[berntb]

I started to read up on Chomsky a couple of times but didn't get far.

The first time, I saw his opinions re USA's/NATO's intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. It just seemed like conspiracy theories, especially when I googled and found his apologetics for the Khmer Rouge (before they were found to be massmurding crazies).

The second time, I got a link to a Chomsky interview. I got shocked -- Chomsky claimed that he didn't talk about the Sudan atrocities, because he couldn't influence much. WTF?! If the most famous academic US-critic, beloved by dictators, publicly condemned the Darfur handling etc by Sudan's government as 1000 times worse than what he complained about Israel, it would have an effect...

I wrote Chomsky off as another effect of the US right/left being equally crazy. Here in Europe we mostly get the left crazies, so he is big. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe. It seems to me Chomsky argues by (correctly) noting that governments lie a lot -- then he comes with really weird explanations to what really happens.

[lukifer]

Chomsky has always been open about the fact that he believes the moral thing to do is criticize and scrutinize one's own nation and government first, because that is where you have the highest possibility of influence.

Despite being atheist/agnostic, he takes this principle straight from the Bible: "How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:4-5

[berntb]

>> one's own nation and government first, because that is where you have the highest possibility of influence.

(Chomsky is probably bigger outside USA. E.g. the Milosevic regime was a big fan.)

I don't really care why an analysis have very different standards for different countries/companies/etc, that just isn't a quality sign... It doesn't seem more serious if the double standards are motivated by "Hey, I'm a self-hater..."

[lukifer]

Criticism is not hate. It is criticism. It can come from friends, enemies, or yourself.

Also, Chomsky has always been severely critical of authoritarian and violent regimes across the world; the reason he has focused disproportionally on American regimes is due to the moral principle I referenced above.

[berntb]

A recap seems correct here:

1. I point out that Chomsky's motivation for not engaging in Sudan's problems (no influence) are just not serious; his involvement would have very probably made a big difference and potentially saved many lives.

2. You claim that Chomsky think it is more important to complain about USA. (+)

3. I answer that I don't really care why someone has double standards for different groups/countries/religions/etc.

4. You play linguistic games with half of a term I use ("self-hater").

5. I say bye bye.

(+) Not relevant anyway, except as a form of explanation of why, not an argument Chomsky's position was serious.

[alecco]

You have information bias. US mainstream media reported widely on Chavez praising Chomsky and Chomsky condemning US foreign policy towards Venezuela. But years later, Chomsky denounced the arrest of journalists in Venezuela but this time it wasn't US MSM news worthy.

[berntb]

1. I wrote that I was from Europe, so your conspiracy theories about US mainstream media trying to make him look bad isn't applicable.

2. I discussed an interview with Chomsky, where he himself discussed why he didn't criticize X. I noted his motivation was just not rational/true/etc. So your Venezuelan claims about an example are doubly irrelevant.

[falk]

Just because you don't think something is plausible doesn't mean you should denigrate it by calling it a conspiracy theory. I don't know exactly what you're talking about so it's hard for me to research it.

For example, the CIA helps traffic opium/heroin across the world. That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_South...