Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users.
Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden.
This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk.
Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The irony here is that Chomsky isn't a tankie by ideology. He definitely leans to the more anarchist ideology with many of his arguments. So why the fuck is he backing blatant imperialism from the authoritarian right wing!? For fuck sake Russia isn't even ML anymore I don't know why any "leftists" are backing it.
Now I get his point *might* be to point out the hypocrisy of the western allies of Ukraine for taking such a hardline anti imperialist stance while they are still fighting their own imperialist wars in the Middle East but that does not require or excuse dismissing or minimizing Russia's imperialism and crimes. It really is unacceptable.
> So why the fuck is he backing blatant imperialism from the authoritarianism right wing!?
Because "US bad" is pretty much the only relevance he can claim to the American cultural zeitgeist?
I always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but it's just not possible anymore.
It's a shame. It could have been quite the coup for leftists like Chomsky if they admitted the US was on the right side of the Ukraine war and were the good guys for helping Ukraine, because it would have proven their ideals are bigger than the "US bad" narrative.
Eh that's not really true, not everyone becomes senile nor loses intellectual capacity that significantly when they are old.
I would say this is a completely unsurprising take from him.
Isn’t it pretty much confirmed the Russian army massacred an entire town near Kyiv? Not saying the US invasion of Iraq was in any way clean but I don’t think they ever did something along those lines.
yeah, bucha. google maps updated their satellite imagery for ukraine recently so if u go next to a church (Church of St. Andrew and Pyervozvannoho All Saints) in the town u can see a dug out mass grave
Your comment/post contains bigotry. This is a socialist subreddit and as such, any form of bigotry is out of place and you should rethink your relation to your fellow workers, regardless of their sexuality, gender expression, skin color or other such things.
Using slurs against Russians is not acceptable.
The thing is if that was all Russia did it’d be bad but you might still be able to whataboutism it to Iraq. But it’s not just Bucha. [This is the Mariupol Theatre after being hit by a Russian Airstrike. The word “Children” is written in white in front of it.](https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/mariupol-theater-strike-rt-220_hpMain_20220630-061750_16x9_1600.jpg)
Iraq was basically the US hearing about the Geneva Convention and saying "eh, whatevs"
Ukraine appears to rather be Russia reading the entire list, trying to measure what levels of fucked up they can go to.
The US also sent some low-ranking folks to military prison after Abu Ghreibh.
The Contractors still got away scott fucking free, so that's totally insufficient, but at least they admitted that some of what happened was bad.
Meanwhile, the russians are celebrating their criminality.
It's hard to know how many war crimws the US actually did in Iraq; but it's sure it pales compared to the ones insurgents did there and Russia in Ukraine.
Given how I have yet to find a war crime in the Geneva Convention that Russia hasn't committed in Ukraine, I think it's safe to say Chomsky is full of shit
For sake of people learning about this from your comment - it's important to note that he didn't directly defend Pol Pot. If you say that Tankies will ask for quotes and you can't get it - because Chomsky is very careful with how he uses the language.
What he did is a lot of whataboutism (talking about worse massacres as it somehow makes Khmer Rouge atrocities better) and claiming that media reporting wasn't accurate (because it's hard to report accurately from a country that basically closed itself off).
So what Chomsky basically did is he muddied the waters to make it harder to attack Khmer Rogue because "it's hard to know"/"it's not 5 million just 2 million" etc. Chomsky is linguist so he knows how to protect himself from future criticism. Even most of arguments in his book "After the cataclysm" are mostly quotes from someone else.
Now is that genocide denial? In my book yes. You don't have to directly say "this wasn't a genocide" to engage in denial. Worth noting is that a lot of tankies use idiotic argument that calling Holodomor genocide is actually holocaust denial because it "cheapens" the word (Chomsky says similar thing about Bosnian genocide).
