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 and accessible. With the assumption that intellectuals are “experts in ideas.”
I say this because so many contemporary debates seem really mangled and unclear, which makes them basically impossible to solve intellectually. Instead they just turn into battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict.
Unfortunately the academic system is explicitly designed to create specialists, not people that can effectively communicate to the Everyman.
https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-signifi...
Modern corruption is just unsustainable populist negligence, that coincidentally also collapsed many empires in history. Suggesting Academic bureaucracy is a functional Meritocracy is naive wishful thinking, and ignores why these structures usually still degenerate to merge with poorly obfuscated despotic movements.
"Despotism" (1946)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w
Have a great day, =3
They simply put it out there because no matter what, this is what they will say in response to an ICE shooting. It is a way of confusing the messaging and preventing their supporters from being convinced by anyone else or any evidence. Once their base form that initial opinion, it is very hard to change their mind. So will intellectually actually reach those people effectively?
Remember, this base has been told to distrust the academics and distrust science and distrust the news media.
The reason exterminate always go after academics is because they make things harder. The vast majority of academics could make more money than they do as a professor. The authoritarian relies on the religious nature of followers and it's harder for those followers to have faith when it's constantly being questioned. It's why your mental model of an authoritarian regime is where people are afraid to speak freely.
You're right that the strategy is to confuse and overload. It's difficult to counter and I think you're exactly right to say "enough". We need to adapt to this strategy too. I think it's important to remember that truth has a lower bound in complexity but lies don't. They have an advantage because they can sell simplicity. We have the disadvantage when we try to educate. But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing. It's not easy. Even the biggest meathead who is as anti academic as they come will feel offended if you call them (or imply they're) stupid (are you offended if they call you weak?). We need a culture shift to accept not knowing things and that not knowing things doesn't make one stupid. I have a fucking PhD and I'm dumb as shit. There's so much I don't know about my own field, let alone all the others. I've put in a lot of hard work to be "smart", but the smartest people I know say "I don't know" and that's often the most interesting thing you can hear.
It's no easy task to solve. Don't forget, we're a species that would rather invent imaginary invisible wizards than admit we don't know. We're infinitely curious but also afraid of the unknown.
Well-said, even if the sentiment is in-and-of itself somehow condescending. No way around it, really.
To be fair, as well, there are an enormous number of people who do this already. They are educators, they are docents, they are civil servants. They quietly perform this task day in and out without much recognition or fanfare.
The demonization of these people can’t be ignored, either. It’s as if their services run counter to the interests of those who put so much money and effort into that demonization…
A thing I've learned is that often when people are mad they're not mad at you. Maybe you're part of it, but usually you're just at the end of some long chain. It's easier to respond to anger when you realize this.
battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict.
The deeper issue is immigration policy, which is a topic that displays the pattern I mentioned: no real attempt to solve the issue by addressing both sides/various parties, and instead boils it into an us-them struggle of political wills.
The responsibility of intellectuals in this case should be IMO to clearly analyze the immigration debate and discuss the benefits, downsides, likely consequences etc. of various actions.
But we don’t get that. Instead everyone just has an opinion already formed, including the intellectuals. And unfortunately unbiased rational approaches seem to lose (in money, attention) to the loud and opinionated.
So as the problem gets more complicated, people get further and further away from actually solving it.
So, basically, my point is beware getting dragged into debates that clearly only benefit specific parties with specific agendas without first asking yourself more critical questions about the bigger picture.
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.
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.
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.
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 least there is a definition to measure against beside "Do as thou wilt".
I'm not a huge Chomsky fan anyway. Despite his appeal to truth, he tends to ring false for me.
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 enact both positive and negative change than the average citizens in a democratic society. I would agree with Chomsky that there is some relationship to exposing truth in an information-based society.
The purported "intellectuals" are more (or less) helpful in this regard.
