The reason is that facts can be manipulated. Propaganda =/= Lying. And context matters to understand the actual truth rather than the easy to digest propaganda being served. Well, it matters to some of us. For a perfect example why don't you go see me arguing with Crosmando in the Paris attacks thread, where the almost exact same kind of manipulation of facts, without consideration of context is what I'm objecting?

The reason I posted that link instead of more agressive critiques of Chomsky - abundant and easy to google, yet equally factual as he is - is that I read it recently. Chomsky has not been a staple of my diet since I immigrated. Also despite the methodological critique being well made, the reviewer is still ideologically sympathetic to Chomsky. Hence less of a chasm to cross for pro-Chomsky folks - for you see, I try to build bridges even with ideological enemies.

But well, I guess if you can't or won't admit the validity of documented and factually verified methodological abuses that are all too common with Chomsky, then yeah... not much we can discuss. Because we both knew I was never going to convince you the US is overall a force of good in the world and capitalism a moral system, nor you me of the Chomskyite worldview that the US is overall a force of evil in the world and capitalism an immoral system.

To each his own I guess. You can keep Chomsky. I don't want him anyway.

@vicklemos
Wait, you were born in Zaire, Africa and you live in L.A., USA and you claim to be an expert on south america???

That`s if I would say I was born in Poland, grew up in Germany and am an expert for Scandinavia.

Also what he says about europe is 100% correct. And though the interviewer has a strong accent he clearly understands what Chomsky is talking about, so I really don`t know what the heck you are talking about.

I`m now halfway through the interview and honestly you have to tell me what he is wrong about, specifically 1 or 2 points, not just "everything"

Also update for you, the sowjet union is gone now for a quarter century. There is no more communism, also the US and Germany are basically becoming banana republics so I really don`t get your point

I assume that by L.A. he means Latin America, not Los Angeles.

I haven't heard of him before but aside from his commentary/political opinions, he seemed to have been a great multi-discipline influential. Anything in particular that is worth reading/listening to?

Reason for what? What are you talking about?

Pro chomsky folks? SJW? You seem to be locked into some pretty rigid thought patterns. To me this guy is just an author, like Orwell or Hitchens. And no, that articles critique is not methodologically well made, it is terrible:
"They then go on to say, kind of flailingly, that also the Cambodian genocide wasn’t that bad, that all the media reports about it were lies, that it was the US’ fault anyway, that the US did worse things anyway, that Cambodia before the genocide was even worse, that America secretly loved Pol Pot and was his best friend, and also shut up shut up shut up."

Huh?? Why would you accuse me of that, I was the one who brought up one of these abuses, because I always check his sources, I spent hours on single ones, sometimes they are not easy to find.


Why would you want to convince me of that?? WTF

I'm far from an expert but I think his contribution to linguistics was in the area of something called universal grammar or semantics or something... which to be fair has been somewhat discredited more recently since genetic and neurological stuff advanced farther, that's despite yes, having been VERY influential across disciplines - ergo for things like developmental psychology, not just in linguistics itself.

It's a dry topic though unless it is really your academic area basically - I don't think he did any kind of popular treatment of it. Wikipedia probably describes it as I might be far far off...

There are numerous lectures on youtube, old and new ones, if you have the patience to listen for 60-90minutes, for example this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pfGRSDZs1M
Beside that I just bought my first book can`t tell you more. I hoped to find other people in forums to talk about him and similar scholars like Richard D Wolff, Joseph Stieglitz, Thomas Piketty etc
For some reasons there are no comparable scholars in my country, so I have to stick to foreign guys.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Brasas: ...the U.S. is overall a force of good in the world and capitalism a moral system...
I really wonder why this guy is quoting the german political comedian Volker Pispers

Let's see... you asked literally: "I ... wonder why you complain about propaganda ... Why does it matter? ... Does that matter? ... snip snip"

So I answered you... context matters and the reason it matters is that facts can be manipulated, without being outright lies. Ergo propaganda. Chomsky's cherry picking matters because it misrepresents the truth. We'll get back to this when I detail the specific accusation I'm making at you and seems to be puzzling you.

Then, we have your selective quotation, "a la Chomsky", of the SSC reviewer. And we also have ET3D commenting what they thought of the review. I invite everyone to read the link and see for themselves who is being more truthful. Your quote is factually true, but it misses the context to the point of being a misrepresentation of the review. Alas, as I decried satirically, earlier, most people don't care to check - especially context in the gotcha culture we live in. We rather make our minds based on personal sympathy and disgust reactions. We are social animals, we humans.

Now, I accuse you because you clearly have read the specific example of misrepresenting the factual reality around the Laos coup. And given this reply of yours - going all in so to speak - I will actually go to the effort of pointing out you misrepresented the misrepresentation. This is what you said and I let slide so far: "So C&H talked about a timeframe after north vietnam invaded Laos. Why does it matter?" Emphasis mine.

