6 ms·

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear and accessible. With the assumption that intellectuals are “experts in ideas.” I say this because so many contemporary debates seem really mangled and unclear, which makes them basically impossible to solve intellectually. Instead they just turn into battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict. Unfortunately the academic system is explicitly designed to create specialists, not people that can effectively communicate to the Everyman.

SilverElfin 9mo ago
I agree with your suggestion, but I wonder if it is enough. Look at what happened today. Moments after the shooting, there was a coordinated campaign to flood the zone with misinformation. Twitter accounts for Trump, DHS (Kristi Noem), Vance, Miller all said someone tried to assassinate ICE officers and was shot in self defense. This was completely the opposite of what happened and given how quickly they put out these messages, they had no way of knowing either. They simply put it out there because no matter what, this is what they will say in response to an ICE shooting. It is a way of confusing the messaging and preventing their supporters from being convinced by anyone else or any evidence. Once their base form that initial opinion, it is very hard to change their mind. So will intellectually actually reach those people effectively? Remember, this base has been told to distrust the academics and distrust science and distrust the news media.
- keiferski 9mo ago
  I would describe events like that as: battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict. The deeper issue is immigration policy, which is a topic that displays the pattern I mentioned: no real attempt to solve the issue by addressing both sides/various parties, and instead boils it into an us-them struggle of political wills. The responsibility of intellectuals in this case should be IMO to clearly analyze the immigration debate and discuss the benefits, downsides, likely consequences etc. of various actions. But we don’t get that. Instead everyone just has an opinion already formed, including the intellectuals. And unfortunately unbiased rational approaches seem to lose (in money, attention) to the loud and opinionated. So as the problem gets more complicated, people get further and further away from actually solving it.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
    Unfortunately the well was poisoned for this debate when the Republican Party enacted a decades-long campaign of obstructionism and propaganda. No doubt, there are individuals who must be absolutely giddy with excitement that the very “crisis” that they managed to manufacture (both literally through legislative obstructionism, and figuratively through media capture and propaganda) is now the perfect excuse to grab power to enact an authoritarian regressive agenda instead of slowly sliding more progressive due to demographic drift. So, basically, my point is beware getting dragged into debates that clearly only benefit specific parties with specific agendas without first asking yourself more critical questions about the bigger picture.
    - armchairhacker 9mo ago
      I think reasonable immigration debate would benefit the left, or at least the anti-right. Many people want deportations but don’t like how Trump is doing them. And he doesn’t seem to be going after employers, which would be more effective. In fact, I think the lack of debate is really hurting today's left.
      - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
        > In fact, I think the lack of debate is really hurting today's left. Moderate left voices are not featured in the current media landscape. The Democrat party is, at best, centrist, if not currently undergoing a conservative transformation parallel to the Republican party’s reactionary transformation. And for that reason: > And he doesn’t seem to be going after employers, which would be more effective. this is a complete nonstarter. In any case, there are plenty of calls for reform from the left. “Abolish ICE” (like “Defund the police”) is not equivalent to “end immigration enforcement” (or likewise “end law enforcement”), even though the histrionics across the media landscape would have you believe that. It’s a core leftwing tenet (imho) that organizations that are rotten must be eliminated, and if appropriate, their leadership and members punished. New organizations can then step in to fulfill the role of the previous organization, sans rot. In that sense, “Many people want deportations but don’t like how Trump is doing them.” see more eye-to-eye with the “Abolish ICE” people than the media wants them to believe.
