4 ms·

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 di

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
      hi berntb. i upvoted your reply for the analysis. a def'n of propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." (dictionary.com). is this what you're claiming chomsky is doing? if so, what is the info he is spreading and whom is he trying to harm? i believe such a claim is VERY strong, and would fall under the area of mudslinging. it's a popular fox news tactic too. A) he does NOT criticize israel more than other places (he says something similar many times elsewhere in the 3 vids). he is saying that as an american citizen, the places where the usa has an influence is where he feels he is most obligated to act. thus, if the situation in sudan is not a byproduct of usa policy, he feels the moral obligation is not as strong as in places where the usa has directly affected a region (middle east, south america, vietnam, etc.). are you assuming that chomsky has said nothing about sudan? i'm unsure what your critique here is. chomsky is on the record about making comments on (quick, abridged list): serbia/yugoslavia, venezuala, mexico, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, russia, germany, iraq, iran, syria, israel, palestine, lebanon, cuba, canada, usa, china, phillipines, korea, japan, south africa, haiti, honduras, east timor, tibet, india, pakistan, libya, turkey, indonesia, brazil, egypt, jordan, georgia, colombia, cambodia, australia, etc. and yes, chomsky has made commentary regarding sudan. further, it is consistent with what i mentioned above: he has public comments about the american bombing of a pharmaceutical company in sudan. see here at 0:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grqPwqwoOcA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grqPwqwoOcA lots more info here: http://www2.math.uic.edu/~takata/WorldTradeCenter/WTC_Articles/bombing_Sudan_1998.html http://www2.math.uic.edu/~takata/WorldTradeCenter/WTC_Articl... another factor: chomsky is american. thus is it "propaganda" if the majority of his writings concern america? isn't this acceptable? the same concern with the fact that he's jewish and has personal ties to israel. thus why is it considered "problematic" if the majority of his words and thoughts concern the 2 things he is a part of? (he even mentions this at 2:00). further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole. i'm going to ignore that comment. i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole where the demonization of anyone that disagrees with them as more or less standard. B) by "existential threat", are you referring to "israel's right to exist is questioned"? i'll also ignore the "sadat and plo" unicorns-are-real statement, since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not. i'm unsure what the rest of your points are referring to. and i don't see how they support your "chomsky writes propaganda" thesis. it's a very weak thesis (i'm being generous). propaganda involves the spreading of misinformation ("lies" if you will). the only point you've brought up is that "chomsky focuses too much on israel" (he doesn't) and "ignores sudan" (again, wrong). i fail to see the connection to propaganda.

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
    hi berntb. i upvoted your reply for the analysis. a def'n of propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." (dictionary.com). is this what you're claiming chomsky is doing? if so, what is the info he is spreading and whom is he trying to harm? i believe such a claim is VERY strong, and would fall under the area of mudslinging. it's a popular fox news tactic too. A) he does NOT criticize israel more than other places (he says something similar many times elsewhere in the 3 vids). he is saying that as an american citizen, the places where the usa has an influence is where he feels he is most obligated to act. thus, if the situation in sudan is not a byproduct of usa policy, he feels the moral obligation is not as strong as in places where the usa has directly affected a region (middle east, south america, vietnam, etc.). are you assuming that chomsky has said nothing about sudan? i'm unsure what your critique here is. chomsky is on the record about making comments on (quick, abridged list): serbia/yugoslavia, venezuala, mexico, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, russia, germany, iraq, iran, syria, israel, palestine, lebanon, cuba, canada, usa, china, phillipines, korea, japan, south africa, haiti, honduras, east timor, tibet, india, pakistan, libya, turkey, indonesia, brazil, egypt, jordan, georgia, colombia, cambodia, australia, etc. and yes, chomsky has made commentary regarding sudan. further, it is consistent with what i mentioned above: he has public comments about the american bombing of a pharmaceutical company in sudan. see here at 0:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grqPwqwoOcA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grqPwqwoOcA lots more info here: http://www2.math.uic.edu/~takata/WorldTradeCenter/WTC_Articles/bombing_Sudan_1998.html http://www2.math.uic.edu/~takata/WorldTradeCenter/WTC_Articl... another factor: chomsky is american. thus is it "propaganda" if the majority of his writings concern america? isn't this acceptable? the same concern with the fact that he's jewish and has personal ties to israel. thus why is it considered "problematic" if the majority of his words and thoughts concern the 2 things he is a part of? (he even mentions this at 2:00). further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole. i'm going to ignore that comment. i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole where the demonization of anyone that disagrees with them as more or less standard. B) by "existential threat", are you referring to "israel's right to exist is questioned"? i'll also ignore the "sadat and plo" unicorns-are-real statement, since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not. i'm unsure what the rest of your points are referring to. and i don't see how they support your "chomsky writes propaganda" thesis. it's a very weak thesis (i'm being generous). propaganda involves the spreading of misinformation ("lies" if you will). the only point you've brought up is that "chomsky focuses too much on israel" (he doesn't) and "ignores sudan" (again, wrong). i fail to see the connection to propaganda.