Lol, Bernie already ate shit, and is beginning his long road down into obscurity, probably get himself a regular slot in Democracy Now with other washed up "activists" like Noam, but people are still obsessed with him.
LMAO. Noam and Democracy Now are so great in comparison to what we expect from aMeRiCaN dEmOcRaCy, but Noam has said a lot of dumb shit lately (like blaming the KPD for Hitler). Where has Democracy Now fucked up lately though? (genuinely interested. I haven't been keeping track.)
First, when has Noam ever said anything that is not dumb as shit. He has always been a "vote blue no matter who" sort of guy, he endorsed Hillary in '16, Biden in '20, hell, he supported Trump in Rojava and Pol Pot in Cambodia. Democracy Now, however, is a liberal outlet which, hey, cool for them to be consistent, but has never really been "radical".
Yes, Noam has always been a VBNMW drone, but the shit he's said this year has gone well beyond that. I struggle to condemn Noam outright because Manufacturing Consent was a generally materialist and essentially timed critique of mass media, but lately he has been offering very little for the movement.
Edit: as for Democracy Now. Yeah, I suppose they have never been hardline radicals, but when I was involved in Occupy Wall Street, I felt they were among the very few outlets who gave us a fair shake. Ideologically I suppose you could say Amy Goodman is a liberal, but if so, she is one of the few liberals who actually has principles.
I don't see why we need to uphold a guy for saying what we all already knew, that the media is full of shit. Beside which, Noam is shit even as a fucking Linguist. I have no respect for a guy who thinks that he can just theorize without actually putting the time and effort into doing fieldwork.
Noam is shit even as a fucking Linguist. I have no respect for a guy who thinks that he can just theorize without actually putting the time and effort into doing fieldwork.
lol you don't know what you're saying and are parroting rightwing critics, you love to see it folks.
Lol, "right wing critics" is when you expect someone who works in a social science to actually do the leggings of actually doing fieldwork instead of, as Chomsky himself admits about his thesis, skipping over actually collecting data on Hebrew as it is actually spoken since "he already knew the language", and even then, admits he isn't all that good with Modern Hebrew.
No, I actually read what Noam has to say about his own fucking work himself. I'm never heard of Tom Wolfe's book.
When I got to college, I had to do an undergraduate thesis. I was in linguistics then, so I figured, “OK, I’ll write about Hebrew. It’s kind of interesting.” I started the way I was taught to: You get an informant, and you do field work and take a corpus. So I started working with an informant, and I realized after a couple of weeks, this is totally idiotic. I know the answers to all the questions. And the only thing I don’t know is the phonetics, but I don’t care about that. So I just dropped the informant and started doing it myself.
https://chomsky.info/20101112/
Lol, imagine me going to Japan as an anthropologist, say, "fuck this fieldwork bullshit, I know everything about Japan from being a Weabo" and then write a thesis on Japanese culture based solely on my consumption of Japanese mass media.
He has always been a “vote blue no matter who” sort of guy
Quote him saying that. Don't forget where he says it should be an inconsequential few minute affair and you need to focus on building organizations and a better society so you don't have such awful choices that require you hold your nose.
and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Oh wow you've been drinking liberalism. Please friend do quote him supporting Pol Pot and denying Cambodia. I really look forward to seeing these quotes and sources you provide.
Democracy Now, however, is a liberal outlet which, hey, cool for them to be consistent, but has never really been “radical”.
Love how you guys can devote so much time to shitting on Biden, but when Grandpa Chomsky says it, suddenly, it is profound and we need to actively do what he says.
Oh wow you’ve been drinking liberalism. Please friend do quote him supporting Pol Pot and denying Cambodia. I really look forward to seeing these quotes and sources you provide.
https://chomsky.info/19770625/
Did it. And once it came out that Chomsky was wrong and Pol Pot was even worse than what people originally thought, Chomsky, the intellectual coward, instead of doing the right thing and say "yeah, I fucked up big time", instead decided to say "I was right with the information given at the time".
Everything I don’t like is liberal!
Only, Democracy Now is Liberal. I don't not like Democracy Now, it is useful for providing a more left liberal perspective to the news, and in a world where anything that wasn't sucking on the boots of the troops was rare on television, it was actually giving voice to people critical of the whole War on Terror madness, but it is indisputable that it is basically a left liberal, social democratic media platform.
but when Grandpa Chomsky says it, suddenly, it is profound and we need to actively do what he says.
