Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

You call those two snippets without source a data stream?

Yup.

Why do you guys always have to get asked to provide sources? But even without context I see no contradiction there. In one instance he supports the general development in Venezuela, in the other one he criticizes Chavez' personal tendency to act as a Caudillo - presumably criticism on high level. It's not all black and white, you know.

Of course it isn't all black and white. It might be gray, or it might be green. Or purple.

When it's gray or green or purple, there should be some sort of discussion with acknowledgment from all parties involved.

I'm predicting that we won't see this from Chomsky. I predict that we'll see denials of what he said, a lot of special pleading and cherry-picking, and no coherent story, let alone argument.

I might be wrong, and if I am, I'll admit it, and I'll have more respect for Chomsky's integrity. I am putting my opinion on the line in fair measure, which is more than I've ever seen Chomsky do. I'm also perfectly willing to change my opinion and admit that I was wrong if the facts show it.

I'll reiterate. I don't think that Chomsky does this very often, if at all. I think that he does other things.
 
And now you expect me to get hold of the sources you are unwilling to deliver to show your "predictions" right or wrong? You must be kidding. You have yet to develop an argument.
 
And now you expect me to get hold of the sources you are unwilling to deliver to show your "predictions" right or wrong?

What, google is too difficult for you to figure out? Seriously: just put the quote in quotes, and it's rather easy to track down the source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4748

You must be kidding. You have yet to develop an argument.

You have yet to acknowledge reality.
 
And now you expect me to get hold of the sources you are unwilling to deliver to show your "predictions" right or wrong? You must be kidding. You have yet to develop an argument.

No. I actually expect you to blather a lot and not pay attention to anything. I expect you not to read anything, let alone come up with a coherent argument. That's pretty much the point.
 
What, google is too difficult for you to figure out? Seriously: just put the quote in quotes, and it's rather easy to track down the source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4748


I could say "thanks" but really it's not my job to search for quotes somebody wants me to comment on. If you go to the linked original interview, it turns out that the situation is exactly, to the term, like i've described it in #1499:

RC: In your visit here in 2009 you said a better world was being created. Is that still the case?

NC: Actually what I said is that there are steps towards a better world in Venezuela and as far as I know that's true. There have been some significant steps – the sharp poverty reduction, probably the greatest in the Americas, the [social programme] missions, and the self-governing communities look like promising initiatives. It's hard to judge how successful they are but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world.

Also the international initiatives I think are quite significant. Venezuela has played a significant role in very important developments in South America and Latin America. Particularly the steps towards unification and integration which are a prerequisite for independence. Venezuela played a leading role in initiating Unasur [Union of South American nations] and the Bank of the South, and most recently the formation of Celac [the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States] which is to have its first meeting this July. Celac, if it works, will be the first functioning organisation in the western hemisphere that includes every country in the western hemisphere except the United States and Canada, and that would be quite an important step towards integration and independence. So yes I think these are positive initiatives which have to be balanced against other things.

RC: With Hugo Chávez in Cuba the last several weeks a lot of people are saying this shows there is too much reliance on one man because everything appears to have almost stopped in his absence, at least in the political sphere. What's your take? Is there too much reliance on one man and his charisma?

NC: Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo and it has to be guarded against. Whether it's over too far in that direction in Venezuela I'm not sure but I think perhaps it is.


Next. :rolleyes:
 
And now you expect me to get hold of the sources you are unwilling to deliver to show your "predictions" right or wrong? You must be kidding. You have yet to develop an argument.

And anyway, the whole point is that there does not exist any evidence yet in support of or against my prediction. That's why it's called a prediction.
 
I could say "thanks" but really it's not my job to search for quotes somebody wants me to comment on. If you go to the linked original interview, it turns out that the situation is exactly, to the term, like i've described it in #1499:

RC: In your visit here in 2009 you said a better world was being created. Is that still the case?

NC: Actually what I said is that there are steps towards a better world in Venezuela and as far as I know that's true. There have been some significant steps – the sharp poverty reduction, probably the greatest in the Americas, the [social programme] missions, and the self-governing communities look like promising initiatives. It's hard to judge how successful they are but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world.

Also the international initiatives I think are quite significant. Venezuela has played a significant role in very important developments in South America and Latin America. Particularly the steps towards unification and integration which are a prerequisite for independence. Venezuela played a leading role in initiating Unasur [Union of South American nations] and the Bank of the South, and most recently the formation of Celac [the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States] which is to have its first meeting this July. Celac, if it works, will be the first functioning organisation in the western hemisphere that includes every country in the western hemisphere except the United States and Canada, and that would be quite an important step towards integration and independence. So yes I think these are positive initiatives which have to be balanced against other things.

RC: With Hugo Chávez in Cuba the last several weeks a lot of people are saying this shows there is too much reliance on one man because everything appears to have almost stopped in his absence, at least in the political sphere. What's your take? Is there too much reliance on one man and his charisma?

NC: Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo and it has to be guarded against. Whether it's over too far in that direction in Venezuela I'm not sure but I think perhaps it is.

