|
|
|
chubby
New Member
2 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2001 : 10:49:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
This forum is no longer a place for skeptics, but has turned into a bastion of the "earnest progressive".
How come anytime anyone disagrees with you you resort to something like this? Are you that far to the right to become a radical yourself and normal folks become hysterical liberal whatevers? I had to say thus because you are in effect slamming almost everyone here and seem to do it just because others dare to think differently than you.
I really don't care what you think just as you keep saying you don't care what others think yet time and again demonstrate that you do indeed care by going off the way you do, but I would prefer you not to make such outrageous accusations. Anyone can post any point of view here and we get many different views from all across the politcal spectrum. One person says something you don't like and BAM, we're all liberals bleeding hearts.
OK, excuse me since I'm just a new member here, but I don't think Rubysue has done anything wrong or SAID anything out of sorts. If anyone is being a total a**hole about not agreeing with what someone says, it's Gorgo and YOU. Are you two insane or just stupid? Why don't you attack Gorgo for bullying other members of this board, or do you just have it out for Rubysue?
I was pointed in the direction of SFN by some friends of mine, but I may just leave after my second post if the guy who is running it is so irrational that he can't let someone else post a extremely good argument without thinking it's a personal attack. Of course, you'll probably see this as a personal attack and blacklist me from your board - I've seen that happen before with moderators who "can't take the heat".
I frankly don't think that disagreeing with the "intellectual babblings" of Noam Chomsky should mark someone as a far-right conservative! I'm about as far to the left as you can get and I think Chomsky is out of his mind. I had the misfortune to take one of his classes as an elective when I was an engineering undergrad at MIT and I honestly think the man has lost his mind. As far as I'm concerned he's a holdover from the SDS idiots from the sixties. Excuuuuuse meeee, but a lot of his socialist rhetoric went out of style in 1991 (if not earlier).
If you get a chance, take a look at the latest issue of Business Week, the one with a picture of Vladimir Putin on the cover. Be sure to study one of the infographics in the article, the one that basically shows the economic gains that have been made by the Russian people since the great Socialist experiment failed. They're still not out of the woods, but for the most part the people of that country are much better off than they were under the Communist regime. I don't exactly see the Chinese running away from capitalism, either. So why does Chomsky still think that "our system" is so freakin' bad if everyone else is trying to emulate it?
Well, since Mr. Atomic will probably blast my butt off of his board for disagreeing with him, I guess I can say goodbye. |
 |
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 11:02:18 [Permalink]
|
Um, excuse me. I believe @tomic was speaking to Gorgo and Ipetrich. While its true that @tomic and Rubysue have had it out a few times regarding US foreign policy issues, I cannot recall the discussions every dendgrading to the point of personal attacks.
When these discussions reach a few pages long, often the posts contain quoted quotes from someone quoting another quote. Tough to keep the players straight without a score card.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 11:51:57 [Permalink]
|
One thing at a time.
Thank you again, Trish, for your excellent replies to the twenty-question game. I couldn't have said them better myself. Oh, by the way, LP, I must admit that personal philosophy is "tainted" with just a wee bit of objectivism, so guilty as charged.
To Gorgo (I don't know why I'm even bothering, but perhaps I can persuade others if I keep at it):
quote:
"In 1979 Robert Faurisson, a professor at the University of Lyons, was condemned by a French court for the "falsification of
history." One of the signatories to a petition defending Faurisson's right to free speech was linguist Noam Chomsky who, when
asked to clarify his reasons, explained that the court's decision set a precedent where the state could define what history was.
As reprehensible as Faurisson's views were, it was in cases such as his that free speech should be most urgently defended.
Chomsky, needless to say, has never endorsed Faurisson's views.