Says what? Did he say something about elections? Quote him in full, not just a pithy summary, and then we'll discuss it.
https://chomsky.info/19770625/ Did it.
Now where exactly in there does he defend Pol Pot? Where they discuss photos being faked in Thailand and how this was quickly discovered by the international press but the American press refused to report it? Where they discuss how the French priests book had several death tolls attributed to several causes - one of the largest being the US bombing - but somehow in the translated review this became one toll attributed solely to the Khmer Rouge? Or maybe its where they look for reliable figures and cite that den of lunatics, the US State Department?
instead decided to say “I was right with the information given at the time”.
Chomsky and Herman tried to do the right thing and use verifiable sources and not the histrionics people were citing to smear the anti-war movement. Their purpose in this media analysis was to compare the coverage and outrage to the silence over the invasion and occupation of East Timor that was going on at that exact same time, a genocide the USA was directly responsible for. It's interesting how the people condemning Chomsky as a Pol Pot apologist never ever touch on this fact, almost as if they didn't know and were just repeating what they had heard elsewhere.
Only, Democracy Now is Liberal.
but it is indisputable that it is basically a left liberal, social democratic media platform.
This is a good example of how the word liberal has become completely meaningless and simply used as a derogatory, it started on the right and now the left has taken it up too through its constant use or gaslighting or desire to emulate.
(1) When someone else who is mildly progressive endorses biden, it is a sign of them being craven and unprincipled in "leftist" but when grandpa chomsky does it, "we need mountains and mountain of context just so I can pick two or three words to equivocate over".
(2) Re-read the entire article, think about Kampuchea losing a third of its population, and reconsider whether defending some shitty bullshit media analysis that cast doubt over the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge is really worth it. Like, try to look back with what is one of the worse genocide in human history, and think of how morally feeble it is to defend some dumbass fucking assholes' dumbass fucking media analysis bullshit.
Maybe grow up, and do material analysis instead of media analysis.
(3) It hurts because you are a liberal...a genocide denying liberal.
(1) When someone else who is mildly progressive endorses biden, it is a sign of them being craven and unprincipled in “leftist”
That might be how others here have tantrums but not me.
and reconsider whether defending some shitty bullshit media analysis that cast doubt over the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge is really worth it.
Do you think its fine to conflate different death tolls and fake photos in Thailand? Do you think its fine to do this to implicitly blame the anti-war movement and absolve America for its actions in the region? Do you think its fine to focus on something you cant change while ignoring something you can change?
Maybe grow up, and do material analysis instead of media analysis.
Is there an adherence to the truth we should aspire to do or can we just say whatever feels good and right no matter how dubious the claim and evidence?
(3) It hurts because you are a liberal…a genocide denying liberal.
That's your response to being reminded the whole point was to compare the outrage to the silence on East Timor. Wonderful. 200,000 people dead out of a population of just 700,000. Occupied for 24 miserable years. And all you can do is this lousy lameass tactic.
That might be how others here have tantrums but not me.
No, it is definitely you.
Do you think its fine to conflate different death tolls and fake photos in Thailand? Do you think its fine to do this to implicitly blame the anti-war movement and absolve America for its actions in the region? Do you think its fine to focus on something you cant change while ignoring something you can change?
Lol, let's focus on what you are doing here, you are trying to absolve what Chomsky is shown to be completely wrong about for several decades now, trying to whitewash the supposed "anti-war" movement, when almost no one else decided to come out in support of Pol Pot like ol' Chumpsky here, and then focus on some sort of weird parochial attitude where "I don't need to be correct about another country or give a shit about being accurate, because I'm an American, and what matters to me is America".
Is there an adherence to the truth we should aspire to do or can we just say whatever feels good and right no matter how dubious the claim and evidence?
I love how your "adherence to truth" makes you still defend Chomsky being entirely wrong about Kampuchea.
That’s your response to being reminded the whole point was to compare the outrage to the silence on East Timor. Wonderful. 200,000 people dead out of a population of just 700,000. Occupied for 24 miserable years. And all you can do is this lousy lameass tactic.
