[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.