HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

> Maybe we should be, though? [..] Great. I'm not sure that should top your list of injustices, though. It doesn't top mine, because it's not one thats happening in my back yard.

So do you think we should care, or shouldn't we? If your point ultimately is no, we should not care, then why not be honest and say "but we shouldn't care, and here's why".

And how can you claim "nobody" cares? Are you sure there aren't people in many countries who wish companies wouldn't just deal with their butcherers, but give the oppressed a voice? If you don't care, just say it.

It's not about where it happens, it's about whether my "friends" are involved in it. If Google didn't use this site as a PR platform, too, there'd be no point in talking about it. But since many people here use their products, because they claim a "Hi fellow Kids" kind of humanness, it is relevant. When some total stranger acts horrible to others, but they can handle it themselves, I probably wouldn't bother getting involved. But if that guy was chatting to me 5 minutes prior to that, and considers himself someone on good terms with me, I would absolutely at least say something.

It doesn't matter what's on "top" of the "list of priorites", it only matters that it matters, and that I have a position on it I must make known or be complicit by silence. It's really simple, we understand that intuitively in all sorts of situations, it doesn't get more complicated because the behaviour to have a position on gets worse. Totalitarianism in a country claimed to be on the way to become superpower #1 is on such a vastly different scale than anything else you could bring up. It's threatening the very canvas on which you might otherwise drawn and write and rank things. It's not in your backyard, you are in its backyard.

I'd be perfectly fine with Google doing business in China and otherwise shutting up. But they'll parade their new awesome whatever, and that's not okay. Pick one, make your bed and then lie in it. Just consider the Noam Chomsky talks at Google:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnLWSC5p1XE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3PwG4UoJ0Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM

It's not a matter of my priorities. They do not get to decorate themselves with the feathers of Noam Chomsky, they do not get to speak on subjects like discrimination, as important as they are, as long as they play along with builders of concentration camps. My moral compass doesn't even enter into any of that. If the whole "make information accessible" stuff hadn't become a bit of a joke a long time ago, I'd add that, too.

> If you do a commercial, you're off the artistic rolecall - everything you say is suspect. You're a corporate whore. There's a price on your head and every word that comes out of your mouth is now like a turd falling into my drink. End of story.

-- Bill Hicks

Same thing with any sort of ethical or intellectual claims and then dealing with butcherers. Super basic stuff, really.

And that "it's all connected", that hardly anyone isn't somehow involved with something that sucks, knowingly or unknowingly, voluntarily or not, doesn't mean you don't do anything. The first step is to not make excuses when others criticize something. It's not even you doing something, it's you not getting in the way of those who are doing something.

> But what about their record? I don't know, what about ours?

You started your comment with "It doesn't excuse them"...

It's scary (Stanford prison experiment-like) how easy it is to convince a regular joe employee that what he's working on is "for the betterment of the world", while that statement is very very fuzzy to say the least (and as recent events have shown) where one man's Utopia is another man's surveillance state. We put waaay too much impetus on "world changing ideas" while completely ignoring the real life implications of them, as the article rightfully points out.

Reminds me of the statement that Noam Chomsky ended his recent talk at Google with (which I consider one of the nicest "burn" moments ever):

Interviewer: It's not everyday that a non-google gets to sit in a room full of people who work at google, and are s/w engineers, and are advertising experts, and are market experts in different fields. Do you have anything that you'd like to ask us? Chomsky: <shrugs> Why not do some of the serious things?

https://youtu.be/2C-zWrhFqpM?t=59m16s

So you're turning being held accountable into somehow furthering lack of accountability. Not that I think the agreement is super perfect, but that still sticks out like a sore thumb.

> Let's fund solar power and electric cars

You've always been free to do that. You still are. Instead of, say, waging a war of aggression for control of oil, littering the world with military bases, all the while complaining about the specter of a "world government" -- which is anything but the US desires of hegemony, right? No problem with the main superpower being a brute instead of a boon, but a huge problem with the means to defend ourselves. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s , and for now in general I'll just say "no". Not good enough. Too little, too late.

⬐ narrator

It's weird how some people seem to think the only two alternatives are neo-con world empire or give all our money to some other guys who aren't accountable to the U.S taxpayer or hardly anyone at all. Can't the American government do pro-climate things itself instead of paying money to someone else whose only qualification is that they don't have any reputation yet for corruption because they haven't done anything yet?

⬐ thinkfurther

I actually agree, I would prefer more voluntary action, too. But what's keeping the US from doing these things, other than "the" US itself?

⬐ mistermann

This is in my opinion one of the most important and relevant to current events Chomsky excerpts that I've ever seen:

Noam Chomsky - Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy

https://youtu.be/uh8PpYRD5to?t=152

(Starts at 2:35, "and then a third thing happened..."; personally, I would suggest ignoring the various TV clips spliced in as that to me seems like the projections of the politics of the editor of the video and not necessarily the specific idea Chomsky himself intends to convey.)

To me this illustrates how those who actually "control" things in the US and the world have split those who should be allies into two camps. The perfect weapon in this strategy is the "proper" and well-intended anti-racist propaganda Westerners have been subject to for decades - combined with the dulling of the average Western mind to the point many are near incapable of critical thinking, the result is that perfectly common sense public discussions on incredibly important matters such as international trade and immigration can largely be stopped in their tracks by cries of "racism!"...and even better, the ones who are being most harmed, the younger generations of the (former) middle class, are the very ones who are stopping the dialogue that affects their future!

Human nature is really amazing if you step back and observe it critically.

⬐ varjag

It's a perfect example of the modern far-left and far-right convergence. Both have anti-globalist agenda, contempt for human rights and only slight disagreement over who exactly has to be eliminated for peoples' better life. Only now they were able to peacefully face off over the Internet and like each other's tweets.

⬐ mistermann

The far left has an anti-globalist agenda?

What do you mean by "contempt for human rights" in this scenario?

"who exactly has to be eliminated for peoples' better life." - what do you mean by eliminated? And who are the candidates?

⬐ keymone

> Chomsky explains his decision to focus on criticizing the U.S. over other countries as being because, during his lifetime, the country has militarily and economically dominated the world, and because its liberal democratic electoral system allows for the citizenry to exert an influence on government policy.

chomsky is incredibly smart and i love listening to what he has to say and agree with most of it, but this focus on criticizing US is definitely not one of them. i get the argument, but he's either blind to or doesn't care that his well intended criticism is more effective as a political tool in hands of enemies of the liberal democratic system which he supposedly wants to succeed.

not saying that US must not be criticized, it just feels very disproportionate compared to the amount of injustice and atrocities in other parts of the world. hell, on a majority of this planet's surface chomsky would have been disappeared long time ago for the kind of criticizm he directs at US - is that not a reason to begin your every speech with "keep in mind, matters are very much worse pretty much everywhere else but...".

⬐ thaw13579

I wish someone more interested and prepared could have conducted the interview, but the talk is worth watching anyway.

⬐ contingencies

20:00 has an interesting snippet where Chomsky relates the breakdown of working class cultural institutions and education then takes a stab at Google (one gets the sense the real audience response was edited heavily in post production).

⬐ Veratyr

I don't think I see what you see...

"And they may not have gone to school. They certainly didn't go to Oxford, but the working class, the rising working class, had its own institutions of education and culture, which was significant. A lot of that has been destroyed in all kinds of ways. Google doesn't help."

Maybe there's some extra context in the minutes prior that gives this a different meaning but it sounds to me like he's saying that Google changed the way the middle class accesses information, which has destroyed the old ways. I did go back 20 or so seconds and he mentions that they read books, which I think backs this up somewhat (they used to go to libraries, now they don't need libraries, they have Google).

And the laughter doesn't sound edited to me, though there's clearly a cut there.

⬐ gkya

Nope, he wasn't referring to google at all until the end of the video.

⬐ Frogolocalypse

The world will lose one of the great modern-day thinkers when Chomsky is no longer with us. It's hard to fathom how he remains such a clear thinker at his age.

⬐ demonshalo

His contribution to linguistics is definitely great and no one can take that from him. But to call him a great modern-day thinker is a bit of a stretch.

⬐ Frogolocalypse

> Chomsky is voted world's top public intellectual

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/18/books.highered...

It's not an uncommon assertion.

⬐ loceng

Who would you consider great modern-day thinkers?

