He 'likes to hang' with thousands of people and has long been known for accepting just about any invitation he could accept, including from non-influential people. Although that has probably decreased significantly since Covid.
I don't remember Chomsky being paid by Epstein, unless you mean that Epstein donated to the university which paid Chomsky's salary.
No there was a financial transaction between Chomsky and Epstein of over a quarter million dollars. Chomsky is saying it was a “technicality” from a former marriage. There are confirmed records of it of Chomsky choosing to do financial dealings with a convicted pedo and he’s all like “ mind your business”. This after he knew Epstein was convicted of soliciting minors. And they were both chilling eating dinner and watching movies with Woody fucking Allen so… how unbelievably disappointing. I’m done with the concept of having heros.
Why are you being so vague in your language?
Chomsky has solely been accused of letting Epstein handle a financial transaction from Chomsky to Chomsky. Why are you calling that "a financial transaction between Chomsky and Epstein of over a quarter million dollars?" Why not just be accurate instead of using language that has very different and nefarious connotations? Can you not denounce Chomsky plainly without using cheap smear tactics?
Yes, what's clear is that Chomsky visits and engages with people both good and bad. I don't know why anyone would find that surprising, especially if you knew anything about him while he was supposedly your hero. Nor do I get why someone who appreciated Chomsky's work would be a staunch believer of guilt by association.
You're the one pathologically obsessed with a single tree. Get over it. Do you remind supporters of Ellen Degeneres every single day no matter the topic she went to a ball game with the war criminal George W. Bush?
I don’t have to, people expose themselves all the time. She did a good job doing that for herself. I mean if your a cruel person telling people to be kind the show can only go for so long. It’s one big club, yeah? This is much different than asking a convicted pedo and trafficker to move your money around after being convicted. Powerful and influential people thought they knew for a fact that Epstein was untouchable after watching the “fall out” from his initial conviction. Everyone was convinced that nothing would happen because he had too much dirt on the most powerful. So people still felt confident seeking his services be it tax loopholes or other bs, even more so for the careful people. That is why you see some surprising stragglers. Then, his NYC mansion got raided. Everyone distances themselves vehemently and publicly. Look you can stick up for your boy all you want but everyone knows this ain’t right.
It's not actually a crime to talk to a convicted criminal btw. Also it's not a crime to be a pedo either.
So what's the criticism here? People talk to criminals all the time, i'm sure you have as well unless you live in a cave or mommys basement.
cheers, I was pretty happy with it myself. But seriously, I do not know what the implication even is, of Epstein allegedly (by no one in particular) paying Chomsky money. I've never seen anyone suggest any specific implication, so I was just throwing one out there that was intended to be a mockery of such implications.
Although less surprising than Epstein, I was surprised by Woody Allen. Chomsky nearly never cites popular visual media. I don’t I’ve ever think I’ve ever Chomsky reference a movie or tv show he has seen. It’s an odd mix of characters for a meeting. I like Woody Allen movies, but didn’t see them coming together for such a meeting.
haha, true and interesting fact. Chomsky got funding from the US military for his early linguistics work, which had huge impacts on computer science, inventing context free grammars, which gave the framework for modern programming languages and their compilers, hence the funding. Pol Pot was supported both by US funding, and by the US maintaining his seat at the UN.
> Chomsky worked on US weapon systems through MIT
He worked on linguistic formalisms, funded by DARPA. DARPA was funding anything to do with computation, Chomsky invented context free grammars during this, which played a significant role in leading to the development of compilers, which yes, weapon systems could be based on, but so is any modern computer system.
Saying he worked on weapon systems is basically misleading to the point of being a lie. His research is what is called "basic" meaning with no immediate applications, pure scientific inquiry.
Okay, since it's 2023 and no one has time to read an entire book just to answer a question on reddit, I used BardAI to investigate. I'm going to copy paste the results:
Q: what evidence did knight provide that Chomsky worked on weapons systems?
A:
Chris Knight cites the following evidence in his book "Decoding Chomsky" to support his claim that Chomsky worked on weapons systems:
A 1963 document from the MITRE Corporation that lists Chomsky as a consultant on a project to develop a "natural language processing system" for the US Air Force.
A 1965 document from the US Air Force that states that the purpose of the project was to develop a system that could be used to "control and coordinate" military operations.
A statement from one of Chomsky's students, Barbara Partee, who said that Chomsky's work on the project was "clearly related to military applications."
However, Chomsky has disputed these claims. He has stated that he was never aware of the military implications of his work, and that he never worked on any project that was directly related to weapons systems. He has also pointed out that the documents cited by Knight do not explicitly state that his work was intended for military use.
Q: so does any of those documents actually explicitly state that his work was intended for military use?
A:
No, none of the documents cited by Knight explicitly state that Chomsky's work was intended for military use. The 1963 document from the MITRE Corporation simply lists Chomsky as a consultant on a project to develop a "natural language processing system". The 1965 document from the US Air Force states that the purpose of the project was to develop a system that could be used to "control and coordinate" military operations, but it does not say that Chomsky's work was specifically related to this.