No, that's my response to you still defending fucking Chumpsky over Pol Pot. Like you don't need to fucking cast doubt over fucking genocide in Kampuchea and also criticize the silence of East Timor. You fucking miserable piece of genocide denying shit.
In 20 years you’re gonna be a neocon.
That gives me twenty years to get to where you are now.
People who disagree with me on every matter should be cast aside as "washed up".
Or, maybe the left should actually stand for at least some principles, instead of tacking on to the latest electoral fad, especially one that bombed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
Yes, as a guy who sucks but is still more correct than Chomsky, Zizek, says, "I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong". Beside which, what I hate about Chomsky isn't the position he takes, per se, but his own method of simply, in that droning way of his, repeating "facts" as if facts exist pre-ideologically.
Beside which, what I hate about Chomsky isn’t the position he takes, per se, but his own method of simply, in that droning way of his, repeating “facts” as if facts exist pre-ideologically.
There is no such thing as "facts" or "truths" that exist innocently and "pre-ideologically" because "ideology" is, itself, how the human mind structures and make sense of the world.
Lol, Bernie already ate shit, and is beginning his long road down into obscurity, probably get himself a regular slot in Democracy Now with other washed up "activists" like Noam, but people are still obsessed with him.
LMAO. Noam and Democracy Now are so great in comparison to what we expect from aMeRiCaN dEmOcRaCy, but Noam has said a lot of dumb shit lately (like blaming the KPD for Hitler). Where has Democracy Now fucked up lately though? (genuinely interested. I haven't been keeping track.)
First, when has Noam ever said anything that is not dumb as shit. He has always been a "vote blue no matter who" sort of guy, he endorsed Hillary in '16, Biden in '20, hell, he supported Trump in Rojava and Pol Pot in Cambodia. Democracy Now, however, is a liberal outlet which, hey, cool for them to be consistent, but has never really been "radical".
Yes, Noam has always been a VBNMW drone, but the shit he's said this year has gone well beyond that. I struggle to condemn Noam outright because Manufacturing Consent was a generally materialist and essentially timed critique of mass media, but lately he has been offering very little for the movement.
Edit: as for Democracy Now. Yeah, I suppose they have never been hardline radicals, but when I was involved in Occupy Wall Street, I felt they were among the very few outlets who gave us a fair shake. Ideologically I suppose you could say Amy Goodman is a liberal, but if so, she is one of the few liberals who actually has principles.
I don't see why we need to uphold a guy for saying what we all already knew, that the media is full of shit. Beside which, Noam is shit even as a fucking Linguist. I have no respect for a guy who thinks that he can just theorize without actually putting the time and effort into doing fieldwork.
lol you don't know what you're saying and are parroting rightwing critics, you love to see it folks.
Lol, "right wing critics" is when you expect someone who works in a social science to actually do the leggings of actually doing fieldwork instead of, as Chomsky himself admits about his thesis, skipping over actually collecting data on Hebrew as it is actually spoken since "he already knew the language", and even then, admits he isn't all that good with Modern Hebrew.
The only people who try to attack his professional work in discussions of his political writings are on the right. It's a basic ad hom.
What is this field work you keep talking about? Oh god no, did you read that Tom Wolfe book?
No, I actually read what Noam has to say about his own fucking work himself. I'm never heard of Tom Wolfe's book.
Lol, imagine me going to Japan as an anthropologist, say, "fuck this fieldwork bullshit, I know everything about Japan from being a Weabo" and then write a thesis on Japanese culture based solely on my consumption of Japanese mass media.
Quote him saying that. Don't forget where he says it should be an inconsequential few minute affair and you need to focus on building organizations and a better society so you don't have such awful choices that require you hold your nose.
Oh wow you've been drinking liberalism. Please friend do quote him supporting Pol Pot and denying Cambodia. I really look forward to seeing these quotes and sources you provide.
Everything I don't like is liberal!
Love how you guys can devote so much time to shitting on Biden, but when Grandpa Chomsky says it, suddenly, it is profound and we need to actively do what he says.
https://chomsky.info/19770625/ Did it. And once it came out that Chomsky was wrong and Pol Pot was even worse than what people originally thought, Chomsky, the intellectual coward, instead of doing the right thing and say "yeah, I fucked up big time", instead decided to say "I was right with the information given at the time".
