5 ms·

I love much of Chomsky’s writing as he opened my eyes in powerful ways, especially wrt media bias. I would however hesitate to call him an anarchist after hear

by lowkey 2y ago

I love much of Chomsky’s writing as he opened my eyes in powerful ways, especially wrt media bias. I would however hesitate to call him an anarchist after hearing his comments about the unvaccinated during Covid.

swayvil 2y ago
The brighter the light the darker the surrounding darkness. And Chomsky's light is so very bright.
- artninja1988 2y ago
  Does he glow in the dark?
  - swayvil 2y ago
    I meant that when you focus on one thing you ignore another. Great focus tends to create great blind spots.
rgrieselhuber 2y ago
Chomsky, as did everyone during COVID, revealed his true colors and he certainly did not live up to his own rhetoric over the years.
tomjakubowski 2y ago
Don't be vague, what about his comments on Covid vaccines was statist? As far as I know, he only called for social shunning of the unvaccinated, not state action. In fact, in this interview, he declares opposition to a vaccine mandate, and doesn't even call for social shunning - he instead suggests that the unvaccinated should take it upon themselves to self-isolate. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Is there much of a difference? If all stores ban the unvaccinated for example? Is that “shunning” in line with the underlying principles? Even though I am vaccinated, I personally reject calls for medical discrimination and violations of bodily autonomy. I think it is one thing for individuals to make choices and decide who they want to invite to their house. But I think it is another thing entirely for public or private employers or other places to ban people on such traits. Whether it is forced by the government or not, doesn’t make a difference to me. But I will also note that the line can be very blurry to begin with. For example, many cities have public transportation that is operated by private entities.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    Surely whether its forced by the government or not does make the difference here? Isn't that like the whole problem? Otherwise wouldnt this all essentially be complaining about a "No Shirt No Service" policy at a McDonald's?
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      From an anarchist perspective, there isn't a practical difference; both are hierarchical power structures that coerce behavior.
      - mercutio2 2y ago
        Uh, what? If you are an anarchist, and you truly feel that McDonald's hierarchy is just as problematic as governments coercing behavior, OK, you do you. But if you're not an anarchist, and you're arguing anarchists think this way... that is not the way any of my anarchist friends think about the problems of corporate hegemony vs. government coercion. They are against both, but consider them vastly different problems, in scope as well as kind. Juxtaposing them and saying there's no difference... is not what any anarchists I know would do.
        2y ago
pessimizer 2y ago
It's my opinion that his old age, combined with the fact that he was always surrounded by optimistic young people, activists, and extremely wealthy people who respected his critiques of power, started distorting his views on contemporary issues. I don't think that it reflects badly on him, being out of touch is a proof of his extreme success; it's inevitable that your success forms its own bubble. Specifically, I don't think he considered the degree to which people in power would lie about what they knew about the actual characteristics of the disease to such an extent, which means that he had fallen out of touch with his own work. edit: Covid being as weak as it was was just luck. The next disease could be almost the same, let's say like MERS with a possible 35% fatality rate, but with a long asymptomatic incubation time during which people are at their most infectious. If that happens, we'll still have to grapple with the questions that Chomsky dared to give answers to.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by lowkey 2y ago

swayvil 2y ago

The brighter the light the darker the surrounding darkness. And Chomsky's light is so very bright.

artninja1988 2y ago
Does he glow in the dark?
- swayvil 2y ago
  I meant that when you focus on one thing you ignore another. Great focus tends to create great blind spots.

rgrieselhuber 2y ago

Chomsky, as did everyone during COVID, revealed his true colors and he certainly did not live up to his own rhetoric over the years.

tomjakubowski 2y ago

Don't be vague, what about his comments on Covid vaccines was statist? As far as I know, he only called for social shunning of the unvaccinated, not state action. In fact, in this interview, he declares opposition to a vaccine mandate, and doesn't even call for social shunning - he instead suggests that the unvaccinated should take it upon themselves to self-isolate. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for...

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Is there much of a difference? If all stores ban the unvaccinated for example? Is that “shunning” in line with the underlying principles? Even though I am vaccinated, I personally reject calls for medical discrimination and violations of bodily autonomy. I think it is one thing for individuals to make choices and decide who they want to invite to their house. But I think it is another thing entirely for public or private employers or other places to ban people on such traits. Whether it is forced by the government or not, doesn’t make a difference to me. But I will also note that the line can be very blurry to begin with. For example, many cities have public transportation that is operated by private entities.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Surely whether its forced by the government or not does make the difference here? Isn't that like the whole problem? Otherwise wouldnt this all essentially be complaining about a "No Shirt No Service" policy at a McDonald's?
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    From an anarchist perspective, there isn't a practical difference; both are hierarchical power structures that coerce behavior.
    - mercutio2 2y ago
      Uh, what? If you are an anarchist, and you truly feel that McDonald's hierarchy is just as problematic as governments coercing behavior, OK, you do you. But if you're not an anarchist, and you're arguing anarchists think this way... that is not the way any of my anarchist friends think about the problems of corporate hegemony vs. government coercion. They are against both, but consider them vastly different problems, in scope as well as kind. Juxtaposing them and saying there's no difference... is not what any anarchists I know would do.
      - 2y ago

pessimizer 2y ago

It's my opinion that his old age, combined with the fact that he was always surrounded by optimistic young people, activists, and extremely wealthy people who respected his critiques of power, started distorting his views on contemporary issues. I don't think that it reflects badly on him, being out of touch is a proof of his extreme success; it's inevitable that your success forms its own bubble. Specifically, I don't think he considered the degree to which people in power would lie about what they knew about the actual characteristics of the disease to such an extent, which means that he had fallen out of touch with his own work. edit: Covid being as weak as it was was just luck. The next disease could be almost the same, let's say like MERS with a possible 35% fatality rate, but with a long asymptomatic incubation time during which people are at their most infectious. If that happens, we'll still have to grapple with the questions that Chomsky dared to give answers to.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]