examples of chomsky's argument here, the last big protest against imperialism in america was the anti-vietnam war movement. some intellectuals did risk careers and livelihoods for the cause, i'm sure noam remembers a few, but most chose nationalism over truth. the protesters, just like the ows movement were called 'communists" and beat over the head for criticizing imperialism and exercising their constitutional rights.
i'm sure bradley manning and julian assange would agree with this.
What 'Communist' positions do you think Noam takes? It's not good enough to call him a Communist and leave it at that, unless you wish to advocate McCarthyism of course.
I actually agree with much he says here. Much of news is blah and at best you have two parties in the US that fight for whatever the party believes. That goes for politiciams, writers/authors and intellectuals. Conservative vs. libberal. If that really exists. I am rather cynical about Chomsky though. From what I have seen he is pretty arrogant and is not always the most honest and does some of the same things he is criticizing here although he cannot inprison anyone.
damn i'm so glad he addressed this. tv journalism is so bland. just throw out headlines, read a teleprompter, impart on us their banal talking points, and have a guest "expert" on to hit a few softballs before the commercials which tell us how to give away our money.
i've been waiting to hear someone talk about "should we question motive?" it's a worthy discussion and rarely touched upon in our society regarding world affairs.
Chomsky does something way better than criticizing religious fundamentalism; he criticizes the causes of RF: Western imperialism, corporatism and capitalism.
What you're asking him to do is akin to asking a doctor to examine a cancer victim's coughing, as opposed to asking the doctor to examine the actual cancer itself. RF is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. Get rid of those three above things, and you get rid of religious fanaticism.
He touches on a vital issue at the end of this video. Think about how easily we are taught what's good and bad in history classes. For example: I had a very interesting conversation with a friend about a similar subject. I started it by stating that Hitler was probably not the insane monster we make him out to be. We can probably agree that he was a 'bad person', but to make him into a totem of evil is just irrational. However, she couldn't even imagine how I could say such an 'unfeeling' thing.
Christopher Hitchens was just a nobody leftist when he argued against US imperialism and the Iraq war in 1990. Now that he's a cheer leader for war and writing books against God (eg Islam) he's now considered "respectable" in the mainstream.
Sad how this sums up most of my political science professors. I watched videos like this, and read Chomsky before going to university, then you go and see for yourself just how conformist most of them are, and how easily you can spot the students that believe everything the professors say.
Something that might interest and/or amuse you is that the German 'intellectuals' who were so actively subservient to their Bismarckian welfare-warfare State upon Germany's entry into WW1 (I know it was the Kaiserreich then but the policies remained) were following in the PRECISE footsteps of their forebears in the Prussian universities that extolled Right-Hegelianism and Statolatry in all matters economic and social. They were the 'Vanguard (of their funding) House of Hohenzollern'!
Your statement is very interesting. Because many of Right-wing cry over the fact that how university professors are too Leftists and that Right-wing perceptions aren't being introduced. lol
@unorthodoxtrotsky My personal impression is that it's true certain fields are strongly dominated by left-wing, Marxian-leaning thought, such as Sociology, Political Economy or History (at least in my country- US historians may be more conservative) - but these are the non-important fields, whom nobody cares about except academics and students;
while other, more important fields that are used by policy makers, media commentators etc are different: economics is totally controlled by neoclassical free market fundamentalist ideology, (even though it's based on ridiculous assumptions like the perfect rationality of economic agents and unrealistic models that assume the average consumer to be some Harvard educated economist- it's laughable really), and political science isn't particularly right-wing but just very, very conformist.
As for the hard sciences they aren't politicized, i.e. they're actually scientific, unlike the social "sciences" (that is, except if you're part of the nuts who believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago or that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere won't lead to increasing the greenhouse effect- if you are then you're bound to find the hard sciences to have a liberal bias lol), though scientists tend to strongly uphold the progressive values of Enlightenment.
@Arkinight to suggest that "most" political science are from a certain view point can effect how the masses interpret the views or suggestions of even the most established of figures. this is also a suggestion that even the people dedicated to study in a particular field have not objective viewpoints, but ones that view not the situation.. but the percieved attitude of the public.
to me it points that mass culture or mass informing (media) penetrates to all corners of our society..
@Arkinight Agreed. Had the same professors trying to sell us Free-Trade Econ as "a progressive thing", "a need for development". Pretty pathetic these people have Phd's, huh?
@darkillity I don't think I have much credibility in answering that question. I was just referring to my own personal experience when I was at university and the dialogue and interchange I had with them. It obviously generalizes to much of North America since the course material is not something specific and would be used by a lot of institutions.
Generally though as a rule of thumb topics like economics, political science - and in many ways history - are not known for critical thinking.