⬐ Frogolocalypse

Hey, if you haven't read any of his books, I would recommend it some time. He has a mind like a steel trap. His books are meticulously researched, and he has a sad dry humor.

But what you also get is hope. I've always felt that the reason he does what he does, is because we can point to openness, and draw a clear line between today and the past. Not recognizing what we do in the world leads to barbarism. The world has been rejecting barabarism consistently for centuries. Even a century ago, in america, the discrimination was horrendous. It is better because democracy allows us to question the implementation of government. And he asks the big questions.

⬐ theplatapi

Chomsky wrote the foreword to a French book denying the Holocaust and spoke at the headquarters of Hezbollah - an internationally recognized terror group - amoung other asinine things. Why does anyone respect this guy?

⬐ joshuamorton

Your comment inspired me to look this up:

> The scandal largely dealt with the inclusion of an essay by American linguist Noam Chomsky, entitled "Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression", as an introduction to Faurisson's book, without Chomsky's knowledge or approval.

Emphasis mine.

⬐ alacombe

False, Chomsky did originally grant permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair]

⬐ gizmo686

Since we are talking about it, here[0] is Chomsky's writing in question.

I'll just leave the paragraph from wikipedia here:

>Chomsky granted permission for the essay to be used for any purpose. Serge Thion and Pierre Guillaume then used it as a preface when publishing a book by Faurisson, without Chomsky's knowledge.[9] Later Chomsky requested that the essay not be used in this manner, since he believed the French intellectual community was so incapable of understanding freedom of speech that it would only confuse them further, but his request came too late for the book to be changed.[9] Chomsky subsequently said that asking for the preface to be removed is his one regret in the matter.[9]

[0] https://chomsky.info/19801011/

⬐ alacombe

Because it is not up to the State to legislate what constitute the historical truth.

Moreover, this whole mess gave Robert Faurisson airtime on national TV, and made him look like a martyr. This is the last thing you want from such person. Let holocaust deniers and KKK member distribute pamphlet at intersection or self publish their book, that going to be the biggest audience they'll ever have. By going after them, you encourage them in their quest and prove their conspiracy theory right.

Same goes with provocateur ala Milo whose only success is based on thin skinned SJW.

⬐ RealityNow

Because he's one of the most prominent, influential, and cited intellectuals of our generation.

⬐ krona

Perhaps your generation. Of those things that gave him prominence and influence, they were done decades before I was born.

The guy is a linguist. I wish he would stick to what he's good at.

⬐ RealityNow

I'm in my 20s. What's amazing is that his commentary on politics, economics, and international relations is just as relevant now as it was back then.

⬐ rantanplan

> I wish he would stick to what he's good at

Thankfully he didn't follow your advice, hence he revolutionized every domain he touched.

You really should read more about his contributions to various disciplines.

⬐ 0xFFC

BTW US army has killed far more innocent people than Hezbollah (has Hezbollah ever killed any innocent people?).

Would be acceptable if we call US army terrorist army?

⬐ anotherbrownguy

Maybe because Holocaust is mostly based on Soviet and US war propaganda than anything else?

⬐ None

None

⬐ MichaelMoser123

Another problem is his position/denial of the Cambodian genocide by Khmer Rouge. What does Chomsky nowadays say on this matter? Does he acknowledge that his judgement was wrong? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

⬐ contingencies

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

That sounds pretty balanced to me.

⬐ varjag

Would you allow the same middle ground fallacy for Holocaust?

⬐ AimHere

Check the dates.

If you were trying to assess claims of an extraordinary and unprecedented mechanised genocide by Nazi Germany in 1943 or early 1944, when it wasn't obvious what was actually going on, and when all people had to go on were reports from a handful of escapees and refugees, then yes, being careful with the evidence would be the appropriate response to the Holocaust claims available at the time, just as being careful with Cambodian refugee reports would have been appropriate in 1977 or 1978.

⬐ varjag

Quite contrary, it was fairly well reported. The reason Chomsky grudgingly accepted the fact of genocide was the Third Indochina War, when coincidentally in 1978 the communist Vietnam moved in to displace Pol Pot. Were it not Vietnamese but say Americans, he'd deny the genocide to the day.

Right now he denies that chemical attacks by Assad govt have happened in Syria, so the old man is still in the same denial business - OPCW reports be damned.