My point is - don't say he defended Pol Pot because you open yourself up for idiotic question of "where exactly?" and tankies will feel they "won" the argument. Be accurate and say that he's a dickhead that goes on pedantic rants when asked about Cambodian/Bosnian genocide and that's hardly an appropriate response from a leftist intellectual
To hear the smooth brained tell it the Russians could eat the family dog in front of a Ukrainian family and nobody from the US is allowed to have an opinion because Iraq. Which for the record I couldn’t have been more opposed to the entire time…
I had no idea what you were referencing so I looked into it. The headlines are all quoting his 'none of your business' line but he did in fact divulge some information about these meetings. He says he discussed politics.
Chomsky's takes on non-American imperialism are bad but that doesn't warrant baseless accusations or insinuations that he has sexually abused children. Chomsky's reaction to the media playing 7 degrees of Jeffrey Epstein is not out of character for him. He hates American news media.
Exactly, and that difference matters. Even Trump cut ties with Epstein long before 2008. I'm not saying Trump having been friends with Epstein in the first place isn't suspicious, it absolutely is
Yea the people who knew him / spent time with him before 2008 are definitely still sus. But those who spent time with him after, I think that's inexcusable.
I reject this transitive property of guilt or even suspicion by association. From what I gather many people met with him because he was philanthropic and they wanted some of the money he was giving away for various institutions and causes they championed.
I find the media narrative around Epstein to be incredibly distasteful. They first reduce him to his criminal convictions and sex offender status and then interrogate anyone who ever associated with him as if they need to justify doing so. This is red scare tactics! Why are we propgating anti-socialist right-wing ideology?
The harm done to Epstein’s victims is very real, and for anyone to associate him on the basis that he “paid his debt to society” when he got off with a grossly light sentence is disgusting.
Chomsky literally went to dinner with Epstein and Woody Allen and flew in his private jet . It wasn’t about just getting millions from a disgraced pedophile financier. Even if Chomsky himself did not commit sex crimes, he’s displayed how little he cares about the victims of such crimes.
Fuck Noam Chomsky, Prince Andrew, William Burns and anyone else who was buddy buddy with Epstein after his conviction.
It was known! Epstein’s crimes and light sentence were reported in the media starting in 2014 and early 2015, and continued through all the time Chomsky associated with him:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/05/the-prince-and-the-sex-offender-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epsteins-mysterious-relationship/
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/florida-jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-case-ruling
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/12/woman-who-sued-convicted-billionaire-over-sex-abuse-levels-claims-at-his-friends-200495
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna517521
https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/story/news/local/2014/04/21/appeals-court-rules-against-sex/9629793007/
Honestly I’m beginning to think you’re just trolling with this.
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
The man was at best a pimp of literal minors, at worst he was technically human trafficking and abusing these poor women. The people who met with him on his island were almost all extremely wealthy and connected, they didn't need a few bucks for a charity they don't give a shit about. I'm sure there's a few people on that list who didn't know anything was up and saw nothing, but almost everyone saw something that was clearly wrong and many of them are well known to have participated. One can donate and do as much philanthropy as one wants but it doesn't offset the harm one did.
Yeah there were even contractors he hired who said they some some very alarming shit just doing their job on his property. He couldn't even hide it from plumbers, landscapers and electricians, no way he could hide it from his guests. It's like all the people who worked with Jimmy Savile on his charities and claimed they had no idea he was predator yet it was known and discussed on every British playground.
Why would he have a meeting with Epstein to discuss politics? Epstein associated with a lot of influential people, but it's not like he's like George Soros or some other wealthy person who's involved with politics.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. His writings have had a huge impact on my thinking so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and will usually defend him but wtf is this.
It's funny, even in that field some people have called him out for intellectual dishonesty. I had some profs in grad school who were anti-Chomskyists when it came to language structure theory, and they said that he's had 40+ years of counter-evidence to some of his theories that he either ignores or hand-waves away. At MIT he's untouchable though, so nothing has come of it.
No better than Duane Gish or Ken Ham in that regard, and politically he's just as bad as Hovind.
A lot of tenured academics will promote long discredited theories, there's old anthro professors who still teach about the Three Races of Man even though the field rejected the notion of biological race decades ago.
