3 ms·

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

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...

berntb 16y ago
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: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec... )
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  ha. i'm actually positing the opposite. :) 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.
  - berntb 16y ago
    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"?? Out the door again.
    - babeKnuth 16y ago
      hi berntb, 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.
    - babeKnuth 16y ago
      i'll also save you some time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo start watching at 4:30
      - berntb 16y ago
        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.
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  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.

berntb 16y ago

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: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec... )

babeKnuth 16y ago
ha. i'm actually positing the opposite. :) 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.
- berntb 16y ago
  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"?? Out the door again.
  - babeKnuth 16y ago
    hi berntb, 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.
  - babeKnuth 16y ago
    i'll also save you some time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZ33Z483yo start watching at 4:30
    - berntb 16y ago
      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.
babeKnuth 16y ago
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.