Neither subjective or consensus accounts of truth (neither of which correspond with postmodernism or utilitarianism in the way you imply) are obviously inconsistent. Philosophers would not bother talking about them if that were the case.
Funnily enough, I can't tell which of Stalin and Mother Theresa you are worried will be confused with the other, given that many people have opposite ideas of which was moral and which was immoral.
Modern religions define objective morality, not objective truth (excluding metaphysical assertions, which are not what one usually means by truth).
Chomsky never gets around to a teleological argument as to why US intervention in Vietnam was wrong; it's all so much quoting and puffery.
Mcnamara actually explained this at some point. That’s why we are allies with Vietnam today and not North Korea.
The truth is unfathomably complex yet coherent. White lies lead to bigger lies that eventually unravel, because the implications of a lie are more lies. Sometimes even lies that seem like they'd never "blow up in your face", because humans aren't perfect. Some obvious lies one can accept and pretend are the truth, and it does work...until it doesn't, because those lies have implications that can't be accepted.
Unfortunately it can take a long time, until the lie no longer matters and/or the liar is dead. But truth practically always wins in the long-term, even historically for the losers (yes it's impossible to disprove that people and groups have been erased, and random nobodies are forgotten; but today we can even read burnt scrolls and know lots about the "Lost Colony" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony)). More importantly, I believe truth wins more often and faster than most people argue, to the point where one should generally assume it matters. Though I can't prove it, like the events/concepts I'm describing, assume otherwise at your own loss...
---
Related to the recent ICE shooting: even some conservatives oppose the MAGA narrative, look at https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/. Others will never defy MAGA, but they aren't the majority; Trump won but with barely over 50%. Truth exists and matters.
- 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.
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.
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 more, but again, I did my part and was promised to be taken care of by society with its fingers crossed behind its back.
You can just do nothing and things will get better when others do more than they get, but by you doing nothing you've just shifted your burden to others. The burden of each individual is small. Almost insignificant even. It's not hard to be kinder to others than they are to you. But the burden accumulates and compounds. You don't have to pick up the slack, but you do need to do your part. The future is made by all of us
If the person you are responding to hasn't screwed society over, then it sounds like they have easily cleared that bar, even by doing nothing.
I'd add a quote from the beginning of a famous sci-fi*:
You have to create Good out of Evil, because there is nothing else to create it from.
Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, famous Russian anti-system science-fiction brother duo. Their other notable book is Snail on a Slope.
That's your society, not all societies. People, veterans or not, aren't homeless in mine.
Then, sir, it would be foolhardy to contribute any part to that service because soon it will all collapse.
That's, in a historically commonplace fashioned see today, is what the top 10% are doing when seeing the top 1% abdicate all responsibility.
Low or no taxes? Sounds good ... but it's going to burn down soon.
To not have an obligation to society is to be a drain on it. Even if you don't recognize it you still get a lot of benefit from society. It could be better. It should be better. But that will never happen if you never put in your part.
I'm personally very anti war. But I also am very dissatisfied with how we treat our veterans. To send them to, as Hawkeye says: "worse than hell", and then just abandon them?! That's a high moral sin. Outright unconscionable. But recognize they can only get away with this because we let them. I'm not okay with it, are you?
It isn't our duty to listen and do nothing. It is our duty to get mad and do something. Which is exactly what Droopy said
So called "intellectuals" who do it just to further their own selfish goals, should not be awarded high ranking positions.
"You know, I ran into Henry Kissinger years ago and I asked him if he enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of the work, and he said in effect, 'I am working with the ideas that I formed at Harvard years ago. I haven't had a real idea since I've been on this; I just work with the old ideas."
Even in the 2000s, one of the most ironic outcomes is that US hegemony forced a bunch of countries into really dominant regional positions (thinking especially of Japan, China and Germany) because they had nothing else to do but fix their own internal problems and it turns out that is a dominant strategy over militarism. Moral positions like peace, law, consistency and fairness aren't vague nice-to-haves, they are principles that lead to better outcomes for the people who stick with them.