• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Noam Chomsky

Joey McGee

Banned
Joey McGee
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
10,307
So that's what you do huh? You wait until you find an argument with a wide enough latitude that you can inject your crazy arguments into them and make a run for the hills? As if me "admitting" that the US doesn't have a perfect and unblemished record of political genius and sacrifice says a single thing about your cause and concern or view of the world?

I have to admit, I clicked on your profile, and saw you've got Noam Chomsky up there. So since you could tell by my signature you know that I'm a Hitchens' fan, I thought you'd enjoy this.



So who do you think is gonna win the World Series, probably the Ruskies?
 
Joey McGee said:
So that's what you do huh? You wait until you find an argument with a wide enough latitude that you can inject your crazy arguments into them and make a run for the hills? As if me "admitting" that the US doesn't have a perfect and unblemished record of political genius and sacrifice says a single thing about your cause and concern or view of the world?

I have to admit, I clicked on your profile, and saw you've got Noam Chomsky up there. So since you could tell by my signature you know that I'm a Hitchens' fan, I thought you'd enjoy this.



So who do you think is gonna win the World Series, probably the Ruskies?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was trying to put Norman Finkelstein in my profile - I thought it would be funny (Because so many people hate Norm). Howewer, somehow I got Noam - who was my first choice anyways because I really respect the guy. And I respect Norman, also.

Anyways, thanks for that video for I like Hitch, too...and I always wondered why he disagreed a bit with Chomsky - and this video gives me a clue. After watching it, I got a better Idea of Hitchens' beef with Chomsky and...I think it's a mess. I mean, I don't think Hitch really understands where Noam is coming from, especially what Noam means by claiming to be an "Anarchist"...but I ain't too sure. So, I'm gonna' have to do some more reading.

I know the recent spasm between Harris and Chomsky was a mess, too. I wish Noam would have gotten together with Harris and talked about their premises - and I think they would have been closer than they would like to admit - especially Noam (I think Noam had some fundamental misconceptions of Harris' views).

Anyways...Thanks!!! You've helped clear up a lot of confusion about those two I've had through the years!
 
Jules Galen said:
Actually, I was trying to put Norman Finkelstein in my profile - I thought it would be funny (Because so many people hate Norm). Howewer, somehow I got Noam - who was my first choice anyways because I really respect the guy. And I respect Norman, also.

Anyways, thanks for that video for I like Hitch, too...and I always wondered why he disagreed a bit with Chomsky - and this video gives me a clue. After watching it, I got a better Idea of Hitchens' beef with Chomsky and...I think it's a mess. I mean, I don't think Hitch really understands where Noam is coming from, especially what Noam means by claiming to be an "Anarchist"...but I ain't too sure. So, I'm gonna' have to do some more reading.
Click to expand...
Well the required reading on the subject would be their letters after 9/11 which you can find from following here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Christopher_Hitchens#September_11_attacks

I know the recent spasm between Harris and Chomsky was a mess, too. I wish Noam would have gotten together with Harris and talked about their premises - and I think they would have been closer than they would like to admit - especially Noam (I think Noam had some fundamental misconceptions of Harris' views).
Click to expand...
It was think it was this exchange that convinced me Chomsky was insane. It just doesn't make sense. Not that Harris was flawless, but it just doesn't make sense, and doesn't seem possible in a face to face discussion.

Anyways...Thanks!!! You've helped clear up a lot of confusion about those two I've had through the years!
Click to expand...
You're welcome. It's a dirty job, and I'm not sure why I do it.
 
Jules Galen said:
Actually, I was trying to put Norman Finkelstein in my profile - I thought it would be funny (Because so many people hate Norm). Howewer, somehow I got Noam - who was my first choice anyways because I really respect the guy. And I respect Norman, also.
Click to expand...

Chumpski. Isn't he the linguistic savant who supported the Khmer Rouge for a decade, even after they murdered millions of Cambodians?

What a tool.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky is a dopey moron cause he said that evolutionary psychology isn't true, Steven Pinker's The Better Angel's of Our Nature is complete horse ****, Chimpanzees are probably tricked into killing each other by human influence not cause they really do that in wild. Oh and he wouldn't tell a mother of a dying child that she wouldn't see her in heaven, that's what the new atheists do, oh I could go on... his political stuff and when he said it and the semantics over all the claims... who cares? bin Laden's death was like George Bush being assassinated, bin Laden claiming he did 9/11 is like Noam claimed he won the Boston Marathon... Rest easy Noam but you're off the rails...
 
lol chris hedges is like chocolate and noam is like vanilla, anyone can look up his claims too. Not watching that, lol.
 
Joey McGee said:
It was think it was this exchange that convinced me Chomsky was insane. It just doesn't make sense. Not that Harris was flawless, but it just doesn't make sense, and doesn't seem possible in a face to face discussion.

You're welcome. It's a dirty job, and I'm not sure why I do it.
Click to expand...

I don't think Noam is insane...but I think he assumed too much before conversing with Harris and then wouldn't listen enough to hear what Harris was trying to say. It was like Noam had this Strawman of Harris that he constructed in his mind beforehand, and then blew away that Strawman!

I don't think it was Noam's finest moment, and I know it left Harris feeling confused as all hell - for he really respects Noam.

Oh well...even a genius like Noam can make a mistake. Perhaps this is consolation to us mere mortals.
 
It sounds like you haven't read as many exchanges with Noam as I have over the years, to me he's always like that. From time to time let's not discount every piece of writing he did in history.
 