- godelski 9mo ago
  You're right, but also we shouldn't make it easy. The reason exterminate always go after academics is because they make things harder. The vast majority of academics could make more money than they do as a professor. The authoritarian relies on the religious nature of followers and it's harder for those followers to have faith when it's constantly being questioned. It's why your mental model of an authoritarian regime is where people are afraid to speak freely. You're right that the strategy is to confuse and overload. It's difficult to counter and I think you're exactly right to say "enough". We need to adapt to this strategy too. I think it's important to remember that truth has a lower bound in complexity but lies don't. They have an advantage because they can sell simplicity. We have the disadvantage when we try to educate. But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing. It's not easy. Even the biggest meathead who is as anti academic as they come will feel offended if you call them (or imply they're) stupid (are you offended if they call you weak?). We need a culture shift to accept not knowing things and that not knowing things doesn't make one stupid. I have a fucking PhD and I'm dumb as shit. There's so much I don't know about my own field, let alone all the others. I've put in a lot of hard work to be "smart", but the smartest people I know say "I don't know" and that's often the most interesting thing you can hear. It's no easy task to solve. Don't forget, we're a species that would rather invent imaginary invisible wizards than admit we don't know. We're infinitely curious but also afraid of the unknown.
  - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
    > But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing. Well-said, even if the sentiment is in-and-of itself somehow condescending. No way around it, really. To be fair, as well, there are an enormous number of people who do this already. They are educators, they are docents, they are civil servants. They quietly perform this task day in and out without much recognition or fanfare. The demonization of these people can’t be ignored, either. It’s as if their services run counter to the interests of those who put so much money and effort into that demonization…
    - godelski 9mo ago
smitty1e 9mo ago
The article was hilarious to me. To whom are we responsible? And who manages the "truth" supply? If we're assuming a postmodern stance that there is no objective truth, or even a utilitarian stance that truth is a consensus, then life is reduced to some extended chemical reaction, and there is no difference between a Stalin and a Mother Theresa. If one posits some religious definition of an objective truth, then at least there is a definition to measure against beside "Do as thou wilt". I'm not a huge Chomsky fan anyway. Despite his appeal to truth, he tends to ring false for me.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- smitty1e 9mo ago
  Saw the link to the full article below. Chomsky never gets around to a teleological argument as to why US intervention in Vietnam was wrong; it's all so much quoting and puffery.
  - geist67 9mo ago
    US involvement was unnecessary in Vietnam because unlike the Koreans, communist Vietnam hated China, and was in no danger of being their ally (puppet.) Mcnamara actually explained this at some point. That’s why we are allies with Vietnam today and not North Korea.
- tvink 9mo ago
  utilitarianism is when you add up the suffering. stalin made number go up, mother teresa made number go down. these are also not the only options.
  - smitty1e 9mo ago
    Nevertheless, whoever controls the definition of "suffering" is powerful.
- datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
Joel_Mckay 9mo ago
Sycophantic idealism mixed with political Brand analytical-blindness is incompatible with functional democratic processes. Verifiable facts are the core responsibility of the Scientific process, and a lot of people still fail that minimal standard. https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-signifi... Modern corruption is just unsustainable populist negligence, that coincidentally also collapsed many empires in history. Suggesting Academic bureaucracy is a functional Meritocracy is naive wishful thinking, and ignores why these structures usually still degenerate to merge with poorly obfuscated despotic movements. "Despotism" (1946) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w Have a great day, =3
geist67 9mo ago
[dead]

SilverElfin 9mo ago

I agree with your suggestion, but I wonder if it is enough. Look at what happened today. Moments after the shooting, there was a coordinated campaign to flood the zone with misinformation. Twitter accounts for Trump, DHS (Kristi Noem), Vance, Miller all said someone tried to assassinate ICE officers and was shot in self defense. This was completely the opposite of what happened and given how quickly they put out these messages, they had no way of knowing either. They simply put it out there because no matter what, this is what they will say in response to an ICE shooting. It is a way of confusing the messaging and preventing their supporters from being convinced by anyone else or any evidence. Once their base form that initial opinion, it is very hard to change their mind. So will intellectually actually reach those people effectively? Remember, this base has been told to distrust the academics and distrust science and distrust the news media.

keiferski 9mo ago
I would describe events like that as: battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict. The deeper issue is immigration policy, which is a topic that displays the pattern I mentioned: no real attempt to solve the issue by addressing both sides/various parties, and instead boils it into an us-them struggle of political wills. The responsibility of intellectuals in this case should be IMO to clearly analyze the immigration debate and discuss the benefits, downsides, likely consequences etc. of various actions. But we don’t get that. Instead everyone just has an opinion already formed, including the intellectuals. And unfortunately unbiased rational approaches seem to lose (in money, attention) to the loud and opinionated. So as the problem gets more complicated, people get further and further away from actually solving it.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
  Unfortunately the well was poisoned for this debate when the Republican Party enacted a decades-long campaign of obstructionism and propaganda. No doubt, there are individuals who must be absolutely giddy with excitement that the very “crisis” that they managed to manufacture (both literally through legislative obstructionism, and figuratively through media capture and propaganda) is now the perfect excuse to grab power to enact an authoritarian regressive agenda instead of slowly sliding more progressive due to demographic drift. So, basically, my point is beware getting dragged into debates that clearly only benefit specific parties with specific agendas without first asking yourself more critical questions about the bigger picture.
  - armchairhacker 9mo ago
    I think reasonable immigration debate would benefit the left, or at least the anti-right. Many people want deportations but don’t like how Trump is doing them. And he doesn’t seem to be going after employers, which would be more effective. In fact, I think the lack of debate is really hurting today's left.
    - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
      > In fact, I think the lack of debate is really hurting today's left. Moderate left voices are not featured in the current media landscape. The Democrat party is, at best, centrist, if not currently undergoing a conservative transformation parallel to the Republican party’s reactionary transformation. And for that reason: > And he doesn’t seem to be going after employers, which would be more effective. this is a complete nonstarter. In any case, there are plenty of calls for reform from the left. “Abolish ICE” (like “Defund the police”) is not equivalent to “end immigration enforcement” (or likewise “end law enforcement”), even though the histrionics across the media landscape would have you believe that. It’s a core leftwing tenet (imho) that organizations that are rotten must be eliminated, and if appropriate, their leadership and members punished. New organizations can then step in to fulfill the role of the previous organization, sans rot. In that sense, “Many people want deportations but don’t like how Trump is doing them.” see more eye-to-eye with the “Abolish ICE” people than the media wants them to believe.
godelski 9mo ago
You're right, but also we shouldn't make it easy. The reason exterminate always go after academics is because they make things harder. The vast majority of academics could make more money than they do as a professor. The authoritarian relies on the religious nature of followers and it's harder for those followers to have faith when it's constantly being questioned. It's why your mental model of an authoritarian regime is where people are afraid to speak freely. You're right that the strategy is to confuse and overload. It's difficult to counter and I think you're exactly right to say "enough". We need to adapt to this strategy too. I think it's important to remember that truth has a lower bound in complexity but lies don't. They have an advantage because they can sell simplicity. We have the disadvantage when we try to educate. But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing. It's not easy. Even the biggest meathead who is as anti academic as they come will feel offended if you call them (or imply they're) stupid (are you offended if they call you weak?). We need a culture shift to accept not knowing things and that not knowing things doesn't make one stupid. I have a fucking PhD and I'm dumb as shit. There's so much I don't know about my own field, let alone all the others. I've put in a lot of hard work to be "smart", but the smartest people I know say "I don't know" and that's often the most interesting thing you can hear. It's no easy task to solve. Don't forget, we're a species that would rather invent imaginary invisible wizards than admit we don't know. We're infinitely curious but also afraid of the unknown.
- datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
  > But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing. Well-said, even if the sentiment is in-and-of itself somehow condescending. No way around it, really. To be fair, as well, there are an enormous number of people who do this already. They are educators, they are docents, they are civil servants. They quietly perform this task day in and out without much recognition or fanfare. The demonization of these people can’t be ignored, either. It’s as if their services run counter to the interests of those who put so much money and effort into that demonization…
  - godelski 9mo ago

smitty1e 9mo ago

The article was hilarious to me. To whom are we responsible? And who manages the "truth" supply? If we're assuming a postmodern stance that there is no objective truth, or even a utilitarian stance that truth is a consensus, then life is reduced to some extended chemical reaction, and there is no difference between a Stalin and a Mother Theresa. If one posits some religious definition of an objective truth, then at least there is a definition to measure against beside "Do as thou wilt". I'm not a huge Chomsky fan anyway. Despite his appeal to truth, he tends to ring false for me.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
smitty1e 9mo ago
Saw the link to the full article below. Chomsky never gets around to a teleological argument as to why US intervention in Vietnam was wrong; it's all so much quoting and puffery.
- geist67 9mo ago
  US involvement was unnecessary in Vietnam because unlike the Koreans, communist Vietnam hated China, and was in no danger of being their ally (puppet.) Mcnamara actually explained this at some point. That’s why we are allies with Vietnam today and not North Korea.
tvink 9mo ago
utilitarianism is when you add up the suffering. stalin made number go up, mother teresa made number go down. these are also not the only options.
- smitty1e 9mo ago
  Nevertheless, whoever controls the definition of "suffering" is powerful.
datsci_est_2015 9mo ago

Joel_Mckay 9mo ago

Sycophantic idealism mixed with political Brand analytical-blindness is incompatible with functional democratic processes. Verifiable facts are the core responsibility of the Scientific process, and a lot of people still fail that minimal standard. https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-signifi... Modern corruption is just unsustainable populist negligence, that coincidentally also collapsed many empires in history. Suggesting Academic bureaucracy is a functional Meritocracy is naive wishful thinking, and ignores why these structures usually still degenerate to merge with poorly obfuscated despotic movements. "Despotism" (1946) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w Have a great day, =3

geist67 9mo ago

[dead]