Satire: noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Chomsky's vice is his partisanship. It surfaces though his cherry picking and removal of relevant context in all sorts of places. It's pretty much his typical method of working when he does political stuff.

Mr.D's vice is his partisanship. It surfaces in his attempt to control others and create "echo chambers" / "safe spaces" in all sorts of threads. It's pretty much his typical method of posting anywhere (he has mentioned other media himself).

The example on Laos I linked to is perfect evidence for what I satirized: Chomsky's vice of removing context and cherry picking.

The reaction I provoked from Mr.D is perfect evidence for what I satirized. At least later on he tried humor...

That has been the meat all along. And however effective you think your rhetoric is, if you go back and reread our dialogue you will see I kept circling back to it, despite your evasiveness. I did however also choose to actually get a better read on you. Afterall when I actually PMd you a long time ago, you never even replied.

So thanks for your (partial) honesty though. Now I know what I wanted to.


PS 1 - I'm going to throw you a freebie now. Instead of this disjointed method of communication you have exemplified throughout - which is indeed very lawyerly - maybe try some synthesis and succinctness. And don't let tangential aspects detract from the meat of the situation, even if they're fun. Point in case, if the meat for you was me: see how easily I admitted to being a dick and actually treated you respectfully. I'm like that - naïve. ;)


PS 2 - As for Cambodja and Serbia, I took that question to be rhetoric earlier, but I have no problem answering now. Why you would really want to open that can of worms is anyone's guess though... it only works in my favor that I have so far ignored what is the most controversial aspect of Chomsky's reputation other than via that allusion.

As I'm sure you have guessed, what particularly bothers me on those two topics goes farther than Chomsky's usual cherry picking. Usually he sticks to shining the worst possible light on the uses and abuses of US power. In those two topics he goes further to actually "whitewashing" the abuses done by adversaries / opponents of US interventions. Of course with the Khmer Rouge, like with the Pathet Lao and the North Vietnamese, the ideological identification is obvious in explaining his bias. But with Serbian nationalists, one has to wonder if the man started to lose his marbles.


Edit: Leaving the above unchanged - as a sign of goodfaith - but don't go looking for PMs... we kind of interacted in threads, not via PM. My mistake there.

Chomsky bores me. If he was edgy in the 60s, he's just on repeat now, pleasing his fans only. He's a cold-war era relic, (pseudo)intellectual anti-establishment rhetoric is so old.

"I see this in a lot of places. C&H give a table of various genocides and the news coverage allotted to each. They find that, for example, the news coverage allotted the Kurdish genocide by Iraq (US enemy) was four times greater than the coverage allotted the East Timor genocide by Indonesia (US ally). On the other hand, if they had included Israel in the table, the lesson would have reversed; we hear far more about what Israel (US ally) is doing to the Palestinians than about the Kurds or East Timorese, even though the latter two cases involved far more deaths. Or what if they had included Iran (US enemy)? How many people know about the Iran-PJAK conflict that has claimed almost a thousand lives in the past few years? It’s easy for C&H to cherry-pick examples of well-covered-US-enemies and poorly-covered-US-allies, but it’s not clear that reflects reality very well."

Did the guy who wrote the review realize that he is reviewing a book which was published in 1988?

Ok then I'll reply without quotes and and see if you like it better.

Calling something satire is not satire.

Your vice is your partisanship.

You never PMed me, I checked. I don't think I remember you at all before this thread.

What that you wanted to know about me do you now know?

I wanted to open the Cambodia box because that is what your review talks about right afterwards in a very weak manner. And because I was sure you'd bring up the same old whitewashing BS that people always accuse Chomsky of. People like you always act like Chomsky is defending the KR. So let's hear it so I can tear it apart in a lawyery manner.

Yes, you do have to wonder about Serbia, maybe all your accusations are wrong and his anti war views are not a funtion of ideological identification with communists. Please do wonder, that is the meat I am going after.

Thanks. Much easier to follow and get the broader points.

Indeed, those satirized usually don't find it funny. Some go so far to call it hate speech even. You know, ugliness being in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.

As to my vice, partisanship is far from the largest one. But you'll forgive me for not giving you more ammo. Speaking of which, you are less explicit than "Dr.Singh" * but like him you're clearly not here in good faith. PS: Which was what I wanted to know about you, motivations always being so hard to judge online.

I still think we interacted somewhere - even if the details are fuzzy. Your yellow pepper is kinda eye-catching. And I'm sorry you didn't notice my Edit before going checking - whether your memory or you chat logs...


Anyway, if you wanted to discus the controversy about Chomsky's "genocide denialism" and if that was what triggered you when reading the SSC review, you could have saved both of us a lot of time if you'd been less arrogant and more open and honest.

Let's recap for the audience.
1 - I point out the man's partisanship and propensity to what can be called propaganda. You eventually agreed that my critique has some merit. **
2 - You fish and strawman that I am opposed to the man's conclusions for whatever reasons. I eventually give up and make it explicit I agree with Manufacturing Consent's thesis about media bias. You proceed to drop the topic.
3 - You suddenly clarify that all this time, you've been angling into another point, that being the controversy over Chomsky's genocide denialism.

Yeah. I think I have enough evidence to form my judgement. No need to call a lawyer though, I'm sure you can handle this one your own. And on that note, here's an idea, since you're so keen on the topic whereas his methodological abuses were my meat in all this and we are in relative agreement on that ** - and also since I find you unworthy of further dialogue, particularly in a topic where I'd need to put in a significant effort as it's not my focus. ***

Why don't you steelman both sides of the topic and present them impartially for our benefit. Yeah, I thought you wouldn't.


PS: It's easy to square the circle on Chomsky's anti-war views and his "support" for "right-wing" nationalists. His anti war views are IMO a function of his fundamental anti-Americanism. His anti-Americanism is correlated with his "ideological identification with communists" - who knows which direction the causations go and I expect a bunch of reinforcing feedback loops in his character through the years.


* Do you two know each other personally or something? Cos that would be interesting context. Or is this just you mixing up your "fellow travelers" in this thread?

** I'm sure you'd argue it's too specific example and does not prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt". As one would expect for a brilliant propagandist I might say...

*** Any similarity to Chomsky's usual replies when questioned is purely coincidental.

It's not about not being funny, it is just weak satire to call something satire, if at all.

What does that mean, not being here in good faith?

Quite possible we interacted before, I generally do not pay attention to the left side, I usually only remember the greatest of dumbasses, only two come to mind now, Zoidberg (the "FTL is all luck guy") and dirtyharry50 (the "don't post the free Grimoire superdemo guy"). You are in no danger of coming close.

More open, how??

1 Calling a single dissidents criticism of the government propaganda is ridiculous, propaganda is marketing done by big institutions or governments.
2 Good to hear! Although fish and strawman? not again....
3 No, not all this time, and he denied no genocide

Let's hear the judgement then.

I can present both sides, sure. But for a better account of what happened there, I recommend pages 113-119 of Christopher Hitchens "The Chorus and Cassandra: What Everyone Knows about Noam Chomsky". You can easily find it as free download.

Small excerpt:
"Chomsky and Herman wrote that "the record of atroci
ties in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome." They
even said, "When the facts are in, it may turn out that the
more extreme condemnations were in fact correct." The
facts are now more or less in and it turns out that the two
independent writers were as close to the truth as most,
and closer than some. "

He now talks about are the different ways the cambodia genocide and the East Timor genocide were talked about in the media. At the time when it happened and information that was available was unreliable he did criticise journalists media who alleged it. Afterwards when information was secure he talked about it as genocide and a very bad one.

Anti-americanism? Are you serious? You sound like soviet propagandists who called everyone anti-soviet who dared to disagree with national policy. That is where the term comes from. Calling critique of government anti-american reveals a totalitarian mindset. Criticism of the government is your first duty as a citizen, which he is.
Anti american would be this: Americans are fat and stupid
Not anti-american would be this: The phoenix program was a horrible campaign
Is it also anti-japanese to criticise Unit 731? (Note that this is a related analogy, not a strawman because it describes a similar actions)

bad faith: noun
intent to deceive
example: "jamotide was arguing in bad faith"

Please don't be a bore. Nice as it is that you provided an answer, I note how one-sided it was, despite the specific request being that you also offer the best case against Chomsky. You know, in the kind of lawyerly process that constitutes public debate.

I already explained why I won't engage on the man's "genocide denialism". The controversy is well documented publically, and you're smart enough to have noticed I've been using quotes on that expression often. You may feel free to fulfill the spirit and the letter of my request or not. Up to you.


Anti-Americanism, Americanophobia or anti-American sentiment, is dislike, fear or hostility toward the United States or the American people and their culture, business practices and technology, or the policies of their government, especially the foreign policy practices of the United States.

Sure, that's Wikipedia (first link I got) but aligns with my perception of the semantics involved. So, are you seriously going to argue in good faith you don't see Chomsky consistently fitting this description? It's practically the definition of his shtick, which you even admit later on implicitly in this direct quote: "Criticism of the government is your first duty as a citizen, which he is." *

PS: In case you will pretend to be stupid, kindly note the several 'or' words throughout. Anti-Americanism does not require critique of US culture, neither does it require fear or hostility. Dislike is enough, especially towards the foreign policy practices of the United States.

Here's an easy way to convince me I'm wrong: give me a few substantive examples post WW2 of Chomsky being supportive (not silent - supportive) of US foreign interventions. Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korea? Grenada? Panama? Cuba? Angola? Yugoslavia? Kosovo? Somalia? Ukraine? Georgia? Syria? Lybia?


Maybe not. Depends on context.

Maybe not. Depends on context.

Maybe yes. Depends on context.

Maybe yes. Depends on context.

In the context of our discussion over Chomsky's methodological malpractices and ideological biases - as well my personal judgement of your character formed during that discussion - it's not surprising to me you would think all those questions / examples indicate something... when they don't.


Let me be very direct here jamo. From the first question you put to me, I have not once trolled you - despite other posts to others in parallel. You however have admitted to it almost explicitly - though you are skilled at leaving wiggle room. If that's not arguing in bad faith I don't know what is - though please note - I'm not saying that's all you've done.


* Literally you're just saying Chomsky is a US citizen, hence why I stated you are merely implying, and therefore admitting, he is consistently critical of the US government. Everyone knows that. He is in fact the poster child for such.

I really don't understand why you keep wondering if I am here in bad faith or disingenuous and you never clearly say what you mean by it. What exactly are you saying?

Why won't you engage on the genocide denial BS? Because you know you will get embarrassed on it. I understand, it is ok, these sort of accusation only work as drive by, once the details are discussed, they don't stand, so you did your job, you threw em out there, well done.

That definition is silly, it basically says you are anti-american if you think the Iraq war was a bad idea. That is the totalitarian soviet definition. That means chomsky is anti-german,anti-polish,anti-soviet,anti-turkish,anti-japanese, anti-cambodian,anti-everything.

Your rhetorical question following that definition is low, very low. "So, are you seriously going to argue in good faith you don't see Chomsky consistently fitting this description?" Why would I do that? Of course he fits that description, I do, you hopefully do,too. Or are you seriously going to argue in good faith you don't see anything wrong with any US policy ever? See I can do it too. Don't stoop to this level.
Oh I see now you went even lower, asking me not to pretend to be stupid lol.

Now to your questions about praising US foreign policy. Why would he praise those interventions? Why would anyone? They caused more destruction and death than they prevented. A better question is, did he ever praise ANY foreign intervention by anyone? Did he praise the soviets in Afghanistan? Japan in China? Germany in Poland? Russia in Poland?
Actually I can think of only one, he said when Vietnam ended the Cambodian Pol Pot regime with their invasion, that was probably the only intervention that really saved lives, but of course he said that that is not the motivation for it. Yeah you heard right, he praised the intervention that ended the regime you accused him of defending, doesn't something like this make you think about all the BS you write? Doesn't this cause some dissonance when you accuse him of anti-americanism?

But he does praise the US sometimes, he praises them for the best free speech in the world, he said the Marshall Plan wasn't bad.

Depends on context, what context? You gotta say what context and how it would influence the statement, otherwise you are just evading. Lets hear in what context calling americans fat and stupid would not be anti-american.

Your last bits make no sense, get over the whole trolling BS and stick to the topic at hand. You talk shit and I mess with you, that is a given, if that bothers you, don't talk shit.

And why would I not "admit" or just imply that he is constantly critical of the US government, you say that like it is some sort of revelation or a bad thing , seriously wtf, do you listen to yourself??

Below is a trailer for a new doc with Chomsky. It's being advertised as the last long form interview on camera he'll be doing. It's available here in the US on Netflix, I'm not sure about the rest of the world. I imagine it can at least be rented via iTunes or whatever. Anyone that's read his recent work will probably be familiar with some of the material but it's a nicely structured, concise discussion of the issues we face today relating to capitalism and democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_Ik7OppEI

Chomsky is American and deeply rooted in his left winged & anarchist values, that also includes what he says about language. From there you can probably assess how you're going to relate to it and where things can be controversial for you. I personally find that he's lacking in nuances.

Sort of like your post.

Generic derision is easy isn't it.

If you're going to stick your nose into something you don't like - have something worth saying - other than a simple minded label and dismissal.

Further no one is curtailing your freedom to be reductive and dismissive just don't fault others for pointing it out.

Imho he just gave his own spin to what the frankfurt school had already developed a while back. He has the same problem as Foucault and other anarchists : a lot of focus on fighting an oppressive establishment that has already assimilated all the anarchist ideas that were profitable and useful thus making them completely ineffective at bringing any change. His vision of propaganda as something unilateral people assimilate without nuance is also something I find quite reductive in many aspects. As for his work on language, that part is a bit out of my league for I'm not a linguist, but the idea of having an universal grammar as something innate to all kids is a way to say that everyone should have a free pass for not expressing themselves properly, and thus not "abiding the rules" don't you think ?

The thread once again rises from the grave and the pattern repeats.