⬐ nemonemo

Chomsky is by no means a saint, but in the wikipedia article you cited, I could not locate any direct "denial" of genocide done by Khmer Rouge. He seems to have questioned the credibility of certain accounts, which seems a necessary role of any reasonable intellect. It was 1970s, so information from the other side of the globe was harder to confirm. To me, it seems quite understandable for someone to raise questions around any information that outrageously deviates from the norm, which is the case for the activity done by Khmer Rouge.

⬐ None

None

⬐ jondubois

I agree, it's better to risk doubting the truth than to risk believing lies.

Once you believe something, it's harder to go back because you start stacking stuff on top.

⬐ gizmo686

>Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."[8]

⬐ no2empire

Nowadays Chomsky points out something you can read in the December 23rd, 1985 edition of the New York Times - that six years after the hue and cry all over the US about "Cambodian genocide", the US began sending millions to Cambodia in order to arm Pol Pot.

Of course at this time the US was using its power at the UN to keep the Cambodian UN seat in the hands of the political coalition that the Cambodian communists belonged to.

He also points out the mass murder the US air force carried out in Cambodia, bombing rural peasant villages. That the US media ignored a genocide in East Timor that was happening at the time of the communists taking power in Cambodia.

Insofar as "denial of the Cambodian genocide" by Chomsky - could you give an example of a statement he made about Cambodia which was not true? If you are unable to do that, it is just mud-throwing - in some other thread he's said to be denying Nazi genocide in Europe because he was opposed to the jailing of a French professor accused of being a holocaust denier.

⬐ MichaelMoser123

> could you give an example of a statement he made about Cambodia which was not true? If you are unable to do that, it is just mud-throwing

Mud-throwing? I am just siting a wikipedia article, please care to follow the link. Even Chomsky sort of acknowledged that he was wrong on the subject, but you still can't do that.

"Cambodia scholar Bruce Sharp criticized Chomsky and Herman's Nation article, as well as their subsequent work After the Cataclysm (1979), saying that while Chomsky and Herman added disclaimers about knowing the truth of the matter, and about the nature of the regimes in Indochina, they nevertheless expressed a set of views by their comments and their use of various sources. For instance, Chomsky portrayed Porter and Hildebrand's book as "a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources." Sharp, however, found that 33 out of 50 citations in one chapter of Porter and Hildebrand's book derived from the Khmer Rouge government and six from China, the Khmer Rouge's principal supporter.[8]

Veteran Cambodia correspondent Nate Thayer said of Chomsky and Herman's Nation article that they "denied the credibility of information leaking out of Cambodia of a bloodbath underway and viciously attacked the authors of reportage suggesting many were suffering under the Khmer Rouge."[18]

Journalist Andrew Anthony in the London Observer, said later that the Porter and Hildebrand's book "cravenly rehashed the Khmer Rouge's most outlandish lies to produce a picture of a kind of radical bucolic idyll."[19] Chomsky, he said, questioned "refugee testimony" believing that "their stories were exaggerations or fabrications, designed for a western media involved in a 'vast and unprecedented propaganda campaign' against the Khmer Rouge government, 'including systematic distortion of the truth.'"

Beachler cited reports that Chomsky's attempts to counter charges of Khmer Rouge atrocities also consisted of writing letters to editors and publications. He said: "Examining materials in the Documentation Center of Cambodia archives, American commentator Peter Maguire found that Chomsky wrote to publishers such as Robert Silver of the New York Review of Books to urge discounting atrocity stories. Maguire reports that some of these letters were as long as twenty pages, and that they were even sharper in tone than Chomsky’s published words."[20] Journalist Fred Barnes also mentioned that Chomsky had written "a letter or two" to the New York Review of Books. Barnes discussed the Khmer Rouge with Chomsky and "the thrust of what he [Chomsky] said was that there was no evidence of mass murder" in Cambodia. Chomsky, according to Barnes, believed that "tales of holocaust in Cambodia were so much propaganda."[21]

Journalist Christopher Hitchens defended Chomsky and Herman. They "were engaged in the admittedly touchy business of distinguishing evidence from interpretations."[22] Chomsky and Herman have continued to argue that their analysis of the situation in Cambodia was reasonable based on the information available to them at the time, and a legitimate critique of the disparities in reporting atrocities committed by communist regimes relative to the atrocities committed by the U.S. and its allies. Nonetheless, in 1993, Chomsky acknowledged the massive scale of the Cambodian genocide in the documentary film Manufacturing Consent. He said, "I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury."[8]

⬐ no2empire

Faurisson was sentenced to jail for "denying the Holocaust" as you put it. Chomsky believed Faurisson had the right of free speech "even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi" as Chomsky's statement said. Chomsky said to use his statement as wished, and it was put as the preface of a Faurisson book.

