7 ms·
Talks at Google: Noam Chomsky [video]
- theplatapi 9y agoChomsky wrote the foreword to a French book denying the Holocaust and spoke at the headquarters of Hezbollah - an internationally recognized terror group - amoung other asinine things. Why does anyone respect this guy?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- joshuamorton 9y agoYour comment inspired me to look this up: > The scandal largely dealt with the inclusion of an essay by American linguist Noam Chomsky, entitled "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression", as an introduction to Faurisson's book, without Chomsky's knowledge or approval. Emphasis mine.
- alacombe 9y agoFalse, Chomsky did originally grant permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair]
- gizmo686 9y agoSince we are talking about it, here[0] is Chomsky's writing in question. I'll just leave the paragraph from wikipedia here: >Chomsky granted permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. Serge Thion and Pierre Guillaume then used it as a preface when publishing a book by Faurisson, without Chomsky's knowledge.[9] Later Chomsky requested that the essay not be used in this manner, since he believed the French intellectual community was so incapable of understanding freedom of speech that it would only confuse them further, but his request came too late for the book to be changed.[9] Chomsky subsequently said that asking for the preface to be removed is his one regret in the matter.[9] [0] https://chomsky.info/19801011/ https://chomsky.info/19801011/
- alacombe 9y agoBecause it is not up to the State to legislate what constitute the historical truth. Moreover, this whole mess gave Robert Faurisson airtime on national TV, and made him look like a martyr. This is the last thing you want from such person. Let holocaust deniers and KKK member distribute pamphlet at intersection or self publish their book, that going to be the biggest audience they'll ever have. By going after them, you encourage them in their quest and prove their conspiracy theory right. Same goes with provocateur ala Milo whose only success is based on thin skinned SJW.
- 0xFFC 9y agoBTW US army has killed far more innocent people than Hezbollah (has Hezbollah ever killed any innocent people?). Would be acceptable if we call US army terrorist army?
- RealityNow 9y agoBecause he's one of the most prominent, influential, and cited intellectuals of our generation.
- krona 9y agoPerhaps your generation. Of those things that gave him prominence and influence, they were done decades before I was born. The guy is a linguist. I wish he would stick to what he's good at.
- rantanplan 9y ago> I wish he would stick to what he's good at Thankfully he didn't follow your advice, hence he revolutionized every domain he touched. You really should read more about his contributions to various disciplines.
- RealityNow 9y agoI'm in my 20s. What's amazing is that his commentary on politics, economics, and international relations is just as relevant now as it was back then.
- no2empire 9y agoFaurisson was sentenced to jail for "denying the Holocaust" as you put it. Chomsky believed Faurisson had the right of free speech "even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi" as Chomsky's statement said. Chomsky said to use his statement as wished, and it was put as the preface of a Faurisson book. When people ask him about this Chomsky says he has signed hundreds of free speech petitions and free speech should not be removed just because he disagrees with the person, citing Thomas Jefferson. Some people believe in free speech, some think people with certain critical views of Nazi era nationality policy towards Jews should be jailed. In the USA, the free speech view tends to win, and this is where Chomsky is from. Hezbollah has 12 MPs in the Lebanese parliament. It represents the interests of a section of Shia in Lebanon, many of whom were driven from their homes in Palestine in 1948 by Jewish settlers, and are now barred from returning home (whereas a Jew from anywhere in the world is allowed to settle in the West Bank). The PFLP is "terrorist", Hamas is "terrorist", Hezbollah is "terrorist", the PLO is "terrorist", the DFLP is "terrorist" - anyone who fights back against Zionist (or sometimes American) aggression is labeled a "terrorist". Hezbollah was formed because Israel invaded Lebanon and began killing Shia there (or letting their helpers do so in Sabra and Shatila). Hezbollah arose to defend the Shia from this foreign invasion.
- auganov 9y agoRight, "terrorist" is a pretty relative term. Organizations calling for genocide of the Jewish people, descendants of those who tried, or allies of such. That's a mouthful but much more fitting.