Toontown said:
Chumpski. Isn't he the linguistic savant who supported the Khmer Rouge for a decade, even after they murdered millions of Cambodians?

What a tool.
Click to expand...

Hey...sarcasm can only go so far until it becomes disinformation. Cool it, dude.
 
Joey McGee said:
It sounds like you haven't read as many exchanges with Noam as I have over the years, to me he's always like that. From time to time let's not discount every piece of writing he did in history.
Click to expand...

Who else do ya' think Noam blasted unfairly?
 
It's not that he's a truther obviously he is not, there was just something about the way he talked. I don't know I'm not reading it again either.
 
On the “bad feelings,” your letter expands on what I said about the remarkable features of the Truth Movement (quite apart from its name), which distinguishes it from activist movements. You say, correctly, that “It is only human to get angry when one discovers one has been victimized by a lie. And the strength of the anger is likely to be proportional to the size, and the destructiveness or hurtfulness, of the lie.” That’s true. Suppose that the government demolished WTC and lied about it. That would rank so low among “the size, and the destructiveness or hurtfulness of the lie,” that it would take some work even to go down the list to find it. Consider the lies that led to the massacre of perhaps 4 million people in Indochina and the destruction of three countries (not to speak of creating the Khmer Rouge). Or the lies that led to acquiescence in Reaganite terror, leaving some 200,000 tortured and mutilated bodies in Central America and four countries ruined, perhaps forever; along with 1.5 million corpses in the countries subjected to Reagan-backed South African depredations; and on, and on. Or, since you appropriately see things from a Muslim perspective, consider one of the very minor pecadilloes and lies of leaders, Clinton’s destruction of most of the pharmaceutical industry in a poor African (mostly Muslim) country, with an estimated tens of thousands dead — small by our standards. People who care about atrocities and lies do get angry about the silencing of the facts, the incredible lies, and the vilification of those who try to break the silence. But they don’t react in the TM manner, unique in my experience of 60 years, or in anything I’ve read.
Click to expand...

Stuff like that. Yeah of course I was joking I'm reading it...
 
Jules Galen said:
You mean Noam would not accept as sources people who lied to us about the Vietnam War. But....he later acknowledged the Genocide when independant confirmation was available.

I have no problem with this.
Click to expand...
A lot of people don't accept this because they were there at the time and he rejected their arguments. I can't really say anything else, it speaks for itself. I could put a list out of people who agree with me, but you basically have to weigh it on the idea of oh, was he a little biased in the same way that later made him question the guilt and death of bin Laden? and how is that smart?
Jules Galen said:
OK...so Noam won't associate with "9/11 Truthers".

I have no problem with this.
Click to expand...
No but, what he said in the quote... is kind weird...
 
Jules Galen said:
You mean Noam would not accept as sources people who lied to us about the Vietnam War. But....he later acknowledged the Genocide when independant confirmation was available.

I have no problem with this.
Click to expand...

Chomski didn't simply refuse to believe the evidence. He actively lied about the evidence until the evidence mounted to undeniable proportions. Then he capitulated, but then, after a cooling off period, switched to whitewashing the genocide, at times slipping back into denial of the evidence.

Here is video of Chomski whitewashing the genocide and slipping back into denial of the evidence. At one point he spitefully belittles the "vast outcry of outrage over these communist monsters who were carrying out this horrifying bloodbath and so and so on and so forth". Then goes on to meaninglessly quote some irrelevant book reviewer as telling him the death toll may have only been in the thousands.

:wwt



Chomsky is a pathological liar. This is just one example among many. He should be made to wear earphones. He's very well read, it's well known. But he knew something happened in Cambodia and he still doesn't know what it was.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
Chomski didn't simply refuse to believe the evidence. He actively lied about the evidence until the evidence mounted to undeniable proportions. Then he capitulated, but then, after a cooling off period, switched to whitewashing the genocide, at times slipping back into denial of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Chomsky never whitewashed anything - he just disputed some of the Hysterical casualty figures associated with the Cambodian Genocide: figure for which population demographics and corpses do not support.

After the US got beat in Vietnam and retreated, there were a lot of parties in the west that were just too willing to show that only disaster happens when he Great Defender of Freedom - the USA - pulled out of Vietnam. And it was these same parties that exagerated the tragedy that was occuring in Cambodia: especially War-Hawk Universities like Yale and their ilk.

Nevertheless, Cambodia was a tragedy - just not as great as the hawks would have you believe.

Also, a lot of the insane exageration about the Cambodian Genocide was done to cover the fact that the US dropped over 2 Million Tonnes of Bombs on Cambodia and so set the stage for the rise of the Khmer Rouge - who were hot to wipe out anyone they suspected of being responsible for the west dropping bombs on them, and for all the fighting that had spilled over from vietnam into Cambodia. Since the Vietnamese helped carry the fighting into Cambodia during the mid 1970s...they bear a bit of blame too, but they did later liberate Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge while the US and China ignored the situation and just pointed fingers.

Later, the Chinese got tired of Vietnams pacification efforts in Cambodia and invaded Vietnam in 1979. This did not go well for the Chinese, and they withdrew. Actually, Vietnam had stopped the Chinese Army without ever recalling their frontline troops from Laod and Cambodia: they beat the Chinese with the Vietnamese-Army "B Team". Geez...Those Vietnamese were some fighting mofo's: First America....then China.

And China's experience in Vietnam should serve as a warning....and a rebuke....for those ignorant American Warhawks who insist that the US should have invaded North Vietnam. I mean, what a crazy idea. It would have been an utter disastor for the US Military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom