Noam Chomsky attacks Johann Hari, with some typically bloated, semi-coherent sludge-prose posted on Medialens (comparing him unfavorably to a Stalinist commissar and accusing him of being incapable of comprehending "moral truisms.") As Johann says, it speaks for itself, and I don't have a comment. But, incidentally, it seems to me there's something a bit funny about NC's use of the word "truism."
Posted by Dr. Frank at December 3, 2003 05:36 PM | TrackBackI too was struck by Chomsky's use of "truism". I'd always perceived "truism" as something of a negative word implying question-begging or unexamined assumptions, but Chomsky seems to have something other than that in mind.
Posted by: Combustible Boy at December 5, 2003 05:26 PMThis "see, Chomsky said X at this lunch, I will procede to deduce from it his true colors" is just so noxiously gossipy and stupid, it's hard (for me) not to sympathize with the guy; which is frustrating since I really do not sympathize with the guy (as regards politics, anyway). Ack, dissonance.
I think this bit of blog psychoanalysis gets at my feelings on Chomskyite v. anti-Chomskyite dynamics:
http://www.ufobreakfast.com/archive/00000124.htm
Posted by: spacetoast at December 6, 2003 09:13 PMChomsky got a raw deal?
Nothing compared to the vitriolic abuse those merely daring to disagree with him have received in the past. My eyes are all cried out, sorry.
Posted by: JB at December 7, 2003 09:03 PMThat's not exactly what I meant, JB. It's not *really* that I sympathize with NC, it's that I get annoyed by the constant anti-Chomsky preening in the patriot-ish blogosphere. It's like in middle school there's that one uncool thing that everyone is obliged to despise, and it gets bashed over and over again because no one can think of anything more interesting and because bashing that thing always gets applause and everyone gets to feel superior. In that kind of situation, I always get defensive on behalf of the uncool thing, even if I would have no interest otherwise or even share the consensus view were it not so loudly and self-righteously propounded. And, yes, objectively I do think that stuff about the luncheon comments is pretty thin. At any rate...the lesson for me is probably to just not read in the first place.
Posted by: spacetoast at December 7, 2003 10:43 PMBashing moderates like Hillary and Dean is a waste of time – and I doubt that anyone could call it patriotic.
Chomsky is different. His basic principles - that dictatorships shouldn’t be criticized because our democratic government is the most evil entity in existence, that the UN should control our foreign policy - are the foundations that the extreme left is built on. They accept these ideas without question.
His fondest hope is a revolution that will replace our democratic government with something modeled on the Viet Cong. He's an authority that needs to be questioned.