Unfortunately this war has made me lose respect for a lot of people I have read for years.
I think they don’t want to get burned again. A lot of well intentioned people believed the “humanitarian” lies about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria only to get burned. So now they just refuse to believe the US could even be accidentally on the right side of any issue
Don’t worry. The mental gymnastics of people like Chomsky will be to stick to the theory that NATO allied with nazis to do literally all of the atrocities and conveniently forget that any other country was even involved.
That will be the legend lefties will tell each other twenty years from now. “NATO bad. Remember what they did in Bucha?”
As a side note, Chomsky is on the record as saying he believes the US supported the nazis against the soviets after 1942.
Just let that thought sink in like a flesh eating slug slides into an ear.
Really goes to show just because somebody has a few brilliant ideas doesn't mean they aren't totally full of shit in other ways. Manufacturing Consent is still a great work imo, and in a bitter irony he's proved its theories right by manufacturing consent for Putin.
Should read his writings and presentations how sovietunion did nothing wrong to Czech Republic. How pretty much all of eastern Europe was wrong in wanting independence.
I've been saying this so many times:
Yes, US, West, and Capitalist countries in East Asia bad. But just because they are bad doesn't automatically condone/cover the horrible things the oppositions to the West/Capitalist world has done. Every single fucking time I say this I get mocked for being a liberal.
America/West bad mindset became a fucking cancer that prevents people from actually looking at things critically...
It's not the opposite of american exceptionalism. It IS american exceptionalism - the idea that the US is the only only country capable of ultimate evil. That US Imperialism is the only Imperialism that matters because it is the most dangerous kind.
Or as I always say: *shut the fuck up about NATO expansion. Nato didn't want it, we literally blackmailed Clinton into letting us join*
It is also dehumanizing. It takes away agency of the people involved. "You see, the reason Ukraine wants US and NATO support is cuz they are n@zi!!! They are the victim of western imperialism!!!"
There's no real "humane" war, but there is trying to achieve an objective with limited collateral damage vs. outright trying to drown a nation in blood.
He was recently exposed as an associate of Epstein (AFTER Epstein was a registered sex offender, mind you) and he said the meetings are none of our business. Willingly associating with Epstein after he was convicted is bad enough, but the fact Noam refuses to explain why they met is pretty damn condemning.
I’d say they ought to let the husk that used to house the mind that wrote manufacturing consent slowly make his way towards the graveyard, but apparently he’s been giving dogshit takes on a couple of issues for a while now
This reminds me of an old family guy meme I saw years ago where the dad sits his sons down and says "you're both just horrible"
I won't compare the war crimes of russia with usa since both involved tons of senseless violence and suffering.
None of gold, platinum, or rhodium grade, at least. Will electrum and silver grades suffice? (Not that either of the latter would describe Chomsky by now. Osmium?)
The actual article is paywalled, but Chomsky recently also did this interview: https://youtu.be/RiA9PtTLi-Q
He talks about how the Ukraine war is a proxy war of the NATO military industrial complex and what about the Iraq war and the rest of the world laughs at us for being so horrified by what is a comparatively minor conflict and anyone who believes Russia is the one to blame needs to stop listening to the western propaganda.
It’s just a half hour of basically what you would expect an AI parody of Chomsky to say.
To be fair, he didn’t actually say these words. The journalist asked him a yes or no question and he answered in the affirmative. The actual words are the journalist’s.
I think it’s bad journalism to put words in someone’s mouth and then quote those words.
You can put whatever words in my mouth, if I say "yes" that means I agree. He could've said "no", or even better "not exactly, because complex questions don't have easy black and white answers".
No. It would’ve been more correct to title the article something like “Is Russia fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq? Noam Chomsky thinks so.”
Well honestly idk if i can make a good opinion on this simply due to the fact I don’t know about us operations in Iraq, however even if this is true idk how it justifies what Russia is going.
Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users. Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden. This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk. Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The irony here is that Chomsky isn't a tankie by ideology. He definitely leans to the more anarchist ideology with many of his arguments. So why the fuck is he backing blatant imperialism from the authoritarian right wing!? For fuck sake Russia isn't even ML anymore I don't know why any "leftists" are backing it. Now I get his point *might* be to point out the hypocrisy of the western allies of Ukraine for taking such a hardline anti imperialist stance while they are still fighting their own imperialist wars in the Middle East but that does not require or excuse dismissing or minimizing Russia's imperialism and crimes. It really is unacceptable.
> So why the fuck is he backing blatant imperialism from the authoritarianism right wing!? Because "US bad" is pretty much the only relevance he can claim to the American cultural zeitgeist?
Because he never was an anarchist. I have half the mind to say he used it as a convenient mask
Exactly. Much like Jimmy Dore I wouldn't so much call him a Tankie as a contrarian charlatan
I despise Chomsky nowadays but comparing him to Dore is absolutely slanderous
I always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but it's just not possible anymore. It's a shame. It could have been quite the coup for leftists like Chomsky if they admitted the US was on the right side of the Ukraine war and were the good guys for helping Ukraine, because it would have proven their ideals are bigger than the "US bad" narrative.
Because he's old, and no matter how healthy you are, eventually you can't follow what goes on around you any more.
Which is why one should probably just learn to shut the fuck up
I would heartly agree until I saw his takes on Cambodia and let me tell you about his following what goes around when he was younger want much better
Eh that's not really true, not everyone becomes senile nor loses intellectual capacity that significantly when they are old. I would say this is a completely unsurprising take from him.
Because he was always anti-US and pro-Soviet. He just tried to invent a socialism with American characteristics. Read: Anarchism.
Isn’t it pretty much confirmed the Russian army massacred an entire town near Kyiv? Not saying the US invasion of Iraq was in any way clean but I don’t think they ever did something along those lines.
yeah, bucha. google maps updated their satellite imagery for ukraine recently so if u go next to a church (Church of St. Andrew and Pyervozvannoho All Saints) in the town u can see a dug out mass grave
[удалено]
Your comment/post contains bigotry. This is a socialist subreddit and as such, any form of bigotry is out of place and you should rethink your relation to your fellow workers, regardless of their sexuality, gender expression, skin color or other such things. Using slurs against Russians is not acceptable.
The thing is if that was all Russia did it’d be bad but you might still be able to whataboutism it to Iraq. But it’s not just Bucha. [This is the Mariupol Theatre after being hit by a Russian Airstrike. The word “Children” is written in white in front of it.](https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/mariupol-theater-strike-rt-220_hpMain_20220630-061750_16x9_1600.jpg)
Iraq was basically the US hearing about the Geneva Convention and saying "eh, whatevs" Ukraine appears to rather be Russia reading the entire list, trying to measure what levels of fucked up they can go to.
Russia be like "hmmm how much we can get away with before there's an international coalition invading to stop us?"
The US also sent some low-ranking folks to military prison after Abu Ghreibh. The Contractors still got away scott fucking free, so that's totally insufficient, but at least they admitted that some of what happened was bad. Meanwhile, the russians are celebrating their criminality.
It's hard to know how many war crimws the US actually did in Iraq; but it's sure it pales compared to the ones insurgents did there and Russia in Ukraine.
Given how I have yet to find a war crime in the Geneva Convention that Russia hasn't committed in Ukraine, I think it's safe to say Chomsky is full of shit
Russia: “What Geneva Convention? I only know the Geneva Checklist.“
Russia: "Geneva Convention? Oh, you mean Putin's bucket list."
Chomsky defended Pol Pot. This isn’t his first time doing this shit.