On the other hand, Patrick Buchanan, former Presidential candidate, has claimed that the gas chambers at Treblinka could not
have worked--a standard claim of Holocaust Revisionists. Buchanan also made note of what he called "Holocaust Survivor
Syndrome," involving "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics," and has argued against the prosecution of Nazi war
criminals. "
Did you actually read the following article? I read Chomsky's devious disavowal of Faurisson AGAIN and am more convinced than ever that the man is a notorious liar and con-man. This article, which I also linked to in my original post, has 81 footnotes and dozens of references, which are 81 footnotes and dozens of references more than anything that I've read by Chomsky that is available on-line (and believe it or not, I have read dozens of articles on Zmag and the Noam Chomsky archives. He writes a "pretty story", but never backs it up with any independent references that can be checked). Everything he writes is his opinion, not scholarship. He claims in his disavowal that he defends the right of Faurisson to his opinions, regardless of how "outrageous" those may be. But it goes beyond "defense" of opinions - Chomsky has used the same neo-Nazi press in France to publish his viewpoints and has written private correspondence that shows his endorsement of Faurisson's revisionism.
Here's a question on how Chomsky would "defend" viewpoints that he despises: How willing would he be to come to the defense of a viewpoint that claims that slavery was a hoax or that slaves were really happy people that didn't want to be freed or that third world people of color are intellectually inferior? My guess is that he would actively seek to suppress these types of horrendous viewpoints because they obviously wouldn't serve his cause. This is the selective "political correctness" of the world of Chomsky - anything that slams the US government or Israel is legitimate; anything that refutes those opinions is tainted or corrupted by agents of the right.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/guestcolumnists/cohnpamph09-11-01.htm
By the way, Buchanan is complete dolt and clown who has been disavowed by all but the most profoundly disturbed. It is interesting, though, that his opinions on world trade and capitalism are starting to sound suspiciously like Chomsky and Nader.
In case you still don't get it, Gorgo, this statement below was lifted from YOUR link to Chomsky's comments about Faurisson:
quote:
Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort. In support of the charge of anti-Semitism, I have been informed that Faurisson is remembered by some schoolmates as having expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in the 1940s, and as having written a letter that some interpret as having anti-Semitic implications at the time of the Algerian war. I am a little surprised that serious people should put such charges forth -- even in private -- as a sufficient basis for castigating someone as a long-time and well-known anti-Semitic. I am aware of nothing in the public record to support such charges. I will not pursue the exercise, but suppose we were to apply similar standards to others, asking, for example, what their attitude was towards the French war in Indochina, or to Stalinism, decades ago. Perhaps no more need be said.
As I have stated earlier, and as it is meticulously researched in the article I referenced (and in numerous other sites,including the vile radio islam site that I referenced earlier), Faurisson is an ACTIVE holocaust denier and anti-Semite. Chomsky should have shut up in his disavowal while he was ahead, but he had to have more words on the subject and paints himself into a corner. Faurisson and bin Laden are sounding more and more alike, by the way.
To Atomic:
Thank you so much for your "objective" slam of me and my opinions. You have snubbed my apologies and mea culpas, remained silent with no comments when I have done all the work to present the alternative viewpoint, and casually ignored the increasingly hysterical insults that I receive on a regular basis from Gorgo. You also overlook the fact that many other members of this forum actually appreciate my efforts to present an "alternative" viewpoint that isn't tied up in a America-hating, post-modernist, morally relative socialism. But if I "slip up once" and let my frustration and sarcasm show, you immediately take me to task as the "bully". Well, let's live up to that billing, shall we? I really don't give a flying fuck about you and your "skeptics" board and your opinions. Go ahead and suppress and belittle my ideas and let Gorgo take over; that's what political correctness is all about, isn't it? I've "disturbed" the force by refusing to follow a unwritten rule of orthodoxy on the SFN and have been hung out to dry.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 12:00:28 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo quoting Brian Siano:
[Noam Chomsky had merely defended Faurisson on free-speech grounds]
LP:
If that is correct, then NC is not necessarily agreeing with Faurisson.
Gorgo quoting Brian Siano:
[Pat Buchanan claiming that the Treblinka gas chambers could not have possibly worked, and that there exists "Holocaust Survivor Syndrome" involving "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics".]
