I consider Understanding Power an essential read, but really soured on Chomsky as a person when he defended his
going to Epstein’s islandmeetings with Epstein. I still think people should read him but not glorify him.Edit: there is no evidence, as far as I’m aware, Chomsky went to Epstein’s Island. I misremembered.
defended his going to Epstein’s island.
Wait a second, are you just going to drop that without any further elaboration or source?
As far as I was aware, he knew him and he met with him a couple of times. His reaction to getting asked about it wasn’t that great, but him “going to Epstein island” is a bit on another level, no?
No actually you are totally right and I’ve made a big mistake. I thought I remembered him going to the island, but he just met with him a couple times. His reaction was pretty poor, but I don’t think there’s evidence he went to his island. I’ll edit my comment. Thanks for pointing that out.
Chomsky is frustrating. Some of his ideas are so good that not only did they break into popular culture, the right adopted them (fake news). But he also had some galaxy level bad takes.
My frustration with him began when I watched a Youtube video called “Chomsky eviscerates post-modernism” or something like that. I expected him to defend structuralism or Marxism, but instead it was just a bunch of fallacy laden personal attacks and nonsense of the kind you would expect of Ben Shapiro.
Funny enough, that was my first major negative encounter with Chomsky as well. “I understand many complex things but I can’t understand postmodernism; therefore, postmodernism is fake” level thinking.
It’s so funny I mostly know Chomsky through computer science as his (computer science - unrelated) research lead to major breakthroughs in it.
Citations needed.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1738&context=gsp
This does not cover his current apologia for Russia’s genocide in Ukraine.
Ironic that the author of this paper views Oct 7th as Hamas committing genocide, but only views Israel as potentially trying to commit genocide.
“I believe that the events of Oct. 7 qualify as a genocidal massacre of Israelis. I also think that the Israeli response, and indeed long standing Israeli policy towards the Gazan population, evinces elements of genocidal thinking and increasingly practice,” he said.
“Any early hesitation I had about applying the ‘genocide’ label to the Israeli attack on Gaza has dissipated over the past year of human slaughter and the obliteration of homes, infrastructure, and communities,” said Adam Jones, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia who has written a textbook on genocide. “There is plenty of this demonization and dehumanization on the other side as well, but whatever peace constituency existed in Israel seems to have vanished, and there is a growing consensus for genocidal war, mass population transfer, and long-term eradication of Palestinian culture and identity.”
EDIT: As noted further down, he doesn’t say Hamas committed genocide and Israel didn’t - he uses a specific academic term of genocidal massacre, and explicitly notes that he is not saying that Hamas committed genocide, because ‘genocidal massacre’ and ‘genocide’ are different terms in the academic context.
The same hurdle of proving intentionality applies to any evaluation of whether Hamas’s October 7 attack constitutes genocide. Hamas, which governs Gaza and is designated by many countries as a terrorist organization, promises the destruction of Israel in its founding charter and has said it has plans for more attacks like the one on October 7. Its “wild and indiscriminate killing” of more than 1,400 people is characteristic of what social scientists refer to as a “genocidal massacre” that should be “acknowledged and condemned as such,” but the intentionality requirement under the law is still a “high evidentiary bar to reach,” Jones said.
Beyond killing civilians en masse, Israel appears to be inflicting “conditions of life calculated to bring about [the targeted group’s] physical destruction,” as prohibited by the convention, said Adam Jones, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia who has written a textbook on genocide. He pointed to Israel’s decisions to let in only limited humanitarian assistance that is far from sufficient to provide for the needs of 2.2 million people; to cut off fuel, water, and electricity; and to deprive people of adequate access to medical care. As of November 5, some 370 aid trucks had reportedly arrived in Gaza since they were first allowed to enter on October 21, but more than 100 trucks daily would be required to meet the needs of the population.
That’s great that he finally got there, but it took him over a year to recognize a very obvious genocide. I can’t take this prof. as any source worth listening to on the matter if they’re that inept.
That’s great that he finally got there, but it took him over a year to recognize a very obvious genocide.
“I can’t believe someone who notes that the definition of genocide is, by international law, intentionally restrictive would, two months into a military campaign with conflicting narratives and information blanketing the space, note only that there were genocidal intentions and practice instead of outright calling it genocide. This is an unbelievable betrayal 😔”
I can’t take this prof. as any source worth listening to on the matter if they’re that inept.