- throwaway_32475 9y agoThe section on Hezbollah in this comment contains a ton of factual errors. >Hezbollah has 12 MPs in the Lebanese parliament. It represents the interests of a section of Shia in Lebanon, So far so good >many of whom were driven from their homes in Palestine in 1948 by Jewish settlers, and are now barred from returning home (whereas a Jew from anywhere in the world is allowed to settle in the West Bank). Nope, you're confusing Palestinians and Shia Lebanese. Not a single Shia was driven from their home by the creation of Israel in 1948. Hezbollah does not represent Palestinians in Lebanon (who were driven out in 1948) because they are not citizens of Lebanon, despite being born there at this point. >The PFLP is "terrorist", Hamas is "terrorist", Hezbollah is "terrorist", the PLO is "terrorist", the DFLP is "terrorist" - anyone who fights back against Zionist (or sometimes American) aggression is labeled a "terrorist". Is blowing up a Jewish center in Beunos Aires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing) or killing 22 school children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre) "fighting back against Zionist aggression"? >Hezbollah was formed because Israel invaded Lebanon and began killing Shia there (or letting their helpers do so in Sabra and Shatila). Again, you are confusing Palestinians with Shias. Sabra and Shatila was a Palestinian refugee camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
- MichaelMoser123 9y agoAnother problem is his position/denial of the Cambodian genocide by Khmer Rouge. What does Chomsky nowadays say on this matter? Does he acknowledge that his judgement was wrong? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
- nemonemo 9y agoChomsky is by no means a saint, but in the wikipedia article you cited, I could not locate any direct "denial" of genocide done by Khmer Rouge. He seems to have questioned the credibility of certain accounts, which seems a necessary role of any reasonable intellect. It was 1970s, so information from the other side of the globe was harder to confirm. To me, it seems quite understandable for someone to raise questions around any information that outrageously deviates from the norm, which is the case for the activity done by Khmer Rouge.
- jondubois 9y agoI agree, it's better to risk doubting the truth than to risk believing lies. Once you believe something, it's harder to go back because you start stacking stuff on top.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- contingencies 9y agoWe do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered That sounds pretty balanced to me.
- varjag 9y agoWould you allow the same middle ground fallacy for Holocaust?
- anotherbrownguy 9y agoMaybe because Holocaust is mostly based on Soviet and US war propaganda than anything else?
- thaw13579 9y agoI wish someone more interested and prepared could have conducted the interview, but the talk is worth watching anyway.
- contingencies 9y ago20:00 has an interesting snippet where Chomsky relates the breakdown of working class cultural institutions and education then takes a stab at Google (one gets the sense the real audience response was edited heavily in post production).
- Veratyr 9y agoI don't think I see what you see... "And they may not have gone to school. They certainly didn't go to Oxford, but the working class, the rising working class, had its own institutions of education and culture, which was significant. A lot of that has been destroyed in all kinds of ways. Google doesn't help." Maybe there's some extra context in the minutes prior that gives this a different meaning but it sounds to me like he's saying that Google changed the way the middle class accesses information, which has destroyed the old ways. I did go back 20 or so seconds and he mentions that they read books, which I think backs this up somewhat (they used to go to libraries, now they don't need libraries, they have Google). And the laughter doesn't sound edited to me, though there's clearly a cut there.
- gkya 9y agoNope, he wasn't referring to google at all until the end of the video.
- Frogolocalypse 9y agoThe world will lose one of the great modern-day thinkers when Chomsky is no longer with us. It's hard to fathom how he remains such a clear thinker at his age.
- demonshalo 9y agoHis contribution to linguistics is definitely great and no one can take that from him. But to call him a great modern-day thinker is a bit of a stretch.
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago> Chomsky is voted world's top public intellectual https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/18/books.highereducation https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/18/books.highered... It's not an uncommon assertion.
