4 ms·

How is this possible in a democratic country?

TaylorAlexander 2y ago
It’s a great question. I suggest reading up on what democracy really means in the modern world: https://chomsky.info/consent01/ https://chomsky.info/consent01/
- Gibbon1 2y ago
  I suggest avoiding reading anything by a guy that idolizes the Khmer Rouge.
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    That doesn’t sound like a thing Chomsky would do. I could imagine him saying that certain tactics were effective or certain aspects of their politics were notable, but I don’t see him as someone who idolizes anyone. Do you have a source for this? To me this sounds like a misunderstanding, but I’m open to being shown otherwise.
    - Gibbon1 2y ago
      https://chomsky.info/19770625/ https://chomsky.info/19770625/
      - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
        Bit of a busy day for me so I asked ChatGPT so summarize and explain the author’s position on the Khmer Rouge. “The text is an interview with Noam Chomsky discussing the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Chomsky critiques Western media's portrayal of the Khmer Rouge, arguing that it's exaggerated and ignores broader historical context, particularly U.S. involvement. He suggests that atrocities attributed to the Khmer Rouge may have been exaggerated or even fabricated, emphasizing the need for independent investigation. Chomsky's attitude toward the Khmer Rouge appears critical of Western narratives, highlighting skepticism and a call for a more nuanced understanding.” That’s does not give any truth to your claim of idolizing, as I expected. It’s quite believable that western narratives could be manipulated as that is common place and the subject of Chomsky’s expertise. Pointing out the manipulation of the media and painting the target as more nuanced and not as evil as media makes them out to be is a far cry from idolization.
        Gibbon1 2y ago
        Go believe what you want then, that's what Chompsky does.
        TaylorAlexander 2y ago
        I’m gonna believe what makes sense. You made a claim which didn’t fit with what I know about Chomsky, and left a citation that doesn’t support that claim. Your claim does not make any sense to me. It’s perfectly within my understanding of Chomsky for him to say “These people we vilified weren’t quite that bad. We vilified them for our own political aims, and fabricated stories as needed to support that. The truth is much more nuanced than media made it out to be.” And Chomsky doesn’t just make empty claims or “believe what he wants”. He usually cites sources from within the US government, like published State Department memos stating the position he’s claiming they had.
quonn 2y ago
There is plenty of precedent as others have pointed out, including in the EU. And we are talking about a media outlet controlled by the government of a foreign country that also directly finances the opposing terrorist group and houses their leaders. Democracy merely depends on free media, not on free foreign or adversary media.
usrusr 2y ago
Israel has never formally left behind the "make it up as you go" spirit of the founding days. Not entirely surprising considering that they've never had a lack of more pressing problems. But a "who needs rules if we are all friends" attitude certainly seems a bit anachronistic by now, and really not a good fit for the reality on the ground. But I make it the centerpiece of my best-case scenario for the region: imagine that gap left by the absent constitution getting filled by something aggressively secular, with a strong set of entrenched clauses (aka eternity clauses) protecting individual religious freedom from any majority shifts that might happen. Perhaps even with some strong federal element enabling peaceful growth (and Brexit-like shrinkage) like the EU. I'm certainly not holding my breath, neither expecting Israel to come up with anything like that (despite their internal made-up-as-they-went not being terribly far off, I think) nor this having any effect on countries refusing recognition. But then what other best-case scenarios are there?
emmelaich 2y ago
Don't be deliberately obtuse, censorship is pervasive in any country in times of war, even democratic ones.
dunekid 2y ago
That's the bane of democracy, not to say that we have a better alternative. Because democracy has been assigned to be any system where there are some elections and people vote. Universal suffrage is itself is pretty modern. The decisions in bastions of democratic countries where in the hands of a few elite. What is the distinguishing factor of a high quality democracy is it when it does have a set of constitution, and is republic by nature. The rule of law is enforced. Selective enforcement is nonexistent. On an assessment by these very basic qualities, the current Regime in charge can't be really classified as a democracy. It is an excuse for democracy. An overgrown military outpost formed out of crusade era objectives and European anti semitic emotions. Not to mention the oil and perceived potential of the region to be a western adversary. In the words of US president, US-UK still believes that if there were no Israel, then they would have to create one. Which is ironic, since they are the ones who created it.

