Chomsky: Is this man I deeply respect a bigot and a sympathizer for certain acts of genocide?

[Untoward_Parable]

None of that addresses Chomsky’s moronic claim that he saw no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the gas chambers or denial of the Holicaust.

He said once that in theory you could deny these things without being antisemitic. This is a logical proposal of his. It is diminished any potential strength of this down to the smallest meaning by his statements repeatedly before and after that to even discuss that the Holocaust was not true is shameful. Context does mean something.

Nobody doubts Chomsky claims the Holocaust was a horrible crime, though he certainly minimizes it when he compares Jimmy Carter to Adolph Hitler.

Generally when Chomsky references Hitler/Nazis he is discussing the crime of a war of aggression, which is what the Nazis were hanged for. Not for crimes against humanity, but the international crime of a war of aggression. If you can give me the actual cites I can discuss how he characterized Carter in those instances. Unfortunately for any post WW2 American president they are all guilty (off the top of my head) of overseeing an administration that was guilty of wars of aggression. Chomsky uses strong language not because he thinks Carter is a nazi but because he has a problem with hypocrisy and wars of aggression and the obvious human cost of them.

What is the question is whether his claim that he saw no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the Holocaust constituted apologia for Holocaust deniers.

I think it unquestionably does as do most reasonable people.

See above.

Similarly, most reasonable people would argue that him writing a foreword to the book by the notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust Denier Robert Faurisson in which he insisted that Faurisson “is not an anti-Semite” but was merely “a rather apolitical liberal.”

Once again, some who claims that Holocaust Deniers are not anti-Semites but “apolitical liberals” are apologists for Holicaust Deniers.

That doesn’t mean that the apologists don’t think the Holocaust was horrible and bringing forth claims that they consider the a Holicaust a crime does not weaken the self-evident charge that they are apologists for Holocaust Deniers.

He wrote the man a letter that he said he “could do anything he wanted with.” while also having said he didn’t read much of the guys work because what he started reading he did not find interesting. **From what he read **he didn’t find any evidence of his antisemitism. He was not saying the man was not antisemitic only that in the most cursory of inspections did not provide him with any good evidence at the time. Trying to conflate this out of it’s context and out of it’s substance simply shows that your desire is not the truth but the tip of the smear because you don’t like his opinions and conclusions and the thrust of his work. Or you’ve just been massively hoodwinked by the hate mills.

So, since you claim that the only thing you disagree with Chomsky on was his claim regarding Bin Laden.

I never said this was the only thing I disagreed with him about, only that it was a thing I disagreed on.

So then, do you think that Chomsky was wrong when he claimed he saw no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the Holocaust and do you agree with Chomsky that the notorious Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson was “not an anti-Semite” but rather “a relatively apolitical liberal”?

I do not think he was wrong when he proposed that it was possible to believe these things without being anti-semitic. With human beings there are plenty of absurd people who think all sorts of silly things for all sorts of silly reasons. It’s highly likely, overwhelmingly so that if one denies the holocaust that it is anti-Semitic, but not 100% of the time. This is easy to understand. Chomsky never said he knew what the man was, he said he “seemed” like a relatively apolitical liberal when Chomsky volunteered that he had not done any kind of research on the man’s work.

Chomsky believed that freedom of speech was the critical issue, and that defending the rights of the most repugnant opinions being expressed is the only way to demonstrate you believe in freedom of speech. Chomsky suffered greatly for this. It demonstrates that he has a backbone and actual principles instead of wavering ones that are only applied if not too inconvenient like the vast majority of public figures.

[Dissonance]

@Untoward_Parable

And with nearly 24 hours to find the obvious I can only conclude that nothing I write is being read with any attention(or that those reading are lacking in some fundamental human capacities). I have done posters the courtesy of reading their cites and responding with critique, rebuttal and more cites, obviously including the issues you’re whining about. No one has done the same. And so I conclude that corresponding with this room of trehalose-minded perfunction is about as useful to me as debating the president’s birth certificate with a true believer.

