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.
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
Photos faked in Thailand.
The figures in the priests book conflated and misattributed.
Any wild claim accepted uncritically without any research even when it had been disproved by foreign press.
Chomsky and Herman went for verifiable figures.
The whole point of their endeavor was to compare the media coverage to the coverage of the invasion and occupation of East Timor.
They even predicted that the response would be to accuse them of denial and ignore Timor.
trying to whitewash the supposed “anti-war” movement
The smear is implicit and obvious: "we pulled out and look what happened the region fell into chaos"
when almost no one else decided to come out in support of Pol Pot like ol’ Chumpsky here
When Vietnam invaded the USA began aiding Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, I dare say that was a bit more supportive than your imaginings about Chomsky. Seems to be that is also around the time criticism dried up and people lambasting Chomsky are strangely silent on this turn of event.
No, that’s my response to you still defending fucking Chumpsky over Pol Pot.
I'm setting the record straight on what he said and did. You could go and find out for yourself by reading him or listen to his explanation but you prefer repeating what you heard others say.
That gives me twenty years to get to where you are now.
(1) Lol, can't believe there are still actual Khmer Rouge denialists. Suppose that he tried the same thing for the Holocaust (and he certainly went on to defend a Holocaust Denialist, another of Chomsky's absolute fucking idiocy in his pedantry), people would rightly vilify him today, and not hold him as standard bearer of all that is left. Instead, you try to pretend that Chomsky has a point here, when his own arguments are extremely specious- for example, he cites an unnamed "Thai intelligence officer" for proof that the photos are faked- certainly damning for a guy that claims to like "facts". So, where does that leave Chomsky and Herman, but still in the wrong, and you still a genocide denier in your quest to defend them. Fuck off.
(2) Name another anti-War figure who came out in favor of Pol Pot like Chomsky here? As to the US aiding Pol Pot to get back at the Vietnamese, that is completely irrelevant to Chomsky supporting Pol Pot, if anything, it shows how much of an Imperialist American stooge Chomsky was and has always been.
(3) You are trying to obfuscate and equivocate.
(4) Of course, you are not even a Neo-Con, you are just a Social Fascist.
There is no Khmer Rouge denial here. There is criticism of media exaggerations - conflating a books figures, not checking on photos that had been faked in Thailand. You dont seem to have a problem with this. And the whole time the was breathlessly reporting everything and anything without checking they were SILENT about East Timor. That is what they were comparing this to. Your exaggerations dont get a retroactive justification because later verifiable information comes along showing that similar things did in fact happen. You don't seem to understand the finer points here, the media exaggerating without checking, silence on East Timor, and the comparison of the two. All that goes over your head. Not a word from you about conflating the figures in the priests book, not a word about photos faked in Thailand. Not a word about the silence about East Timor. Its all okay to you because later on reliable evidence came along that at the same time this happened there really were mass killings.
he cites an unnamed “Thai intelligence officer” for proof that the photos are faked- certainly damning for a guy that claims to like “facts”.
It was thoroughly debunked in foreign press.
and he certainly went on to defend a Holocaust Denialist, another of Chomsky’s absolute fucking idiocy in his pedantry
Chomsky was 1 of 500 people who signed a petition. Chomsky is the only one who gets attacked for this. Why? Faurisson was being tried for 'Falsification of History' and would have served time in jail - do you believe that the state should determine what is historical fact and punish those who deviate?
(2) Name another anti-War figure who came out in favor of Pol Pot like Chomsky here?
He wasn't in favor of Pol Pot so this is just a fucking lie. Whats next, "do you still beat your wife?"
(3) You are trying to obfuscate and equivocate.
Says the fella who thinks its okay to exaggerate and accept any claim because hey maybe later something similar might turn out to be true.
I've been sticking to the facts the whole time. They were questioning the uncritical reporting. You say this defends Pol Pot. He signed a petition for free speech, you call him a defender of a Holocaust Denier.
(4) Of course, you are not even a Neo-Con, you are just a Social Fascist.
Look at how you react to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Reduce everything down to accusing them of Holocaust Denial.
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.
Its based on speaking the language. Thats not being a weabo.
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.
Photos faked in Thailand.
The figures in the priests book conflated and misattributed.
Any wild claim accepted uncritically without any research even when it had been disproved by foreign press.
Chomsky and Herman went for verifiable figures.
The whole point of their endeavor was to compare the media coverage to the coverage of the invasion and occupation of East Timor.
They even predicted that the response would be to accuse them of denial and ignore Timor.
The smear is implicit and obvious: "we pulled out and look what happened the region fell into chaos"
When Vietnam invaded the USA began aiding Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, I dare say that was a bit more supportive than your imaginings about Chomsky. Seems to be that is also around the time criticism dried up and people lambasting Chomsky are strangely silent on this turn of event.
I'm setting the record straight on what he said and did. You could go and find out for yourself by reading him or listen to his explanation but you prefer repeating what you heard others say.
I know you are but what am I hurr hurr hurr
(1) Lol, can't believe there are still actual Khmer Rouge denialists. Suppose that he tried the same thing for the Holocaust (and he certainly went on to defend a Holocaust Denialist, another of Chomsky's absolute fucking idiocy in his pedantry), people would rightly vilify him today, and not hold him as standard bearer of all that is left. Instead, you try to pretend that Chomsky has a point here, when his own arguments are extremely specious- for example, he cites an unnamed "Thai intelligence officer" for proof that the photos are faked- certainly damning for a guy that claims to like "facts". So, where does that leave Chomsky and Herman, but still in the wrong, and you still a genocide denier in your quest to defend them. Fuck off.
(2) Name another anti-War figure who came out in favor of Pol Pot like Chomsky here? As to the US aiding Pol Pot to get back at the Vietnamese, that is completely irrelevant to Chomsky supporting Pol Pot, if anything, it shows how much of an Imperialist American stooge Chomsky was and has always been.
(3) You are trying to obfuscate and equivocate.
(4) Of course, you are not even a Neo-Con, you are just a Social Fascist.
There is no Khmer Rouge denial here. There is criticism of media exaggerations - conflating a books figures, not checking on photos that had been faked in Thailand. You dont seem to have a problem with this. And the whole time the was breathlessly reporting everything and anything without checking they were SILENT about East Timor. That is what they were comparing this to. Your exaggerations dont get a retroactive justification because later verifiable information comes along showing that similar things did in fact happen. You don't seem to understand the finer points here, the media exaggerating without checking, silence on East Timor, and the comparison of the two. All that goes over your head. Not a word from you about conflating the figures in the priests book, not a word about photos faked in Thailand. Not a word about the silence about East Timor. Its all okay to you because later on reliable evidence came along that at the same time this happened there really were mass killings.
It was thoroughly debunked in foreign press.
Chomsky was 1 of 500 people who signed a petition. Chomsky is the only one who gets attacked for this. Why? Faurisson was being tried for 'Falsification of History' and would have served time in jail - do you believe that the state should determine what is historical fact and punish those who deviate?
He wasn't in favor of Pol Pot so this is just a fucking lie. Whats next, "do you still beat your wife?"
Says the fella who thinks its okay to exaggerate and accept any claim because hey maybe later something similar might turn out to be true.
I've been sticking to the facts the whole time. They were questioning the uncritical reporting. You say this defends Pol Pot. He signed a petition for free speech, you call him a defender of a Holocaust Denier.
Look at how you react to anyone who doesn't agree with you. Reduce everything down to accusing them of Holocaust Denial.