9 ms·

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,

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
>>def'n of propaganda Oh please, I use it here to mean "non-serious argument to influence opinions". What other term would you suggest? Re Sudan... Arguably, even using a Palestinian description of Israel, Sudan is a thousand times worse. My point was that some attention from Chomsky on that subject could have saved at least thousands of lives. You don't have anything relevant? >>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. No. Note that I am quoting YOUR reference... What he said, see time in the video above, was that he could do less about Sudan. I argued that was wrong, see previous paragraph. You didn't even try to argue against my point. >>further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole. It is certainly a generalization, but hardly hyperbole. Do you want a long list of examples from all major left wing media in my native country? >> i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole You might want to note that I limited myself to West Europe, which I know a bit about. Also, wtf?! >>since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not. Note that you totally disagreed with Chomsky here, if you watch what I referenced. He thought there is no need to make considerations for being under really hard pressure because Israel didn't accept a proposal 40 years ago. He can't know how serious that proposal was assumed to be. You totally ignored this, my other point. Then I discuss where you end up if you consider how countries function under existential threats. Arguably, Israel is better than most. Chomsky won't touch that subject - you don't want to, either. >>very weak thesis In that case, why couldn't you give relevant answers to my arguments? You even misquoted Chomsky on what he said in the video you linked to youself... And that type of defense of Chomsky is quite fun with your claim of not being a fan... :-)
- babeKnuth 16y ago
  hi berntb, thnx again for the time to reply. upvoted you again. re: propaganda. if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. which term you should have used is a concern for you, not for me. if you aren't using the correct terms to convey what you are trying to say then there is no way i can help you choose the appropriate words since i have no idea what it is you mean. basically, operate on the safe side of things and don't throw labels around if you're unsure about what you're trying to convey. chomsky is participating in a "non-serious argument"? are you serious? and he is trying to "influence opinions"? again, really? do you seriously stand by these accusations? if so, you'll have to provide evidence for these accusations. otherwise you're participating in further hyberbole. sudan is a 1000 times worse. yes, even chomsky said that in the vids (if not a million times worse). so you agree with chomsky. no one is arguing that. you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. how can you come up with a correlation between chomsky talking about something and having saved sudanese lives??? how can he have saved one life, or 1 million? as mentioned, chomsky made comments in the past about the bombing of an american pharmaceutical company. how many 1000s of sudanese lives did those comments save? i believe you're overestimating chomsky's influence on the political arena here. and further, how do you know chomsky has not discussed sudan? my initial take (why this thread started) is that you were not aware that chomsky discussed anything but israel. we've already established that is a false conclusion (as long as you don't perform the experiment, you can pretend every conclusion is true). re: quoting my reference. i'm unclear what you're referring to here. what reference of mine are you quoting? i must have missed the point (therefore not provide a comment on it)? re: "all left wingers" and hyperbole. by "all left wingers" i interpreted that as not just "all left wingers in sweden" (i have no idea what the left in sweden is like, probably in a similar way that you might not have an idea as to what the left is like in other countries). and it might appear to you that ALL demonize israel. if you're willing to admit that you're overgeneralizing then i'm willing to retract my claim of hyperbole. i had no idea you were limiting your comments to a subset of people you were referring to. i agree with "wtf", because my comment was a reflection of my reaction to your overgeneralization. the statement was intended to be ironic. re: "no one knows whether it's true or not" about sadat and the plo. i'm missing something here. where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky. i wasn't ignoring anything. i stated i wasn't clear about the rest of your points were in regards to (e.g. i didn't understand what you meant by "existential threats"). i'm asking you to clarify them if you can. unsure what you mean by "israel is better than most" as well. i'm happy to touch any subject (i can't speak for chomsky tho). i just don't understand the subject you want me to touch. which arguments did i not address and i'll be happy to address them? i think you're being VERY disingenuous here by saying i'm avoiding anything. you don't know me well enough at all to sling mud my way. that's not cool. keep in mind, i'm NOT arguing here, just having a discussion and hoping everyone is clarifying what they are interpreting. if i'm wrong or misinformed, i'd GLADLY revise my statements or opinions. it's part of the learning process. hopefully you, and everyone else, would do the same when presented with new perspectives on the way they view life. what did i misquote of chomsky from the vid? (you're going to have to be much clearer in your claims/accusations since this conversation is getting pretty nested.) again, i'm not a fan of chomsky. i'm not sure what else you want me to say about that. the discussion began with "chomsky focuses on israel and ignores everything else", to which i replied that it was a good observation, and provided a video which addresses that concern.