I must congratulate you on this fantastic piece of theater of the absurd. After days of claiming your inability to respond is due to your having a life unlike anyone else, clearly debating in bad faith, insisting I find Chomsky’s original writing after I had already linked it to you twice on his own website, you whine about my not responding to you within 24 hours.

I’d have thought the reason for my not responding would have been obvious, aside from there not being anything remotely meaningful to respond to, I had stopped reading the thread. You clearly have no desire to conduct an honest debate, are unable to defend Chomsky’s gross misrepresentation of cites, or his grotesque defense of the Khmer Rouge against the charge of genocide in 1977, when it was patently obvious to anyone with any reason that they were engaged in mass murder of their own people on a truly obscene scale.

[Untoward_Parable]

@Dissonance

I must congratulate you on this fantastic piece of theater of the absurd. After days of claiming your inability to respond is due to your having a life unlike anyone else, clearly debating in bad faith, insisting I find Chomsky’s original writing after I had already linked it to you twice on his own website, you whine about my not responding to you within 24 hours.

I’d have thought the reason for my not responding would have been obvious, aside from there not being anything remotely meaningful to respond to, I had stopped reading the thread. You clearly have no desire to conduct an honest debate, are unable to defend Chomsky’s gross misrepresentation of cites, or his grotesque defense of the Khmer Rouge against the charge of genocide in 1977, when it was patently obvious to anyone with any reason that they were engaged in mass murder of their own people on a truly obscene scale.

Not all about u dude, thre are plenty of critics in this thread, the fact that none of the many saw it for 72 hours is pretty damning, but ok when I get a chance I’ll respond to ur newest quibble too.

I wasn’t claiming to have an unprecedentedly busy life, just that I have a reasonably busy one being a father, working full time, having a great deal of family crisis occurring ect. Of course I understand that when you’re not actually reading any of my cites or exposition, that it is quite easy to respond quickly.

[Monty]

Seems my guess was wrong. I thought Post #77 put the wooden stake/silver bullet/what-have-you into this thread. Post #83 seems to show that, for a non-null set of the reading public, that post may be in the computer version of invisible ink.

How about it, UP? Are you going to actually answer something directly in this thread? Are you going to actually address the facts brought to your attention, including the fact that things you’ve been asking have already been answered in this very thread? Or can you tell me where I can get that cool CII?

[Jackmannii]

@Ibn_Warraq

…most reasonable people would argue that (Chomsky) writing a foreword to the book by the notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust Denier Robert Faurisson in which he insisted that Faurisson “is not an anti-Semite” but was merely “a rather apolitical liberal.”

Speaking of Chomsky endorsing anti-Semitic writings, there’s the interesting case of Israel Shahak.

*"Shahak’s most recent tract, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London and Boulder, Colorado, 1994) demands that Jews repent of their own sins and of the sins of their forefathers. First of all, says Shahak, Jews should now applaud, retroactively, the “popular anti-Jewish manifestations of the past,” for instance the Chmielnicki massacres of 17th century Ukraine. These were “progressive” uprisings, according to Shahak.

Concerning the Jews of our day, Shahak reveals that “Jewish children are actually taught” to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery. Moreover, he tells us, “both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands…On one of these two occasions he is worshipping God… but on the other he is worshipping Satan.”

On its own, being so hopelessly crackpot, Jewish History, Jewish Religion would hardly find enough buyers to pay for its printing. But this little booklet is not on its own. It has a foreword by a famous writer, Gore Vidal, who tells us that he, Vidal, is not himself an anti-Semite. And it carries an enthusiastic endorsement, right on its cover, by Noam Chomsky. Says Chomsky: “Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.”*

[Ibn_Warraq]

Once again UP is desperately trying to handwave away what Chomsky actually wrote.

Had Chomsky said he thought it was “theoretically” possible to be a Holocaust Denier and not be an anti-semite, as UP is trying to pretend that’s one thing.

What Chomsky did was to insist he saw no “anti-Semitic implications” in denial of the Holocaust.

