So this is the thread where people are not supposed to post?

Could GOG staff lock the thread so that no one accidentally posts a message here, especially TinyE?

Ah, now I think I found the writer I was thinking about: Naomi Klein, and her book No Logo.

Noam, Naomi, same same... No wonder I mixed these two.

Please no censorship.

Now self-censorship though... can we impose that somehow? Maybe via anonymous judgement / punishment of others? Me I'm old fashioned so I prefer good traditional face to face booing and protest... or honest satire. Cos you know, it's gentler.


PS: By the way OP, here's an idea: What are you reading

Why don't you be more specific instead of trying to be funny? What exactly bothers you about his writing about Cambodia and Serbia?

That's what the anarchists said... until they made their own web forum (www.takku.net) and found out life is so much simpler if you moderate heavily and ban dissidents.

Like the discussion that was started about the Paris attacks there, the only comment they left there was one which said the fascist France got what it deserved because they have bombed Syria and blaa blaa blaa, and the comments objecting that opinion were removed.

Oh well, some anarchists... I wonder who appointed the moderators in that forum anyway? No one seems to know who they are, how they were selected etc.

Listened to roughly a dozen lectures of him, and they are quite profound analyzes on current political developments in my opinion. If you don`t like/disagree with his writings then, well I just started my first book so lets see.

As a latin american, lemme say: ignore what he sez about the region.
99% is pure garbage, like "white elites are no longer in charge of ruling a lot of countries in the region" or even "mercosul et al are a great success". Pure crap.

I'm sorry if I'm offending someone who likes the dude.
ps: and when he talks about Cuba, the bloodiest dictatorship in the western hemisphere, my lord, better turn the tv off or else the puking starts.

You think I was not clear? And you think I'm mostly trying to be funny? The funny is just to sweeten my actual points... He is an ideological propagandist though and through, not just on Cambodja and Serbia. I could respect that if I thought he was honest... but I don't. I think he consciously chooses to misrepresent the historical truth, making him a terrible historian. Yet a brilliant propagandist.

If you are really interested in substantial discussion about Chomsky, please read the link I provided to the review of Manufacturing Consent. Despite what I'm going to say next it's a sympathetic - if critical - review and you clearly have the patience to read - proven because you read Chomsky... boy is the man's prose exhaustive...

Anyway notice the clear example of what Chomsky does not mention in relation to Laos. And the overall trend of apparent lack of self-awareness of his own biases. Similar critiques of his approach to sources and factual truth are all too common and well documented. Cherry picking basically. IMO he does it on purpose and consciously. Ergo, he is a political activist masquerading as something more objective, in tone and methodology.

As should be obvious if you know me in the least, that's an approach to methodology I despise. It puts the ends before the means and in science - including social ones like history - that's corrosive and perverts truth. He's a proto SJW basically, in my conception of what the term means - ergo he is a radical activist for whom objective truth is merely a tool.


Now, by the way, I need to shift to the personal somewhat. Despite my finding what I did in this thread somewhat funny, in a TinyE "let's derail anything serious" way - please don't assume I think I'm pure as snow doing it - I know very well my dislike of some is why I took the condescending satirical tone I did, so my self-awareness is still in place.

Though honestly, I don't really feel that sorry for Mr. D. so I don't also feel that much impure. I mean notice how quickly he came down to wanting to force the thread to cater to his whim - which means, kicking me out of it basically - dissenting views not welcome. How "rauss, rauss" of him... That's not all caused by me wearing a provocative outfit surely, and anyone thinking so is deluded. I think Mr. D is being somewhat disingenuous. He wanted an echo chamber, as in other threads he opened in the past - like the one making fun of Limbaugh. I gave him a taste of his own ridicule medicine - seems it was somewhat bitter in taste.

Anyway, I argued about Chomsky for at least 20 years, with close, childhood, friends who happen to be communists and anti-American ideologues. I have no issue doing so respectfully and honestly, did it throughout the Iraq War and 9/11 even - and I know you enough from other threads that I would do so with you - despite presuming strong and deep ideological disagreements. So if you want, follow my lead, by which I mean, follow my links, and tell me what more you want from me. I'll do my best.

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading this.
:D

I assume you speak about Chomsky.
Can you post a link what he said about latin america? Also I don`t know what "mercosul et al" is, could not find clear information about that.

I've read some stuff of Chomsky, and I kinda liked the dude so far. I understand you like him a lot and want to get more in depth. But asking people you disagree with to shut up is not helping. Not you, not the thread and not the overall political point.

Yup, Chomsky! :)
Great thread btw. Gotta admire the old man on his liguistics skills and sometimes pertinent statements. Only. Period.

Here's one interview he gave for the RTP (portuguese tv, interviewer doesn't understand a single word he says :P) and check the statements he gives about latin america, white elites concentrating power, cuba, mercosul and other economic groups and entities. Any doubts, I'm here.
ps: I hate communism, pseudo communism, proto-banana republic wannabe dictators, so if that's the case, I'm ready to answer any relevant questions about the region :P

ps: for those wondering why I'm a self proclaimed "congoman", I was born in Zaire, but came as baby to L.A. :)

I did read it and wonder why you complain about propaganda and then link to such a "review". So C&H talked about a timeframe after north vietnam invaded Laos. Why does it matter? The review does not say. It also itself leaves out what led to that invasion. Does that matter? The "review" seems to confirm the other facts and still critizes C&H for some reason.
Then the "review" procedes to accuse him of denial of genocide in cambodia or even defense of it. That is ridiculous. Seriously, did you read that? I hope you just quickly googled this article without much thought.

The review's criticism was quite reasonable, I felt. What the review first says is that as a book, it seems that it was unorganised, the conclusion didn't match the thesis, and the discussion was about a subject that's only loosely related to the premise. The second thing it says is that C&H are selective in their examples and therefore whatever conclusions they do reach are dubious.

Seems like sound enough criticism. You can argue specific details, but does that invalidate these points?