@Arkinight I'm about to attend UC Davis soon and I'm reading a lot of Chomsky and Zinn. I recently went over Chomsky's "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" and it gave me the feeling that even intellectuals like liberal university professors are going to teach to the "standard line."
My economy teacher had a course with someone who's now the economic adviser of the liberal party in Canada (if they get elected, he'd be assigned to that department). The guy was very brilliant, very good with models and all.
However, like many people, he didn't have the intellectual criticism to understand models apply in specific conditions. My teacher replied to him once, he made him look like a fool and told him he was an idiot. Just to say, dissent exists!
There's also a guy I had in developmental psychology who explicitly told the students to be wary of people who always had big numbers on their report sheets because, given most teachers are imbecile, they give grades to themselves symbolically by tending to be softer on those who agreed with them. He spent the whole time encouraging people to bring original answers and to really bother understanding.
It's not a University, but it's just to say those people can be seen.
so I should be a sheep join the herd and not give my voice cause i may disagree with things, i would hope this man has herd of constructive criticism, i mean it not slander its merely giving insight to improve on situations, and also why a certain situation can be unreasonable. Submissive? Its sounds like this guy thinks that anyone who has an opinion should shut up and join the parade.
@greybird86 Wow, you taught me something about my self just now. The first time through I was just nodding my head to the words. It took a second playthrough for the picture to really sink in for me. Time to go and re-watch like 50 videos now!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Noam Chomsky oversimplifies the issue here. I think he's forgetting about a lot of dissenters who are recognized, just not normally during their prime. It takes some years for critics to become the main stream.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He was talking about critics not existing/being repressed. In today's culture critics are everywhere, even in intellectual culture i.e. not mainstream. :P
I think that what He's saying is wordsworth, but, in essence, get association with people in high places in the world's power structure. Join the powerful association.
Either do that, or become blacklisted. It's all rhetoric. But that's the way the world is. That's all the guy's saying.
I like to go fishing, sometimes. I share my catch with friends and eat a healthy share of the fish that I've caught.
You're right, though toolshed... critics get blacklisted and eventually shut down.
Criticism is tolerated to an extent in intellectual culture. But you don't criticize the power structures themselves, nor do you step too outside of the acceptable framework. When you do so you're no longer a part of the intellectual elite.
toolshed333, critics mus be heard when it matters. before the Iraq war, how many times did MSM allow someone on, say an international law expert, to explain that what Bush was planning was illegal? I didn't see it. Not on teh "liberal" media. One time on Fox I saw it raised and dismissed by the Fox pundit but other than that I didn't even see the issue discussed before the war.
First off, if you get your news from the mainstream networks, I can tell why you don't see many real critics, because it is all to politically correct and sidestepping insults.
Also, my point is the fact that critics do exist in times of need, but I agree with you that they are rarely given a stage when it would be most appropriate for them to have one.
A good example of this is how marginalized Ron Paul was in the presidential debates.
examples of chomsky's argument here, the last big protest against imperialism in america was the anti-vietnam war movement. some intellectuals did risk careers and livelihoods for the cause, i'm sure noam remembers a few, but most chose nationalism over truth. the protesters, just like the ows movement were called 'communists" and beat over the head for criticizing imperialism and exercising their constitutional rights.
i'm sure bradley manning and julian assange would agree with this.
tomitstube 1 week ago
There are three kinds of people in the world:
1) The vast majority who get offended when someone points out the obvious
2) The minority who listen when someone points out the obvious
3) The tiny few who *can* point out the obvious
Yes, Chomsky is the third type.
KapStuf 2 weeks ago
He's always best in his office!
zsaccomano4 3 weeks ago
What about the motivation of the Taliban or Al Qaida? Did Chomsky read the quran?
bhigr 3 months ago
He calls intellectuals submisive. LOL. I love this man.
derickburton 3 months ago
pompous windbag
mdp5002221 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Communist scum.
TheGoldenKing20 5 months ago
@TheGoldenKing20
What 'Communist' positions do you think Noam takes? It's not good enough to call him a Communist and leave it at that, unless you wish to advocate McCarthyism of course.
BelfastAtheist 3 months ago
I actually agree with much he says here. Much of news is blah and at best you have two parties in the US that fight for whatever the party believes. That goes for politiciams, writers/authors and intellectuals. Conservative vs. libberal. If that really exists. I am rather cynical about Chomsky though. From what I have seen he is pretty arrogant and is not always the most honest and does some of the same things he is criticizing here although he cannot inprison anyone.
