Why is he always sad?

Because he now wishes he could corroborate his hypotheses with a reference corpus, but he himself has argued against them.

He never supported the Khmer Rogue. He did however campaign very hard that there was no evidence there was genocide happening, even going so far as to denounce the legitimacy of first hand accounts of escaped survivors. He still hides behind his bullshit excuse of "oh well I was technically correct" when called out on it

Did you know that Noam Chomsky supports genocide?

Why are analytics so repulsive?

Ah, this old meme.

Why do anti-chomskytards always clutch at the smallest of straws? It's almost as if they have no criticism:^)

He did no such thing and I am waiting for your citations and quotes.

He and Edward S. Herman questioned the one source everyone was citing, a translated review of a French priests book.
They went and did s crazy thing, they got a copy of it.
And found it didn't say what people were claiming.
They pointed out pictures of concentration camps had been proved to have been faked in Cambodia by foreign press.
They went to the State Department for reliable facts.
The whole point of what they were doing was comparing the coverage to that of East Timor, and to attempt to adhere to the intellectual rigour of telling the truth even about official enemies who it is alright to lie and exaggerate about.

You notice you and other fags here never mention Timor
Because you don't know
Because you didn't read
You just repeat what others say

>pointing out that somebody supports genocide is not a criticism
This is your brain on Marxism

Did you know that when Chomsky and Herman contacted the French writer whose mistranslated review was the source of all the wild claims about Cambodia and asked if he would want to set the record straight, his response was "20,000 or 2 million who cares?"

>yeah he denied genocide was taking place, but what about East Timor?

Where did he support genocide
I want primary sources

>>pointing out that somebody supports genocide is not a criticism

Go on, buddy.

Link the video again so I can blow you the fuck out like I do everytime one of you retards posts this video.

He never advocates genocide and you know he doesn't.

But I'll wait, dork. Post the video :^)

>2017
>expecting an argument based on truth and evidence

>we should not be concerned about our own actions
>we should be concerned about the actions of others we cannot influence, and if we exaggerate what they are doing that's okay

m.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

>Link the video again so I can blow you the fuck out like I do everytime one of you retards posts this video.
Literally what the fuck are you talking about? The world is not your topsy-turvy set of anxieties and experiences, you mongoloid. I have zero idea what video you're talking about; if you want to have an imaginary argument with a YouTube video then go to YouTube, or better yet, Get off the internet because it's rotting your brain. Christ

Not an argument lmao.

Nice attempt at false-flagging with your "haha youre just p-paranoid w-what video"

Dork!

>we should not be concerned about genocide

He's a fraud and he knows it.

>I have zero idea what video you're talking about;

Nice try

m.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw
You do now. Fag.

why is anyone

You should be concerned first and foremost with what you are responsible for and can influence - like Indonesia's invasion of a East Timor

If you want to be concerned about Cambodia, you should look how Americas destruction of the country laid the groundwork for what followed

I'm more concerned about Noam Chomsky, known genocide denier and the subject of this discussion. If you want to play pretend and imagine up all sorts of wonderful and whimsical scenarios in statecraft then find another thread

Do you notice nobody complains about the Faurisson Affair anymore? I guess its the influence of the right on society.

what does that even mean you stupid fucking idiot lmao

>who cares who we bombed and what it caused
>who cares if we authorised and armed a brutal invasion
>responsibility don't matter
>facts don't matter
>I just want to whine and troll

More like everybody accepts that the French have idiotic hate speech laws

There's an entire wiki article about Chomsky and Cambodia if you bothered to google. He stated Cambodian accounts of genocidal actions could not be trusted because "they want to tell the critics what they want to hear" essentially, giving him carte Blanche to dismiss any oral testimony that didn't go with his thesis. He has never said he was wrong, he still claims he was right that there was no documentary evidence. He can't handle the embarrassment of admitting wrong

How do we discuss the man if we can't discuss what he talks & writes about?