LP:
It's worth noting that PB cares about the rights of the accused only when the accusation is of being Nazi war criminals; also, Alan Dershowitz has challenged PB to sit in a room with truck exhaust piped in for a couple of hours, in order to test his claims about the Treblinka gas chambers.
LP earlier:
Reading Noam Chomsky on Pearl Harbor, I think I understand what his mindset is -- complete US-centeredness, and an unwillingness to really learn about what goes on elsewhere in the world.
Gorgo:
Well, I don't really understand that comment, but let me say two things. You wanted to know what Chomsky said on a subject, so I pointed you to the largest Chomsky archive I know of and let you find what he said on the subject.
LP:
I've done that.
Gorgo:
Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by U.S.-centeredness, but Chomsky (like me) is a U.S. citizen and is trying to get the U.S. to at least act like it says that it acts.
LP:
Then he ought to be willing to point to US successes as well as failures, in order to demonstrate that our leadership is not completely beyond redemption.
Gorgo:
If they're going to be the largest terrorist nation on earth, then they should say so, rather than try to sell themselves as the champions of democracy and all that is good in the world.
LP:
I can agree that such bragging about being morally superior is obnoxious.
LP earlier:
It's hard to tell what he really thinks about the attack; does he really believe that it was 100% provoked by US economic warfare?
Gorgo:
Chomsky is not a pacifist and is one of those that think that WWII is a "good war."
LP:
Wherever he is supposed to have claimed that.
LP earlier:
That attack was a devious sneak attack; Japan never bothered to break relations or deliver some warning like "Get out of the western Pacific -- or else!!!" -- instead, Japan's leaders continued with some totally insincere negotiations, even as their Pearl Harbor task force was on the move to some spot north of Hawaii.
Gorgo:
No question, and I think Chomsky and Zinn - who is a pacifist - would agree.
LP:
Do they ever state that explicitly?
NC:
In the Carter years there were major crimes, for example the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which happened to start under Ford and led to the nearest thing to genocide since the holocaust, maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the population has been slaughtered. ...
LP earlier:
Is the US government supposed to be to blame for that? That's what NC is implying. Maybe just suckered by self-styled opponents of Communism.
Gorgo:
It would not have happened without the U.S.
LP:
That's totally absurd. Simply think about the history of atrocities with US cold warriors nowhere in sight. Whether the appropriate US administrations were simply suckered by Indonesian officials saying "we have some Commies we have to kill", or whether there was some actual support or involvement is another question.
|
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 12:11:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Um, excuse me. I believe @tomic was speaking to Gorgo and Ipetrich. While its true that @tomic and Rubysue have had it out a few times regarding US foreign policy issues, I cannot recall the discussions every dendgrading to the point of personal attacks.
Oh, no, Lisa - Atomic's remarks were indeed targeted at me. They are the latest in a long line of angry responses and invectives that serve notice to me that he cannot tolerate my opinions or the way I deliver them. I can be viciously attacked by Gorgo or a few others on this board and Atomic is strangely silent, but if I go on the defensive (or offensive), then I'm a "bully". Atomic has also ignored my apologies and mea culpas, my research and my references, but waits patiently like a predator to pounce on me if I stray even a little from civility or try too hard to push a viewpoint that I feel strongly about (and, believe me, I feel strongly about "Fifth Columnists" like Chomsky, as if you couldn't tell).
It's awfully nice when a lot of the SFN regulars say they agree with me "100%" on my opinions and research, but it usually stops there (with one or two exceptions) and I end up "singing by myself" again and feel like I'm hung out to dry, while Gorgo and his few friends get all of the bandwidth.
By the way, thanks to "Chubby", the new member, for his personal viewpoint comments about Chomsky and coming to my defense.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 12:33:10 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to have to go back and re-read a bunch of stuff! Maybe I do need a score card, or at least a flow chart.