Furthermore he insisted that a man who was suspended by his university for manufacturing evidence to “prove” that the Holocaust was a hoax invented to cover up allied war crimes and create the evil state of Israel was “not an anti-Semite” but rathe a “rather apolitical liberal”.

Moreover, Chomsky has been interviewed about this numerous times and always insisted that Faurisson wasn’t an anti-Semite.

[Untoward_Parable]

@Monty

Seems my guess was wrong. I thought Post #77 put the wooden stake/silver bullet/what-have-you into this thread. Post #83 seems to show that, for a non-null set of the reading public, that post may be in the computer version of invisible ink.

How about it, UP? Are you going to actually answer something directly in this thread? Are you going to actually address the facts brought to your attention, including the fact that things you’ve been asking have already been answered in this very thread? Or can you tell me where I can get that cool CII?

post 77 says the Mod finds my writing garbled, fine, that’s an opinion, even if true not very relevant to the facts, he reprimands me for laying a trap for other posters to fall into, which they did, and that somehow that act of painfully obvious “deception” (something so obvious is hard to call deceptive with any honesty) was against the TOS. Which is fine, even if he seems to me to reveal some bias in his remarks I imagine it is his responsibility to act on his conclusions.

Nothing in the post remarks about who is and is not responding to evidence or providing it. If you would like to point out specific points you think I’ve been negligent on (there are many cites in this forum so it is almost certain I have so far not approached some in an extensive manner yet) feel free. If you want to make assertions with vague references instead I can’t help but think you are not capable o this form of debate or interested in it and instead prefer to root for the side of your preference without adding anything at all to the debate beyond the torch of a grunting marcher in a mob.

Actually, you are now crowing about the fact that you have been argung in bad faith. And you are using that act of bad faith as an excuse to make jabs at other posters, something I explicitly told you to refrain from doing.

You are no George Orwell and your prose is about as clear as the Missouri River after a hard rain, so it would not be difficult for anyone who was studying your posts to miss small disclaimers or to think that any deliberate contradiction you posted was simply one more of the accidental ones that have popped up in your submissions.

Instead of making snide remarks about other posters, try this: set forth a clear argument, quoting Chomsky directly, with direct links to original sources, to defend him against the worst accusations. Then discuss those actual statements.

The next time that you “set a trap” you will earn another Warning.

= = =

EVERYONE: back off on the personal remarks. Address Chomsky’s actions or words and leave the sniping against other posters for the BBQ Pit.

[Untoward_Parable]

@Jackmannii

Speaking of Chomsky endorsing anti-Semitic writings, there’s the interesting case of Israel Shahak.

*"Shahak’s most recent tract, Jewish History, Jewish Religion (London and Boulder, Colorado, 1994) demands that Jews repent of their own sins and of the sins of their forefathers. First of all, says Shahak, Jews should now applaud, retroactively, the “popular anti-Jewish manifestations of the past,” for instance the Chmielnicki massacres of 17th century Ukraine. These were “progressive” uprisings, according to Shahak.

Concerning the Jews of our day, Shahak reveals that “Jewish children are actually taught” to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery. Moreover, he tells us, “both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands…On one of these two occasions he is worshipping God… but on the other he is worshipping Satan.”

On its own, being so hopelessly crackpot, Jewish History, Jewish Religion would hardly find enough buyers to pay for its printing. But this little booklet is not on its own. It has a foreword by a famous writer, Gore Vidal, who tells us that he, Vidal, is not himself an anti-Semite. And it carries an enthusiastic endorsement, right on its cover, by Noam Chomsky. Says Chomsky: “Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.”*

Chomsky’s response to Cohn a few years before this, I imagine afterward he just ignores the guy. As posters seem to believe that a person’s lies in the past make them unreliable in the future (which I agree with) I’m sure they’ll have no problem showing where Chomsky is being deceptive in defaming Cohn here with the points he gives. I’ll go ahead and wait till Cohn has been fully exonerated before considering his accusations.:

Reply to Werner Cohn
Noam Chomsky
Outlook, June 1, 1989
Dear Sir,

Observing the performances of Werner Cohn is a curious experience. An occasional phrase has a relation to reality, but it takes an effort to imagine what may lie behind the discourse.

In Outlook, May, Cohn presents a fevered account of a second existence that he has conjured up for me, in France, where I pursue my secret life as a neo-Nazi, hoping that no one outside of Paris will notice. He gives two proofs. The first is what he calls his ‘most crucial source’: ‘a joint article by Chomsky and his friend Pierre Guillaume, “Une mise au point”,’ in Guillaume’s book Droit et Histoire. The second is that ‘Chomsky could have published the French version of his Political Economy of Human Rights (written with Edward Herman) with a commercial publisher, but, in order to show solidarity with VT [Vielle Taupe], Chomsky insisted on publishing the book with it.’

Since I never wrote a ‘joint article’ with Guillaume, I was curious, and after a search, found the book in question. Indeed, it contains the chapter ‘Une mise au point’, written in first-person singular by Guillaume, with no hint of any collaboration with me. I am mentioned in it, and fragments of a letter of mine are quoted in which I discuss changes in the U.S. intellectual climate since the 1960’s (with typical veracity, Cohn describes this as my ‘comments on Guillaume’s version of the Chomsky-VT relationship’, which is nowhere mentioned). By Cohn’s intriguing logic, I am also the co-author of his various diatribes – perhaps in my third life, which he will expose in the next instalment. Cohn asserts that I found ‘nothing to correct in Guillaume’s’ account. He has not the slightest idea what my reaction to the article is. Recall that this ‘joint article’ is his ‘crucial source’.

Let us turn to his second decisive piece of evidence. When I learned of Cohn’s fairy tales about the French translation of the book of Herman and mine, I was intrigued. Of course, it is obvious even without further inquiry that his claims are outlandish. There is no possible way that he could know of my intentions (and those of my co-author, Edward Herman, who somehow seems to have disappeared from the tale; perhaps I invented him as a cover). But we need not speculate on Cohn’s mystical ability to read minds.

Standard procedure is to leave translations in the hands of the publisher. I make no attempt to keep track of the innumerable translations of books of mine in foreign languages. Curious about Cohn’s allegations, I contacted the publisher, who checked their files and located the contract for the French translation – with Albin-Michel, a mainstream commercial publisher, to my knowledge. They did not know whether the translation had appeared, never having received a copy. The same is true of my co-author and me.

Note that these are the examples that Cohn selects as the decisive proof of his theses. A rational person will draw the obvious conclusions about the rest. Cohn makes two further claims. He says that in defending the right of freedom of expression in the case of Robert Faurisson, I have always ‘indicated’ that my ‘“diametrically opposed” view was more a matter of opinion than of scientific knowledge’ (a statement that he appears to attribute to Guillaume); and I have always defended freedom of expression ‘in terms that are absolutely incapable of hurting Faurrison [sic].’ Consider these allegations.

In Cohn’s ‘crucial source’, cited above, Guillaume quotes my statement that ‘there are no rational grounds that allow any doubt about the existence of gas chambers.’ Thus Cohn is refuted by his own ‘crucial source.’ In my own writings, from the earliest until the present, the conclusions of standard Holocaust studies are taken simply as established fact, as Cohn knows perfectly well. In the introduction to my first collection of political essays, 20 years ago, I add that we have lost our humanity if we are even willing to enter into debate over the Nazi crimes with those who deny or defend them. The only particle of truth in Cohn’s absurd charge is that I never use the phrase ‘scientific knowledge’ in dealing with any questions of history; my book with Herman, for example, which is neither science nor mere opinion.

Turning to Cohn’s second point, it is taken for granted by civil libertarians that defense of freedom of expression is independent of the views expressed. Thus when I sign petitions (and go far beyond that) in the case of Soviet dissidents, some of whom have absolutely horrendous views, I never allude to this fact in the slightest way. In signing petitions supporting Salman Rushdie, I make no comment about whether his book slanders Muslims. I have no doubt that this practice enrages mullahs in Qom and commissars in the Kremlin as much as it does Werner Cohn, and for the same reasons. Where no civil liberties issues arise, I have been quite explicit about the fact that the views of Faurisson and others are diametrically opposed to my own firm conclusions about the facts, as in the statement quoted in Cohn’s ‘crucial source’.

