7 ms·

His thoughts on Serbia/Kosovo, Russia/Ukraine, likely Russia/ Georgia etc have all been problematic too. Chomsky was illuminating in my personal character deve

His thoughts on Serbia/Kosovo, Russia/Ukraine, likely Russia/ Georgia etc have all been problematic too. Chomsky was illuminating in my personal character development. I grew up in a pretty conservative area, and his name carried a lot of hate like Hillary/Clinton did, but i didn't know why. Later, I saw some of his writings on American interventionism, and I found myself nodding my head in agreement over the mistakes my country/we have made. Later yet, I'm in college going for the math+cs degrees and his stuff on formal languages was probably the peak of my admiration for him... but with the admiration comes research, and perhaps the most important thing chomsky illustrated to me was that you can be a genius, but that doesn't mean you can't be blind, myopic, wrong, an asshole, or ... non-credible. I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes, but it's been an exemplar for me regardless -- good and bad, functional and broken.

roenxi 2y ago
> I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes The obvious resolution to that paradox is either you don't understand Chomsky's morals or have mistaken what his beliefs are. Judging by some random interview from 2022 [0] it looks like he has a position on Russia/Ukraine that is easy to defend. He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading. Looks like pretty standard fare for anyone who doesn't like war and propaganda. [0] https://chomsky.info/20220408/ https://chomsky.info/20220408/
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Chomsky defends imperialism as long as it's not coming from western countries.
  - nayaketo 2y ago
    This is the truth. He is only moral when it suits his hatred for his own country.
- hughesjj 2y ago
  I was thinking more about February 2022, where he tries to blame the Ukrainian invasion on nato expansion or something https://chomsky.info/20220204/ https://chomsky.info/20220204/ Oh also his georgian take https://chomsky.info/200809__2/ https://chomsky.info/200809__2/
  - roenxi 2y ago
    What do you expect him to believe? If you go in with an anti-imperialist anti-war bias, then NATO expansion is a bit of a beacon when asking questions like "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?". I don't actually remember if there is a serious counter-proposal; most people tend to rely on the theory that Putin suddenly went unhinged - which is obviously not the belief a thoughtful leftist would come to.
    - _djo_ 2y ago
      No, the alternative liberal internationalist view is that the preservation of imperial-like spheres of influence and ironclad regional hegemonies is unfair, u democratic, and at odds with the rules-based trade-oriented order we’d like to see the world continue to adopt. No country was forced to join NATO. In fact, it took years and years of lobbying from Eastern European countries before the first new members were allowed to join in 1999. Even then, plenty of care was taken to signal to Russia that it was strictly seen as a defensive measure, from allowing the Russian government in as an observer at all levels, to limiting the military capacity of the Baltics and putting a very low cap on the number and type of NATO assets that could be deployed in countries bordering Russia. The intellectual mistake that Chomsky and many who share his ideas make is to believe that just because Russia might reasonably feel aggrieved at no longer being able to politically and economically dominate the countries around it through the use of military force as it could as the USSR, that it somehow has a right to have that situation reversed and is therefore justified at launching an unprovoked attack on a neighbouring democratic country to gain back that power. There should be no such right in the modern era, and believing in it is a betrayal of traditional left-wing ideals. Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future, pulling off the same kinds of annexations and similar as it did as a young power, and when it was far less powerful than it is now.
- KptMarchewa 2y ago
  All the "anti-imperialist left" support is someone else's empire.
- racional 2y ago
  He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading. It's also a complete mindfuck of a piece, with obvious cognitive distortions and major factual evasions flying from every paragraph. But because it's expressed in that calm, authoritative, rational (sounding) voice -- and it's coming from Saint Chomsky after all -- "principled, internationalist" lefties eat it up like candy. I admire Chomsky for other things he's done. But he's got a split personality also, and in some cases his "morals" are very deeply flawed.
foobarqux 2y ago
[flagged]
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  There is unfortunately a staggering amount of evidence of genocide in Ukraine committed by russia. To suggest otherwise, or to suggest that russia is "acting with restraint and moderation" as Chomsky said, is tantamount to Holocaust denial. https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-interview/2023/04/noam-chomsky-interview-ukraine-free-actor-united-states-determines https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-interview/2023/04/n...
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - gcbirzan 2y ago
      > points out that Russia did not target (initially, now they are) essential civilian infrastructure like power plants Oh, right, they were targeting shopping malls and residential buildings... Or, you know, nuclear power plants. > When people are confronted with this fact they typically turn to the argument that our team are pure-of-heart so their killing doesn't count. Yes, your side is the only one that has rational individuals. > I don't remember where or if he talked about the claim of genocide in Ukraine but there is not a "staggering amount of evidence" unless your definition of genocide is so broad as to include a large proportion of armed conflicts So, Mariupol, Bucha... Bucha was just a massacre, there's no justification there, but let's say you want to compare Mariupol with... Fallujah? Do you have a worse US massacre in recent history? Well, yeah, the US killed people, and they should be blamed for it, but the scale doesn't even compare. Even if you take the Russian number of casualties, it's way higher in Mariupol. >Like I said these criticisms fall apart almost immediately when you start discussing the facts. What facts?
      - foobarqux 2y ago
        [flagged]

