and infinity of ideas. Intellectualism doesn't thrive when people choose strict ideologies, and argue them stubbornly. Instead, encourage people to accept being wrong, to revel in it, even, and to put their ideas up to scrutiny like a scientist.
The internet puts us in an incredible point in history where facts are non-exclusive. We have all the facts we could ever need, and it's gotten easier and easier to locate them. This major barrier to being an intellectual, historically provided by academia, is almost completely gone. It's time we learned how to move forward with the rest of it.