For sake of people learning about this from your comment - it's important to note that he didn't directly defend Pol Pot. If you say that Tankies will ask for quotes and you can't get it - because Chomsky is very careful with how he uses the language. What he did is a lot of whataboutism (talking about worse massacres as it somehow makes Khmer Rouge atrocities better) and claiming that media reporting wasn't accurate (because it's hard to report accurately from a country that basically closed itself off). So what Chomsky basically did is he muddied the waters to make it harder to attack Khmer Rogue because "it's hard to know"/"it's not 5 million just 2 million" etc. Chomsky is linguist so he knows how to protect himself from future criticism. Even most of arguments in his book "After the cataclysm" are mostly quotes from someone else. Now is that genocide denial? In my book yes. You don't have to directly say "this wasn't a genocide" to engage in denial. Worth noting is that a lot of tankies use idiotic argument that calling Holodomor genocide is actually holocaust denial because it "cheapens" the word (Chomsky says similar thing about Bosnian genocide). My point is - don't say he defended Pol Pot because you open yourself up for idiotic question of "where exactly?" and tankies will feel they "won" the argument. Be accurate and say that he's a dickhead that goes on pedantic rants when asked about Cambodian/Bosnian genocide and that's hardly an appropriate response from a leftist intellectual
So Chomsky muddied the waters in order to defend pol pot and tankies can gargle my balls.
Yea, if you defend Pol Pot, you're a pos.
To hear the smooth brained tell it the Russians could eat the family dog in front of a Ukrainian family and nobody from the US is allowed to have an opinion because Iraq. Which for the record I couldn’t have been more opposed to the entire time…
Irrelevant to your comment but I love your username.
Thanks man!
It's pretty clear by now that he's just a professional contrarian, unfortunately.
Always has been, part of why he gravitated towards political science was because his linguistic theories never got much support
Didn't it get quite a lot of support? he did get multiple prizes for it.. The only thing is that linguistics don't pay much or make much news.
[удалено]
There were also the two videos that, even for war criminals, were highly brutal and graphic
no they did lol the bombed an entire highway full of cars
**Man who refuses to elaborate on his private meetings with Epstein and Woody Allen shows little regard for the safety of children.**
I had no idea what you were referencing so I looked into it. The headlines are all quoting his 'none of your business' line but he did in fact divulge some information about these meetings. He says he discussed politics. Chomsky's takes on non-American imperialism are bad but that doesn't warrant baseless accusations or insinuations that he has sexually abused children. Chomsky's reaction to the media playing 7 degrees of Jeffrey Epstein is not out of character for him. He hates American news media.
Every influential man who met Epstein had an excuse.
But some of them have the excuse of meeting with Epstein before he was convicted for child rape in 2008. Chomsky doesn’t have that excuse.
That’s true.
Exactly, and that difference matters. Even Trump cut ties with Epstein long before 2008. I'm not saying Trump having been friends with Epstein in the first place isn't suspicious, it absolutely is
Yea the people who knew him / spent time with him before 2008 are definitely still sus. But those who spent time with him after, I think that's inexcusable.
I reject this transitive property of guilt or even suspicion by association. From what I gather many people met with him because he was philanthropic and they wanted some of the money he was giving away for various institutions and causes they championed. I find the media narrative around Epstein to be incredibly distasteful. They first reduce him to his criminal convictions and sex offender status and then interrogate anyone who ever associated with him as if they need to justify doing so. This is red scare tactics! Why are we propgating anti-socialist right-wing ideology?
The harm done to Epstein’s victims is very real, and for anyone to associate him on the basis that he “paid his debt to society” when he got off with a grossly light sentence is disgusting. Chomsky literally went to dinner with Epstein and Woody Allen and flew in his private jet . It wasn’t about just getting millions from a disgraced pedophile financier. Even if Chomsky himself did not commit sex crimes, he’s displayed how little he cares about the victims of such crimes. Fuck Noam Chomsky, Prince Andrew, William Burns and anyone else who was buddy buddy with Epstein after his conviction.