The remainder of Cohn’s ranting has to do with the alleged views of others, and fanciful comments about France. His conceptions on these matters are, naturally, of no concern to me.

That Cohn is a pathological liar is demonstrated by the very examples that he selects. Knowing nothing about him, and caring less, I am in no position to comment further on what may lie behind this odd and pathetic behavior.

Sincerely yours,

Noam Chomsky

[Untoward_Parable]

Once again UP is desperately trying to handwave away what Chomsky actually wrote.

No, I’m handwaving away the ridiculously elaborate accusations, which are about as pontificated about and reliable and logical as accounts of crop circles being evidence of alien contact. Also I’ve responded and you know this to the specific allegations, showing why they are absurd.

Had Chomsky said he thought it was “theoretically” possible to be a Holocaust Denier and not be an anti-semite, as UP is trying to pretend that’s one thing.

What Chomsky did was to insist he saw no “anti-Semitic implications” in denial of the Holocaust.

You keep conflating the logical obviousness that a person can in fact deny the holocaust without being anti-semitic, (eg a schizophrenic that believes the earth is 20 days old) Again you’re just being intellectually dishonest making assertions without the evidence to back up your claim.

Furthermore he insisted that a man who was suspended by his university for manufacturing evidence to “prove” that the Holocaust was a hoax invented to cover up allied war crimes and create the evil state of Israel was “not an anti-Semite” but rathe a “rather apolitical liberal”.

Moreover, Chomsky has been interviewed about this numerous times and always insisted that Faurisson wasn’t an anti-Semite.

Again you are being dishonest. you omit the word “seemed” and omit that Chomsky stated that he had not read much of the man’s work an did not care to, that free speech rights on such topics are not conditional, or there are no free speech rights to begin with.

Whenever he has been asked about Faurisson’s actual views he has said he thought them stupid and diametrically opposed to his own conclusions. He did not “always insist he wasn’t an antisemite”. He specifically said he did not care either way that it was irrelevant to defending his free speech rights. You’re intelligent enough to understand this, but you seem to have some burning need to believe the acid-trip version of history in the case of this man. I’ll let you say why that is.

Turning to Cohn’s second point, it is taken for granted by civil libertarians that defense of freedom of expression is independent of the views expressed. Thus when I sign petitions (and go far beyond that) in the case of Soviet dissidents, some of whom have absolutely horrendous views, I never allude to this fact in the slightest way. In signing petitions supporting Salman Rushdie, I make no comment about whether his book slanders Muslims. I have no doubt that this practice enrages mullahs in Qom and commissars in the Kremlin as much as it does Werner Cohn, and for the same reasons. Where no civil liberties issues arise, I have been quite explicit about the fact that the views of Faurisson and others are diametrically opposed to my own firm conclusions about the facts, as in the statement quoted in Cohn’s ‘crucial source’.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Sigh,

Then please show me a single of the many interviews he’s given where he calls Faurisson an anti-Semite.

[FinnAgain]

We’re over a week in.
Is it time, yet, for you to actually state which of Chomsky’s books you’ve read, which specific arguments you agree with, and how you’ll be supporting them?
So far you’ve been asking people to challenge Chomsky and almost every time you have to take several days just to read up on the basic subject matter. And each time you select a partisan account defending Chomsky and call it done. Several times you’ve attempted to deflect the thrust of the actual discussion, such as trying to shift the topic from what it shows about Chomsky’s character that he is willing to claim that random articles are really official publications from government sources.

Meanwhile you’ve left very important claims as to your expertise go completely ignored, such as your claim that you’re able to read and check up on Chomsky’s sources, despite the fact that many aren’t in English and many aren’t available online at all.

