53 ms·

Good point, stay in the communist bubble. G-d forbid you read something critical that changes your mind. Much better to hide behind 'criticism is written by pe

by omonra 13y ago

Good point, stay in the communist bubble. G-d forbid you read something critical that changes your mind. Much better to hide behind 'criticism is written by people who dislike him, so not worth reading' defense. Perhaps you should consider that they dislike him for a reason. What I can tell you is that the man is vile - read up on his excuses for Pol Pot, Stalin and the like.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 13y ago
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/books/l-chomsky-and-the-khmer-rouge-407588.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/books/l-chomsky-and-the-kh... His further assertion that Noam Chomsky attributed the deaths of the Pol Pot era to ''nothing but'' a war-induced famine is an outright lie. Mr. Chomsky (and the present writer, who was co-author with Mr. Chomsky of his published works on Cambodia) went to great pains to stress that there was no doubt that the Khmer Rouge was committing serious crimes, although we took no position on their scale (which was very uncertain at the time). Also http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html This looks interesting, but I've no clue as to the reputation or connections of the source: http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
- omonra 13y ago
  I think the truth is more complicated - here is another account that says the opposite (from a Cambodian): http://frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/chomsky-and-the-khmer-rouge-the-observer/ http://frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/chomsky-and-the-khmer-r... The point is rather is not that he is pro ONE particular horrible regime. Rather that he is quick to support ANY (or most) regimes that are anti-american, regardless of what it's actually like - such as Mao's China (in the middle of madness of Cultural Revolution), USSR, etc. The last article you quoted says exactly that - he is quick to support any 'underdog', regardless of if they are good or bad guys.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Sure, it's certainly more complicated. Bear in mind, though, that "having made statements that, in some way, support X" and "being predominately in favor of X" are two radically different things, if you're trying to get at truth and not just score political points. I am not in favor of dictatorship just because I observe that Stalin correctly believed that 2+2=4. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe that Chomsky is wrong substantially more frequently, or in substantially worse ways, than others who pontificate on the global situation, so I try to challenge his arguments where I disagree with them and don't brush off the person - he is clearly an intelligent man. Related: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_...

by omonra 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dllthomas 13y ago

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/books/l-chomsky-and-the-khmer-rouge-407588.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/books/l-chomsky-and-the-kh... His further assertion that Noam Chomsky attributed the deaths of the Pol Pot era to ''nothing but'' a war-induced famine is an outright lie. Mr. Chomsky (and the present writer, who was co-author with Mr. Chomsky of his published works on Cambodia) went to great pains to stress that there was no doubt that the Khmer Rouge was committing serious crimes, although we took no position on their scale (which was very uncertain at the time). Also http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html This looks interesting, but I've no clue as to the reputation or connections of the source: http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

omonra 13y ago
I think the truth is more complicated - here is another account that says the opposite (from a Cambodian): http://frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/chomsky-and-the-khmer-rouge-the-observer/ http://frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/chomsky-and-the-khmer-r... The point is rather is not that he is pro ONE particular horrible regime. Rather that he is quick to support ANY (or most) regimes that are anti-american, regardless of what it's actually like - such as Mao's China (in the middle of madness of Cultural Revolution), USSR, etc. The last article you quoted says exactly that - he is quick to support any 'underdog', regardless of if they are good or bad guys.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Sure, it's certainly more complicated. Bear in mind, though, that "having made statements that, in some way, support X" and "being predominately in favor of X" are two radically different things, if you're trying to get at truth and not just score political points. I am not in favor of dictatorship just because I observe that Stalin correctly believed that 2+2=4. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe that Chomsky is wrong substantially more frequently, or in substantially worse ways, than others who pontificate on the global situation, so I try to challenge his arguments where I disagree with them and don't brush off the person - he is clearly an intelligent man. Related: http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_...