/lit/ - Literature

>>8532864
Please don't post leftist cucks on here, k thanks

>>8532867
go back to your pol hugbox

>>8532864

He claimed the death tolls under Pol Pot's regime were exagerrated/etc. Usual anti-Western spiel from Chomsky.

Then he had to eat his words when it came to light that the Khmer Rouge were actually as bad as they seemed.

>>8532867
Equating left and right with correct and incorrect only demonstrates how unprepared you are to defend any opinions you have whatsoever and how retarded your friends must be.

>>8532889
>people who don't have 100% of the information make bad decisions!!!
>we who have all of the information on the past are superior people

Are you retarded?

>>8532893
Left and leftist aren't equal or even close. Being of western culture and belligerently anti-western (which is metaphorically referred to as "cuck") is a distinct sign of the latter.

>>8532895
>people who don't have 100% of the information make bad decisions!!!
accurate information on the Khmer Rouge was already available, he only rejected it because of his flawed ideology

>Are you retarded?
you can't read

>>8532889
Why don't you try to explain your statement?

1) The translation of a review of the French missionaries text everyone was citing did not say what people were citing, it had several different death tolls. From the American bombing. From the subsequent breakdown of society. And from the Khmer. These were conflated into a single figure attributed to the Khmer in the translations of the review

2) Photos were faked in Thailand. Should this be ignored?

3) He cited STATE DEPARTMENT figures

4) He always stressed that facts are limited and we simply dont know

5) The whole point of this was to COMPARE IT TO WHAT WAS GOING ON IN EAST TIMOR WHERE INDONESIA WAS INVADING WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF THE USA AND THE WESTERN MEDIA WAS SILENT

>>8532895

As >>8532916 said, we had accurate representation at the time. Chomsky trashed it however, because "muh Western capitalist propaganda against my new fledgling Socialist/Communist regime!"

It's a pity he wasn't there at the time. They'd have killed him for wearing glasses at least.

>>8532934
there was no accurate information. People were citing a translated review of a book nobody had read.
Photos were being faked in Thailand.

>>8532867
wrong board

>>8532934
he probably would have died in the American bombing campaign

>>8532933
>>8532938
Don't bother mate, Chomsky and Pol Pot is an old /pol/ meme that has been refuted countless times but gets posted as bait again and again. It's boring.

>>8532889
To be fair, that doesn't mean that he was supportive of Pol Pot.

>>8532889
>eat his words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
lel

>>8532944
>/pol/ memes have been around since the 1970s

>>8532867

>>8532933
>>8532938
Anon, this is a circlejerk thread for people who use words like "muh" and "cuck" unironically. Why must you use bring reason and moderation into it?

>>8532934
>we had accurate representation at the time
Literally the post above your own: >>8532933

>It's a pity he wasn't there at the time. They'd have killed him for wearing glasses at least.
Sounds like you wouldn't have been out of place as a commissar.

>>8532934

Only good post ITT. Noam "If it's anti-West, then it's the best" Chomsky is a broken record.

>>8533089

>>8533089
It's like Wilde is in the room with us.

>>8533089
But Pol Pot was directly working for Western interests in the region, Khmer Rouge wouldn't have last for as long as it did without Western support

>>8533115

Citation needed.

>>8533124
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2014/04/how-thatcher-gave-pol-pot-hand

>>8533129

>Thatcher is the West

By your logic, the West has been funded by the East on plenty of occasions.

>>8533129
Reading is hard, huh?

>>8533129
What is it with Conservatives and third-world dictators?

>>8533146

>>8533146
>>8533153

>Implying it's a bad thing

>>8533159
Yeah, it's not like it flatly contradicts the rhetoric about freedom or anything.

>>8533179

True hypocrisy is an art. Read Nietzsche.

>>8533193
>Read Nietzsche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Reader

>>8533209
>Edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz

>>8532889
And now we also know that Pol Pot received help from China, the UK, and the US. Isn't it funny how things work out that way?