roenxi 2y ago

> I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes The obvious resolution to that paradox is either you don't understand Chomsky's morals or have mistaken what his beliefs are. Judging by some random interview from 2022 [0] it looks like he has a position on Russia/Ukraine that is easy to defend. He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading. Looks like pretty standard fare for anyone who doesn't like war and propaganda. [0] https://chomsky.info/20220408/ https://chomsky.info/20220408/

LunaSea 2y ago
Chomsky defends imperialism as long as it's not coming from western countries.
- nayaketo 2y ago
  This is the truth. He is only moral when it suits his hatred for his own country.
hughesjj 2y ago
I was thinking more about February 2022, where he tries to blame the Ukrainian invasion on nato expansion or something https://chomsky.info/20220204/ https://chomsky.info/20220204/ Oh also his georgian take https://chomsky.info/200809__2/ https://chomsky.info/200809__2/
- roenxi 2y ago
  What do you expect him to believe? If you go in with an anti-imperialist anti-war bias, then NATO expansion is a bit of a beacon when asking questions like "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?". I don't actually remember if there is a serious counter-proposal; most people tend to rely on the theory that Putin suddenly went unhinged - which is obviously not the belief a thoughtful leftist would come to.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    No, the alternative liberal internationalist view is that the preservation of imperial-like spheres of influence and ironclad regional hegemonies is unfair, u democratic, and at odds with the rules-based trade-oriented order we’d like to see the world continue to adopt. No country was forced to join NATO. In fact, it took years and years of lobbying from Eastern European countries before the first new members were allowed to join in 1999. Even then, plenty of care was taken to signal to Russia that it was strictly seen as a defensive measure, from allowing the Russian government in as an observer at all levels, to limiting the military capacity of the Baltics and putting a very low cap on the number and type of NATO assets that could be deployed in countries bordering Russia. The intellectual mistake that Chomsky and many who share his ideas make is to believe that just because Russia might reasonably feel aggrieved at no longer being able to politically and economically dominate the countries around it through the use of military force as it could as the USSR, that it somehow has a right to have that situation reversed and is therefore justified at launching an unprovoked attack on a neighbouring democratic country to gain back that power. There should be no such right in the modern era, and believing in it is a betrayal of traditional left-wing ideals. Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future, pulling off the same kinds of annexations and similar as it did as a young power, and when it was far less powerful than it is now.
KptMarchewa 2y ago
All the "anti-imperialist left" support is someone else's empire.
racional 2y ago
He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading. It's also a complete mindfuck of a piece, with obvious cognitive distortions and major factual evasions flying from every paragraph. But because it's expressed in that calm, authoritative, rational (sounding) voice -- and it's coming from Saint Chomsky after all -- "principled, internationalist" lefties eat it up like candy. I admire Chomsky for other things he's done. But he's got a split personality also, and in some cases his "morals" are very deeply flawed.

foobarqux 2y ago

[flagged]

yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
There is unfortunately a staggering amount of evidence of genocide in Ukraine committed by russia. To suggest otherwise, or to suggest that russia is "acting with restraint and moderation" as Chomsky said, is tantamount to Holocaust denial. https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-interview/2023/04/noam-chomsky-interview-ukraine-free-actor-united-states-determines https://www.newstatesman.com/the-weekend-interview/2023/04/n...
- foobarqux 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - gcbirzan 2y ago
    > points out that Russia did not target (initially, now they are) essential civilian infrastructure like power plants Oh, right, they were targeting shopping malls and residential buildings... Or, you know, nuclear power plants. > When people are confronted with this fact they typically turn to the argument that our team are pure-of-heart so their killing doesn't count. Yes, your side is the only one that has rational individuals. > I don't remember where or if he talked about the claim of genocide in Ukraine but there is not a "staggering amount of evidence" unless your definition of genocide is so broad as to include a large proportion of armed conflicts So, Mariupol, Bucha... Bucha was just a massacre, there's no justification there, but let's say you want to compare Mariupol with... Fallujah? Do you have a worse US massacre in recent history? Well, yeah, the US killed people, and they should be blamed for it, but the scale doesn't even compare. Even if you take the Russian number of casualties, it's way higher in Mariupol. >Like I said these criticisms fall apart almost immediately when you start discussing the facts. What facts?
    - foobarqux 2y ago
      [flagged]