Fill Collins
Able to get note from doctor
A rare jew I'll be sad to see gone
The king of “America Bad” geopolitical analysis Noam Chomsky, likely on his way out.
- Thread starter Mister Terrific
- Start date
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
The same reason we don’t call the siege of Grozny, battle of Bakhmut, or the destruction of Aleppo genocide. Russia used indiscriminate artillery fire and mass bombings to level these cities causing thousands of civilian dead and mass displacement. This constitutes a war crime but would be hard to prove genocide as they are active war zones with combatants mixed in with civilians. This like Israel’s assault on Gaza constitute war crimes and but state policy of deliberate eradication of civilians would be hard to prove.
In Srebrenica all civilians were disarmed, starved, then all males were systematically murdered, dumped in mass graves, women tortured and raped and entire Muslim women and children population shipped out of an area that was 70% Muslim. It’s as clear of a case of genocide as can be.
Also, the UN and ICC consider this a genocide and Serbian leaders have been tried and convicted of genocide. So there is really no debate.
To quote Christoper Hitchens
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Did Chomsky ever address the ongoing Uighur genocide and other genocides taking place in China@Toussaint ?
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
“More generally, one might ask, what right does the U.S. have to try to impede Chinese development, as generally assumed without argument? Or even to impose sanctions? That the Chinese state is harsh, brutal and oppressive is not in doubt. China’s “re-education camps” for perhaps a million Uyghurs, which may well be the largest mass incarceration of a racial or religious group since the Holocaust, is surely a major crime, meriting harsh condemnation. Is it a worse crime than the imprisonment of 2 million Palestinians in “the world’s largest open-air prison” in Gaza, Israel’s favorite punching bag, which is soon to become unlivable, international monitors estimate? Why then does the former merit U.S. sanctions, while the latter is lavishly funded by Washington?”
EZRA KLEIN: I’ll give you the answer I’ve gotten because I have very complicated feelings about this. The answer I’ve gotten is that particularly, over the past decade, China’s moved in a much more authoritarian direction. They’ve become more expansionist, domestically, I’m talking about there. They’ve become more expansionist in the South China Sea really launched a horrifying domestic repression campaign against the Uyghurs. And so to the extent, you want there to be a mega economy that is setting international rules and structures that the direction China is going makes it scary for China or scarier for China to be that rule setter in the future. That is, I think, the argument I’ve been given.
>NOAM CHOMSKY: China is becoming more authoritarian internally. I think that’s pretty bad. Is it a threat to us? No, it’s not a threat to us. Let’s take what’s happening with the Uyghur. Pretty hard to get good evidence, but there’s enough evidence to show that there’s very severe repression going on. Let me ask you a simple question. Is the situation of the Uyghurs, a million people who’ve been through education camps, is that worse than the situation of, say, two million and twice that many people in Gaza? I mean, are the Uyghur having their power plants destroyed, their sewage plants destroyed, subjected to regular bombing? Is it not happening to them? Not to my knowledge.
>So yes, it shouldn’t be happening. We should protest it. It has one crucial difference from Gaza. Namely, in the Uyghur case, there’s not a lot that we can do about it, unfortunately. In the Gaza case, we can do everything about it since we were responsible for it, we can stop it tomorrow. That’s the difference. OK? So yes, that’s a very bad thing among other bad things in the world. But to say that it’s a threat to us is a little misleading.
Outlaw
New Hope For the HaveNotz
Eternal grace for real draconian authoritarians and eternal damnation for the country that gives him freedom to express the damning views.
Chomsky condemned Chinese oppression while also making an incisive point regarding American hypocrisy. He focuses his attention on America because Americans are who he has influence on while the CCP could give a rat's ass what he thinks. Giving "equal time" to Chinese crimes as he gives to American crimes would be a complete waste of energy and pure virtue signaling. Yet rather than engage with his actual critiques, all you can do is respond with a Twitter-level distortion.
You have ably demonstrated the gulf between Chomsky's insights and Chomsky's detractors. The Christopher Hitchens quote (imagine anyone taking Hitchens as an objective or insightful critique of international affairs lol) was a more verbose example of the same inanity.
Either engage with what he actually says and show why it is wrong, or ignore him. It's interesting how this thread shows that people upset by Chomsky typically can do neither.
Outlaw
New Hope For the HaveNotz
Not giving equal time to Chinese crimes and calling it virtue signaling is a cop out. Someone with his platform shedding light on what China or Russia doing would increase awareness internationally.
His imbalanced critique has influenced a lot lefties into thinking that America has worse human rights than China or Russia
America has done a lot of horrible shyt and Noam Chomsky has lived a full and left a lasting legacy.
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this thread.
It's obvious what he's trying to do with this thread. @Toussaint is one of the biggest promoters of the American foreign policy on this board, especially American support of military violence. He admitted as much in his thread title. But knowing that he doesn't actually have the knowledge or reasoning power to engage with Chomsky on his American critiques, he instead tries to poison the well by misrepresenting a Gish Gallop of controversies Chomsky has been involved in over his 70-year career, even though @Toussaint doesn't give a shyt about those issues.
Had @Toussaint EVER mentioned Serbian genocide or Milosevic before this thread? Never, not once. Had he EVER discussed the genocide in Cambodia and how terrible Pol Pot was? Never. Did he EVER even name-drop Rwanda? He never has, he doesn't give a shyt. His name is "Toussaint", but where is his commentary on the coups and invasions and American-backed dictators in Haiti? Crickets. I've discussed all of those issues numerous times on The Coli, where is @Toussaint's concern? It's absent. All the times I've argued with @Toussaint, it was due to his defense of the American military or the American government's support of other military violence for cynical ends. He doesn't give a flying fukk what actually happens to those other countries.