>>8532867
>>8532898
> cuck
I find it odd that the alt right obsesses over that word. I think anyone who hears it sees through the blatant projection onto others. Its like the closet gays calling everyone gay, its because its all they think about. ive seen studies where they use something that measures penile circumference when showing gay porn to straight men who dont mind gay people and "straight" men who hate them. It was something like 35 percent of homophobes had increased bloodflow to their dicks. You can find the studies yourself if you want, search something like "closet homophobe penile circumference" (i kid, i kid, but seriously look for it)

>>8533317

>If you hate X, you are X

Who let the teenager in?

>>8533359
>if i misrepresent your arguement, i can pretend youre wrong
who let the teenager in here?

Im saying if you spend all day talking about cucks on the internet (like /pol/) you probably are one because you think about it constantly and are defensive. psychology backs this up, google it. the more defensive you are, the more insecure you are. If someone talks about how they have the biggest dick or are the smartest generally everyone suspects, rightfully so, they are trying to cover their inadequacies

>>8533317
Their hard drives are probably stuffed with interracial porn, too.

>>8533450

>Look, mom! I'm projecting!

>>8533460
Wait a minute... when i said those who post "cuck, cuck, cuck KEK! EVERYONES A KEK BUT ME!!!!1" all day are projecting you said >>8533359 but now that >>8533450 is agreeing with me projecting is a valid arguement? It makes more sense that those who think about and post about it 100 times a day have it on their mind for reasons they wont admit to themselves. >>8533450 here, merely agreed when i said those who post it all day think about it because deep down they like it. Whos more likely projecting here?

>>8533460
I'm not judging you, Anon.

>>8533486

I'm saying you're just as bad as those using 'cuck'.

>>8533317
It's not the alt right thing, it's the virgin (or beta in general) thing. Just look at the reaction NTR (which is the japanese term for cheating) gets on /a/.

That said, the "cuck" metaphor captures the self-hating part pretty well, which is probably the reason why is it so popular in regard to leftists.

>>8533511
>That said, the "cuck" metaphor captures the self-hating part pretty well, which is probably the reason why is it so popular in regard to the right's image of leftists.

>>8532933
Chompsky was not as detached as he likes to claim, he was very aggresive in trying to deligimate any evidence contrary to his findings. The most sordid was all the Cambodian refugees who told the world what was going on, which he merely deflected as American propaganda

>>8533534
If you come from the western culture and hate it then you hate yourself. Which is true for Chomsky at least.

>>8533557
Defector and refugee testimony is always suspect

>>8533577

>

You're right, North Korea is actually a paradise.

>>8533508
I was just trying to get one person to stop shoving their repressed desires in everyones face, thats all.
>>8533511
Considering that not every action of the us government is perfect is self hating? Nobody calls, actually im sure im wrong because of 4chan, christians that chose not to fuck till marriage are cucks. If you truly refute the ideas you dont need to use insults. You just explain to those people theyd be happier having sex, they most likely arent special enough to be born into the first perfect society and the one true religion and at the very least keep your sexual repression to yourself. No need to go "cuck retard autist nigger faggot whos dumb and stupid and gay! Everyone but me is a gay cuck!", if you think youre right you simply explain why.
>>8532867 here chose not to give any legitimate critique, and there are many to be made, instead he used buzzwords and projected his insecurities on others

>>8533564
>If you don't accept something external to yourself uncritically, like Western culture, you hate yourself.

>>8533577
Funny how he never took such a skeptical stance against the refugees any any other state from then and now. He's positively commited we should accept all refugees regardless of their situation.

The point is, he was actively trying to defend his own thesis from evidence that ran contrary

>>8533589
Nice cartoon picture kid

>>8533619
I don't give a fuck about Chumpsky. Just don't give me that bullshit about how terrible it is to deny the lived experience of those poor refugees.

>>8533602
What baffles me is how the stuff Chomsky criticizes about the US foreign policy gets debated.

I mean, that's the official narrative everywhere outside of the US, even amongst it's allies.

>>8533317
Only a cuck would overanalyze an insult.

>>8532944
Sounds like holocaust denial to me. Only you are a leftist cuck

>>8533602
cuck

He denied that mass murder was occurring. He also denied that Mao was murdering millions.

>>8533723
>Source: my asshole.

>>8532889
>jew downplaying genocides

can't make this shit up

>>8533768
1969 debate with Buckley. he denied that millions were killed in China

>>8533790
Turns out you can:

>>8532933
>>8532952

>>8533804
Denied or questioned?

>>8533808
"Questioning" the holocaust or other well-established mass killings is the same as denial, if we're going by the definition of "denial" that has currency

>>8533824
Don't equivocate. Did he outright say it didn't happen, or did he instead question how it had been reported?

You made the claim >>8533723. Burden of proof's on you.

>>8533841
its amazing how much you guys defend communist crimes

>>8533855
>crimes
According to which law?

>>8533841
He flat-out denied that millions were killed in the cultural revolution

>>8533862
whatever principle determined that the Holocaust was a bad thing

>>8533871
A "bad thing" is not a crime, quit doing that fuckface

>>8533179

>Preserving the security of the greatest liberal democracy in history contradicts freedom

Okay

>>8533904
>saying that one way of doing a thing is bad implies it's inherently bad

OKay

>>8533884
people use less-than-literal meanings sometimes, you raging sperglord

>>8533913
When are trying to make a cohesive argument, you should use precise words and not try to weasel around with their meaning

>>8533904
>Supporting dictatorships is necessary or sufficient cause to the safeguarding of Western liberal democracy.
This enthymeme is wanting.

>>8533909

Are you trying to re-write the post I was responding to as the argument that the US treatment of right wing dictatorships isn't conducive to US security? Because that's obviously not what you were saying

>>8533871
>whatever principle determined that the Holocaust was a bad thing
Wrongness?

>>8533936

So having Marxist rulers like Allende in the Western hemisphere while the USSR was the greatest challenge to US power wasn't a threat to US security?

That's a pretty stupid position to hold

Chomsky is a man that said "Eastern European under Russian Rule was practically a paradise"

he has no logical foundation whats so ever

>>8533723
Anon is presumably referring to this rather heated and rapid-fire exchange:

http://buckley-chomsky.weebly.com/debate-part-5.html

>>8533965
You've yet to supply the missing premise in >>8533936

>>8533979
Citation needed.

>>8533988

Anon just because you've found the word 'enthymeme' doesn't mean you can escape the normal terms of debate. In the real world people respond to criticisms of their argument rather than being evasive

>>8533995
you want your citation here

https://chomsky.info/19900301/

3rd paragraph

>>8534001
>In the real world people respond to criticisms of their argument rather than being evasive
Agreed. So let's have that missing premise.

>>8534036

I hope you realise that by trying to turn what was otherwise a substantive disagreement into a dry discussion of the specific logical structure of your argument you aren't actually escaping your failure to defend the implication that there is no relationship between supporting dictatorships and US security.

You might be someone who thinks that passes for an argument, but most people have passed that point in their lives when they reach sixth form

>>8534028
I can see why you chose not to quote the whole sentence:

>It’s also unnecessary to point out to the half a dozen or so sane people who remain that in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.

It's also instructive to read the above in the context of the material that precedes it. But then, of course, it ceases to be a cause for scandal.

>>8534028
Is he not only comparing it to a warstruck asian villager or can i not read

>>8534066
>the implication that there is no relationship between supporting dictatorships and US security.
So, what is the relationship? State it, and you go some way to supplying the missing premise. "They're related because they're related" doesn't qualify.

>>8534085
You have good reading comprehension, whereas >>8533979 can only handle sentences in isolation from each other.

>>8534068
he is saying that the people that are sane are the ones that believe eastern europe was a paradise under russian rule

learn how to read dumbass

>>8534090

"They're related because they're related" is not something I ever suggested, it's a conclusion about my argument that you've drawn because instead of criticising the substance of my claim you've chosen to occupy yourself with throwing about terms of rhetorical logic.

Clearly marxist states represented a threat to US security during the cold war, because they offered a stretch of landmass from which the USSR might launch an attack. To eliminate that threat it was often necessary that these regimes were displaced by 'right-wing' dictators supported by the US government.

>>8534115
please be trolling

>>8534115

You're right that Chomsky is an ideologically blinkered hack, but the pro-Chomsky camp is clearly right about this. He's saying that compared to war-torn Vietnam the USSR was a paradise - that doesn't seem like particularly high praise to me

>>8534117
>'right-wing'
Why the scare quotes?