Next. :rolleyes:

Soooo, what is Chomsky saying here? It might be good, and it might be bad. It might be a better world, and it might be caudillismo. And this is what the greatest living intellectual in the US has to tell us? Wowie zowie.
 
Soooo, what is Chomsky saying here? It might be good, and it might be bad. It might be a better world, and it might be caudillismo. And this is what the greatest living intellectual in the US has to tell us? Wowie zowie.

Language has nothing much to do with language. ;)
 
In fact, he does. He calls it in all kinds of names, but the reality is he openly supports the like of Hizbullah and sundry communist dictatorial murderers, not to mention excusing holocaust deniers.

He probably sees what most people call "genocidal murderers" as "freedom fighters" or "opponents of capitalist hegemony" or similar catch phrases, but yes, he clearly has quite a bit of sympathy for quite a lot of very evil people.

So convincing!

Thank you Skeptic, for submitting a pristine example of exactly the type of behaviour I was addressing.
 
Probably a good idea. There is probably no way to get through to any Chomsky fan.


Calling me a Chomsky fan fits in well with the completely unfounded, general statements you made in this thread. Like others, I had my "Chomsky phase" long time ago and moved on, but what remains is respect for a highly intelligent man of principles, determined to make the world a better place by speaking truth as he sees it to power. Enough respect to defend him against ludicrous accusations by people who either don't know better or have their own counter-progressive agendas to fulfill, regardless of how little it might matter.
 
Calling me a Chomsky fan fits in well with the completely unfounded, general statements you made in this thread. Like others, I had my "Chomsky phase" long time ago and moved on, but what remains is respect for a highly intelligent man of principles, determined to make the world a better place by speaking truth as he sees it to power. Enough respect to defend him against ludicrous accusations by people who either don't know better or have their own counter-progressive agendas to fulfill, regardless of how little it might matter.

I'd be more impressed with his principles if I met him in Aranyaprathet, rather than read about his opinions on the people there and how they became victims, and who were the victimizers.

I guess it's easier having a opinion from a distance.

ETA:

Here's some individuals really making a difference in the lives of refugees:

http://www.refugeerelief.org/index.html

100 Chomsky's aren't worth one Padgett.
 
Last edited:
Calling me a Chomsky fan fits in well with the completely unfounded, general statements you made in this thread. Like others, I had my "Chomsky phase" long time ago and moved on, but what remains is respect for a highly intelligent man of principles, determined to make the world a better place by speaking truth as he sees it to power. Enough respect to defend him against ludicrous accusations by people who either don't know better or have their own counter-progressive agendas to fulfill, regardless of how little it might matter.

Yeah, right. Give it up.
 
I'm predicting that we won't see this from Chomsky. I predict that we'll see denials of what he said,
Right, I see the pattern here. Any denial of the Observer's description of Chomsky's remarks is per se forbidden. The Observer's headline claim of a "denunciation" is absolute ground truth, while the transcript, with its cautious wording, must be faulted for not conforming to the report. And it's the same regarding Cambodia, and Faurisson, and Afghanistan. The characterizations of "praise" and "lying" are absolute. The source material need not be considered at all; it's irrelevant. We may only discuss why he praised or lied, and what hidden motives he might have. That he did so is a doctrine.

(In contrast, I accept that someone might look at the same evidence that Chomsky does and reach a different conclusion. His left-anarchist outlook is marginal in the US, and someone can easily go their entire life without ever hearing about it. That's a different sort of discussion though, because the source material may be considered.)

Anyway, ep, I get it now. Thanks for making it so clear.
 
Last edited:
I've found the majority of the "discussion" on this thread to be stupid.

Many of Chomsky's points of view can be taken quite seriously whether someone agrees with him or not. In fact, particularly when someone disagrees with Chomsky his views should be taken seriously.

There are certain basic arguments that Chomsky makes which are worth discussing but are being overlooked because ad hominem attacks are either more amusing or because they are easier to make than criticisms of his own views.

One of these arguments is over motives. For Chomsky it usually doesn't matter what the motive for a war is. The default position someone should take is to look at the outcomes. Many people recognize this anyway. Some of his critics will point out that for Chomsky there is no difference for a man who will push an old lady into the path of a speeding bus and a man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a speeding bus and they say Chomsky characterizes both as men who push old ladies around. This is the argument that Chomsky makes false moral equivalences.

This may well be a fair point although I think Chomsky could reply that there is a mistake in thinking that the malign and benign effects of both are as stark as the analogy suggests. Isn't it likely that when two countries go to war they both argue that they are going to do what's best for the people caught up in it but for the victims it is largely irrelevant what the overriding philosophical justification for the war was? He may say a person bombed by the army of a democratic state will end up just as dead as a person bombed by a fascist state. Some people will leap on this as a false moral equivalence or apologetics for fascism.

Rather, he would say that the use of military (or any other power) has to have a massively high threshold of justification before it can be employed.
 

Back
Top Bottom