5 ms·

Sidenote, and I may get down-voted heavily for saying this, because he's got plenty of "cred" on so many different fronts, but Noam Chomsky always struck me as

Sidenote, and I may get down-voted heavily for saying this, because he's got plenty of "cred" on so many different fronts, but Noam Chomsky always struck me as a hypocrite when it came to his economic and political thinking for taking a pension supported by the $13 billion MIT endowment, which is surely generating money through many of the practices disparaged both in this article and Chomsky's own beliefs.

Mikeb85 11y ago
So does that mean no one's allowed to criticize their employer? Or to encourage them to do better? Besides, I doubt his pension is much more (if any) than is typical in his profession...
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  That's my point: I hear him criticizing the military industrial complex, but I haven't heard of him penning a letter to the MIT Board of Trustees, soliciting the support of current and emeritus faculty to join him as the undersigned, to divest from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and the like. If I've missed it, do point me to it and I'll recant.
  - avar 11y ago
    I don't think he's done that, but what possible use would that be even if it work? Talk about raging against the smallest possible cog in the machine. He objects to the present practices of the US military industrial complex, if he managed to make MIT not take their money someone else would and nothing would change. Trying to do this via MIT's budget would be a pointless distraction to achieving his stated goals.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Fair enough. Noam Chomsky says a lot of things, I would have figured he'd have criticized his employer at least a few times. A quick search finds he has criticized universities for various things...
ThrustVectoring 11y ago
>"Divestment is likely to have negligible financial impact on the affected companies. And such a strategy would diminish the influence or voice we might have with this industry." http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2013/fossil-fuel-divestment-statement http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2013/fossil-fuel-dives...
- chishaku 11y ago
  "The evidence from South Africa suggests that divestment, while ineffective in a financial sense, can have an impact by shaping public discourse. If universities across the country divested from fossil fuels, this would again be the case." http://www.iop.harvard.edu/does-divestment-work http://www.iop.harvard.edu/does-divestment-work
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    while ineffective in a financial sense So practically speaking, no.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
danharaj 11y ago
It's perfectly rational for Chomsky to stay on board because the expected benefit to his goals from divesting from the system is much less than the expected benefit from staying within the system and criticizing it. Doing things on principle can be irrational.
hiddencost 11y ago
Hypocrisy is such a boring & irrelevant criticism in most contexts. His critical theory is much more important than his practice. He has to survive in the world that exists, not the one he wishes existed. There's really minimal value in such a symbolic gesture as rejecting a pension, and criticizing his ideas on such irrelevant grounds takes away from actually talking about the issues raised.
- pm90 11y ago
  This is a very good point, I have kind of accepted your point, but never thought of it explicitly this way. So now I wonder: Richard Stallman could probably have done a lot more for Software Freedom by living a less rigid life. Although, part of me is kinda glad that there is at least ONE person who does try to live like he does.
- spriggan3 11y ago
  > His critical theory is much more important than his practice. People should also do what they preach. And acknowledge their own bias and hypocrisy which Chomsky never does. He does like you, dismisses any criticism as "irrelevant" and that's why nobody can debate with Chomsky, there is no discussion.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    People should also do what they preach. Why? If one is issuing mandates from a position of authority, I agree that following what one imposes on others is essential, but in intellectual discussion one should be free to argue a position and its opposite the next minute. Anything less is downright dangerous for the group and society as a whole. We can't depend on the half-dozen cranks that actually live their lives swimming against the tide to argue for everything that is truly different, nor should we trust their arguments just because they turn their crackpot theories into practice.
  - hiddencost 11y ago
    It's an ad hominem, it's irrelevant. Engage with the theory if you want to a meaningful discussion. I'm not being dismissive because I don't want to deal with criticism, I'm being dismissive because it's not criticism of the content.
pklausler 11y ago
I read this comment, and then the article, and was surprised that it was not written by Chomsky and didn't even mention him. So why bring him up?
hackuser 11y ago
It's a useful point that Chomsky benefits from the same system, but, 1) Generally everyone is part of the system they criticize. The other choice is to go off the grid, in which case you would never hear their opinions. What was the last thing you read by one of those non-hypocritical people? 2) For that and many other reasons, including that we all are fallible humans, everyone is a hypocrite including you and including me.
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  But you and I are not taking speaker fees, book royalties, or garnering fame and awards, i.e. directly profiting by the _appearance_ of being against these things, but not leading in any substantive way that befits someone we might reasonably say is an influencer and a leader. Has he even solicited for a formal letter of protest to the university? What about a refusal to appear? If we apply the "well, my sacrifice won't hurt anyone but me" logic to everyone, a billion tiny pursuers of self-interest will continue to keep the system propped up. Is it any consolation that the CEO of BP is an environmentalist in his personal beliefs but acceptable that he followed his stock option incentives to keep costs down by cutting corners on quality checks that cost 11 lives and massive pollution in the gulf of Mexico? I'm not saying it's not an understandable and unfortunate reality that our personal benefit might run counter to our ideals, but that it's less than honest of someone to profit from that stasis on the assumed grounds of having superior insight and moral standing. If there's too much good to be gained from the current system for anyone to give it up, then it might not be all that bad and much more nuanced, if we're going to be honest with ourselves, whereas the vilification is actually counterproductive, as it keeps us from a fuller understanding and movement toward a solution.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
We're all hypocrites. Reality is stubborn in that way.
- spriggan3 11y ago
  But some refuse to acknowledge their bias and their hypocrisy. That's the issue here.