>>8534115
>learn how to read dumbass

>>8534129

Because 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' tend to refer to identities rather than coherent political programmes, I think they're useful terms in the domestic politics of liberal democracies but not very useful in regard to a state that doesn't have a functioning party system

>>8534117
So, not actually concerned with freedom in the world at large at all—just self-interested realpolitik.

>>8534142

Self-interest realpolitik is a prerequisite of freedom. The pursuit of freedom in itself doesn't necessarily produce it, as we've seen in Iraq and Libya, and in some cases does a great deal of damage to the general pursuit of it, as I'd argue we see with international law. So yes in a narrow sense the US only pursued narrow self-interest in installing dictatorships, but the two aren't mutually exclusive in my view.

>>8534158
>Self-interest realpolitik is a prerequisite of freedom

LOL

>>8534158
>pursuit of freedom
>Iraq and Libya

>>8534174

You can say LOL if you want, but attempts by states to secure freedom have often produced the opposite. Libya and Iraq are obvious examples, and there is robust scholarship that suggests that attempts to institutionalise respect for freedom in international law have often impeded the develop of the rights-based institutions that do reliably preserve freedom.

>>8533723
That's good since there really weren't millions being murdered by Mao in China.

>>8534191
>Libya and Iraq are obvious examples

>>8534191
LOL

>>8533941
No.

itt: people who think Robert Conquest is a reliable source

>>8533124
The west began supporting them in 1979 when Vietnam invaded them

>>8533557
Citation pls
>>8533619
Can you actually quote him?
All I've seen is a translated review conflating figures that nobody had bothered to check, and faked photos
Never read anything from him on refugees
And the whole point of the analysis was to compare it to the silence over East Timor

What do you think of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor? The USA backing them to the hilt for 24 years? The death of 1/3rd of its population? And the medias total silence about this atrocity that we could stop and bore responsibility for, all the while crying loudly about something else we couldn't?

>>8533723
No he didn't. Why don't you cite him. OP question is why do peopl make such claims about chomsky without making any quotes or citations.
And look what you just did.
The mans own words have been posted in a detailed YouTube link
Do something about that

>>8533804
post the portion of the debate where he did that

>>8533807
>translated review of a book conflated several different figures, one of the largest death tolls in the book was from the AMERICAN BOMBING
>photos were faked in Cambodia
>if you point this out and try to adhere to the truth then you are downplaying genocide
Its alright to lie about official enemies I guess

>>8533855
Quote and cite.
This thread is about people making claims without backing it up
And look what you're doing

>>8533855
>you guys

Crossie...

>>8533965
Allende, and Guatamala before him and Nicaragua after him were not communist or soviet agents.
They wanted to pursue internal development and fix the counties extreme poverty and inequality.
For the Washington consensus this is classed as communism and soviet agents for propaganda purposes to justify actions.

And what does this have to do with the topic? Why do you change the topic and make outlandish claims?

>>8533979
Quote pls
I've always heard him refer to it as a dungeon

>>8534115
In comparison to what was happening in American client states
Can you find anything comparable to El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Colombia, or Chile in the USSR?

>>8534122
>ideologically blinkered hack
How? Because he looks at his own countries crimes instead of others? Because he doesn't accept the blundering effort to do good trotted out every time the USA fucks up another country? Because he doesn't accept 'but the commies!' excuse for every dictatorship the USA supports?

>>8535612
No, because he's an innumerate waste of space who bought into the blank slate meme.

>>8535645
That isn't how you meant the criticism though. You meant to say that he was a leftist so everything he said is shit. This is the problem we have here, and honestly you can try to pivot your way out of it all you want. I encourage you to try.

>>8535645
>"Now remember, children: you must set a good example. But not really, because everything about you is biologically determined."

>>8535666
I'm not the anon who posted that he was a hack, I'm just responding to your response to him. That post was made over 4 hours ago bud.

>>8535685
I'm not the anon who was responding to him either.

Chomsky tards are literally
>Source?
>SOURCE?
>Name the source
>No provide the exact page and line right now even though you might be at work, I don't have a job so I can't imagine this.
>Post the exact second of a video
>If you don't post in 10 seconds in right
>SOURCE?

There is literally a Cambodian genocide denial wiki page with a Chomsky tab you can read through at your leisure with sources.

Enjoy