berntb 16y ago

>>def'n of propaganda Oh please, I use it here to mean "non-serious argument to influence opinions". What other term would you suggest? Re Sudan... Arguably, even using a Palestinian description of Israel, Sudan is a thousand times worse. My point was that some attention from Chomsky on that subject could have saved at least thousands of lives. You don't have anything relevant? >>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. No. Note that I am quoting YOUR reference... What he said, see time in the video above, was that he could do less about Sudan. I argued that was wrong, see previous paragraph. You didn't even try to argue against my point. >>further, your "all other left wingers" and "demonization of israel" is extreme hyperbole. It is certainly a generalization, but hardly hyperbole. Do you want a long list of examples from all major left wing media in my native country? >> i find all right wingers to participate in extreme hyperbole You might want to note that I limited myself to West Europe, which I know a bit about. Also, wtf?! >>since as you say, no one knows whether it's true or not. Note that you totally disagreed with Chomsky here, if you watch what I referenced. He thought there is no need to make considerations for being under really hard pressure because Israel didn't accept a proposal 40 years ago. He can't know how serious that proposal was assumed to be. You totally ignored this, my other point. Then I discuss where you end up if you consider how countries function under existential threats. Arguably, Israel is better than most. Chomsky won't touch that subject - you don't want to, either. >>very weak thesis In that case, why couldn't you give relevant answers to my arguments? You even misquoted Chomsky on what he said in the video you linked to youself... And that type of defense of Chomsky is quite fun with your claim of not being a fan... :-)

babeKnuth 16y ago
hi berntb, thnx again for the time to reply. upvoted you again. re: propaganda. if you didn't mean to refer to chomsky as a "propagandist" then you obviously shouldn't have used that term. which term you should have used is a concern for you, not for me. if you aren't using the correct terms to convey what you are trying to say then there is no way i can help you choose the appropriate words since i have no idea what it is you mean. basically, operate on the safe side of things and don't throw labels around if you're unsure about what you're trying to convey. chomsky is participating in a "non-serious argument"? are you serious? and he is trying to "influence opinions"? again, really? do you seriously stand by these accusations? if so, you'll have to provide evidence for these accusations. otherwise you're participating in further hyberbole. sudan is a 1000 times worse. yes, even chomsky said that in the vids (if not a million times worse). so you agree with chomsky. no one is arguing that. you claim chomsky could have saved 1000s of lives if he discussed sudan. i have no idea where you came up with these numbers. how can you come up with a correlation between chomsky talking about something and having saved sudanese lives??? how can he have saved one life, or 1 million? as mentioned, chomsky made comments in the past about the bombing of an american pharmaceutical company. how many 1000s of sudanese lives did those comments save? i believe you're overestimating chomsky's influence on the political arena here. and further, how do you know chomsky has not discussed sudan? my initial take (why this thread started) is that you were not aware that chomsky discussed anything but israel. we've already established that is a false conclusion (as long as you don't perform the experiment, you can pretend every conclusion is true). re: quoting my reference. i'm unclear what you're referring to here. what reference of mine are you quoting? i must have missed the point (therefore not provide a comment on it)? re: "all left wingers" and hyperbole. by "all left wingers" i interpreted that as not just "all left wingers in sweden" (i have no idea what the left in sweden is like, probably in a similar way that you might not have an idea as to what the left is like in other countries). and it might appear to you that ALL demonize israel. if you're willing to admit that you're overgeneralizing then i'm willing to retract my claim of hyperbole. i had no idea you were limiting your comments to a subset of people you were referring to. i agree with "wtf", because my comment was a reflection of my reaction to your overgeneralization. the statement was intended to be ironic. re: "no one knows whether it's true or not" about sadat and the plo. i'm missing something here. where did chomsky discuss sadat and the plo in the vid? can you give me a rough time in the vid? i watched at the 1:00 mark and didn't see that mentioned. i'm unsure about what i'm disagreeing with chomsky. i wasn't ignoring anything. i stated i wasn't clear about the rest of your points were in regards to (e.g. i didn't understand what you meant by "existential threats"). i'm asking you to clarify them if you can. unsure what you mean by "israel is better than most" as well. i'm happy to touch any subject (i can't speak for chomsky tho). i just don't understand the subject you want me to touch. which arguments did i not address and i'll be happy to address them? i think you're being VERY disingenuous here by saying i'm avoiding anything. you don't know me well enough at all to sling mud my way. that's not cool. keep in mind, i'm NOT arguing here, just having a discussion and hoping everyone is clarifying what they are interpreting. if i'm wrong or misinformed, i'd GLADLY revise my statements or opinions. it's part of the learning process. hopefully you, and everyone else, would do the same when presented with new perspectives on the way they view life. what did i misquote of chomsky from the vid? (you're going to have to be much clearer in your claims/accusations since this conversation is getting pretty nested.) again, i'm not a fan of chomsky. i'm not sure what else you want me to say about that. the discussion began with "chomsky focuses on israel and ignores everything else", to which i replied that it was a good observation, and provided a video which addresses that concern.