I mean, that it's all bullshit?
>Chomsky discussing literally anything other than linguistics
>being on point or insightful
And I'm not going to listen to that old man groan on like he's fucking on his death bed.
It's not. It's the French academics that's pure and utter cancer. John Searle have commented on this as well, having spoken to Focault. Searle asked Focault why he didn't write like how he speak in private, and Focault told him that he wouldn't be taken serous in France if he did.
I could never take anyone as racist as Chomsky seriously.
>Nuh uhh! The only reason any Asian/African/South American nation ever does anything wrong is BECAUSE THOSE EVIL FIRST WORLDERS MAKE THEM AND REMAKE THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM THAT FORCES THEM TO BE SHITHOLES! NOTHING IS EVER THEIR FAULT!
Just like your idol, so sure of yourself despite knowing jack shit.
>The Pathet Lao wuz good boyz and dindu nuffin!
No. Chomsky ardently denied that the Khmer Rouge was participating in genocide and instead blamed the extermination of a third of Democratic Kampuchea's population on the CIA. A good faith argument can be made about the actions of Israel in either direction but to laud Chomsky after his record of supporting anti-western dictatorships while willfully ignoring their faults is to display the most base ignorance of history and hypocrisy.
I don't think he's a nazi. I think he believes what he says but the only way that he can make that work with the regimes that he's endorsed in the past is to engage in willful ignorance.
Really now. When has that NOT blown up in your face?
>I don't think he's a nazi. I think he believes what he says but the only way that he can make that work with the regimes that he's endorsed in the past is to engage in willful ignorance.
As has been said a million times, he never endorsed shit. He said that there wasn't enough evidence for the genocide and that people should be skeptical. When he considered the evidence enough, he condemned it too.
Oh yeah, his review of Ponchaud as unreliable but his glowing review of Porter and Hildrebrand's work, who were basing their reports almost entirely off of the Cambodian government's documentation whereas Ponchaud actually talked to people; yeah, that's not an endorsement or anything.
Next up, David Irving doesn't endorse Nazism because he runs around saying there are no documents definitively linking Hitler to the Holocaust.
And let's not forget After the Cataclysm
>Oh yeah, some bad shit happened, but the scale's been exagerated by a factor of 100.
>Khmer Rouge agricultural policies produced spectacular results.
oops, turned out to be wrong.
>As has been said a million times
And it's been false a million times. He accepted the word of the Khmer Rouge over the word of someone who was on the ground in Cambodia. Attempting to handwave witnesses to genocide is tantamount to acting as a PR flack for the regime. He used his credibility to deflect attention away from one of the most evil regimes of the 20th century.
And that's why he no longer has any.
>his review of Ponchaud as unreliable
>They said Ponchaud's book Year Zero was "serious and worth reading" but "the serious reader will find much to make him somewhat wary.
On the other hand, of course he pays more attention to works that are critical of western actions due to his philosophy of responsibility.
>that's not an endorsement or anything
Indeed, that's not an endorsement.
>David Irving doesn't endorse Nazism because he runs around saying there are no documents definitively linking Hitler to the Holocaust
If Irving had been skeptical about the holocaust as it was happening and progressively accepted evidence as it emerged, i definitely wouldn't call him a nazi endorser.
Chomsky is not a very good philosopher in pretty much anything, since he rarely defends or even bothers to explain his assumptions. He has interesting arguments about media and languge but once outside of that, he goes off the rails of good argument pretty quick.
French "intellectual culture" is a commodity. You can take Paris tours of "intellectual hubs". You can go buy hundred dollar cakes at Revolutionary cafes. They have philosophy sections in airport bookstores.
There are plenty of insightful French philosophers, but much of po-mo anything is just simple marketing and sales.
>I must define what is considered a rogue state
>I will build this definition with the sole purpose of making sure America fits under this title
>WOW! Look how much of a rogue state America is! I know it because it fits the definition I created!
Chomsky a shit
He essentially takes the UN's definition and ridiculously generalizes it to the point that he can safely write an entire book on the fact that America fits under his new definition that absolutely no poltical-thinkers subscribe to.