Still ignoring all the other replies huh :^)

>we
You mean *I*. As in, "who cares who *I* bombed and what it caused" etc. Your failures aren't mine

Of course, I am the USAF, American government, and compliant American media all rolled into one

Which reply should I be responding to? The Gish Gallop about how it's okay that Chomsky denied genocide was taking place because what about East Timor dude, or the guy who keeps trying to start an argument with a YouTube video he watched when he was high and had confused this thread with?

Still haven't provided evidence that he denied genocide :^)

The best you can say is that he downplayed it.

Except he didn't downplay it. He based his opinion on the actual evidence of the time, that being the two reports, one of which being from the Finnish Government.

We can play this all night.

The best you could do is provide sources

To even question socially accepted standards is denial to you?
So what if there were photographs faked in Thailand, right? Only a nazi could not see the good cause they served.
So what if the figures in the one book everyone cited were confused and conflated?
What are facts, compared to feelings?
And its just plain rude to mention the American bombing and all it killed
And who else but genocide denying Chomsky would point out that the impolite bombing laid the ground work for what happened next

>Chomsky and Herman dismissed reports by the "mass media" of extensive Khmer Rouge atrocities and instead cited "analyses by highly qualified specialists ... who have concluded that executions [by the Khmer Rouge] have numbered at most in the thousands." They cited the "extreme unreliability of refugee reports."

He dismissed the legitimacy of first hand accounts for the carefully selected expertise of "specialists". He's a hack at best, apologist at worst

Try watching it again, he answers your point :^)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

>He based his opinion on the actual evidence of the time
He questioned refugee testimony and said the Western media was engaging in a propaganda campaign against the Khmer Rouge

Face it buddy, Noam gets off to the thought of dead Asian children

I guess the same goes for what Russia and the Syrian Government is going now then huh :^)

What did he mean by this?

>I wasn't wrong, there was no documentary evidence. I was right all along that you cannot trust the emotional madness of refugee testimony over the cold hard logic of expert analysists. Do you even analytics? Sure the genocide happened but there literally NO way we could have known it then

Alpha protip: Repeatedly ending your posts with a smiley face just makes you look even angrier than if you hadn't

:^)

>even though literally thousands of people did know there was genocide taking place, it was impossible to know genocide was taking place

>I-impossible!! Chomsky can't be wrong! His logic is perfect. ERROR ERROR

>Alpha protip

Reddit

The mass media reports were all citing a translated review of a French priests book, the translated review confused and conflated several different figures and attributed it to the Khmer
Those highly qualified specialists were the US State Department!

>dead Asian children
Why don't you have this same concern for the East Timorese?
Are they some how less worthy?

You don't just accept testimony unequivocally, it has to be studied and quantified

Why does he always mumble? I can't understand anything he's said in the past three decades.

Well just look at the silence over East Timor
That was the whole point of the exercise, to compare the media attention

They even predicted this sort of response, they said the way to shut down debate about this would be to accuse them of denial and ignore Timor

The what?

If we could get past the disingenuous Cambodian shitposting for a second and discuss the man himself: does he have some form of high functioning autism?
His recall for immense quantities of facts is pretty staggering, for example I read an interview with someone who said they went with him on a trip to Laos in the 70s to visit the Plain of Jars and the guy gave him either a book or state department files on the bombings and the next day Chomsky was quoting whole excerpts from it when interviewing diplomatic personal - he had read and memorised it in one night.

>Genocide going on Cambodia
>Genocide going on East Timor
>we have no influence over Cambodia
>we have influence over East Timor
>lets focus on Cambodia
>and help the genocide in East Timor
>Noam: hey, now, wait a minute, are we completely sure about this Cambodian thing? And what about Timor, don't they matter?
>Noam is an awful person a holocaust denier a pol pot apologist
If you want to first condemn others you must first look at yourself

>>Genocide going on Cambodia
>>Genocide going on East Timor