4 ms·

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.

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.
- snowpid 3y ago
  '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.' That does not matter. It doesnt make your opinion more valid. '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.' It is very normal to judge based on other areas that someone said. He denied the Cambodian genocide and never changed his view since 50 years! What does it say about him? And why is it ad-hominem? Do you even know what does it mean?

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.
snowpid 3y ago
'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.' That does not matter. It doesnt make your opinion more valid. '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.' It is very normal to judge based on other areas that someone said. He denied the Cambodian genocide and never changed his view since 50 years! What does it say about him? And why is it ad-hominem? Do you even know what does it mean?