MrBlackhaw 7 months ago
@MrBlackhaw What things that he criticises in this video does he do himself? This isn't a loaded question btw.
owenhunt 5 months ago
Noam Chomsky and Bertrand Russell are the greatest men ever.
nathfrancis01 8 months ago
@nathfrancis01
What about the Prophet(pbuh)?
vonkleve 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like the way he waves his hands!
tabibitosama 9 months ago
damn i'm so glad he addressed this. tv journalism is so bland. just throw out headlines, read a teleprompter, impart on us their banal talking points, and have a guest "expert" on to hit a few softballs before the commercials which tell us how to give away our money.
i've been waiting to hear someone talk about "should we question motive?" it's a worthy discussion and rarely touched upon in our society regarding world affairs.
drvn8 10 months ago
haha one of the pics was natzis got me fooled.
kotkee 10 months ago
Chomsky should criticize religious fundamentalists more than he does, he scarcely says a word about islamic fundamentalism.
beradification 1 year ago
@beradification
Chomsky does something way better than criticizing religious fundamentalism; he criticizes the causes of RF: Western imperialism, corporatism and capitalism.
What you're asking him to do is akin to asking a doctor to examine a cancer victim's coughing, as opposed to asking the doctor to examine the actual cancer itself. RF is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself. Get rid of those three above things, and you get rid of religious fanaticism.
brightsuperstition 1 year ago
He touches on a vital issue at the end of this video. Think about how easily we are taught what's good and bad in history classes. For example: I had a very interesting conversation with a friend about a similar subject. I started it by stating that Hitler was probably not the insane monster we make him out to be. We can probably agree that he was a 'bad person', but to make him into a totem of evil is just irrational. However, she couldn't even imagine how I could say such an 'unfeeling' thing.
Elwood1992 1 year ago
Christopher Hitchens was just a nobody leftist when he argued against US imperialism and the Iraq war in 1990. Now that he's a cheer leader for war and writing books against God (eg Islam) he's now considered "respectable" in the mainstream.
Alimantado91 1 year ago 2
@Alimantado91 yes, i had the same example in mind.
janjanjan0 11 months ago
Is this the most intelligent person alive today...
metrak 1 year ago 2
oh shut up!!
vivascargill 1 year ago
What is an intellectual?
Eurotrash4367 1 year ago
Sad how this sums up most of my political science professors. I watched videos like this, and read Chomsky before going to university, then you go and see for yourself just how conformist most of them are, and how easily you can spot the students that believe everything the professors say.
Arkinight 2 years ago 57
@Arkinight
Something that might interest and/or amuse you is that the German 'intellectuals' who were so actively subservient to their Bismarckian welfare-warfare State upon Germany's entry into WW1 (I know it was the Kaiserreich then but the policies remained) were following in the PRECISE footsteps of their forebears in the Prussian universities that extolled Right-Hegelianism and Statolatry in all matters economic and social. They were the 'Vanguard (of their funding) House of Hohenzollern'!
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Arkinight
Your statement is very interesting. Because many of Right-wing cry over the fact that how university professors are too Leftists and that Right-wing perceptions aren't being introduced. lol
unorthodoxtrotsky 1 year ago
@unorthodoxtrotsky My personal impression is that it's true certain fields are strongly dominated by left-wing, Marxian-leaning thought, such as Sociology, Political Economy or History (at least in my country- US historians may be more conservative) - but these are the non-important fields, whom nobody cares about except academics and students;
PavedStones 1 year ago
while other, more important fields that are used by policy makers, media commentators etc are different: economics is totally controlled by neoclassical free market fundamentalist ideology, (even though it's based on ridiculous assumptions like the perfect rationality of economic agents and unrealistic models that assume the average consumer to be some Harvard educated economist- it's laughable really), and political science isn't particularly right-wing but just very, very conformist.
PavedStones 1 year ago
As for the hard sciences they aren't politicized, i.e. they're actually scientific, unlike the social "sciences" (that is, except if you're part of the nuts who believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago or that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere won't lead to increasing the greenhouse effect- if you are then you're bound to find the hard sciences to have a liberal bias lol), though scientists tend to strongly uphold the progressive values of Enlightenment.
PavedStones 1 year ago 2
@Arkinight That's why I had to quit grad school in poli sci
Retrieverman1 1 year ago
@Arkinight that is soooo true.
jjaggers 1 year ago
@Arkinight to suggest that "most" political science are from a certain view point can effect how the masses interpret the views or suggestions of even the most established of figures. this is also a suggestion that even the people dedicated to study in a particular field have not objective viewpoints, but ones that view not the situation.. but the percieved attitude of the public.
to me it points that mass culture or mass informing (media) penetrates to all corners of our society..
kligonking 11 months ago
@Arkinight Agreed. Had the same professors trying to sell us Free-Trade Econ as "a progressive thing", "a need for development". Pretty pathetic these people have Phd's, huh?