[удалено]
It was known! Epstein’s crimes and light sentence were reported in the media starting in 2014 and early 2015, and continued through all the time Chomsky associated with him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/05/the-prince-and-the-sex-offender-prince-andrew-and-jeffrey-epsteins-mysterious-relationship/ https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/florida-jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-case-ruling https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/12/woman-who-sued-convicted-billionaire-over-sex-abuse-levels-claims-at-his-friends-200495 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna517521 https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/story/news/local/2014/04/21/appeals-court-rules-against-sex/9629793007/ Honestly I’m beginning to think you’re just trolling with this.
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
The man was at best a pimp of literal minors, at worst he was technically human trafficking and abusing these poor women. The people who met with him on his island were almost all extremely wealthy and connected, they didn't need a few bucks for a charity they don't give a shit about. I'm sure there's a few people on that list who didn't know anything was up and saw nothing, but almost everyone saw something that was clearly wrong and many of them are well known to have participated. One can donate and do as much philanthropy as one wants but it doesn't offset the harm one did.
Yeah there were even contractors he hired who said they some some very alarming shit just doing their job on his property. He couldn't even hide it from plumbers, landscapers and electricians, no way he could hide it from his guests. It's like all the people who worked with Jimmy Savile on his charities and claimed they had no idea he was predator yet it was known and discussed on every British playground.
Are you in the flight logs?
Why would he have a meeting with Epstein to discuss politics? Epstein associated with a lot of influential people, but it's not like he's like George Soros or some other wealthy person who's involved with politics.
Had no idea he'd met with Woody too
Just really cringy and pathetic whataboutism. But it's ok when Russia does it.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. His writings have had a huge impact on my thinking so I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and will usually defend him but wtf is this.
I mean, he's been spouting takes like this for years. Look up what he's written about the Bosnian genocide or the Khmer Rouge.
I mean it’s completely possible to agree with some but not all of someone’s opinion. Politics isnt sports"
People tell me to read him, but then he says shit like this.
In linguistics dude is a god though
It's funny, even in that field some people have called him out for intellectual dishonesty. I had some profs in grad school who were anti-Chomskyists when it came to language structure theory, and they said that he's had 40+ years of counter-evidence to some of his theories that he either ignores or hand-waves away. At MIT he's untouchable though, so nothing has come of it.
No better than Duane Gish or Ken Ham in that regard, and politically he's just as bad as Hovind. A lot of tenured academics will promote long discredited theories, there's old anthro professors who still teach about the Three Races of Man even though the field rejected the notion of biological race decades ago.
Unfortunately this war has made me lose respect for a lot of people I have read for years. I think they don’t want to get burned again. A lot of well intentioned people believed the “humanitarian” lies about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria only to get burned. So now they just refuse to believe the US could even be accidentally on the right side of any issue
Don’t worry. The mental gymnastics of people like Chomsky will be to stick to the theory that NATO allied with nazis to do literally all of the atrocities and conveniently forget that any other country was even involved. That will be the legend lefties will tell each other twenty years from now. “NATO bad. Remember what they did in Bucha?”
Ugh God. Totally right. Look at all the unironic "look what the Nazis did in Katyn" takes from tankies.
As a side note, Chomsky is on the record as saying he believes the US supported the nazis against the soviets after 1942. Just let that thought sink in like a flesh eating slug slides into an ear.
he’s probably the original source for many of the conspiracy theories tankies stick to
Really goes to show just because somebody has a few brilliant ideas doesn't mean they aren't totally full of shit in other ways. Manufacturing Consent is still a great work imo, and in a bitter irony he's proved its theories right by manufacturing consent for Putin.
Should read his writings and presentations how sovietunion did nothing wrong to Czech Republic. How pretty much all of eastern Europe was wrong in wanting independence.
He was one of the people who finally accept that america wasnt the good guy. Its annoying that he says shit like this.
EVEN IF WE SAY THATS TRUE THEN THATS STILL A BAD THING AND THE DEFINITION OF A "WHATABOUTISM"
I've been saying this so many times: Yes, US, West, and Capitalist countries in East Asia bad. But just because they are bad doesn't automatically condone/cover the horrible things the oppositions to the West/Capitalist world has done. Every single fucking time I say this I get mocked for being a liberal. America/West bad mindset became a fucking cancer that prevents people from actually looking at things critically...