So there's folks out there who think that the foreign and economic policies are partly to blame for 9/11? Maybe they have a point, but these policies hardly justify the cold-blooded murder of thousands. Some with a rather starry-eyed infatuation for these "defenders of faith" are saddened and angry at the US counter-attacks. Tough. Think of it as a preventative measure. Does anyone really think that terrorism will stop if we say "oops, sorry"? Well, yes, of course there are, and they really need to crack open a history book. This won't be solved with tea, cookies, and talk. Diplomacy has been attempted, and it failed.
As far as the anti-semites, conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers...go review the Irving/Lipstadt case.
Lisa
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room. |
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 12:50:52 [Permalink]
|
rubysue:
... This is the selective "political correctness" of the world of Chomsky - anything that slams the US government or Israel is legitimate; anything that refutes those opinions is tainted or corrupted by agents of the right.
LP:
I actually agree with rubysue here; I think that NC is too one-sided, and unwilling to consider:
- Alternative interpretations, such as being suckered by those willing to profess an undying hatred of Communism.
- Failure to be a successful imperialist, such as forcing Israel and its Arab neighbors and populations to make peace with each other
- Unwillingness to describe what he might consider US foreign-policy successes, such as
- The Marshall Plan, and (West) Germany and Japan becoming prosperous, pacifist, and non-hostile.
- The Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace treaties
- Unwillingness to take seriously villainy elsewhere in the world.
rubysue:
By the way, Buchanan is complete dolt and clown who has been disavowed by all but the most profoundly disturbed. It is interesting, though, that his opinions on world trade and capitalism are starting to sound suspiciously like Chomsky and Nader.
LP:
To call either Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader opponents of all capitalism is totally absurd. Yes, totally absurd.
Pat Buchanan is essentially an economic nationalist. He likes capitalism -- if it is American capitalism that employs American workers and that is loyal to America rather than running off to wherever in the world that it is expedient to run off to.
Ralph Nader is an opponent of what he considers to be wicked capitalism -- *not* all capitalism. Although he ought to spend more time describing what he considers good capitalism.
And I'm surprised that capitalism-lovers are so fond of "free trade" treaties that give foreign investors more rights than domestic ones, and that set up unaccountable arbitration bodies that only seem to pay attention to big-business lobbyists. Maybe they are like all the leftists who had defended Communism on account of its ideals, and not on account of how it actually turned out to be; the analogy here is their falling for the label "free trade".
|
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 12:59:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To call either Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader opponents of all capitalism is totally absurd. Yes, totally absurd.
Pat Buchanan is essentially an economic nationalist. He likes capitalism -- if it is American capitalism that employs American workers and that is loyal to America rather than running off to wherever in the world that it is expedient to run off to.
Ralph Nader is an opponent of what he considers to be wicked capitalism -- *not* all capitalism. Although he ought to spend more time describing what he considers good capitalism.
And I'm surprised that capitalism-lovers are so fond of "free trade" treaties that give foreign investors more rights than domestic ones, and that set up unaccountable arbitration bodies that only seem to pay attention to big-business lobbyists. Maybe they are like all the leftists who had defended Communism on account of its ideals, and not on account of how it actually turned out to be; the analogy here is their falling for the label "free trade".
Once again, you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I didn't say that Buchanan was opposed to all forms of capitalism nor is Nader. Here's a link to an interview that shows how close the two of them are, however, on globalization and capitalism. They sound like the same voice coming out of two heads, IMHO. By the way, this discussion that I started isn't about free trade; it's about Noam Chomsky. If you want to head down the bunny trail of free trade, then start a new topic rather than co-opting this one.
http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/1999/112899buchanan-nader.html
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 13:02:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did you actually read the following article?
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/guestcolumnists/cohnpamph09-11-01.htm
No, the links you had before didn't work or the site was down. I looked at it briefly, and what I would like to see is the full article, and Chomsky's full reply. I will give it more time later.
quote:
In case you still don't get it, Gorgo, this statement below was lifted from YOUR link to Chomsky's comments about Faurisson:
quote:
As I have stated earlier, and as it is meticulously researched in the article I referenced (and in numerous other sites,including the vile radio islam site that I referenced earlier), Faurisson is an ACTIVE holocaust denier and anti-Semite. Chomsky should have shut up in his disavowal while he was ahead, but he had to have more words on the subject and paints himself into a corner. Faurisson and bin Laden are sounding more and more alike, by the way.
