3 ms·

If you took my comment to mean that I think Chomsky is always right, then you have misunderstood. I have simply noted that the enthusiastic "debunkings" of Cho

If you took my comment to mean that I think Chomsky is always right, then you have misunderstood. I have simply noted that the enthusiastic "debunkings" of Chomsky that I have come across have been of very low quality, and often include explicit pleading to trust those in power, instead of pointing out where he has actually gone wrong in his arguments. As to your specific question, a few seconds googling produced this: bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2010/07/chomskys-views-on-khmer-rouge-distorted.html?m=1 Myself, I take no position. Let the debate continue. Let the facts be known.

dalke 13y ago
I phrased it poorly - I was in a rush to get to dinner with friends, and didn't think my response all the way through. I was thinking more of the detractors of Chomsky's views in this instance. As I understand it, Chomsky's view is that, based on the facts available at the time, there wasn't enough information to make the conclusion that genocide had occurred. His detractors insisted that there was. That's why this isn't really an issue of "letting the facts be known", but of the evaluation of the reliability of the evidence available at the time. The link you pointed to is consistent with my analysis. Consider the full quote starting "If a serious study of the impact of Western imperialism on Cambodian peasant life is someday undertaken...". I take it to imply either that the published work about the genocide, based on interviews with refugees, was 1) not "serious", or 2) not relevant because it didn't take into account the 'impact of Western imperialism' in its analysis. Overall he's saying that at that time we don't really know enough to draw a conclusion different than the current international consensus. You can see in the later quote that Chomsky, observes that international experts had "concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands" and of the "extreme unreliability of refugee reports." "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments." He's saying there wasn't enough to be able to determine the "facts." While his detractors at the time judged there was enough believable evidence to show that the numbers of murders was much higher, and that the refugee reports were sufficiently reliable. I therefore can't categorize his detractors in this case as asserting "[Chomsky's] conclusions are wrong because their implications are unthinkable", so offer it as a counter-example to your original, broad statement.
- blacksqr 13y ago
  Thanks for your clarification. I admit my statement was made broadly, for rhetorical purposes. But in this instance, his detractors are not criticizing his interpretation of available evidence, they brand him, despite his words, as an apologist for Pol Pot and an excuser of genocide. I think this is consistent with my larger point that the arguments made against him are of low quality and not fact-based.
  - dalke 12y ago
    You are right in that I'm reacting to your broad statements, made for rhetorical purposes. I'll point out though that you've changed the topic. His detractors in the 1970s, who argued that Chomsky minimized the extent of the Cambodian massacre, did not justify their "low quality arguments" (as you term them now) by saying that the implications of Chomsky being right were unthinkable. What is "unthinkable" about the idea that there were only a few thousand murders, rather that a genocide of 1-3 million people? I am not referring to detractors who claim he is/was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge. I am only referring to those detractors who in the 1970s argued that Chomsky was wrong in greatly discounting the information from Ponchaud's "Cambodia: Year Zero" and Barron and Paul's "Murder of a Gentle Land".

dalke 13y ago

I phrased it poorly - I was in a rush to get to dinner with friends, and didn't think my response all the way through. I was thinking more of the detractors of Chomsky's views in this instance. As I understand it, Chomsky's view is that, based on the facts available at the time, there wasn't enough information to make the conclusion that genocide had occurred. His detractors insisted that there was. That's why this isn't really an issue of "letting the facts be known", but of the evaluation of the reliability of the evidence available at the time. The link you pointed to is consistent with my analysis. Consider the full quote starting "If a serious study of the impact of Western imperialism on Cambodian peasant life is someday undertaken...". I take it to imply either that the published work about the genocide, based on interviews with refugees, was 1) not "serious", or 2) not relevant because it didn't take into account the 'impact of Western imperialism' in its analysis. Overall he's saying that at that time we don't really know enough to draw a conclusion different than the current international consensus. You can see in the later quote that Chomsky, observes that international experts had "concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands" and of the "extreme unreliability of refugee reports." "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments." He's saying there wasn't enough to be able to determine the "facts." While his detractors at the time judged there was enough believable evidence to show that the numbers of murders was much higher, and that the refugee reports were sufficiently reliable. I therefore can't categorize his detractors in this case as asserting "[Chomsky's] conclusions are wrong because their implications are unthinkable", so offer it as a counter-example to your original, broad statement.

blacksqr 13y ago
Thanks for your clarification. I admit my statement was made broadly, for rhetorical purposes. But in this instance, his detractors are not criticizing his interpretation of available evidence, they brand him, despite his words, as an apologist for Pol Pot and an excuser of genocide. I think this is consistent with my larger point that the arguments made against him are of low quality and not fact-based.
- dalke 12y ago
  You are right in that I'm reacting to your broad statements, made for rhetorical purposes. I'll point out though that you've changed the topic. His detractors in the 1970s, who argued that Chomsky minimized the extent of the Cambodian massacre, did not justify their "low quality arguments" (as you term them now) by saying that the implications of Chomsky being right were unthinkable. What is "unthinkable" about the idea that there were only a few thousand murders, rather that a genocide of 1-3 million people? I am not referring to detractors who claim he is/was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge. I am only referring to those detractors who in the 1970s argued that Chomsky was wrong in greatly discounting the information from Ponchaud's "Cambodia: Year Zero" and Barron and Paul's "Murder of a Gentle Land".