Live data from Hacker News

Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

antonyloewenstein.com

81–90 of 98 posts

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#81

Unsurprisingly, non-Americans take exception to American exceptionalism. America is literally pulling a, "We're better than you so we can violate any of your laws - including our own - and then murder, torture & kidnap. We are sovereign over the entire world." Few non-Americans think that's a swell idea, so it will only last as long as American power lasts. If you agree with Chomsky or not or if you think American po…

Every nation is sovereign as to every other nation. The implication of that is that every nation reserves the right to do whatever it wants to other nations. As in the state of nature, the only governing law between nations is power. America is unexceptional in this regard, they just have most of the power. But if you see how other major nations treat countries in their back yard, it becomes clear that power really is the only governing law. America's back yard is just bigger.

As an aside, I've always found Chomsky's continued association with one of the major pillars of the defense industrial complex, MIT, rather hypocritical. Maybe he could move to a university that doesn't take a billion dollars in DOD money every year, if he's so critical of it...

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#82
post #63
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

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.

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#83
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you honestly think other nations don't do the same? Treating the U.S. as an exceptional case in this regards is just ridiculous.

Yeah, us New Zealanders have kidnapped lots of US citizens and handed them over for torture in opposition of own laws. We've established an overseas prison explicitly to hold people who would have rights if we imprisoned them locally. But, you know, it's cool : all states do the same thing.

don't be so smug. It almost happened, with kim dot com.

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, us New Zealanders have kidnapped lots of US citizens and handed them over for torture in opposition of own laws. We've established an overseas prison explicitly to hold people who would have rights if we imprisoned them locally. But, you know, it's cool : all states do the same thing.

don't be so smug. It almost happened, with kim dot com.

Though one could argue there is a big difference between "actually has and is continuing to be so" and "almost, maybe, kinda, sorta"

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#85
post #59
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from Brazil, he is not formally taught at schools, but I heard many geography and history teachers mention or cite him.

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 t…

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...

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#87
What's with the "nothing to hide" meme? Has there been any research on it? Is it a product of meritrocratic naïveté, Facebook signalling, consumerism, media or another combination? It seems like a great way to have a compliant, feeble populace dependent on others for protection.

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#88
post #79
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what "American Exceptionalism" means? What do you think is wrong with that characterisation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

Approximately all of it is wrong. The USA is exceptional precisely because it's the most powerful, and nothing more.

That's what you're claming American think, or that's what you think?

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#89
post #66
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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 ow…

>> 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..."

Re: Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy

#90

Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time. The man has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by voicing his thoughts. Too bad he is getting up there in age but hopefully we will enjoy his presence for many more years.

I agree that his linguistic and academic contribution is of the highest order, but I'm not so sure about his political analysis.

Here are his comments in 1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."

And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."

Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where the truth lies'?

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html

Post reply on HN