Ok, let's barbecue a bit more of meat shall we. We seem to have focused on one particular example related to Laos.

So I propose to post the detailed chronology.
Then analyze the Chomsky quote mentioned in the review I posted.
Then analyze the review's interpretation.


Act I
1945 - WW2 ends
1947 - Start of limited decolonization in French Indochina (present day Vietnam, Laos and Cambodja)
1949 - Pathet Lao formed with Viet Minh support
1950 - Souphanouvong is leading Pathet Lao + US starts supporting French adminstration in Laos
1951 - Indochinese Communists Party splits along national lines
1953
April - Viet Minh invasion under Nguyen Giap (40K strong), includes Pathet Lao led by Souphanouvong (2K strong) opposed by Royal Laotian Army (13K) and French (3K)
[Despite the proxy elements - Royal Army leadership was directed by French, and Pathet Lao was directed by Viet Minh - this pretty much kicks off the Civil War in my opinion...]
December - French go into Dien Bien Phu
[Yes folks, Dien Bien Phu was in part an attempt at trying to disrupt Viet Minh logistics - although the invasion had been contained, the numeric force disparity was such the French wanted a decisive battle where they could bring to bear their technical superiority]
1954
May - French surrender at Dien Bien Phu
July - Geneva Convention where French grant full independence to the previous colonies

Act II
So Laos is kind of independent. The Pathet Lao is too weak vs Royal Laotian Army, but this RLA is too weak vs the North Vietnamese. Certain provinces of Laos are occupied by the Vietnamese / liberated by the Phatet Lao as you might see it.
1956
March - Laotian government opens dialogue with Phatet Lao
[the tragedy of Civil Wars folks... the Prime Minister was Souphanouvong's brother]
1957
Nov - Coalition government includes Pathet Lao
1958
May - Elections lead to deadlocked parliament

Act III
So things had kind of quieted down. Throughout the previous period the US was gradually replacing the French, for example in training the Royal Army. As well providing economic support. As you can imagine they were probably not happy to have coalition governments which included communists.
1959
May - North Vietnames Army starts building Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos + Pathet Lao refuses to integrate into Royal Army as had been scheduled
[Whoa, out of the blue surprise...]
July - Second Vietnamese invasion of Laos
[Yes folks, this is the one jamotide conveniently forgot or didn't know about]
1960
Aug - Kong Le coup intent to end the civil war
[these guys were called the Neutralists and were main coalition partners of the Pathet Lao - they received Soviet Union support]
Dec 1960 - Phoumi Nosavan coup / counter-coup takes / retakes the capital
[these guys were supported by the US and the CIA]

This is enough context for my purpose and what comes after doesn't modify the picture.

Now let's see how Chomsky et al decribe these events. Emphasis mine.

A coalition government was established in 1958 after the only elections worthy of the name in the history of Laos. Despite extensive US efforts, they were won handily by the left. Nine of the thirteen candidates of the [communist] Pathet Lao guerrillas won seats in the national assembly, along with four candidates of the left-leaning neutralists (“fellow traveler,” as they were called by Ambassador Parsons). Thus “Communists or fellow travelers” won thirteen of the twenty-one seats contested. The largest vote went to the leader of the Pathet Lao, Prince Souphanouvong, who was elected chairman of the national assembly.

US pressures- including, crucially, the withdrawal of aid – quickly led to the overthrow of the government in a coup by a “pro-Western neutralist” who pledged his allegiance to “the free world” and declared his intention to disband the political party of the Pathet Lao (Neo Lao Hak Sat), scrapping the agreements that had successfully established the coalition. He was overthrown in turn by the CIA favorite, the ultra-right-wing General Phoumi Nosavan. After US clients won the 1960 elections, rigged so crudely that even the most pro-US observers were appalled, civil war broke out, with the USSR and China backing a coalition extending over virtually the entire political spectrum apart from the extreme right, which was backed by the United States.