Can you answer those questions and provide an actual argument, or is it just more honorary degrees and awful, unreadable formatting? Can you present and support a set of specific arguments, or is this simply a game where people criticize Chomsky, you take a few days to google what they’re talking about, and then you cut and paste the response you feel exonerates Chomsky?

[tomndebb]

@Untoward_Parable

Again you are being dishonest.

You will refrain from accusing other posters of being dishonest in this forum.

[tomndebb]

@Untoward_Parable

If you want to make assertions with vague references instead I can’t help but think you are not capable o this form of debate or interested in it and instead prefer to root for the side of your preference without adding anything at all to the debate beyond the torch of a grunting marcher in a mob.

As I have already told you to refrain from this behavior, I am now issuing a Warning that you you need to stop this sort of game. Argue the point of the discussion without making personal attacks on other posters.

[ /Moderating ]

[Untoward_Parable]

@Ibn_Warraq

Sigh,

Then please show me a single of the many interviews he’s given where he calls Faurisson an anti-Semite.

He has no obligation to. You show me th interview where he says he knows he’s not, or deals with anything substantially on the issue other than it being a free speech issue. He is not the decrier of anti-Semites in chief, and defending a person’s right to free speech does not mean you must do so with a disclaimer of judgment. He had not read enough of the man’s work at that time to say one way or another on the issue. He’s not going to just take some school kids he knew as proof, and as he said he found the man’s work very boring and was never going to read his work and I’m sure is so annoyed by people like you about making such a big deal out of a nobody who wanted to say stupid things that he never will give you an answer regardless of knowing full well about the man at this point. Free speech is free speech. If you don’t want to live in a totalitarian idoicracy or get any closer to it, if you believe in democracy than you have no business qualifying free speech. Anything else you claim he meant by this is complete fabrication. He did not seek this man out to defend, he was drawn into the mess because of one petition he signed like many other petitions he signed to universally defend free speech. Get over it.

[Untoward_Parable]

@FinnAgain

We’re over a week in.
Is it time, yet, for you to actually state which of Chomsky’s books you’ve read, which specific arguments you agree with, and how you’ll be supporting them?
So far you’ve been asking people to challenge Chomsky and almost every time you have to take several days just to read up on the basic subject matter. And each time you select a partisan account defending Chomsky and call it done. Several times you’ve attempted to deflect the thrust of the actual discussion, such as trying to shift the topic from what it shows about Chomsky’s character that he is willing to claim that random articles are really official publications from government sources.

Meanwhile you’ve left very important claims as to your expertise go completely ignored, such as your claim that you’re able to read and check up on Chomsky’s sources, despite the fact that many aren’t in English and many aren’t available online at all.

Can you answer those questions and provide an actual argument, or is it just more honorary degrees and awful, unreadable formatting? Can you present and support a set of specific arguments, or is this simply a game where people criticize Chomsky, you take a few days to google what they’re talking about, and then you cut and paste the response you feel exonerates Chomsky?

What books have you read? What school did you study in, who are you dating, where do you live what nationality and religion are you? It’s all petty irrelevant nonsense that I will not dignify with an answer.

If you cant actually refute my arguments guess what? You lose the argument. Attacking my credibility is not an argument.

Your argument is what? Chomsky should only cite English language sources from America and Britain? This is the Internet age, grow up, send an email requesting a scan if you have suspicions about his sources that you cant find immediately, go to a library. Not every source is going to be freely accessible on the internet right or wrong this is the way of most academic sourcing. To even attempt to use this to lend credence to your fog of suspicions is so outside the realm of meaningful it’s just flabbergasting you would attempt to use it. Find specific complaints or dont accuse with nothing to accuse of.

I am the only one who has addressed specific sources in their detail. The only one. I am not going to write a novel on the subject with 100 sources. Im certainly not going to do more hours of research work when no one here has sourced anything but attack sites and refuse to look at the context of what they base their criticisms upon, which Im so sorry happens to be the “partisan” source of Chomsky’s writing and speaking. When you take someone out of cotext guess what, the rebuttal is the context of the target’s work. It’s not complicated to understand.

