11 ms·

Intellectual giant whose shadow will be cast deep into the future. I don't need to review any of his work wrt to CS or linguistics to tell you that his legacy w

Intellectual giant whose shadow will be cast deep into the future. I don't need to review any of his work wrt to CS or linguistics to tell you that his legacy will be massive. I think Manufacturing Consent should go down as one of the most important books ever written in our culture. He was right about much, but wrong about much also. His beliefs on Cambodia strain credulity and I still have trouble separating that Chomsky, so bent on drawing an equivalence(however valid) between American actions and the Khmer Rouge that he missed the point entirely, and Chomsky the visionary philosopher who I admire deeply.

feedforward 2y ago
The US began arming the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that means) in 1979 as well as protecting them in the UN, so the equivalence seems pretty valid to me. Not to mention the US 1970 invasion of Cambodia and concurrent CIA-backed overthrow of the Cambodian government, which including shooting dead US students who protested against it at Kent State and Jackson State, or the US carpet bombing of Cambodia during and after Operation Freedom Deal.
- ein0p 2y ago
  I recall vehemently disagreeing with Chomsky on many things when I was much younger, but then I somehow stumbled upon Howard Zinn’s “People’s history of the United States” and realized the version of history I knew was basically concentrated propaganda I was brainwashed into believing. That opened the door to understanding Chomsky. “Manufacturing consent” explains our present state of affairs really well.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Zinn's reputation among historians: not all that great.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      Reputation of historians according to Zinn: not all that great either. Read him as a counterpoint, and food for critical thought, not as the sole source of truth. He doesn’t hide that he has an agenda.
      - caycep 2y ago
        I did actually see him talk at a rally in Boston Common, around '04 or so. While his written stuff may well be better, what struck me was the gist was basically self promotion about how he know "secret" things from "secret" sources, but never really bothered to elaborate, only that the "US Govt is lying to you". Well yes but...I would say if one had such information, it is not well served by presenting oneself as a conspiratorial crank....
        ein0p 2y ago
        Yes, US Govt is routinely lying to you. That is not controversial at all at this point. Read the book. It’s a difficult read though. Might ruffle some patriotic feathers. Think of how difficult it is today to get even remotely truthful news. And then think about how this horseshit will be written up by government funded historians once all the political scores are settled and winners are determined
        vasco 2y ago
        I mean if you want another perspective you can simple Wikipedia "American Empire". It'll be simple enough for another view of current state of affairs without going into politically motivated alternative history, either from communists or from milton friedman fans. It annoys me to no end that both right wingers and left wingers like so much to tell history how it's convenient to them and always hard to get something unbiased. Even numbers of deaths can't be trusted before you check who you are reading.
        ein0p 2y ago
        But Wikipedia is also full of lies and omissions, though. You're going to have to work to synthesize some plausible version of the past from the politically motivated sources either way.
    - yareal 2y ago
      "People who I am critical of don't like me" is not particularly surprising, to be honest.
  - hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
    I was more-or-less a free-market, atheist libertarian until about age 16 because I didn't know any better and it seemed so righteous and freedom flag-waving. Then, I learned a few things decades since then (but kept the atheism), especially about the dark origins of libertarianism. The truth is that America is a neocolonial power that flirts authoritarianism where one can live an easy life if they're moderately rich, but on the backs of a massive, struggling underclass that has it much worse than most countries in Europe. "Socialism" is a taboo word in America that it needs much more of, but the problem is that most people have too much faith in strongmen, corruption of campaign financing, and giving corporations more money, more power, and favorable regulations including regulatory capture.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      I’m starting to waver on atheism also. I’m not likely to start believing in god this far in my life, of course, but I now see why a lot of people feel the need to believe, and I no longer judge them for it. I do however judge religious organizations for shamelessly exploiting that need.
      - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
        Perhaps I could sell you the idea of ignosticism: one cannot prove anything about any supernatural beings, so the whole question of existence of gods is meaningless, and can be therefore happily be ignored. Thus, all religious questions are resolved. Even atheism is a strong stance and asserts a belief that you cannot test!
  - verticalscaler 2y ago
    If you reread what you wrote carefully an amazing irony falls out. You might consider your consent has simply been manufactured in another direction. Lots of Chomsky acolytes never quite reach that epiphany. They simply follow in his footsteps of being oh so traumatized by the sudden realization that governments lie and propaganda is a thing that you could get them to opt in to an even deeper set of absurdities and half truths quite easily. To the great delight of the enemies of the US. This is how you get college students to chant "Death to America".