Only, Democracy Now is Liberal. I don't not like Democracy Now, it is useful for providing a more left liberal perspective to the news, and in a world where anything that wasn't sucking on the boots of the troops was rare on television, it was actually giving voice to people critical of the whole War on Terror madness, but it is indisputable that it is basically a left liberal, social democratic media platform.
Says what? Did he say something about elections? Quote him in full, not just a pithy summary, and then we'll discuss it.
Now where exactly in there does he defend Pol Pot? Where they discuss photos being faked in Thailand and how this was quickly discovered by the international press but the American press refused to report it? Where they discuss how the French priests book had several death tolls attributed to several causes - one of the largest being the US bombing - but somehow in the translated review this became one toll attributed solely to the Khmer Rouge? Or maybe its where they look for reliable figures and cite that den of lunatics, the US State Department?
Chomsky and Herman tried to do the right thing and use verifiable sources and not the histrionics people were citing to smear the anti-war movement. Their purpose in this media analysis was to compare the coverage and outrage to the silence over the invasion and occupation of East Timor that was going on at that exact same time, a genocide the USA was directly responsible for. It's interesting how the people condemning Chomsky as a Pol Pot apologist never ever touch on this fact, almost as if they didn't know and were just repeating what they had heard elsewhere.
This is a good example of how the word liberal has become completely meaningless and simply used as a derogatory, it started on the right and now the left has taken it up too through its constant use or gaslighting or desire to emulate.
(1) When someone else who is mildly progressive endorses biden, it is a sign of them being craven and unprincipled in "leftist" but when grandpa chomsky does it, "we need mountains and mountain of context just so I can pick two or three words to equivocate over".
(2) Re-read the entire article, think about Kampuchea losing a third of its population, and reconsider whether defending some shitty bullshit media analysis that cast doubt over the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge is really worth it. Like, try to look back with what is one of the worse genocide in human history, and think of how morally feeble it is to defend some dumbass fucking assholes' dumbass fucking media analysis bullshit.
Maybe grow up, and do material analysis instead of media analysis.
(3) It hurts because you are a liberal...a genocide denying liberal.
That might be how others here have tantrums but not me.
Do you think its fine to conflate different death tolls and fake photos in Thailand? Do you think its fine to do this to implicitly blame the anti-war movement and absolve America for its actions in the region? Do you think its fine to focus on something you cant change while ignoring something you can change?
Is there an adherence to the truth we should aspire to do or can we just say whatever feels good and right no matter how dubious the claim and evidence?
That's your response to being reminded the whole point was to compare the outrage to the silence on East Timor. Wonderful. 200,000 people dead out of a population of just 700,000. Occupied for 24 miserable years. And all you can do is this lousy lameass tactic.
In 20 years you're gonna be a neocon.
No, it is definitely you.
Lol, let's focus on what you are doing here, you are trying to absolve what Chomsky is shown to be completely wrong about for several decades now, trying to whitewash the supposed "anti-war" movement, when almost no one else decided to come out in support of Pol Pot like ol' Chumpsky here, and then focus on some sort of weird parochial attitude where "I don't need to be correct about another country or give a shit about being accurate, because I'm an American, and what matters to me is America".
I love how your "adherence to truth" makes you still defend Chomsky being entirely wrong about Kampuchea.
No, that's my response to you still defending fucking Chumpsky over Pol Pot. Like you don't need to fucking cast doubt over fucking genocide in Kampuchea and also criticize the silence of East Timor. You fucking miserable piece of genocide denying shit.
That gives me twenty years to get to where you are now.
You love to see the left primed to prove that they are more radical with instant denouncements and cutting one another down
Or, maybe the left should actually stand for at least some principles, instead of tacking on to the latest electoral fad, especially one that bombed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
You disagree with Chomsky on everything? And he's the one that is wrong? Hmm.
Yes, as a guy who sucks but is still more correct than Chomsky, Zizek, says, "I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong". Beside which, what I hate about Chomsky isn't the position he takes, per se, but his own method of simply, in that droning way of his, repeating "facts" as if facts exist pre-ideologically.
lol
Everything Ben Shapiro says can be "factually true" and he can still be completely wrong, because no "fact" or "truth" exist pre-ideologically.
wut
There is no such thing as "facts" or "truths" that exist innocently and "pre-ideologically" because "ideology" is, itself, how the human mind structures and make sense of the world.
"Only I am the real activist" energy