It’s a great question. I suggest reading up on what democracy really means in the modern world: https://chomsky.info/consent01/ https://chomsky.info/consent01/

Gibbon1 2y ago
I suggest avoiding reading anything by a guy that idolizes the Khmer Rouge.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  That doesn’t sound like a thing Chomsky would do. I could imagine him saying that certain tactics were effective or certain aspects of their politics were notable, but I don’t see him as someone who idolizes anyone. Do you have a source for this? To me this sounds like a misunderstanding, but I’m open to being shown otherwise.
  - Gibbon1 2y ago
    https://chomsky.info/19770625/ https://chomsky.info/19770625/
    - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
      Bit of a busy day for me so I asked ChatGPT so summarize and explain the author’s position on the Khmer Rouge. “The text is an interview with Noam Chomsky discussing the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Chomsky critiques Western media's portrayal of the Khmer Rouge, arguing that it's exaggerated and ignores broader historical context, particularly U.S. involvement. He suggests that atrocities attributed to the Khmer Rouge may have been exaggerated or even fabricated, emphasizing the need for independent investigation. Chomsky's attitude toward the Khmer Rouge appears critical of Western narratives, highlighting skepticism and a call for a more nuanced understanding.” That’s does not give any truth to your claim of idolizing, as I expected. It’s quite believable that western narratives could be manipulated as that is common place and the subject of Chomsky’s expertise. Pointing out the manipulation of the media and painting the target as more nuanced and not as evil as media makes them out to be is a far cry from idolization.
      - Gibbon1 2y ago
        Go believe what you want then, that's what Chompsky does.
        TaylorAlexander 2y ago
        I’m gonna believe what makes sense. You made a claim which didn’t fit with what I know about Chomsky, and left a citation that doesn’t support that claim. Your claim does not make any sense to me. It’s perfectly within my understanding of Chomsky for him to say “These people we vilified weren’t quite that bad. We vilified them for our own political aims, and fabricated stories as needed to support that. The truth is much more nuanced than media made it out to be.” And Chomsky doesn’t just make empty claims or “believe what he wants”. He usually cites sources from within the US government, like published State Department memos stating the position he’s claiming they had.

quonn 2y ago

There is plenty of precedent as others have pointed out, including in the EU. And we are talking about a media outlet controlled by the government of a foreign country that also directly finances the opposing terrorist group and houses their leaders. Democracy merely depends on free media, not on free foreign or adversary media.

usrusr 2y ago

Israel has never formally left behind the "make it up as you go" spirit of the founding days. Not entirely surprising considering that they've never had a lack of more pressing problems. But a "who needs rules if we are all friends" attitude certainly seems a bit anachronistic by now, and really not a good fit for the reality on the ground. But I make it the centerpiece of my best-case scenario for the region: imagine that gap left by the absent constitution getting filled by something aggressively secular, with a strong set of entrenched clauses (aka eternity clauses) protecting individual religious freedom from any majority shifts that might happen. Perhaps even with some strong federal element enabling peaceful growth (and Brexit-like shrinkage) like the EU. I'm certainly not holding my breath, neither expecting Israel to come up with anything like that (despite their internal made-up-as-they-went not being terribly far off, I think) nor this having any effect on countries refusing recognition. But then what other best-case scenarios are there?

emmelaich 2y ago

Don't be deliberately obtuse, censorship is pervasive in any country in times of war, even democratic ones.

dunekid 2y ago

That's the bane of democracy, not to say that we have a better alternative. Because democracy has been assigned to be any system where there are some elections and people vote. Universal suffrage is itself is pretty modern. The decisions in bastions of democratic countries where in the hands of a few elite. What is the distinguishing factor of a high quality democracy is it when it does have a set of constitution, and is republic by nature. The rule of law is enforced. Selective enforcement is nonexistent. On an assessment by these very basic qualities, the current Regime in charge can't be really classified as a democracy. It is an excuse for democracy. An overgrown military outpost formed out of crusade era objectives and European anti semitic emotions. Not to mention the oil and perceived potential of the region to be a western adversary. In the words of US president, US-UK still believes that if there were no Israel, then they would have to create one. Which is ironic, since they are the ones who created it.