6 ms·

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 sor

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? [Refs: http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol_1.html http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol_1..., http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000155.html http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000155.htm..., http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html, http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/ExtremistPolReg.html http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/ExtremistPolReg.html] If so, then Chomsky -- the idiot-savant of the American far-left -- discharges his responsibility admirably. Being lectured by Chomsky on the responsibility of intellectuals is like being lectured on humanitarianism by Stalin. Members of the Chomsky cult may now begin sputtering...

babeKnuth 16y ago
disclosure: i'm not a chomsky fan disclosure++: i'm less a fan of lies or mudslinging or false conclusions or character assassinations with that said.... chomsky doesn't "cheerlead for hezbollah" chomsky doesn't deny the holocaust chomsky isn't an anti-semite the "criticisms" are similar to what the interviewer here keeps repeating (and constantly ignoring his answers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM7IFBIfQ1M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM7IFBIfQ1M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSBFt-xtpBY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSBFt-xtpBY
- shmulkey18 16y ago
  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 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."
  - babeKnuth 16y ago
    hi shmulkey18, thnx for the replies and the research. did you watch the vids i linked to? i placed them there because they refute/clarify all the claims/mischaracterizations you mentioned and linked to. i can't force you to watch them, but i'll help you out even further: 1) in vid 1, at 4:15 in vid 1, at 3:30 in vid 2, at 0:45 2) and 3) in vid 2, at 2:55 enjoy
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
igravious 16y ago
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.
berntb 16y ago
I more or less agree with you re Chomsky. 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). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_Property_Act_%28Bangladesh%29#Professor_Barkat.27s_seminal_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_Property_Act_%28Banglade... 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.
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  hi berntb, re: US foreign policy, israel, bangladesh, etc. see the vids i posted elsewhere in this thread here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2051777 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.... full disclosure: i use emacs (with vimpulse). and i also try to use vim whenever possible as well. and if you want your mind blown by vim: http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/11/screencast-custom-vim-refactorings.html http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/11/screencast-custom-vim-re...

babeKnuth 16y ago

disclosure: i'm not a chomsky fan disclosure++: i'm less a fan of lies or mudslinging or false conclusions or character assassinations with that said.... chomsky doesn't "cheerlead for hezbollah" chomsky doesn't deny the holocaust chomsky isn't an anti-semite the "criticisms" are similar to what the interviewer here keeps repeating (and constantly ignoring his answers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM7IFBIfQ1M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM7IFBIfQ1M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSBFt-xtpBY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSBFt-xtpBY

shmulkey18 16y ago
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 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."
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  hi shmulkey18, thnx for the replies and the research. did you watch the vids i linked to? i placed them there because they refute/clarify all the claims/mischaracterizations you mentioned and linked to. i can't force you to watch them, but i'll help you out even further: 1) in vid 1, at 4:15 in vid 1, at 3:30 in vid 2, at 0:45 2) and 3) in vid 2, at 2:55 enjoy
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

igravious 16y ago

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.

berntb 16y ago

I more or less agree with you re Chomsky. 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). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_Property_Act_%28Bangladesh%29#Professor_Barkat.27s_seminal_work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vested_Property_Act_%28Banglade... 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.

babeKnuth 16y ago
hi berntb, re: US foreign policy, israel, bangladesh, etc. see the vids i posted elsewhere in this thread here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2051777 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.... full disclosure: i use emacs (with vimpulse). and i also try to use vim whenever possible as well. and if you want your mind blown by vim: http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/11/screencast-custom-vim-refactorings.html http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/11/screencast-custom-vim-re...