Analytic/ sarcastic notes:

1 - Noticed that contested up there? The left both won and didn't win the elections. They won them in the sense of winning 9 (13 if including neutralists) of 21 seats. But not in the sense of having majority in the 69 seat parliament. Still isn't it nice how this first paragraph leaves us with an impression of a neat reality, where the pure elections were won handily by the left, with the Pathet Lao leader becoming something that sounds like a quite important position.

2 - notice how the neutralists, who were the main coalition partners of the Pathet Lao up to now, here kind of suddenly have someone influential enough to lead a bloodless coup, who is characterized (in quotes for plausible deniability) as pro-Western (capital W even). Implying it's an anti-Pathet Lao coup. Which connotation is further reinforced by the following paragraph about scrapping the coalition. No mention of the fact that the Kon Le government pretty much immediatelly allied with the Pathet Lao more deeply and received support from the Soviet Union. That's pro-western indeed folks - Moscow is to the west of Laos and that's a fact. Geographical even, you ca trust maps, no politics involved ;) PS - The coup was so pro-Western that the clowns at CIA, not happy or clueless, support an even more pro-Western second coup 6 months later! But don't let the logical contradiction there get in the way of a nice narrative folks. Let's move on.

3 - That scrapping the coalition agreements is worth a second look. Didn't I see something in the chronology about the Pathet Lao refusing to integrate into the regular army - per pre agreed schedules - kind of in tandem with the establishment of the Ho Chi Minh trail? Oh... I'm sure that had nothing to do with invalidating any agreements that were brokered by his brother the Prime Minister and helped legitimize the political arm of the Pathet Lao. Yeah, right... no wonder the neutralists were nervous, the gathering clouds were growing darker on the period of relative quiet that followed the French defeat in Indochina. If that was not enough the Vietnamese invaded again. And if you're reading in the lines (no need to read between the lines if all the lines are actually presented) you know who the Vietnamese are buddies buddies with. Right?

4 - Finally, I want to point out the sheer boldness of that civil war broke out. Grammar is funny, but notice how if you remove the 'parenthetical' about "rigged so crudely..." you are left with an implication the civil war broke out only after the counter coup, after the 1960 elections. It didn't start when a communist backed guerilla invaded Laos with Vietnamese support. That would be ridiculous. It didn't start with the second Vietnamese invasion, nor with either the neutralist or the US backed coups... yeah, right. I mean, not even the poetic / tragic reality of literally having two brothers pretty much leading the two sides as Laos becomes independent of the French is enough evidence for a civil War before the US backed coup. Because... something I guess...

I freaking hate waiting for the 10minutes...


Now jamotide, you can believe that all of these are either honest misrepresentations due to wanting to simplify. Or maybe somewhat misinformed statements. But I would hope you have the decency to at least admit that there is enough evidence that a reasonable individual, aware of Chomsky's political and ideological preferences, might, just might, believe that Chomsky is either letting his biases get the best of him, or even consciously crafting a narrative to serve his propaganda goals.

The available evidence fits the propaganda hypothesis at least as well as the objective scholar one. And this is but one small example. There are ways of being factually rigorous and dishonest at the same time. In fact, that's the most effective kind of dishonesty. As I said way way earlier - I never denied the man is brilliant at what he does.

Heck, if I'm honest I probably copied some of my style from him - I can't wait to share that insight with my commie friends back home :D


Finally, let's see how the reviewer presented his opinion.

So, things that C&H conveniently forgot to mention: North Vietnam invaded Laos (!), and the Communists gained their power as lackeys for these foreign invaders (!). Although the Communists did well in the 1958 elections, they absolutely did not have a majority in government at the time, and in fact stonewalled the legitimate government. Xananikôn was elected constitutionally by the National Assembly, including the Communists. The Communists refused to stand down their armies and join the national government, and when the government tried to make them, North Vietnam invaded again, with the Communists supporting the foreign invaders. It was in this context that the Neutralists launched their coup, and Phoumi’s CIA-backed countercoup was actually in opposition to it. This is a really different story than C&H’s version. C&H never lie per se, but they leave out things as significant as a giant foreign invasion happening during the middle of the events they’re describing.

I rest my case. For anyone else reading. Let me just repeat. Despite this element of methodological ciritique, the review I linked is sympathetic to Chomsky and to the thesis of his book! But given it's almost 1AM here, I won't even address jamotide's well selected (if one wants to discredit the reviewer that is) quote of the review. That can wait for another day. Or never. Just read the review and make your own mind. This kind of roasting gives me no pleasure - unlike the earlier satire this actually requires me to exert myself.


And wait 20 minutes to post it all... even the sarcasm in the middle is too little... and I feel lonely. TinyE? Please mate... I thought we had something going on...

So I am supposed to waste it even though all you would need to do is read what is already written? hehe, no.

That is great, so you just took that article without doing any research about it, brilliant.

More honest about what?

All of it?? And strawman for what?

There is no logical coherency in this sentence. These aren't Chomskys views, this is declassified information, did you do any research at all or just hear about this guy, find a random article and decided to complain?

You make fair criticisms about the details of what happened there and you do it better than that "review", but declaring the guy satire and hilarious because of things like this is not warranted. Also do not forget that C&Hs topic there was the US media, which is what he talks about after those two short paragraphs in the book,so you still have not shown how those criticisms about the details of Laos relate to the Media not reporting the most important facts (like the subversion of the new elected government by the aid cut off).

I don't know what to do with you... really...

On the positive side, I see the work I put in has at least been recognized as worthy somehow. So thanks I guess.

On the mixed side, it still seems to me like you are missing the point. Or rather like you are missing the point on purpose. You are for sure missing the point but if it's not on purpose then I guess I bear some responsibility...

So to clarify, and then also address your comments on the immediately preceding post.

1 - Do you really think I did it better than the SSC guy? He was so much more succinct at it... to me his treatment is much more elegant and factually it's identical to mine.

2 - Do you actually believe that I think Chomsky is satire and hilarious? Was my satire really that good? Did you miss the :P and my mention of Michael Moore? I mean I half believe Mr.D did believe I was being serious at the start of this thread, but you too?

3 - I never discussed US Media and the actual content of Manufacturing Consent in any detail. Did you before now? If so I missed it. But I'm not positing anything on whether / how the media is biased. I have zero burden of proof as I'm not trying to prove anything on that topic...

4 - Which facts are most important is debatable. To some the most important seems to be US aid being cut off, or the lack of media coverage of that. To others just maybe it could be a Communist backed invasion or two... Also maybe consider the second order effects: Could the invasion have in any way caused the aid cutoff, say because the people being politically legitimized had participated in said invasion and were therefore "enemies"? And in the other direction: Could the aid cutoff have in any way caused the second invasion, say because the people upset with the US punishment decided to side against them?

5 - To be explicit my point is: Chomsky's choices of focus are so obviously one sided that I find it practically proven that he is a dishonest ideological propagandist. Or at the least certainly a very - very - partisan scholar. Context matters and leaving it out of the frame can be dishonest. This is the same point that I made satirically. For example: Oh, yes, Chomsky is indeed a brilliant satirist. The way he sets the punchline by considering only causation in the direction that demonizes US choices, while pretending to not know the context that explains those choices. Hilarious! Do you see what I'm actually saying? Kindly compare with my second post on this thread.


Now on your previous post:

It's not waste if you actually care about the answers. I wrote enough so far - objectively much more than you. I'm not lying that IF I didn't answer you somewhere it's because I have not understood the questions. I say IF because as mentioned, I still wonder if you're being disingenuous.

I took that article because ... wait... I'm getting deja vu...
Maybe you forgot this, maybe you chose to ignore it. The fact you tried to score a gotcha implying my ignorance - which is a mild form of personal attack, is noted though.

So the tricky one. You're asking me about your honesty... I need to skip this one for now.

Then the strawman. The point of a strawman is to attribute to an opponent a position they do not hold to attack that strawman position instead of the actual position and therefore gain some advantage. You implied I am inconsistent in my dislike of Chomsky when his points align with my ideological preferences - ergo that I would not have problem with his methodology when he attacks Stalin or Turkey. This is a strawman.

Then the other strawman. You were the one that accused me of expressing conspiracies. Reread that exchange now that I provided enough data about the context of 1953 to 1960. Still think I was making some conspiracy theory? The invasion of 53 and subsequent communist / Pathet Lao presence / occupation of part of Laos was obviously an important reason for the US to remove aid to a government that legitimized 'politicians' involved in said invasion. The support for the counter coup in 1960 is also obvious in the context of what was happening in Vietnam right next door - the repeat invasion in 59 and the subsequent neutralist coup threatened to facilitate hugely the North Vietnamese subversion of South Vietnam through support of the Viet Cong. Chomsky is IMO intently leading the reader to believe US malice rather than the obvious reaction to 'ebemy actions'.

So let's get back to your honesty now those final points are covered.
Let's count... possibly disingenuously missing the point on context / methodology repeatedly, possibly an implicit personal attack, forgetting my earlier answers, at least two strawmen - with bonus for possibly disingenuously not knowing what a strawman is for ;)
Now looking further back... post #5 - you find Chomsky interesting. #7 you find him reliable #19 where I'm characterized as funny but then you later act as if my satire is not satire at all #29 you read the review but missed the methodological critique - the one that to me looks better than mine #35 you're defensive despite your beliefs being kind of easy to deduct from your liking Chomsky and finding him reliable.
Maybe it's all a misunderstanding. Maybe I'm paranoid? Or maybe you are a bit dishonest...

Sorry mate. I might be wrong about you, but if so should be really easy for you to prove it.

Just ignore the neocon/far-right trolls, you're just doing them a favor by feeding them.

I like Chomsky's works a lot. I recommend you read Manufacturing Consent (it's a bit old, but a great book nonetheless).

You may also like Is the man who is tall happy? An animated conversation with Noam Chomsky by Michel Gondry.

You asked about authors close to him, start with his (sadly deceased, R.I.P.) close friend Edward Said (Orientalism is his most famous work).

Another book you may find interesting is Don't think of an elephant by George Lakoff, you can find PDF versions around the web or buy it pretty cheap at your local bookstore (it's not a very big book).

Hope you find this post useful, and enjoy your reads!

Thanks for the link, vicklemos.

I feel like the interviewer wanted to to focus on one or two subjects, and insisted too much on them. I felt that Chomsky strays too much from what is asked; some times to give examples, others to establish context, and even, I suppose, due to his nature. The interviewer then, bluntly, tries to get Chomsky back on the track he expects him to be on, instead of going with the flow of the conversation, which I think would provide with a more pleasant interview.

I know Chomsky's name, but I don't recall from where. But thank you for bringing him back to my attention. I have taken a look to see which of his books are translated in my native language.

As a final note, Chomsky is a known for his very strong anti-censorship views, specifically regarding speech which criticizes him. On that spirit, I recommend that you cut Brasas some slack. Ignore him if you will, but don't try to silence him.

For what it's worth, the neocons aren't far right, they're in fact based in the socialist left. In the 1970s guys like James Cannon, Irving Kristol and Max Shachtman felt betrayed by the left's wandering objectives and so they put on 3 piece suits and invaded the Republican party. Not opinion. Fact. 3 minutes of research will show you the takeover in broad strokes.

Calling me a neocon is weird (I assume this was directed at me). Are we back in 2004 or what?

To the audience. All the arguments SJWs make about SJW being used pejoratively apply to being called neocon. Sure it's descriptive as well if you're into politics for a while and know what neocon policies were, but then kindly be explicit what the heck you mean when using it... because the more "democratic"sense (ergo what the majority associates with it) is greedy for oil imperialists pretending to be humanitarians. To me, as Emob just mentioned, their humanitarianism is obvious when you consider where they ideologically originated, hence the majority view is actually reversed from the truth: They adopted all kinds of strategic rationales and ntional interest positions for international intervention to suite their more basic human rights views.

Ah, and the specialized meaning here of course is that - because Chomsky is a huge anti-interventionist - anyone arguing against Chomsky - like me - or for the more polarizing example, supporting the 2003/2004 Iraq invasion must be a pro intervention "neocon". You know, like Hillary Clinton.

An earnest person trying to connect with others along a similar interest - prime real-estate for the suffocating and unending stench of shit that is Brasas to wash up on. Yes. Having authored dozens upon dozens of books, his work has been collected into larger editions, The Essential Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader and so forth which may be preferable for you. His work covers a lot of ground so I suppose it depends on your interests. Hegemony or Survival is a popular one, famously held up by Chavez at the UN when he lampooned Bush as the devil.

His talk Free Market Fantasies I find valuable to revisit, if you're not familiar with it.

As someone stated Michel Gondry's documentary Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy? covers some of his work in Linguistics and is entertaining as well as thought provoking.

He also makes some great points in what should be essential viewing for most, The Corporation.

Other people you may want to check out:

Robert McChesney on media.

Michael Parenti on Race, Gender, and Class Struggle.

Chris Hedges' book The Death of the Liberal Class is excellent. A true firebrand in his writing. His earlier work War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning is highly regarded.

David Cay Johnson (a republican) has done a series of books investigating the corrupt business practices of corporations, Free Lunch, Perfectly Legal, & The Fine Print.

Einstein's Why Socialism? essay is a quick read and timeless.

Adam Curtis' Century of the Self (on the history of propaganda in the US) and The Power of Nightmares series for the BBC which may be widely known over there (?) in the EU are virtually unheard of here in the US but are fantastic for both their filmmaking and arguments.

Lastly since I could go on for quite sometime and because your profile says Germany, I was impressed with a small German documentary that I came across recently even though it's from 2008 called Let's Make Money.

It's ironic that Brasas' methodology for an argument in this thread starts with self described satire moves to equivocation & obfuscation then ends with a regurgitation of some else's writing only when repeatedly pressed by you for an articulate response. Is this is a person that anyone would take seriously as a judge of methodological correctness?

Following an argument (or more accurately the pretense of one) Brases makes is a bit like following a game of labyrinth that can never travel farther than the outside before imploding.

As far as Chomsky is concerned he typically writes in a straight forward (no wonder Brasas hates him), matter-of-fact way that questions what is reasonable, giving context to issues, and usually goes out of his way to cite examples from the right (to be as charitable as possible).

Regardless of whatever error Brasas thinks he's found from one book he probably didn't read that came out 25 years ago (before things like computers and the internet were in every home) to call Chomsky a propagandist is propaganda itself. He's widely considered one of the most influential, and respected intellectuals living today. Attempts to minimize his importance are the hallmark of hacks and posers which Brasas certainly fits.

I wouldn't take his endless nonsensical blathering seriously, it's typical of his m.o. He camps these forums night and day never failing to fall into an argument with someone that (as displayed here) he himself provokes. If he wasn't such an ass you might actually feel sorry for him. You have to wonder what emptiness provokes his near constant presence and endless stream of swill.

Invading another country under false pretenses doesn't pass as far right these days? What about "free-market" capitalism? Pointing to ideological beginnings says nothing about the ideological present nor the ideology itself.

1min of research for you: "The term 'neoconservative' refers to those who made the ideological journey from New Deal liberalism to the camp of American conservatism."

Ok... this time I'll reply like you, maybe that will help with understanding each other... I don't like this mode of forum posting. It helps us lose the overall point and get lost in minutiae that's irrelevant. IMO.

Thanks again then.
I disagree because I don't value that highly my thoroughness via verbosity and capablity for Chomsky like volume of facts.
I appreciate thoroughness through synthesis and succintness much more - that's how I would characterize the SSC material in this specific instance.

Yes. No, I was satirizing Chomsky and implicitly Mr.D.

Not satire now. My linking to that review does not constitute endorsement of the whole of it. I recall explicitly mentioning that I was linking it as an example of Chomsky's methodological issues. As you might have guessed the Laos example was part of what I had in mind then.