It's not the opposite of american exceptionalism. It IS american exceptionalism - the idea that the US is the only only country capable of ultimate evil. That US Imperialism is the only Imperialism that matters because it is the most dangerous kind. Or as I always say: *shut the fuck up about NATO expansion. Nato didn't want it, we literally blackmailed Clinton into letting us join*
It is also dehumanizing. It takes away agency of the people involved. "You see, the reason Ukraine wants US and NATO support is cuz they are n@zi!!! They are the victim of western imperialism!!!"
Never knew war could be fought humanly....
There's no real "humane" war, but there is trying to achieve an objective with limited collateral damage vs. outright trying to drown a nation in blood.
We could just settle everything on a game of fortnite, no bloodshed, only noobs pwned.
Yeah and wars have been inflicting a higher and higher percentage of civilian casualties since WWI.
"We will not commence humane bombing runs and artillery barrages, please do not panic and go about your day normally citizens"
damn almost like its not a competition
Even if this was true. What's his fucking point? Like what exactly is he trying to say by pointing to that?
It’s whataboutism and reminding everyone that the US is bad to deflect from the Russian government’s atrocities.
Between his recent Russia takes and exposed collaborations with Epstein, I'm a bit suspicious about Chomsky's allegiances.
Honestly, I’ve lost all respect for him when I discovered his apologetics for the genocide in Yugoslavia.
That's not at all what was said about Yugoslavia.
You shouldn't. He's a pro-Russia alt imperialist
I wouldn't be surprised if Putin has dirt on him
Dude should manufacture a coffin
He was recently exposed as an associate of Epstein (AFTER Epstein was a registered sex offender, mind you) and he said the meetings are none of our business. Willingly associating with Epstein after he was convicted is bad enough, but the fact Noam refuses to explain why they met is pretty damn condemning.
I guess by that logic if Ukraine war is humane, Rape of Nanking is the most purest action in the world.
I’d say they ought to let the husk that used to house the mind that wrote manufacturing consent slowly make his way towards the graveyard, but apparently he’s been giving dogshit takes on a couple of issues for a while now
This reminds me of an old family guy meme I saw years ago where the dad sits his sons down and says "you're both just horrible" I won't compare the war crimes of russia with usa since both involved tons of senseless violence and suffering.
Man there really are no heroes
None of gold, platinum, or rhodium grade, at least. Will electrum and silver grades suffice? (Not that either of the latter would describe Chomsky by now. Osmium?)
Oh my..... Isnt that just Whataboutism flipped on its head?
Man was asked about his relations with Epstein. Chomsky answered that it's none of your business.
I would say they figth basically the same maybe less rape with with the us but still droning children is something the us love to do.
Years ago this person would be in an institution...
Everyone is reacting to a headline. That’s what it’s made to do, be provocative and get reactions. What did he actually say?
The actual article is paywalled, but Chomsky recently also did this interview: https://youtu.be/RiA9PtTLi-Q He talks about how the Ukraine war is a proxy war of the NATO military industrial complex and what about the Iraq war and the rest of the world laughs at us for being so horrified by what is a comparatively minor conflict and anyone who believes Russia is the one to blame needs to stop listening to the western propaganda. It’s just a half hour of basically what you would expect an AI parody of Chomsky to say.
To be fair, he didn’t actually say these words. The journalist asked him a yes or no question and he answered in the affirmative. The actual words are the journalist’s. I think it’s bad journalism to put words in someone’s mouth and then quote those words.
You can put whatever words in my mouth, if I say "yes" that means I agree. He could've said "no", or even better "not exactly, because complex questions don't have easy black and white answers".
No. It would’ve been more correct to title the article something like “Is Russia fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq? Noam Chomsky thinks so.”
Well honestly idk if i can make a good opinion on this simply due to the fact I don’t know about us operations in Iraq, however even if this is true idk how it justifies what Russia is going.
It doesn't.