Why do people say he supported Pol Pot without ever actually quoting him or citing it?

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

wrong board

he probably would have died in the American bombing campaign

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.

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

>eat his words
youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
lel

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

...

user, 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?

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

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

...

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

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

Citation needed.

newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2014/04/how-thatcher-gave-pol-pot-hand

>Thatcher is the West

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

Reading is hard, huh?

What is it with Conservatives and third-world dictators?

...

>Implying it's a bad thing

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

True hypocrisy is an art. Read Nietzsche.

>Read Nietzsche.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anti-Chomsky_Reader

>Edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz

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?

> 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)

>If you hate X, you are X

Who let the teenager in?

>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

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

>Look, mom! I'm projecting!

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 but now that 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. 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?

I'm not judging you, user.

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

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.

>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.

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

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

Defector and refugee testimony is always suspect

>

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

I was just trying to get one person to stop shoving their repressed desires in everyones face, thats all.
Considering that not every action of the us government is perfect is self hating? Nobody calls, actually im sure im wrong because of Veeky Forums, 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.
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

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

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

Nice cartoon picture kid

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.

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.

Only a cuck would overanalyze an insult.

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

cuck

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

>Source: my asshole.

>jew downplaying genocides

can't make this shit up

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

Turns out you can:

Denied or questioned?

"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

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 . Burden of proof's on you.

its amazing how much you guys defend communist crimes

>crimes
According to which law?

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

whatever principle determined that the Holocaust was a bad thing

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

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

Okay

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

OKay

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

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

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

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

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

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

user is presumably referring to this rather heated and rapid-fire exchange:

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

You've yet to supply the missing premise in

Citation needed.

user 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

you want your citation here

chomsky.info/19900301/

3rd paragraph

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

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

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.

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

>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.

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

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

"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.

please be trolling

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

>'right-wing'
Why the scare quotes?

>learn how to read dumbass

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

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

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.