I never mentioned explicitly any thesis on media bias until now. So I will say as a kind of disclaimer that my opinion on media bias can be inferred fairly easily from my position in numerous discussions in other threads. Suffice to say I do not have a good opinion of journalistic media overall. Ironically, I am in agreeement with Chomsky on that. Which also happens to (coincidentally) be the opinion of the SSC reviewer. And I assume yours. Consensus. But all that is a tangent, because:

I never mentioned media bias until now. And please don't take me literally. Of course I quoted you, because you did bring it up.


No dispute it's all important - to someone, somewhere. But to be blunt, for reasons I have made apparent, I don't give a fuck about any of Chomsky's books. Even if he stumbles upon the truth, the way he got to the truth is hugely suspicious. I find him a biased partisan hack. His methodological issues are abundant IMO.

I happen to think impartiality and objectivy are the better ways to get to the truth. You do your best to put the side you have to the side (pun intended), rather than embracing it. Because confirmation bias, and bunch of other shit that is well understood psychologically and affects science - especialy social science. If you get to the truth by always looking left or right your chances of making errors increase hugely. Also, I never denied being a dick. It's not some either / or choice. I'm both satirical and a dick. I'd even say being satirical requires being a dick of sorts.

I explained further on.
I will now remind you I'm typing this as I go along. Since things are about to get "personal" I expect emotions to amp up. So let me state the following. Up to now, I've been 50/50 undecided whether you are being disingenous, or authentic.
At his point, I am maybe more 70/30 leaning towards you being authentic, just too literalminded. Certainly your opinion on the kind of critique you prefer, your having needed me to explain what the point of the satire was... all evidence to that. But you know... maybe you are just a very good troll... so there is still the 30% chance... of course all percentages are just my subjective interpretations. I make no claim to knowing the truth about your character - this is me detailing my perception of you. You might know the truth about yourself of course.


It's relevant because personal attacks and conveniently forgetting what you've been told already is evidence that you might be a troll. Or that you are so literalminded you don't care about the emotional aspect of the communication you're having.

You didn't ask me about other Chomsky views. Do you really think you did? Please quote yourself on that...

You assumed I would have no issue with Chomsky's methods if I agreed with his views, like on Turkey and Stalin. Because you don't know and did't ask my views, those assumptions you did are unrelated. Unrelated to the truth - they are straw. They are unrelated to the true me. They are a strawman me - that you made up and started arguing with instead of arguing with me.

And again. Let me make a related point (related therefore not a strawman). It's not just the factual issue here, that you probably make factual mistakes by employing strawmen arguments. It's the emotional angle: you are ignoring, dismissing, disenfranchising, dehumanizing the real me. Yes, that is rhetorical hyperbole. Because I need some mechanism to express the emotional weight of this which I suspect you don't get AT ALL.

And again. I noted the personal insult. So I'm a kind of fake cry baby now... Classy mate... very classy... how old are you again? Yes, jamotide. I can also be insulting and condescending and imply you're a child - emotionally, intellectually... whatever you want to read into that. As mentioned higher. I never said I was not a dick. But are you even aware how much of a dick you are / or are appearing to be?

I just went from 70/30 to 60/40 by the way...


Didn't even bother to reread for context. I can revisit this if you want me to since I went into strawmen just now above.


The premises are not flawed and the conclusion might be invalid IF you are honestly expressing that you believe the premises to be flawed. As represented I assign a 40% chance you are lying to my face about it.

Maybe. Funny how often I use this word (and might, and seems, and assume...) whereas you seem so sure of yourself. Are you often found by others to be arrogant jamotide?
I've been honest that I am not certain of your motivation here. But if anything I am thinking too much about this, not too little.
Consider this. Here I am and I made an exhaustive well documented case for how Chomsky is likely misrepresenting some shit about Laos. Then here I go and apply same methodology to your interactions with me. Explaining why I think what I think as I go along. You seem to appreciate the first one, but disagree with the second. Are you sure that you aren't just letting your dislike of my conclusions color your dislike of my approach? That would be ironic, since you assumed (as a strawman) that I would do that with Chomsky, but in the reverse order - that liking his conclusions would make me like his methods.