Yet Chomsky is great on the subject, despite his long history of genocide denial, apologism, and handwaving. Lovely.
You can call something genocide without having to give a shit what ‘international law’ calls it. It was plain as chips for all of us to see so early on, how did an expert fail if not intentionally.
And fuck Chomsky, I never said he was great only that the author themselves are also guilty of politicising genocide.
Oh, I made a mistake - the article you quoted from is, itself, quoting another article - that was written only a month after the attacks.
The same hurdle of proving intentionality applies to any evaluation of whether Hamas’s October 7 attack constitutes genocide. Hamas, which governs Gaza and is designated by many countries as a terrorist organization, promises the destruction of Israel in its founding charter and has said it has plans for more attacks like the one on October 7. Its “wild and indiscriminate killing” of more than 1,400 people is characteristic of what social scientists refer to as a “genocidal massacre” that should be “acknowledged and condemned as such,” but the intentionality requirement under the law is still a “high evidentiary bar to reach,” Jones said.
Beyond killing civilians en masse, Israel appears to be inflicting “conditions of life calculated to bring about [the targeted group’s] physical destruction,” as prohibited by the convention, said Adam Jones, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia who has written a textbook on genocide. He pointed to Israel’s decisions to let in only limited humanitarian assistance that is far from sufficient to provide for the needs of 2.2 million people; to cut off fuel, water, and electricity; and to deprive people of adequate access to medical care. As of November 5, some 370 aid trucks had reportedly arrived in Gaza since they were first allowed to enter on October 21, but more than 100 trucks daily would be required to meet the needs of the population.
You can call something genocide without having to give a shit what ‘international law’ calls it.
The man is literally a professor of genocide studies; when a news org asks him if something is genocide, he’s not just some rando tossing out an opinion. He’s giving an academic answer.
It was plain as chips for all of us to see so early on, how did an expert fail if not intentionally.
Jesus Christ.
And fuck Chomsky, I never said he was great only that the author themselves are also guilty of politicising genocide.
“Politicizing genocide”
“I can’t believe someone who notes that the definition of genocide is, by international law, intentionally restrictive would, one month into a military campaign with conflicting narratives and information blanketing the space, note only that there were genocidal intentions and practice instead of outright calling it genocide. This is an unbelievable betrayal 😔”
What, did you immediately run to google the author’s name in the hopes of digging up dirt, and then threw shit at the wall to see what would stick? lmao.
Always someone else’s wrong doing, in the land of brave, isn’t it ? Never america, defenders of freedom?
Yet here you are, Making political memes with no more than a child’s knowledge of the world.
I’ll leave you to your shallow water.
Has he said anything about Trump allying with Putin yet? Will Moscow finally be in his bad books for getting into bed with Mickey Mouse, or has the US seen the light and joined the revolution, with the epicentre of capitalist-imperialist evil moving to Brussels or somewhere?
My bet is on the latter, unfortunately, especially considering his opinions on the PRC.
That being said, I’d be glad to see him take the opposite tack.
Here we are in 2025, with Americans finally getting a glimpse of the what the worlds has long known, and this is your best shot ?
A dig at a mute, bed bound 96 year who hasn’t spoke for a year?
Way to go tough guy .
A dig at a mute, bed bound 96 year who hasn’t spoke for a year?
Yep, just trying to get under ol’ Chomsky’s skin. I’m sure he’s a Fediverse regular. Definitely not because people still use him to run cover for ongoing genocides, like in Ukraine.
We can have the oil back once the yankees go home and Ukraine drop NATO.
Russia will drop hostilities like a stone to get that flowing again and we can go back to how things were.
The USA interference in the region over the last 10 year maybe 20, cannot be overstated in terms of creating instability .
Oh, you’re one of those.
How juvenile.
Like any word, use it too often for political efficacy and you will inevitably get arguments. It’s all too stupid. It takes the act of killing one person for any reason and conflates it into a competition as to who has suffered the most. Words are unimportant. Actions speak.
Seeing anybody praise Chomsky online immediately puts me into a defensive anti-Tankie posture.
Same. It’s sad, considering that he does have legitimate contributions - if sometimes overstated in importance or novelty - to political theory.