[FinnAgain]

@Untoward_Parable

What books have you read? What school did you study in, who are you dating, where do you live what nationality and religion are you?

Do you really, honestly and truly, not understand the difference between:
-someone starting a thread to defend a ‘political scientist’ while being unable to discus that person’s actual writings, claiming that the ‘political scientist’ has excellent citations but then being unable to explain how they know that when the ‘political scientist’ is famous for having citations that are virtually impossible to track down/read, and requiring days of research time to simply learn about any challenge to the ‘political scientist’, and then simply picking a partisan apologia and cutting and pasting those apologias for each issue, all while avoiding answering actual substantive challenges like addressing what it reveals about a source’s credibility that he’ll claim that publications of private citizens are really official government documents
-what women I’m sleeping with?

You can claim that other people have “lost”, and you may even believe that fantasy. You’d be wrong. What’s even odder is that you think this is about your credibility. Of course your credibility has been highly damaged by this thread. You’ve done things like claim that you like Chomsky because of his high quality citations. When it was pointed out that it’s likely impossible that you’ve been able to find let alone read those citations, you changed the subject. But your credibility is not the debate topic, actually putting forward a position of Chomsky’s that you wish to support and actually supporting it with his citations which you claim to have read? That’s the debate topic. One you are, curiously, avoiding for more than a week now. *So which of Chomsky’s books have you read which of his claims from those books would you like to support, and which citations prove his claims? Specifically, how have you found and understood his non-English, non-online cites and how can you share them with the thread so that people can analyze the same information which you claim to have read? Otherwise, as pointed out, this thread is just a tired old Fetch Quest where people point out errors Chomsky’s made about issue you’re unaware of, and then you take a few days to learn what people are talking about, find a partisan source that supports Chomsky, cut and paste it with awful formatting, and call it a day. Will you be putting forward an argument any time soon?
*

@Untoward_Parable

I am the only one who has addressed specific sources in their detail. The only one.

This is simply not true and anybody reading the thread will be able to see that for themselves. So would you now like to tell us which of Chomsky’s books/essays/napkin doodles you’ve found particularly persuasive due to which arguments in those books/essays/napkin doodlings? Arguments which were supported with specific citations that you can discuss with us in detail? Remember, you told us:

I often rely on Chomsky for information about the areas of world affairs that are his focus. I do this because for every assertion he makes he has a strong source that I can look up. I don’t have to trust him since I can just check the source.

Show us those sources, which you claim exist and that you’ve looked up, which support specific arguments Chomsky has made and which you’d like to champion in this thread. Or the thread is simply “Find people who show Chomsky saying and doing things which diminish or remove his credibility, and I’ll take a few days to find Chomsky saying someone ‘it aint true!’, then someone else can challenge Chomsky on an issue I haven’t read about and we can rinse and repeat.”

Why is it that you can not just provide us with a list of the argument(s) that Chomsky’s made that you wish to support? Why cant you then simply provide citations for those arguments which you feel carry the burden of proof for those arguments?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Untoward_Parable

I am not going to write a novel on the subject with 100 sources.

The word “novel” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

[Jackmannii]

@Untoward_Parable

(Chomsky) is not the decrier of anti-Semites in chief, and defending a person’s right to free speech does not mean you must do so with a disclaimer of judgment.

Chomsky’s quoted endorsement of Shahak’s book (containing grotesque anti-Semitic writings) was not on the grounds of defending his right to free speech. The Chomsky blurb on the book’s cover said “Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.”

Your response to that revelation by Werner Cohn is to quote a Chomsky attack on Cohn which has nothing to do with the Shahak book endorsement.

It is evident to me that Chomsky supports repugnant views for reasons far beyond being a defender of free speech. I fear that your efforts to rehabilitate him in this thread are backfiring - regardless of how many institutions shower him with honorary degrees.

[Untoward_Parable]

Do you really, honestly and truly, not understand the difference between:
-someone starting a thread to defend a ‘political scientist’ while being unable to discus that person’s actual writings, claiming that the ‘political scientist’ has …
-what women I’m sleeping with?