Bodhidharma1986 10 months ago
@Arkinight Do you think professors are conformist also in European countries like Germany or England?
darkillity 10 months ago
@darkillity I don't think I have much credibility in answering that question. I was just referring to my own personal experience when I was at university and the dialogue and interchange I had with them. It obviously generalizes to much of North America since the course material is not something specific and would be used by a lot of institutions.
Generally though as a rule of thumb topics like economics, political science - and in many ways history - are not known for critical thinking.
Arkinight 10 months ago
@Arkinight I'm about to attend UC Davis soon and I'm reading a lot of Chomsky and Zinn. I recently went over Chomsky's "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" and it gave me the feeling that even intellectuals like liberal university professors are going to teach to the "standard line."
GeneralJakass 7 months ago
@Arkinight
My economy teacher had a course with someone who's now the economic adviser of the liberal party in Canada (if they get elected, he'd be assigned to that department). The guy was very brilliant, very good with models and all.
However, like many people, he didn't have the intellectual criticism to understand models apply in specific conditions. My teacher replied to him once, he made him look like a fool and told him he was an idiot. Just to say, dissent exists!
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@Arkinight
There's also a guy I had in developmental psychology who explicitly told the students to be wary of people who always had big numbers on their report sheets because, given most teachers are imbecile, they give grades to themselves symbolically by tending to be softer on those who agreed with them. He spent the whole time encouraging people to bring original answers and to really bother understanding.
It's not a University, but it's just to say those people can be seen.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so I should be a sheep join the herd and not give my voice cause i may disagree with things, i would hope this man has herd of constructive criticism, i mean it not slander its merely giving insight to improve on situations, and also why a certain situation can be unreasonable. Submissive? Its sounds like this guy thinks that anyone who has an opinion should shut up and join the parade.
meNiMONSTERs 3 years ago
Watch the video again. This time listen to what he is saying.
greybird86 3 years ago 37
@greybird86 Does he have the most boring voice ever. It's a shame, 'cuse he have realy importaint things to say.
metrak 1 year ago
@greybird86 Wow, you taught me something about my self just now. The first time through I was just nodding my head to the words. It took a second playthrough for the picture to really sink in for me. Time to go and re-watch like 50 videos now!
carebonez 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Noam Chomsky oversimplifies the issue here. I think he's forgetting about a lot of dissenters who are recognized, just not normally during their prime. It takes some years for critics to become the main stream.
toolshed333 3 years ago
except chomsky isn't talking about the mainstream, he's talking about intellectual culture :P
lGnossos 3 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He was talking about critics not existing/being repressed. In today's culture critics are everywhere, even in intellectual culture i.e. not mainstream. :P
toolshed333 3 years ago
I think that what He's saying is wordsworth, but, in essence, get association with people in high places in the world's power structure. Join the powerful association.
Either do that, or become blacklisted. It's all rhetoric. But that's the way the world is. That's all the guy's saying.
I like to go fishing, sometimes. I share my catch with friends and eat a healthy share of the fish that I've caught.
You're right, though toolshed... critics get blacklisted and eventually shut down.
amazinero 3 years ago
Criticism is tolerated to an extent in intellectual culture. But you don't criticize the power structures themselves, nor do you step too outside of the acceptable framework. When you do so you're no longer a part of the intellectual elite.
azalbar 3 years ago 7
toolshed333, critics mus be heard when it matters. before the Iraq war, how many times did MSM allow someone on, say an international law expert, to explain that what Bush was planning was illegal? I didn't see it. Not on teh "liberal" media. One time on Fox I saw it raised and dismissed by the Fox pundit but other than that I didn't even see the issue discussed before the war.
representativepress 3 years ago 2
First off, if you get your news from the mainstream networks, I can tell why you don't see many real critics, because it is all to politically correct and sidestepping insults.
Also, my point is the fact that critics do exist in times of need, but I agree with you that they are rarely given a stage when it would be most appropriate for them to have one.
A good example of this is how marginalized Ron Paul was in the presidential debates.
toolshed333 3 years ago
GREAT VIDEO! If people would like to hear more Chomsky please check out my videos. Thanks alot:)
Chomskyno1 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yet another un-American retard
rbdevon3 5 years ago
As you would have noticed he criticised countries other than the US too.
Redcarpet01 4 years ago
Academia is merely a tool of the ruling class to perpetuate itself. If you are not on the list, you don't get past the doorman.
annarboriter 5 years ago
Long live the fighters
Redcarpet01 5 years ago
interesting ideas
LordButtercracks 5 years ago