- loceng 9y agoWho would you consider great modern-day thinkers?
- Frogolocalypse 9y agoHey, if you haven't read any of his books, I would recommend it some time. He has a mind like a steel trap. His books are meticulously researched, and he has a sad dry humor. But what you also get is hope. I've always felt that the reason he does what he does, is because we can point to openness, and draw a clear line between today and the past. Not recognizing what we do in the world leads to barbarism. The world has been rejecting barabarism consistently for centuries. Even a century ago, in america, the discrimination was horrendous. It is better because democracy allows us to question the implementation of government. And he asks the big questions.
- k1m 9y agoThe last part is great: Khalil: "It's not every day that a non-Googler gets to sit in a room full of people who work at Google, and are software engineers, and are advertising experts, and are you know market experts in different fields. Do you have anything that you'd like to ask us?" Chomsky: "Why not do some of the serious things?" :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=59m21s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=59m21s
- aptidude187 9y agoWhat does he mean by that? Can you elaborate please?
- n3x10e8 9y agoAs a context just before that NC was explaining how advertising leads to distortion in rational decision making which is the basis for all of the current economic free market system.
- Vinalin 9y agoI think it's in the same vein as the quote by Jeff Hammerbacher: “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads”.
- sideshowb 9y agoAnd the other final part so great I gave it it's own thread ;-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14701008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14701008
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y agoUsually I find needless jabs like these in bad taste, but looking at how pompously the question was worded, I think it was well deserved here. If he'd just said—is there something you want to ask this room full of Googlers?, it would be okay.
- mistermann 9y agoThis is in my opinion one of the most important and relevant to current events Chomsky excerpts that I've ever seen: Noam Chomsky - Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy https://youtu.be/uh8PpYRD5to?t=152 https://youtu.be/uh8PpYRD5to?t=152 (Starts at 2:35, "and then a third thing happened..."; personally, I would suggest ignoring the various TV clips spliced in as that to me seems like the projections of the politics of the editor of the video and not necessarily the specific idea Chomsky himself intends to convey.) To me this illustrates how those who actually "control" things in the US and the world have split those who should be allies into two camps. The perfect weapon in this strategy is the "proper" and well-intended anti-racist propaganda Westerners have been subject to for decades - combined with the dulling of the average Western mind to the point many are near incapable of critical thinking, the result is that perfectly common sense public discussions on incredibly important matters such as international trade and immigration can largely be stopped in their tracks by cries of "racism!"...and even better, the ones who are being most harmed, the younger generations of the (former) middle class, are the very ones who are stopping the dialogue that affects their future! Human nature is really amazing if you step back and observe it critically.
- varjag 9y agoIt's a perfect example of the modern far-left and far-right convergence. Both have anti-globalist agenda, contempt for human rights and only slight disagreement over who exactly has to be eliminated for peoples' better life. Only now they were able to peacefully face off over the Internet and like each other's tweets.
- mistermann 9y agoThe far left has an anti-globalist agenda? What do you mean by "contempt for human rights" in this scenario? "who exactly has to be eliminated for peoples' better life." - what do you mean by eliminated? And who are the candidates?
- keymone 9y ago> Chomsky explains his decision to focus on criticizing the U.S. over other countries as being because, during his lifetime, the country has militarily and economically dominated the world, and because its liberal democratic electoral system allows for the citizenry to exert an influence on government policy. chomsky is incredibly smart and i love listening to what he has to say and agree with most of it, but this focus on criticizing US is definitely not one of them. i get the argument, but he's either blind to or doesn't care that his well intended criticism is more effective as a political tool in hands of enemies of the liberal democratic system which he supposedly wants to succeed. not saying that US must not be criticized, it just feels very disproportionate compared to the amount of injustice and atrocities in other parts of the world. hell, on a majority of this planet's surface chomsky would have been disappeared long time ago for the kind of criticizm he directs at US - is that not a reason to begin your every speech with "keep in mind, matters are very much worse pretty much everywhere else but...".