-FA

The thread is about the question of whether Chomsky is an anti-semite or an apologist for the Khmer Rouge not about the quality of his citations. Read the OP and title to the thread again. Even he were using bad citations (which he does not, outside perhaps a rare case I am unaware of that would be expected in the mountain of citations he has used) It would not prove him to be antisemitic unless you can show a pattern. If you want to show a specific citation that is in error do so, again accusing someone for something you have no evidence for because looking their stuff up is “too hard waah” is pathetic and shows you to have less and less credibility every time you attempt to pursue the line. The cite you provided from the USNI comes from their magazine which is highly editorialized and represents the views about navy matters with the backing of admiralty and other high ranking US Navy retired and currently serving personnel. http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings Here’s your leadership and staff http://www.usni.org/about/staff Again this organization is independent of the Navy in NAME ONLY. This is transparent.

You can claim that other people have “lost”, and you may even believe that fantasy. You’d be wrong. What’s even odder is that you think this is about your credibility. Of course your credibility has been highly damaged by this thread. You’ve done things like claim that you like Chomsky because of his high quality citations. When it was pointed out that it’s likely impossible that you’ve … people point out errors Chomsky’s made about issue you’re unaware of, and then you take a few days to learn what people are talking about, find a partisan source that supports Chomsky, cut and paste it with awful formatting, and call it a day. Will you be putting forward an argument any time soon?

Again this thread is not about his citations, you want to get into that start another thread or bring up the specific ones you have a problem with. I’m not going to prove the positive that Chomsky’s citations are always perfect. That would require looking over every single citation for review of their accuracy and again has nothing to do with the topic outside specific cases. I know you would prefer to lead the conversation into a wild goose chase or bury me in paperwork instead of arguing the very very weak cases the thread is about. Is Chomsky an anti-semite or an apologist for the Khmer Rouge. That’s the topic. That is all. Stick to the topic.

And again the basis of the attacks on Chomsky are his own words used to demonstrate that he is antisemitic or an apologist for the KR. In order to refute them I must cite his work in it’s original context. This is not partisan. It is obvious. If I cite someone else’s perspective and work on refuting this stuff I am very sorry, I know only you and other critics in the thread have the right to bring outside opinion supporting your thesis to bear and that only I have to respond to those sources.

This is simply not true and anybody reading the thread will be able to see that for themselves. So would you now like to tell us which of Chomsky’s books/essays/napkin doodles you’ve found particularly persuasive due to which arguments in those books/essays/napkin doodlings? Arguments which were supported with specific citations that you can discuss with us in detail? Remember, you told us:

Show me where someone has taken anything I have cited and responded to the specifics of it’s content. I don’t have to prove the negative that Chomsky is not an AS or an apologist for the KR. You have to prove that he is. Or you lose the argument, period. I have responded to the sources used in attacks on Chomsky. You may attempt to find fault with my cite’s sources for theirs if you wish to actually engage in debate instead of endless prattling.

Show us those sources, which you claim exist and that you’ve looked up, which support specific arguments Chomsky has made and which you’d like to champion in this thread. Or the thread is simply “Find people who show Chomsky saying and doing things which diminish or remove his credibility, and I’ll take a few days to find Chomsky saying someone ‘it aint true!’, then someone else can challenge Chomsky on an issue I haven’t read about and we can rinse and repeat.”

Why is it that you can not just provide us with a list of the argument(s) that Chomsky’s made that you wish to support? Why cant you then simply provide citations for those arguments which you feel carry the burden of proof for those arguments?

I have found the original context of any attack I’ve looked up and found it to be nothing at all but fabrication and given the source material for anyone who cares to look at it. You have never done this with any of my posts. Im not going to do 1000 times the work for my posts as you do yours by preemptively proving that all Chomsky sources are not lies.

You will address my cites or I will no longer respond to you.

[Untoward_Parable]

@Ibn_Warraq

The word “novel” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Good one, since I was using the comment in all seriousness.