3 ms·

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

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.

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.