5 ms·

He’s also a genocide denier.

by eddythompson80 3y ago

dgb23 3y ago
That's not true.
- eddythompson80 3y ago
  He is pretty open about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide_denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide_denial
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    I don’t know why people still defend Chomsky’s horrible positions on this stuff. Moreover his claim that Leninism is distinct from Stalinism was absolutely disproven when the soviet archives were briefly opened and scholars could read Lenin’s letters and memos, but Chomsky holds to the claim.
    - eddythompson80 3y ago
      My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest. He picks his positions, then redefines words and picks facts or parts of facts that support his position and ignores others. He twists narratives dismisses anything that contradicts with his position as conspiracy. I used to like Chomsky when I was initially introduces to him because I agreed with a lot of his leftist ideologies. But being so intellectually dishonest in supporting them makes him no better than an Alex Jones of the intellectual left.
      - ch4s3 3y ago
        > My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous). > an Alex Jones of the intellectual left This gave me a good chuckle.
        foobarqux 3y ago
        > He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous). Can you give an example? I've never found a gross misstatement when checking his citations.
        ch4s3 3y ago
        As an example he claimed in 2022 that in 1970 Soviet Citizens could access the BBC, citing historical records of broadcasts in Russian. He neglected to mention that the Soviet government jammed the signal. This is just one example.
        foobarqux 3y ago
        "However, jamming was never totally effective, and listening to the [BBC‘s] Russian Service as well as other Western broadcasters had, by the 1970s, become a ubiquitous phenomenon among the Soviet urban intelligentsia." “a Harvard University study in the mid-1970s estimated that 28 million people in the Soviet Union tuned in [to US-funded VoA] at least once a week.’” Far from a "gross misstatement". https://fair.org/home/factchecking-the-factchecker-on-chomsky-russia-and-media-access/ https://fair.org/home/factchecking-the-factchecker-on-chomsk...
        ch4s3 3y ago
        He was technically correct that some could, but it was obvious that he meant the USSR allowed it, which was a lie. This is a dumb argument.
        foobarqux 3y ago
        The point he was making was that 1970s Soviet Russians had more access to information in practice than Americans today, which has nothing to do with whether or not Russia allowed it. I don't think "both countries tried to censor but only the US was successful at it" is the gotcha you think it is. On another note I don't know exactly what you are trying to say in your top-level comment; Chomsky has said "when [Lenin] became the leader he didn't waste much time and Trotsky helped him in instituting a uh a pretty repressive regime which wasn't Stalinism but all the basic elements of Stalinism". Is that what you are referring to? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_2A_RoonI&t=304s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_2A_RoonI&t=304s
- snowpid 3y ago
  its true. Straight outta wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_Cambodia_and_the_Khmer_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch...
  - dgb23 3y ago
    That's not what "genocide denial" means. This was perhaps wrong judgement in hindsight. Calling this or other things "genocide denial" and similarly extreme terms is a common tactic in order to craft an ad-hominem attack to divert from anti-imperialist criticism. I'm in part Bosnian, so American intervention has had a very real impact on my family's well being and even survival. So I'm at least ambivalent if not opposed to some of Chomsky's views on anti-imperialism, even though I respect his principled stance. But calling him a "genocide denier" is incredibly cheap. If you read the rationale behind his early assessments of the situation, it becomes clear that it was based on (well founded) mistrust of American reporting. As the author of "Manufacturing Consent" he has been very consistent in that view.
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      So, based on your views, socialists are incapable of genocide? Since it could be an imperialist smear campaign? Every instance of genocide denial I know of also follows this line of reasoning.
      - dgb23 3y ago
        > So, based on your views, socialists are incapable of genocide? Since it could be an imperialist smear campaign? That doesn't follow does it. Why would you try to assume that I don't understand basic logic? Whether you live in this or that empire, it's people at the top telling you what to believe, what is right and wrong, while committing the most atrocious crimes. Socialists are very much capable of genocide and other forms of mass killings. In fact, they seem to typically start with killing other socialists, especially the democratic, libertarian left. That's no coincidence. > Every instance of genocide denial I know of also follows this line of reasoning. Genocide denial doesn't _follow_ this line of reasoning. It presents itself as such in order to hide the true intent. It is ultimately a propaganda instrument. From my understanding, this is not what he did. He openly and repeatedly denounced these regimes. Look at what he actually said and wrote (sensational YT videos don't count). I can't speak for him.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  You're lying. It is true and a repeated decades long offense. He denies, when asked, each and every genocide that harms the reputation of socialism. [https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY?si=v99y8DiJidzYOJES https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY?si=v99y8DiJidzYOJES]

