SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (39706)4/16/2004 12:47:45 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793914
 
You appear to care a great deal about putting him in the box labeled evil

No, you appear to care a great deal about this point. My central point was not the label, but pointing out that Chomsky was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, and continued being one for quite a while after the extent of the massacres became known. Then, at a later time, he went slip-sliding away from his original defense, and now denies ever having defended the Khmer Rouge. So not only did he defend mass murderers, he doesn't even have the saving grace of any shred of intellectual honesty about it.

This is the same thing I find whenever I read Chomsky: argument by innuendo, twisting of sources without reference to context (such as his history of the US half of the Cold War in What Does Uncle Sam Want? with no reference to the Soviet half of it), no positive arguments made, only negative ones and even those made indirectly with deniable language, no admission of mistakes, even when his positions have become clearly insupportable. The only clearly identifiable connecting thread is the hatred of the US, which shines loud and clear.

So when you defend Chomsky's "complexity", it seems fair to ask what complexity you are talking about? Because the only complexity I can see is the language: the ideas are dirt simple: The US is the font of all evil, and all other sins in the world pale into insignificance by comparison.

Chomsky barely stopped to clear his throat when dispraising (you couldn't really say he condemned) the attacks of Sept 11th; before the sentence ended he was back to blaming the US for the attacks and everything else. As I recall, he said that the Sept 11th attacks were not as bad as Clinton's bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan.