Calling a person who was arrested and put on Nixons enemies list, a spinless coward is... a likely statement of a spineless coward.
> being consistently wrong
So easy to throw grandiose statements like that substantiated by nothing and build your whole argument on it.
I was only aware of the Sam Harris clash, at the time that it actually happened. As I read both of them. Harris was a child with a chip on his shoulder, desperately trying to 'win'.
I had to read about this Zizek clash and again more of the smoke than fire. He accuses him of lack of empirical evidences, gives none in return, brings back Cambodia (a low blow, as he must be fully aware of the bigger picture) and then he tangents of to some power dynamics in academia for majority of it.
more of the smoke than fire
Again using Cambodia as only example is just boring. The whole thing of 'denial' is much more complicated as was going on at the time events were unfolding. At the time Chomsky convinced himself that this was a propaganda move to push war narrative. And he was wrong. Plain and simple. Even as more reports came in he convinced himself that he was right.
But still US was using the genocide as a drum-beat for war across SE Asia.
Analogously, if he was saying that Saddam didn't have weapon of mass destruction - that its a hoax of CIA to gain casus belli - and US Army did find some. And then be forever chastised for everything you say because of a misjudgement.
But its much easier and convenient for right wing hawks to just bash 'Chomsky denies KR genocides' a black and white narrative.
I don't fully agree with Chomsky worldviews, but he definitely shaped a lot of them. And help to create a counter narrative to US propaganda. He absolutely leans in too much into US imerialism bad angle.
But this in itself is a great tool to forge your own opinions against.
Nobody ever mention his takes on power affecting press and free speech and takes on neo-liberalism. Because I find it hard to argue with those, and never found any worthwhile critism of those.
But again all you hear is smug morons like you screeching 'Chomsky bad cuz Cambodia'
> being consistently wrong
So easy to throw grandiose statements like that substantiated by nothing and build your whole argument on it.
I was only aware of the Sam Harris clash, at the time that it actually happened. As I read both of them. Harris was a child with a chip on his shoulder, desperately trying to 'win'.
I had to read about this Zizek clash and again more of the smoke than fire. He accuses him of lack of empirical evidences, gives none in return, brings back Cambodia (a low blow, as he must be fully aware of the bigger picture) and then he tangents of to some power dynamics in academia for majority of it.
more of the smoke than fire
Again using Cambodia as only example is just boring. The whole thing of 'denial' is much more complicated as was going on at the time events were unfolding. At the time Chomsky convinced himself that this was a propaganda move to push war narrative. And he was wrong. Plain and simple. Even as more reports came in he convinced himself that he was right.
But still US was using the genocide as a drum-beat for war across SE Asia.
Analogously, if he was saying that Saddam didn't have weapon of mass destruction - that its a hoax of CIA to gain casus belli - and US Army did find some. And then be forever chastised for everything you say because of a misjudgement.
But its much easier and convenient for right wing hawks to just bash 'Chomsky denies KR genocides' a black and white narrative.
I don't fully agree with Chomsky worldviews, but he definitely shaped a lot of them. And help to create a counter narrative to US propaganda. He absolutely leans in too much into US imerialism bad angle.
But this in itself is a great tool to forge your own opinions against.
Nobody ever mention his takes on power affecting press and free speech and takes on neo-liberalism. Because I find it hard to argue with those, and never found any worthwhile critism of those.
But again all you hear is smug morons like you screeching 'Chomsky bad cuz Cambodia'