He’s also a genocide denier.

dgb23 3y ago

That's not true.

eddythompson80 3y ago
He is pretty open about it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide_denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide_denial
- ch4s3 3y ago
  I don’t know why people still defend Chomsky’s horrible positions on this stuff. Moreover his claim that Leninism is distinct from Stalinism was absolutely disproven when the soviet archives were briefly opened and scholars could read Lenin’s letters and memos, but Chomsky holds to the claim.
  - eddythompson80 3y ago
    My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest. He picks his positions, then redefines words and picks facts or parts of facts that support his position and ignores others. He twists narratives dismisses anything that contradicts with his position as conspiracy. I used to like Chomsky when I was initially introduces to him because I agreed with a lot of his leftist ideologies. But being so intellectually dishonest in supporting them makes him no better than an Alex Jones of the intellectual left.
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      > My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous). > an Alex Jones of the intellectual left This gave me a good chuckle.
      - foobarqux 3y ago
        > He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous). Can you give an example? I've never found a gross misstatement when checking his citations.
        ch4s3 3y ago
        As an example he claimed in 2022 that in 1970 Soviet Citizens could access the BBC, citing historical records of broadcasts in Russian. He neglected to mention that the Soviet government jammed the signal. This is just one example.
        foobarqux 3y ago
        "However, jamming was never totally effective, and listening to the [BBC‘s] Russian Service as well as other Western broadcasters had, by the 1970s, become a ubiquitous phenomenon among the Soviet urban intelligentsia." “a Harvard University study in the mid-1970s estimated that 28 million people in the Soviet Union tuned in [to US-funded VoA] at least once a week.’” Far from a "gross misstatement". https://fair.org/home/factchecking-the-factchecker-on-chomsky-russia-and-media-access/ https://fair.org/home/factchecking-the-factchecker-on-chomsk...
        ch4s3 3y ago
        He was technically correct that some could, but it was obvious that he meant the USSR allowed it, which was a lie. This is a dumb argument.
        foobarqux 3y ago
        The point he was making was that 1970s Soviet Russians had more access to information in practice than Americans today, which has nothing to do with whether or not Russia allowed it. I don't think "both countries tried to censor but only the US was successful at it" is the gotcha you think it is. On another note I don't know exactly what you are trying to say in your top-level comment; Chomsky has said "when [Lenin] became the leader he didn't waste much time and Trotsky helped him in instituting a uh a pretty repressive regime which wasn't Stalinism but all the basic elements of Stalinism". Is that what you are referring to? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_2A_RoonI&t=304s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_2A_RoonI&t=304s
snowpid 3y ago
its true. Straight outta wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_Cambodia_and_the_Khmer_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch...
- dgb23 3y ago
  That's not what "genocide denial" means. This was perhaps wrong judgement in hindsight. Calling this or other things "genocide denial" and similarly extreme terms is a common tactic in order to craft an ad-hominem attack to divert from anti-imperialist criticism. I'm in part Bosnian, so American intervention has had a very real impact on my family's well being and even survival. So I'm at least ambivalent if not opposed to some of Chomsky's views on anti-imperialism, even though I respect his principled stance. But calling him a "genocide denier" is incredibly cheap. If you read the rationale behind his early assessments of the situation, it becomes clear that it was based on (well founded) mistrust of American reporting. As the author of "Manufacturing Consent" he has been very consistent in that view.
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    So, based on your views, socialists are incapable of genocide? Since it could be an imperialist smear campaign? Every instance of genocide denial I know of also follows this line of reasoning.
    - dgb23 3y ago
      > So, based on your views, socialists are incapable of genocide? Since it could be an imperialist smear campaign? That doesn't follow does it. Why would you try to assume that I don't understand basic logic? Whether you live in this or that empire, it's people at the top telling you what to believe, what is right and wrong, while committing the most atrocious crimes. Socialists are very much capable of genocide and other forms of mass killings. In fact, they seem to typically start with killing other socialists, especially the democratic, libertarian left. That's no coincidence. > Every instance of genocide denial I know of also follows this line of reasoning. Genocide denial doesn't _follow_ this line of reasoning. It presents itself as such in order to hide the true intent. It is ultimately a propaganda instrument. From my understanding, this is not what he did. He openly and repeatedly denounced these regimes. Look at what he actually said and wrote (sensational YT videos don't count). I can't speak for him.
hotdogscout 3y ago
You're lying. It is true and a repeated decades long offense. He denies, when asked, each and every genocide that harms the reputation of socialism. [https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY?si=v99y8DiJidzYOJES https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY?si=v99y8DiJidzYOJES]