Because it's not my logic. I'm representing what I assume to have been the logic of the gentleman that posted about me (I assume) as being neocon.
This is satirical. I am making fun of the fact that by that logic Hillary Clinton is a neocon. Maybe Obama too. It's a reduction to absurd argument of sorts. But a good one and funny. Because as far as Chomsky for example is concerned, someone like Hillary Clinton probably is similar to a neocon. That's how far to the left the man is.



Hmmm emotions did not seem to amp up that much. Interesting fact that.
Ok. Here goes nothing. (Star Wars reference.)

I have aspie family jamo. You are reminding me of them very much.

If I'm right, you will probably react constructively. This is a fact to be acknowledged and the whole post I did was logical and mostly clean of emotional subtleties - or rather I expressed them literally - so we might actually make progress in reaching understanding.

If I'm wrong, you will probably react not constructively. You might assume I am insulting you: I'm not. But if I'm wrong and you're not on the spectrum, then chances you are and were trolling me will jump from 40 to 70 or higher. Basically I will start assuming you have been trolling me and likely stop replying.

Your move. Let's see if you prove one of my hypothesis...

Pot. Kettle.

Your projection abilities are illuminating - even when some of your insights are not that far off from the truth. Forgive me for not even going to the trouble of correcting any of your mischaracterizations though. I expect you to assume the worst regardless ;)

I'm glad I didn't read your post before replying to jamo at least. What a pity if I had not given him the seriousness I have and would have skirted closer to having beem amused by his post - as I am by yours now.

[sarc on]No doubt that's a defense mechanism to refuse to acknowledge the brilliancy of your characterization.[sarc off]
Never mind the logical inconsistency... I have admitted your characterization is in some aspects not too false.

Wait, maybe I'm doing that admission against interest on purpose? And maybe I posted that whole thing to jamotide just to draw a bigger contrast to your obvious inhumanity? Ah well... another day on the web. Everyone on the other side might be a dog... or a dog's turd.

Ok now I am sure you don't know what satire means.

Then it was just a bad example. because those issues do not negate Chomskys point.


So? I did not say you did, I said Chomsky did in the book which is the topic of the review.


So it is truth sometimes, you agree with some of it, you still hate him even though you don't care at all about his writing... makes sense.


Yeah right, you are impartial LOL Now THAT is satire! Also I never claimed you denied being a dick.

Oh by disingenuous you mean I am just messing with you but really I think totally different?? Look back at you being a dick, why can't I also do both? I can troll you and still be ingenuous about the topic at hand.

Evidence?? When did this turn into a trial about whether or not I am a troll? I thought we are talking about Chomsky here.

About Cambodia and Serbia among others. Dr.Singh just quoted it again above. Let's hear your "impartial" take on those LOL


No, I did it in ADDITION, that is why those can't be strawmen, because those are made to evade the actual issue. It might be another rhetorical tactic we both are not smart enough to know the technical term of.

So you do know what I did. :D

I thought we are supposed to put that aside "Because confirmation bias, and bunch of other shit that is well understood psychologically and affects science - especialy social science"

Sure I am aware, did I deny it? I fully admit that in such long discussions I need to throw in a couple of insulting jokes to keep me entertained. I have no problem with you doing the same, I do have a problem if these insults or jokes replace the meat rather than just embellish them.

So do I get no legal counsel or what, is this some US-backed dictatorship? When does the torture start? (or end? lol)

It just made no sense, you drew a weird connection from the little conspiracy hyperbole (which was directed at you thinking I am purposely misunderstanding facts to just troll you) to the minute details of the pathet lao and then for some reason threw the term strawman in.

Yes I can't possibly be right, I must be lying just to mess with the holy Brasas. I think this is called narcissism.

I am definitely arrogant, but why does it matter? What does my motivation matter? Does yours matter?

I dislike your approach? I thought I complimented you on it, saying you did it much better than that "review".
Also...dude, there are other terms than strawmen, in this example your are actually meaning "tu quoque" not strawman. Yes I am arrogant.


That is the logic that is fail, and it is yours. Being for military intervention (aka war, hello newspeak) does not mean you can only be a neocon.

I still want a lawyer.