Mikeb85 11y ago

So does that mean no one's allowed to criticize their employer? Or to encourage them to do better? Besides, I doubt his pension is much more (if any) than is typical in his profession...

lr4444lr 11y ago
That's my point: I hear him criticizing the military industrial complex, but I haven't heard of him penning a letter to the MIT Board of Trustees, soliciting the support of current and emeritus faculty to join him as the undersigned, to divest from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and the like. If I've missed it, do point me to it and I'll recant.
- avar 11y ago
  I don't think he's done that, but what possible use would that be even if it work? Talk about raging against the smallest possible cog in the machine. He objects to the present practices of the US military industrial complex, if he managed to make MIT not take their money someone else would and nothing would change. Trying to do this via MIT's budget would be a pointless distraction to achieving his stated goals.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Fair enough. Noam Chomsky says a lot of things, I would have figured he'd have criticized his employer at least a few times. A quick search finds he has criticized universities for various things...

ThrustVectoring 11y ago

>"Divestment is likely to have negligible financial impact on the affected companies. And such a strategy would diminish the influence or voice we might have with this industry." http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2013/fossil-fuel-divestment-statement http://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2013/fossil-fuel-dives...

chishaku 11y ago
"The evidence from South Africa suggests that divestment, while ineffective in a financial sense, can have an impact by shaping public discourse. If universities across the country divested from fossil fuels, this would again be the case." http://www.iop.harvard.edu/does-divestment-work http://www.iop.harvard.edu/does-divestment-work
- ktRolster 11y ago
  while ineffective in a financial sense So practically speaking, no.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

danharaj 11y ago

It's perfectly rational for Chomsky to stay on board because the expected benefit to his goals from divesting from the system is much less than the expected benefit from staying within the system and criticizing it. Doing things on principle can be irrational.

hiddencost 11y ago

Hypocrisy is such a boring & irrelevant criticism in most contexts. His critical theory is much more important than his practice. He has to survive in the world that exists, not the one he wishes existed. There's really minimal value in such a symbolic gesture as rejecting a pension, and criticizing his ideas on such irrelevant grounds takes away from actually talking about the issues raised.

pm90 11y ago
This is a very good point, I have kind of accepted your point, but never thought of it explicitly this way. So now I wonder: Richard Stallman could probably have done a lot more for Software Freedom by living a less rigid life. Although, part of me is kinda glad that there is at least ONE person who does try to live like he does.
spriggan3 11y ago
> His critical theory is much more important than his practice. People should also do what they preach. And acknowledge their own bias and hypocrisy which Chomsky never does. He does like you, dismisses any criticism as "irrelevant" and that's why nobody can debate with Chomsky, there is no discussion.
- icebraining 11y ago
  People should also do what they preach. Why? If one is issuing mandates from a position of authority, I agree that following what one imposes on others is essential, but in intellectual discussion one should be free to argue a position and its opposite the next minute. Anything less is downright dangerous for the group and society as a whole. We can't depend on the half-dozen cranks that actually live their lives swimming against the tide to argue for everything that is truly different, nor should we trust their arguments just because they turn their crackpot theories into practice.
- hiddencost 11y ago
  It's an ad hominem, it's irrelevant. Engage with the theory if you want to a meaningful discussion. I'm not being dismissive because I don't want to deal with criticism, I'm being dismissive because it's not criticism of the content.

pklausler 11y ago

I read this comment, and then the article, and was surprised that it was not written by Chomsky and didn't even mention him. So why bring him up?

hackuser 11y ago

It's a useful point that Chomsky benefits from the same system, but, 1) Generally everyone is part of the system they criticize. The other choice is to go off the grid, in which case you would never hear their opinions. What was the last thing you read by one of those non-hypocritical people? 2) For that and many other reasons, including that we all are fallible humans, everyone is a hypocrite including you and including me.

lr4444lr 11y ago
But you and I are not taking speaker fees, book royalties, or garnering fame and awards, i.e. directly profiting by the _appearance_ of being against these things, but not leading in any substantive way that befits someone we might reasonably say is an influencer and a leader. Has he even solicited for a formal letter of protest to the university? What about a refusal to appear? If we apply the "well, my sacrifice won't hurt anyone but me" logic to everyone, a billion tiny pursuers of self-interest will continue to keep the system propped up. Is it any consolation that the CEO of BP is an environmentalist in his personal beliefs but acceptable that he followed his stock option incentives to keep costs down by cutting corners on quality checks that cost 11 lives and massive pollution in the gulf of Mexico? I'm not saying it's not an understandable and unfortunate reality that our personal benefit might run counter to our ideals, but that it's less than honest of someone to profit from that stasis on the assumed grounds of having superior insight and moral standing. If there's too much good to be gained from the current system for anyone to give it up, then it might not be all that bad and much more nuanced, if we're going to be honest with ourselves, whereas the vilification is actually counterproductive, as it keeps us from a fuller understanding and movement toward a solution.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

We're all hypocrites. Reality is stubborn in that way.

spriggan3 11y ago
But some refuse to acknowledge their bias and their hypocrisy. That's the issue here.