I'll look for later remarks by Chomsky, however, the flap was about Chomsky supporting his right to free speech, and against the government of France dictating by law what history was. He admitted that he knew little about what Faurisson was about, but did not find anything in his limited research to show that he was necessarily anti-Semitic or Pro-Nazi. In my mind that is still not supporting Faurisson in any way. Are you disagreeing with that?
quote:
To Atomic:
Thank you so much for your "objective" slam of me and my opinions. You have snubbed my apologies and mea culpas, remained silent with no comments when I have done all the work to present the alternative viewpoint, and casually ignored the increasingly hysterical insults that I receive on a regular basis from Gorgo. You also overlook the fact that many other members of this forum actually appreciate my efforts to present an "alternative" viewpoint that isn't tied up in a America-hating, post-modernist, morally relative socialism. But if I "slip up once" and let my frustration and sarcasm show, you immediately take me to task as the "bully". Well, let's live up to that billing, shall we? I really don't give a flying fuck about you and your "skeptics" board and your opinions. Go ahead and suppress and belittle my ideas and let Gorgo take over; that's what political correctness is all about, isn't it? I've "disturbed" the force by refusing to follow a unwritten rule of orthodoxy on the SFN and have been hung out to dry.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
Again, if I have insulted your person in any way, show me where. What I have done is question your need to spit up hairballs instead of discuss things. If I have called you a fiend, show me where and I will apologize.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 13:11:43 [Permalink]
|
By the way, I am holding in my hand a copy of Chomsky's book "YEAR 501 THE CONQUEST CONTINUES" and it has several pages of notes and a bibliography. Also nearby is "ON POWER AND IDEOLOGY, THE MANAGUA LECTURES" which has several pages of bibliographical notes. If you're going to present something about an author, it might be a good idea to actually attempt to understand the author's position and be somewhat familiar with what you're talking about. There are many opinion essays and books made from transcripts and interviews and collections of essays that do not have notes.
Lisa Lisa, sad Lisa Lisa - Cat Stevens |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 13:24:35 [Permalink]
|
I stand by my comment earlier. All I was referring to was a single line that referred directly to this website that I regard as utterly ridiculous. I referred to that and only that. Anyone can call me a bully for that if they desire but I have absolutely no idea where you get that. I am no defender of this Chomsky fellow or the Soviet Union. Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that I had chubby?
You read far more into what I said than what was there. Once again...I only say that this forum is no "bastion of the earnest progressive" demonstrated by the simple fact that conservatives are indeed posting here and no one has ever been blacklisted for posting things I don't agree with. Anyone implying that I will shall get another response such as the one I posted above and rightly so.
@tomioc
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 13:33:38 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo -
Here's a very scholarly examination of the Chomsky and Herman Cambodia deception, along with other deceptions practiced by the left during the Pol Pot regime. Note, again, the extensive use of footnotes and references to ensure that the research has an independent or second source of information. Where are the footnotes and references in your rebuttal article?
http://jim.com/canon.htm#bib
As in the case of the previous reference that I included, this individual is from the University of California at Berkeley. In case you missed the earlier reference, it is noted below again. Oh, by the way, I believe the person who wrote the above-referenced extensively researched piece is actually from Cambodia; this, of course, would naturally create a "bias" in this person if they experienced the full range of the Khmer Rouge terror personally. This stuff is quite damaging to the image of Chomsky (again).
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/chomsky.html
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 14:06:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What I have done is question your need to spit up hairballs instead of discuss things. If I have called you a fiend, show me where and I will apologize.
I give you evidence from the very posts you made, Gorgo; are we now playing the good Gorgo/bad Gorgo game again?
quote:
These kinds of things are insults to people like Rubysue, who confuse anger with reason and think mindless devotion to the state is a virtue.