    - corimaith 2y ago
      Second option bias comes to mind here, funnily enough the alt-right utilizes the same tactics.
      - verticalscaler 2y ago
        Indeed. Alt-right/left/whatever. Very potent tactics as you can tell even from reading this thread. You would think people who come to these bitter realizations would know better but many inevitably land on "the ends justifies the means" or the less sophisticated "only our scum enemies lie!" and round and round we go.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      Actually that’s only true if you uncritically accept everything either side says and reject the other side. That’s low IQ, don’t do that.
      - verticalscaler 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ein0p 2y ago
        The reason you can’t tell is one comment up in the thread.
- turndown 2y ago
  I worded that part poorly, and did not bring up what really bothers me about it, that he tried to deny that there was a genocide in Cambodia. I agree with what you said. The idea that the US is innocent in Cambodia or really anything going on in that part of the world at that time is beyond false.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lamontcg 2y ago
    His point was always that the most inflated estimates of deaths in Cambodia were uncritically accepted by Western media and widely broadcast, while atrocities committed by friendly nations always leaned towards the very low estimates and the stories were buried.
    - vintermann 2y ago
      Yes, the accusation that he denied the Cambodian genocide is false, and a tactical smear.
      - Aloisius 2y ago
        Chomsky wrote that "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation." I'm unsure as to how that would be anything but genocide denial.
        andrepd 2y ago
        He wrote that before the truth was known, while the genocide was ongoing and the only thing we had was scattered reports of atrocities. This was the 70s, we did not exactly have telegram livestream channels from the frontlines. It was a mistake and he recanted those views in the later stages of the regime and afterwards, when the evidence became overwhelming.
        2y ago
- cm2187 2y ago
  1979 was after the genocide and after Pol Pot was pushed out of power. Implying the US had something to do with the killing fields defies common sense. The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed. Now the US did support some incompetent and corrupt militia in Cambodia to oppose the Khmer rouges, and those did their fair share of misdeeds, to the frustration of local US officers. But given the crimes the khmer rouges ended up committing, it is hard to argue that not opposing them was the morally superior position, even with hindsight.
  - foobarqux 2y ago
    It's like saying the war in Iraq has no effect on the current situation there.
    - cm2187 2y ago
      You mean like saying the US is the cause of the Shia-Sunni hatred?
  - feedforward 2y ago
    > The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 and China invaded Vietnam in 1979. What are you talking about?
    - cm2187 2y ago
      In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia, and in January 1976, Democratic Kampuchea was established. During the Cambodian genocide, the CCP was the main international patron of the Khmer Rouge, supplying "more than 15,000 military advisers" and most of its external aid.[82] It is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid to Khmer Rouge came from China, with 1975 alone seeing US$1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid and US$20 million gift, which was "the biggest aid ever given to any one country by China" And if you read the article, north vietnam was their main backer before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#1975%E2%80%931993 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#1975%E2%80%931993
hughesjj 2y ago
His thoughts on Serbia/Kosovo, Russia/Ukraine, likely Russia/ Georgia etc have all been problematic too. Chomsky was illuminating in my personal character development. I grew up in a pretty conservative area, and his name carried a lot of hate like Hillary/Clinton did, but i didn't know why. Later, I saw some of his writings on American interventionism, and I found myself nodding my head in agreement over the mistakes my country/we have made. Later yet, I'm in college going for the math+cs degrees and his stuff on formal languages was probably the peak of my admiration for him... but with the admiration comes research, and perhaps the most important thing chomsky illustrated to me was that you can be a genius, but that doesn't mean you can't be blind, myopic, wrong, an asshole, or ... non-credible. I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes, but it's been an exemplar for me regardless -- good and bad, functional and broken.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes The obvious resolution to that paradox is either you don't understand Chomsky's morals or have mistaken what his beliefs are. Judging by some random interview from 2022 [0] it looks like he has a position on Russia/Ukraine that is easy to defend. He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading. Looks like pretty standard fare for anyone who doesn't like war and propaganda. [0] https://chomsky.info/20220408/ https://chomsky.info/20220408/
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    Chomsky defends imperialism as long as it's not coming from western countries.
    - nayaketo 2y ago
      This is the truth. He is only moral when it suits his hatred for his own country.
  - hughesjj 2y ago
cageface 2y ago
I grew up taking Chomsky's perspectives on the Vietnam war as gospel. After actually living there for 8 years and talking to many people about it I realized it was a lot less black and white then he paints it.

feedforward 2y ago

The US began arming the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that means) in 1979 as well as protecting them in the UN, so the equivalence seems pretty valid to me. Not to mention the US 1970 invasion of Cambodia and concurrent CIA-backed overthrow of the Cambodian government, which including shooting dead US students who protested against it at Kent State and Jackson State, or the US carpet bombing of Cambodia during and after Operation Freedom Deal.

ein0p 2y ago
I recall vehemently disagreeing with Chomsky on many things when I was much younger, but then I somehow stumbled upon Howard Zinn’s “People’s history of the United States” and realized the version of history I knew was basically concentrated propaganda I was brainwashed into believing. That opened the door to understanding Chomsky. “Manufacturing consent” explains our present state of affairs really well.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Zinn's reputation among historians: not all that great.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    Reputation of historians according to Zinn: not all that great either. Read him as a counterpoint, and food for critical thought, not as the sole source of truth. He doesn’t hide that he has an agenda.
    - caycep 2y ago
      I did actually see him talk at a rally in Boston Common, around '04 or so. While his written stuff may well be better, what struck me was the gist was basically self promotion about how he know "secret" things from "secret" sources, but never really bothered to elaborate, only that the "US Govt is lying to you". Well yes but...I would say if one had such information, it is not well served by presenting oneself as a conspiratorial crank....
      - ein0p 2y ago
        Yes, US Govt is routinely lying to you. That is not controversial at all at this point. Read the book. It’s a difficult read though. Might ruffle some patriotic feathers. Think of how difficult it is today to get even remotely truthful news. And then think about how this horseshit will be written up by government funded historians once all the political scores are settled and winners are determined
        vasco 2y ago
        I mean if you want another perspective you can simple Wikipedia "American Empire". It'll be simple enough for another view of current state of affairs without going into politically motivated alternative history, either from communists or from milton friedman fans. It annoys me to no end that both right wingers and left wingers like so much to tell history how it's convenient to them and always hard to get something unbiased. Even numbers of deaths can't be trusted before you check who you are reading.
        ein0p 2y ago
        But Wikipedia is also full of lies and omissions, though. You're going to have to work to synthesize some plausible version of the past from the politically motivated sources either way.
  - yareal 2y ago
    "People who I am critical of don't like me" is not particularly surprising, to be honest.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  I was more-or-less a free-market, atheist libertarian until about age 16 because I didn't know any better and it seemed so righteous and freedom flag-waving. Then, I learned a few things decades since then (but kept the atheism), especially about the dark origins of libertarianism. The truth is that America is a neocolonial power that flirts authoritarianism where one can live an easy life if they're moderately rich, but on the backs of a massive, struggling underclass that has it much worse than most countries in Europe. "Socialism" is a taboo word in America that it needs much more of, but the problem is that most people have too much faith in strongmen, corruption of campaign financing, and giving corporations more money, more power, and favorable regulations including regulatory capture.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    I’m starting to waver on atheism also. I’m not likely to start believing in god this far in my life, of course, but I now see why a lot of people feel the need to believe, and I no longer judge them for it. I do however judge religious organizations for shamelessly exploiting that need.
    - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
      Perhaps I could sell you the idea of ignosticism: one cannot prove anything about any supernatural beings, so the whole question of existence of gods is meaningless, and can be therefore happily be ignored. Thus, all religious questions are resolved. Even atheism is a strong stance and asserts a belief that you cannot test!
- verticalscaler 2y ago
  If you reread what you wrote carefully an amazing irony falls out. You might consider your consent has simply been manufactured in another direction. Lots of Chomsky acolytes never quite reach that epiphany. They simply follow in his footsteps of being oh so traumatized by the sudden realization that governments lie and propaganda is a thing that you could get them to opt in to an even deeper set of absurdities and half truths quite easily. To the great delight of the enemies of the US. This is how you get college students to chant "Death to America".
  - corimaith 2y ago
    Second option bias comes to mind here, funnily enough the alt-right utilizes the same tactics.
    - verticalscaler 2y ago
      Indeed. Alt-right/left/whatever. Very potent tactics as you can tell even from reading this thread. You would think people who come to these bitter realizations would know better but many inevitably land on "the ends justifies the means" or the less sophisticated "only our scum enemies lie!" and round and round we go.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    Actually that’s only true if you uncritically accept everything either side says and reject the other side. That’s low IQ, don’t do that.
    - verticalscaler 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ein0p 2y ago
        The reason you can’t tell is one comment up in the thread.
turndown 2y ago
I worded that part poorly, and did not bring up what really bothers me about it, that he tried to deny that there was a genocide in Cambodia. I agree with what you said. The idea that the US is innocent in Cambodia or really anything going on in that part of the world at that time is beyond false.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lamontcg 2y ago
  His point was always that the most inflated estimates of deaths in Cambodia were uncritically accepted by Western media and widely broadcast, while atrocities committed by friendly nations always leaned towards the very low estimates and the stories were buried.
  - vintermann 2y ago
    Yes, the accusation that he denied the Cambodian genocide is false, and a tactical smear.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      Chomsky wrote that "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation." I'm unsure as to how that would be anything but genocide denial.
      - andrepd 2y ago
        He wrote that before the truth was known, while the genocide was ongoing and the only thing we had was scattered reports of atrocities. This was the 70s, we did not exactly have telegram livestream channels from the frontlines. It was a mistake and he recanted those views in the later stages of the regime and afterwards, when the evidence became overwhelming.
        2y ago
cm2187 2y ago
1979 was after the genocide and after Pol Pot was pushed out of power. Implying the US had something to do with the killing fields defies common sense. The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed. Now the US did support some incompetent and corrupt militia in Cambodia to oppose the Khmer rouges, and those did their fair share of misdeeds, to the frustration of local US officers. But given the crimes the khmer rouges ended up committing, it is hard to argue that not opposing them was the morally superior position, even with hindsight.
- foobarqux 2y ago
  It's like saying the war in Iraq has no effect on the current situation there.
  - cm2187 2y ago
    You mean like saying the US is the cause of the Shia-Sunni hatred?
- feedforward 2y ago
  > The khmer rouges were primarily China and North Vietnam backed. Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 and China invaded Vietnam in 1979. What are you talking about?
  - cm2187 2y ago
    In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia, and in January 1976, Democratic Kampuchea was established. During the Cambodian genocide, the CCP was the main international patron of the Khmer Rouge, supplying "more than 15,000 military advisers" and most of its external aid.[82] It is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid to Khmer Rouge came from China, with 1975 alone seeing US$1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid and US$20 million gift, which was "the biggest aid ever given to any one country by China" And if you read the article, north vietnam was their main backer before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#1975%E2%80%931993 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#1975%E2%80%931993

