2985, Hate increase|
Posted by signified, Wed Nov-12-03 01:14 PM
I hear a similar apologist refrain from alot of left-wingers but it always gives me pause in its implications. I wont disagree that Chomsky can be inaccessible, but its not beyond the realm of comprehension. The difficulty with Chomsky is his use of irony and implied meaning, he's not full clarity but you've gotta respect how nuanced it is. But again, serious theorizing is not completely inaccessible. Herman's 'The Real Terror Network' is a great example of serious leftie business that is comprehensible for everyone.
Even then I think people are willing to settle for Moore and that is wrong. People are not giving enough credit to individuals in the mainstream. I dont think its a matter of not comprehending, its a matter of not giving people a reason to care. As long as Moore posits nothing and throws his hands up in the air in terms of his examination people have no reason to care.
>While you may be surprised that I agree with much of what
>you are saying here, I don't think that Chomsky and Said are
>fully censored from the media because they are intellectual
>threats. Chomsky and the late Said, while they are great
>intellectual threats in their own right, I think that their
>extreme intellectualism makes them inaccessible to the vast
>majority who are pop culture mush brains. My point is that
>they don't need to censor people like Chomsky as long as the
>media and pop culture and dumbing people down enough so that
>they wouldn't understand a word that Chomsky is talking
>about anyway. Further, I respect Moore for the same reasons
>why he is not someone I look to for information. Moore is
>great for explaining the political mess of the world to a
>general dumbed down population that doesn't have the
>attention span for Chomsky and Said.
>That said, while I agree that Moore's analysis is pretty
>shallow, I do believe that he raises some very important
>questions that the average movie going population would not
>be thinking about. I especially enjoyed the parts where he
>talked about the culture of fear and that it is not
>necessarily gun control that is the problem, but the
>perpetual fear that the average American is filled with as a
>result of all the sensory material that passes through
>his/her brain everyday. I also thought he explained, quite
>well, what could happen when a single mother is forced to
>labour an obsene amount of hours a week and thereby has no
>time to nurture her child. The result was the child who
>brought that gun to school and shot his classmate.
>Just some thoughts.