Somehow you think because you're insulted (which you seem to be about just about most of reality) it must be wrong.
All you have to do is rant and rave and spin in circles and you think you've said something. You have yet to refute anything or bring anything at all to what could have been a discussion.
It was you that brought up anger, and your obvious emotional reaction to Zinn and Chomsky have more to do with your fears than anything that exists in reality.
On the contrary. I would love some reasonably presented information. I haven't seen it yet. It would be nice to find out that God is in his heaven that Jesus really does save and that George Bush is a hero, and that I no longer have to wonder why people like you seem to love lies. That would make my life so much easier. Please, please try to inform me as much as you can about the flaws of my "demigods." That is not sarcasm at all. Somehow because you need to worship nonsense, you think everyone else does. I don't.
I have not belittled people, I have simply shot holes in your worthless "arguments." I have repeatedly said that I have no problem with you. Your problems are with yourself. In the midst of all your emotional rants, I may learn something.
The lies about his support of Pol Pot are just cheap shots from nowhere and it does your cause no good to continue to promote such obvious smears.
Again, your emotional tirades are no substitute for reasonable discussion. Give me something reasonable to talk about, and I can disagree or agree.
I think it's wonderful that you think the U.S. is utopian, just don't accuse others of being utopian, when you're the only one using the word, and don't talk about demigods when you're the only one worshipping criminals like Bush and Clinton.
I've brought you material which shows that the Faurisson and Khmer Rouge smears are bullshit, and you've brought nothing to the table to substantiate them. You take up a lot of time and space doing nothing.
I rest my case. If these aren't insults, then I guess Chomsky does a better job than I thought of teaching linguistics doublespeak to his apostles. Thanks for cheap psychobabble, Gorgo; I'm forever in your debt, you know, for showing me how fucked up I am. Thanks, also, for not bothering to read any of my links (they do work, by the way - I checked). Of course, I'm sure you are completely allergic to any opinions or analysis that may come from anywhere to the right of the extreme left. It is so nice to know, however, that Chomsky can be bothered to use references and footnotes. It is perplexing that he can't do that in the articles and treatises that he and his acolytes post on-line, however.
Atomic - Your refusal to address me directly or personally says it all...
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 14:09:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Atomic - Your refusal to address me directly or personally says it all...
Huh? I think I did and really have no idea what you're going on about. If you have a point go ahead and make it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
SJ
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2001 : 14:28:21 [Permalink]
|
I'm brand new to this site, but can already see how defensive several of its contributors are. Life is too short to get bogged down by insults or perceived insults from absolute strangers who may not even believe what they are purporting to believe. The O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world have proven that starting fights by asserting outlandish semi-facts (the key is to always have some thread of fact so someone somewhere can believe you might be stating fact) can be a fun and inexpensive way to get high on a power trip. "Look at how excited I got those folks!"
Yet this rant on Chomsky fascinates me. I realize there are powerful psychological motivations to hate his messages. However, please direct me to his specific writings and statements that prove he is anti-semitic, or that he denies the tragedy of the Khmer Rouge atrocities is untrue. He acknowledges the massacres. His extremely interesting - yes, difficult to read lightly but nonetheless VERY interesting - analysis of the media treatment of the Cambodian massacres versus the Timor massacres occurring in the same timeframe can be found in his 1989 work, Necessary Illusions, Thought Control in Democratic Societies, published by South End Press.
I appreciate that Noam Chomsky is with us during this horrible chapter of humanity's history. Now, as always, his messages are those of lifting humanity (yes, that includes most directly our government because that is the government on which we Americans can most directly effect our will) to higher standards of compassion, morality, and honesty. How those messages can invoke the rabid reactions on this forum is a sobering commentary on the lack of intellectual honesty among us. Are we willing to reflect on our policies in an honest way, or must we resort to blindly defending the versions we are spoonfed by our major media, the media so dominated by private tyranny it has become a shill for the military and the corporate state?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