He doesn't care one bit about oppressed people or any of the issues he's actually brought up in the thread, and his record proves that. What he cares about is defending American imperialism. And that's why he can't stand Chomsky.
Last edited:
A remarkably bad thread about a fascinating scholar and activist who is nearing the end of his life.
lol at suggesting that Chomsky has that much more power than the entire propaganda weight of the American government. At least you respect him to that level.
Even if "lefties" did end up thinking America has worse human rights than China, why do you care? Is there a Ranker site online where the public can vote on which country has the worst human rights record? Is ESPN going to do an "Top 80 Ever!" list of the top human rights abusers when the UN turns 80 next year? Do you see Chomsky or any of his fans advocating for a CCP style of government in America? He does the exact opposite of that with his fervent defense of human freedom.
You're mad at Chomsky because you think he makes people think poorly of America, and doesn't focus enough attention on American enemies. You're approaching it from a fundamentally partisan perspective. But he doesn't give a shyt about that partisan patriotic bullshyt. What he cares about is addressing human rights atrocities in a manner that actually causes change. The current American policy of extravagantly criticizing the human rights abuses of its enemies while ignoring the human rights abuses of its allies (not to mention its own) does NOT bring change.
We "lefties" will keep criticizing American abuses of human rights and the abuses of our allies UNTIL they change. The establishment will keep using "But China!" and "But Russia!" or whoever the current bad guy is at the moment to deflect from those critiques. Jesus had an insightful saying regarding removing the log from your own eye before you try to remove the mote from the eye of your neighbor. Focusing on your own sins first before you bytch about others is the ONLY way real change occurs. Do you want change, or do you just want blame?
The fact that any thinking person could have a serious problem with that statement is wild. Everything he says is obviously true, and there's a reason you couldn't actually type of a reasoned critique. You're just praying that people are influenced enough by the American propaganda wing, they won't use their brains.
Did Chomsky call attention to China's oppression of the Uyghurs? YES! He said in that interview that "the Chinese state is harsh, brutal and oppressive" and "China’s re-education camps for perhaps a million Uyghurs, which may well be the largest mass incarceration of a racial or religious group since the Holocaust, is surely a major crime" and "I think that's pretty bad" and "there's very severe repression going on".
Did Chomsky say we should try to do anything about China's oppression of the Uyghurs? YES! He said it is "meriting harsh condemnation" and "We should protest it".
Is Chomsky correct when he says there is relatively little we can do about it? YES! No one from your side is doing anything effective to stop Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs.
Is Chomsky correct when he says that Israeli oppression of Gaza is worse than Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs? YES! Even before the invasion, Gazans were kept in a more constricted state than Uyghurs are and are subject to more violence (so far as we can tell with the limited information we have).
Is Chomsky correct when he says that America has more influence over Israeli actions than over Chinese actions? YES! It is patently obvious that we have more influence over the country we fund and protect than over a completely independent superpower.
So every single statement Chomsky made in that interview is correct. And @Toussaint and others who hate Chomsky's way of thinking can say exactly what about it? That's it's "bad" because he's not patriotic enough and doesn't defend America, right or wrong?
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
A lot of posters in this thread basically see the world as the GOP people they think are ending it. Its really scary.
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
Yep. This is China that is constantly threatening to destroy our key economic allies in the region. Releasing state propaganda videos about blowing up Taiwan
Having Chinese school children act out killing Japanese and Americans
Funding Russia’s war in Ukraine
China supporting Russia in massive military expansion, US says
Beijing helping with drone production, space-based capabilities and ballistic missile production
amp.theguardian.com
Supporting arguably the most barbaric regime in the world that regularly threatens its neighbors
China–North Korea relations - Wikipedia
Constantly encroaching on Vietnamese and Filipino territory and threatening Filipino fisherman and workers.
China is viewed horribly in most of east and south east Asia for its imperial past and current imperial aggression. Not to mention pollution and unsafe food practices that are a constant subject in countries like Japan.
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
The only people that will miss Chomsky are tankies who engage in pointless anti-America pseudo-intellectual genocide denying drivel. Which one conversation with one of you tankies can see why he was your patron saint.
Grand Conde
Superstar
He just gave a non-answer to the question. Bosnia and Cambodia were attempted genocide, both were attempts to exterminate groups of people on racial/religious/ideological grounds.He's a linguist, the meaning of words matter to him not just emotions. When he calls something a "mass slaughter", a "horror story" and a "major crime", he's not denying what happened in the slightest sense. He's just using "genocide" by its actual definition rather than the emotional one of "any major killing that I don't like."
Here's a full article on the issue by the journal of Genocide Studies and Prevention, whose literal mission is to stop genocide.
It finds that the accusations against Chomsky of genocide denial are complete bullshyt:
Chomsky and Genocide
Noam Chomsky may justly be considered the most important public intellectual alive, and the most significant of the post-World War Two era. Despite his scholarly contributions to linguistics, at least three generations know him primarily for his political writings and activism, voicing a...digitalcommons.usf.edu
Here's the actual interview with Chomsky where he talks about why he is careful with the term genocide:
Notice that in this thread so far, the Chomsky-haters can't come up with an actual policy of Chomsky's they don't like, because what they don't like is that he didn't support American imperialism. So instead of focusing on policy, they bytch about how he defines a single word.