When people ask him about this Chomsky says he has signed hundreds of free speech petitions and free speech should not be removed just because he disagrees with the person, citing Thomas Jefferson. Some people believe in free speech, some think people with certain critical views of Nazi era nationality policy towards Jews should be jailed. In the USA, the free speech view tends to win, and this is where Chomsky is from.

Hezbollah has 12 MPs in the Lebanese parliament. It represents the interests of a section of Shia in Lebanon, many of whom were driven from their homes in Palestine in 1948 by Jewish settlers, and are now barred from returning home (whereas a Jew from anywhere in the world is allowed to settle in the West Bank).

The PFLP is "terrorist", Hamas is "terrorist", Hezbollah is "terrorist", the PLO is "terrorist", the DFLP is "terrorist" - anyone who fights back against Zionist (or sometimes American) aggression is labeled a "terrorist".

Hezbollah was formed because Israel invaded Lebanon and began killing Shia there (or letting their helpers do so in Sabra and Shatila). Hezbollah arose to defend the Shia from this foreign invasion.

⬐ auganov

Right, "terrorist" is a pretty relative term. Organizations calling for genocide of the Jewish people, descendants of those who tried, or allies of such. That's a mouthful but much more fitting.

⬐ loceng

This is the type of example scenario where I think 'AI' could come in handy - or really posting bots - as to insert at minimum a link to when certain phrases or statements are detected on public or semi-public forums and the like. A lot of misinformation can quickly get shared, generally one side or the other using as propaganda.

⬐ throwaway_32475

The section on Hezbollah in this comment contains a ton of factual errors.

>Hezbollah has 12 MPs in the Lebanese parliament. It represents the interests of a section of Shia in Lebanon,

So far so good

>many of whom were driven from their homes in Palestine in 1948 by Jewish settlers, and are now barred from returning home (whereas a Jew from anywhere in the world is allowed to settle in the West Bank).

Nope, you're confusing Palestinians and Shia Lebanese. Not a single Shia was driven from their home by the creation of Israel in 1948. Hezbollah does not represent Palestinians in Lebanon (who were driven out in 1948) because they are not citizens of Lebanon, despite being born there at this point.

>The PFLP is "terrorist", Hamas is "terrorist", Hezbollah is "terrorist", the PLO is "terrorist", the DFLP is "terrorist" - anyone who fights back against Zionist (or sometimes American) aggression is labeled a "terrorist".

Is blowing up a Jewish center in Beunos Aires (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing) or killing 22 school children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre) "fighting back against Zionist aggression"?

>Hezbollah was formed because Israel invaded Lebanon and began killing Shia there (or letting their helpers do so in Sabra and Shatila).

Again, you are confusing Palestinians with Shias. Sabra and Shatila was a Palestinian refugee camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

⬐ k1m

The last part is great:

Khalil: "It's not every day that a non-Googler gets to sit in a room full of people who work at Google, and are software engineers, and are advertising experts, and are you know market experts in different fields. Do you have anything that you'd like to ask us?"

Chomsky: "Why not do some of the serious things?"

:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=59m21s

⬐ sideshowb

And the other final part so great I gave it it's own thread ;-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14701008

⬐ aptidude187

What does he mean by that? Can you elaborate please?

⬐ n3x10e8

As a context just before that NC was explaining how advertising leads to distortion in rational decision making which is the basis for all of the current economic free market system.

⬐ Vinalin

I think it's in the same vein as the quote by Jeff Hammerbacher: “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads”.

⬐ kinkrtyavimoodh

Usually I find needless jabs like these in bad taste, but looking at how pompously the question was worded, I think it was well deserved here.

If he'd just said—is there something you want to ask this room full of Googlers?, it would be okay.