I can see where it's going, and it's super easy:
1) America actually doesn't sign on to a lot of stuff we don't actually want to abide by, such as the UN convention on the rights of the child.
2) Sometimes because of reasons, we do sign on to stuff that no one abides by, and don't abide by it.
No, he's someone that claims that people are responsible for the events they have influence over, and that criticizing other things is useless.
>During your visit to Pakistan many who approached you were hoping to hear ready–made solutions to all the problems Pakistan is faced with. However, you seemed to be pressing them to think hard and think critically about the problems as well as the possible solutions. You held yourself responsible for taking certain measures and actions regarding the role of your country (US) and expected others to do the same. Is it true?
>Chomsky: It is definitely true. It is perhaps the most elementary of moral truisms, that we are responsible for the anticipated consequences of our own action, or inaction. It may be fine to study the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there is no moral value to condemning them; we can’t do anything about them. There is not much I can do – in fact, virtually nothing – about the very serious problems internal to Pakistan. I’d like to learn about them, and to understand them as best as I can. And I don’t refrain from saying what I think.
>(...)For intellectuals in Russia in the Communist days, condemnation of US crimes had little if any moral value; in fact, it might have had negative value, in serving to buttress the oppressive and brutal Soviet system. In contrast, when Eastern European dissidents condemned the crimes of their own states and society, it had great moral value. That much everyone takes for granted: everyone, that is, outside the Soviet commissar class. Much the same holds in the West, point by point, except with much more force, because the costs of honest dissidence are so immeasurably less. And exactly as we would expect, these utterly trivial points are almost incomprehensible to Western intellectuals, when applied to them, though readily understood when applied to official enemies.
Of course, to jingoists this is the highest form of treason. Hence the butthurt here.
My problem with Chomsky is that he attacks only the Anglo-Saxon and not the Jews.
He speaks about the evils of Zionism but not the evils of Bolshevism, and he doesn't connect the two even though you know he knows their common root.
>There is not much I can do – in fact, virtually nothing – about the very serious problems internal to Pakistan. I’d like to learn about them, and to understand them as best as I can
That's bullshit. Who's stopping him from learning Farsi?
>but not the evils of Bolshevism
Did you even read my post?
>he doesn't connect the two even though you know he knows their common root
Ah, so you're a neonazi /pol/tard, i shouldn't have expected reading comprehension.
>French intellectual culture
French intellectual culture is not just Lacan and Badiou and whatever. This is americanized "French theory" which is mostly bullshit. French people read completely different stuff.
a rogue state is one that "severely restricts human rights, sponsors terrorism, and seeks to proliferate weapons of mass destruction." I don't see how the united states DOESN'T fit that definition.
so it's retarded to think the united states is capable of doing wrong?
you could list any number of ways the us restricts human rights, the drone campaign is one way america sponsors terrorism, and the united states has the scariest nuclear arsenal in the world.
>severly restricts human rights
Assuming that you're in America, the fact that what you're saying isn't illegal proves you wrong.
>seeks to proliferate weapons of mass destruction
Having nukes doesn't make you a rouge state. I'm guessing Russia, China, France, the UK, and India are all rogue states too under your definition.
>having nukes doesn't make you a rogue state
yes, that's just one of three criteria to be a rogue state
>russia, china, france, the UK, and india are all rogue states too under your definition
and they would be if they met the other criteria
>makes extremely bold claim
>expects detractors to look up the evidence for that claim themselves
>is surprised when he is expected to back up his statement with his own evidence
I'm not the original guy. Do you want me to post the million links that talk about dictatorships and terrorism backed up by the united states instead of the link to the links? Should i not expect a minimum knowledge on the subject from someone that chips into the discussion?
And what kind of argument is this? Did the violation of human rights not happen if they are accessed through google but did if i post them myself?
>with his own evidence
What the fuck does this even mean?
Are you mentally challenged or something?
While his analysis of continental philosophy is pretty clearly wrong, the right-wing meme that Chomsky should only talk about linguistics (as if the people who say this have the slightest comprehension of his linguistic work) needs to stop.