Live data from Hacker News

The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

nybooks.com

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

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.

> 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.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 comp…

> Moderate left voices are not featured in the current media landscape

The point still stands. Parallel to vying for mainstream news attention, leftists have podcasts like rightists; more should start these, and in them hold debates with centrists and rightists.

> “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.

Don't blame the media for that. "Abolish ICE" sounds like "end immigration enforcement". Although the left has a credibility problem on immigration, because they downplayed Biden's lax immigration policy (there's a lot that mainstream news hasn't covered), so I suspect changing the message would hurt more than help them. Most outsiders will assume the left supports mass immigration, but they can be moved to the left by other policies (like lowering grocery prices) and Trump wrecking the US.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Truth exists and matters. Even for far-away events like news, where "truth" is impossible to prove beyond doubt like hard science. Even for informally-defined concepts like justice, where "truth" is ambiguous and partly subjective. There are answers for the former that are more probable, and for the latter that resonate with more people, and those tend to correlate with the answers that are more conducive to whatever…

[flagged]

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truth exists and matters. Even for far-away events like news, where "truth" is impossible to prove beyond doubt like hard science. Even for informally-defined concepts like justice, where "truth" is ambiguous and partly subjective. There are answers for the former that are more probable, and for the latter that resonate with more people, and those tend to correlate with the answers that are more conducive to whatever…

[flagged]

- There's clear evidence Biden won in 2020, like Trump won in 2024. Even Republicans conceded this, and Republican-led investigations found no wrongdoing.

- J6 happened and wasn't legal: you can't just walk into the White House and intimidate people, even without weapons. A rough analogy: imagine I walked into your house, started chanting and intimidating your family, then afterwards claimed I was "protesting" your home ownership.

- Russiagate was exaggerated. I'm confident that Russia is influencing US politics, but I wish the focus wasn't on who they're supporting, rather that they're trying to increase tensions so the US collapses inward (which they're succeeding at). Even if Putin did benefit Trump, it's not something he controls, so I don't feel it affects his viability; Putin endorsed Harris for 2024, and it didn't affect her viability.

- The MN Somali fraud seems to be real and is another Democrat embarrassment. I'm not yet convinced that it's $billions (or that this is real money as opposed to inflated valuations), only because Somalia's entire GDP is $8 billion; but I'm not convinced otherwise, and this is under (even state!) investigation so we'll probably get more info soon. Nonetheless it looks terrible, and I haven't heard a good response from Democrat politicians, although some ordinary left-leaning people admit it.

You're right that "The Narrative" is not the truth, and that matters too. You even left out a few things like the BLM riots and Hunter Biden.

But nowhere in the above comment did I mention The Narrative; I mentioned the (apparent) murder of Alex Pretti by ICE agents. And in this specific case, The Narrative appears to be aligned with the truth, as evidenced by the multiple videos.

Furthermore, I hold that Trump's Narrative is generally far less aligned with the truth than The Narrative (AFAIK the left hasn't posted a photoshopped image of a suspect, or claimed something as extreme as that Hatians were "eating cats and dogs", among many other examples). And that matters. It would be ideal for both political parties to be as close to objective as possible, but I believe in the long run, their lies and spin hurt them both.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#55

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…

[dead]

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Yet, we are bombarded with easily-falsifiable claims (“assassin”) by government officials and ridiculously-framed accounts (“officer-involved shooting”) from certain news outlets. This sort of contrarianism is especially grating given the amount of distancing from social responsibility occurs here as a forum of what should be mostly intellectuals. Put differently, intellectuals and technologists wield more power to e…

Those exposing the truth have been variously crucified for millenia.

The purported "intellectuals" are more (or less) helpful in this regard.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

- There's clear evidence Biden won in 2020, like Trump won in 2024. Even Republicans conceded this, and Republican-led investigations found no wrongdoing. - J6 happened and wasn't legal: you can't just walk into the White House and intimidate people, even without weapons. A rough analogy: imagine I walked into your house, started chanting and intimidating your family, then afterwards claimed I was "protesting" your h…

The Narrative is used as a truth suppository.

I'm skeptical regarding there being two distinct political parties. That seems a happy façade papering over much deeper issues.

Here on HN, one can relate the Constitution as a script that has not scaled well when put on a globally facing server.

The question is how to keep the "good" individual liberty parts while migrating toward something that is more stable in an international setting.

All the while having diabolically false mainstream media plays occurring continuously.

And no, I don't believe a godforsaken thing pertaining to the 2020 election.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#58
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes sense if you are ok with your life making the world a worse place. Other people want to try and make it nicer.

Get off your high horse. This person bled for their country and once their service ended, was discarded without a second thought. They are entitled to feel the way they feel and have earned the privilege to voice their outrage. It is our duty to listen.

Whats the high horse? Was there anything illogical or even exaggerated in what I've written?

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#60
post #11

I would say that one has as much responsibility to society, as that society accepts for the individual. As a previously homeless veteran, I'd say that is zero. Why should intellectuals, or in fact anyone have any duty to help a system that doesn't help them? Now I know a lot of people will grandstand and say that if people just started taking on responsibility, then that would improve the system so that it would help…

> I'd say that is zero. That's your society, not all societies. People, veterans or not, aren't homeless in mine.

I can only speak for the society I live in, Australia. I'm glad you perceive yours (wherever that is) to be doing much better. I hope you use that privilege to enrich your fellow man instead of just bragging online.
Post reply on HN