Now I invite anyone to go read the extensive quotes provided in the review and make their own mind. Here's what I recall. There was no distinction between the timeline of Vietnamese invasion and the anti-communist coup in Laos. The two were pretty much simultaneous, ergo, Chomsky elided the context that the anti-communist coup by elements of Laos military happened in the context of a foreign invasion by a communist country! Not "after"... as if the invasion was over already and the two were disconnected. That this kind of context obviously matters is precisely what you seem to not get. And further not get that Chomsky is maybe, just maybe doing "it" on purpose for some "strange" reason.

You I'm not sure if you doing "it" consciously, or through misunderstanding the facts. But it sure looks like it is trying to wave away this concern as if it was irrelevant due to some technicality that 5 minutes "after" the invasion started, the invasion stops mattering as a motivation for the military coup or something... of course it must have been pure anti-communist ideology, supported and incentivized by the nasty old Uncle Sam.

To finish. And please don't take this stuff personally. I don't know you that well, and I was not lying that I have enough respect for you, despite thinking we already once at least locked horns over capitalism somewhere. I would like to convince you of what I believe to be the truth. Nothing weird I see about that. But don't worry I won't be hunting you down in any insistent fashion. And also don't worry as I won't abuse the truth a la Chomsky in trying to persuade you.

+1 That's the spirit :D

Why not learn from my example how to take a joke?

Trying to shut down dissenting views shows your true colors, so if only out of Machiavelianism you should pretend better ;)

Edit and PS: The guy asked about Chomsky's scholarship outside of he political arena and you go and recommend a bunch of anti-capitalist economists? Way to miss the point...

But you did not really answer anything, I talked about specific facts and you went on rants about propaganda and SJWs.

Again with tehe broad generalizations and accusations, be specific! How is that quote misrepresentative? What is the context and how does it negate my point? And I won't even comment your unrelated random rants.

Your link clearly states that Vietnam invaded Laos in 1953. Chomsky talks about elections in 1958, where even that reviewer acknowledges the way C&H described them. Now we are supposed to think that these elections don't matter because of the invasion and that is why C&H did not mention it. But neither the article or you say why that would be so. You simply state this and declare Chomsky propaganda without any reasoning.

Jeezus, conspiracies much?


Personally what? You did not insult me. I am not discussing capitalism, I am just trying to understand why people get their panties in a bunch when Chomsky talks about certain things (but not others like when he dumps on Stalin or Turkey).

again, stop trolling and leave

jamotide, let me be try and be succint here.

If you feel I have not answered you, please restate the question. I don't like wasting my fingers typing.

On the specifics you are disputing - be they facts or context, I'll get back later. No time now for research.

Lastly, I would appreciate if you are more honest with me and yourself. No one's panties are in a bunch, and I consider all Chomsky's political commentary suspect of the same methodological "abuses" - ergo the Turkey / Stalin comment is a complete strawman. As well trying to attribute to me conspiracy theories when I'm representing correctly what everyone knows are Chomsky's views - factual to some extent - that the US is responsible for multiple conspiracies against foreign governments, is also laughable more than anything else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8ILFWlBzA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0Ql0VfcRg

Hey!
Yup, born in Zaire (nowadays DRC) and came to Brazil/Argentina/Venezuela as a small child.
I was kiddin' about the interviewer :P

What he says about the latin american countries is a completety differente reality on what we're facing, almost as a whole (with small exceptions being Peru, Chile, México and some more) and stuff. None of this self-organized blocs or whatever in here actually works.
Nope. They're a total failure, and even the member states "break" the rules every single day, so no one really cares. While the whole "common market" established itself in the atlantic ocean for almost 500, the global economy is shifting heavily now for the asian-pacific region. While countries with smarters folks and ambitions (the so called new latin america) are heading their efforts towards the latter region, places like Brazil keep on knockin' on the wrong doors, due to extremely incompetent politicians. Actually, in here, an ongoing criminal project -yep, criminal, the supreme court stated that- took place, circa 2003-to this day. Things are shaky in here, economy is terrible (thanks, pcp), political crisis is a fact and even a social one is nearby.
And I won't even mention what happens in Venezuela, a place so great nowadays that folks there actually use their currency to dry oil from french fries. And the escalating violence, Caracas is by far the most violent city in the sub-continent, one of the most violent in the world... madre de dios, there's not even toilet paper available for the poor venezuelans.
Argentina faces the same effing situation that Brazil does (we're undeveloping, backwards gdp growth of -3%!), but there's light on their horizon, at least.

And when he mentions Cuba, my lord, as if there wasn't the 7th circle of Dante's Inferno. For Christ sake, it's a damn bloody dictatorship and not even the Pope, Buddha or the Green Lantern will really free cubans from the evil shackles of the devilish Castro family.

So watched now the whole interview. Everything he says about Latin America, as far as I can tell, is that for the first time those countries have tried to step up against the postcolonialism of europe and the US, which has been very harmful to Latin America. Furthermore he says the latin american governemets are facing huge problems and are struggling to uphold their resistance against those foreign powers. If that is not the case, well then he is obviously wrong.

But the rest about global inequality, bank bailouts, concentration of power, US foreign policy and european austerity and so forth is true, I`m familiar enough with those topics to say he`s right without doing any research.

Maybe we`ll just not find any common ground here, but I guess that`s ok.

Wow, this thread is way too tense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dw5opEYprQ