hughesjj 2y ago

His thoughts on Serbia/Kosovo, Russia/Ukraine, likely Russia/ Georgia etc have all been problematic too. Chomsky was illuminating in my personal character development. I grew up in a pretty conservative area, and his name carried a lot of hate like Hillary/Clinton did, but i didn't know why. Later, I saw some of his writings on American interventionism, and I found myself nodding my head in agreement over the mistakes my country/we have made. Later yet, I'm in college going for the math+cs degrees and his stuff on formal languages was probably the peak of my admiration for him... but with the admiration comes research, and perhaps the most important thing chomsky illustrated to me was that you can be a genius, but that doesn't mean you can't be blind, myopic, wrong, an asshole, or ... non-credible. I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes, but it's been an exemplar for me regardless -- good and bad, functional and broken.

roenxi 2y ago
> I don't know why chomsky's beliefs and supported causes are so inconsistent with the morals he pushes The obvious resolution to that paradox is either you don't understand Chomsky's morals or have mistaken what his beliefs are. Judging by some random interview from 2022 [0] it looks like he has a position on Russia/Ukraine that is easy to defend. He describes it as a "principled, internationalist, anti-imperialist left response" and that seems like a fair assessment from what I'm reading. Looks like pretty standard fare for anyone who doesn't like war and propaganda. [0] https://chomsky.info/20220408/ https://chomsky.info/20220408/
- LunaSea 2y ago
  Chomsky defends imperialism as long as it's not coming from western countries.
  - nayaketo 2y ago
    This is the truth. He is only moral when it suits his hatred for his own country.
- hughesjj 2y ago

cageface 2y ago

I grew up taking Chomsky's perspectives on the Vietnam war as gospel. After actually living there for 8 years and talking to many people about it I realized it was a lot less black and white then he paints it.