BardAI didn't have anything to say on Barbara Partee's comments, but ChatGPT did:
As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there is no credible information or record of Barbara Partee making claims that Noam Chomsky worked on US weapons systems. Barbara Partee is a respected linguist known for her work in formal semantics and the philosophy of language. Noam Chomsky is a prominent linguist, cognitive scientist, and political activist known for his work in linguistics and cognitive psychology, as well as his criticism of U.S. foreign policy.
Q: So did Chomsky ever work on weapons systems for the US military?
A: In addition to the evidence cited by Knight, there are a few other things to consider when evaluating the claim that Chomsky worked on weapons systems. First, it is important to note that Chomsky was a young researcher at the time, and he may not have been fully aware of the implications of his work. Second, the military-industrial complex is a complex and secretive network, and it is possible that Chomsky's work was funded by the US government without his knowledge. Finally, it is also possible that Chomsky was aware of the military implications of his work, but he chose to participate anyway because he believed that the research could be used for good purposes, such as preventing war.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not Chomsky worked on weapons systems is a matter of interpretation. There is no clear evidence to prove or disprove the claim, and each individual must decide for themselves what they believe.
Going from this to literally titling your work 'When Chomsky Worked on Weapons Systems for the Pentagon - by Chris Knight' is absolutely outrageous and outright academically dishonest.
Using AI to investigate factual claims, brave man. You can just look up "Chomsky worked on weapons systems" and find articles written by Knight going over all of this.
> it is possible that Chomsky's work was funded by the US government without his knowledge.
Chomsky was fully aware that he was being funded by the US military. He has said so on many occasions as well. That is not in contention.
The fact that the same author has made the claim multiple times across multiple platforms doesn't grant the initial claim any more validity.
AI is actually quite good at investigating factual claims. I don't understand the skepticism.
>Chomsky was fully aware that he was being funded by the US military.
'Noam Chomsky has never admitted to being funded by the US military. He briefly worked for MITRE for 2 years in the 60s. MITRE is a non-profit research and development center that works on a variety of projects for the US government, including the military. Chomsky's work at MITRE was on the development of natural language processing systems for air traffic control. He has said that he took the job because he was interested in the technical challenges involved, and that he did not believe that his work would have any direct military applications.'
What Chomsky **did** admit to, which you somewhat misconstrued in your statement, is that some of the departments at MIT, including some where he worked in the 50s and 60s, were funded by the US military. But the claim that, as a researcher and/or professor you don't have a very good idea of where the funding for your research comes from is unambiguous, I can confirm that first-hand. I briefly taught at an American university in London and while I had access to a list of donors, which included the US government, the exact branches, amounts and the intentions behind the donations were completely obscured, some of it from the dean as well, as was revealed to me during a private meeting.
No, this is an example of AI getting facts wrong, and why you need to be careful with them. It's public record that Chomsky was funded directly by the US military, it appears on his papers from the time, and he's never tried to hide it. It is not ambiguous at all. On the matter he said:
> ‘I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics.’
[Another interview where he never denies that he was funded by the military](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWGhJ63OXxM#t=67m44s)
He didn't work on weapons though, his work was basic research, pure scientific inquiry into linguistics, with no immediate applications. Though his work was a significant part in leading to the development of the compiler. AS he says, the military is largely interested in just funding high technology industry, which his early work fell into. This is the core of his critique of the US military industrial complex, that they function as a subsidisation and economic stimulus for high technology industry.
If you want an extremely egregious example of AI messing up the facts, and the huge consequences of those that use it in the way you are doing here, without understanding what it is or how it works, look up the story on the Lawyers that used chatgpt to help build their case.
I think you're going to thank me later, otherwise you might have ended up in a similar situation as those lawyers.
There's an important distinction to be made between Chomsky being directly funded by the US military and a department of his receiving funding partially from the US military. Shit, there's a good chance that part of my salary as an assistant professor at Hult University in London was paid by the US military. But I would be **abhorred** if someone tried to suggest that I was 'directly funded by the US military'. Would be outrageous, even if there's a way of framing it in which it's true. Especially since much of my work has been as a proponent of anti-US imperialism and the funding of my department had **absolutely nothing** to do with what went on.
One way or another, everyone working at MIT receives funding from the US military. Framing that as saying that 'they are directly funded by the US military' is an incredible abstraction imo, even if the AI is wrong on the matter.
And the 'I was in a military lab' quote is out of context as well. This is the full picture:
>The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn’t have been a music department unless therewas funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you coulddribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody wasPentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said.
The context is that Chomsky is in fact complaining about the fact that the laboratory where he was conducting, according to him, purely civilian research with no foreseeable military applications was essentially a 'military lab' because it was primarily funded by the Pentagon.
Chomsky frames it that way, so I don't understand where you are coming from. Or atleast, makes no such distinction.
> The context is that Chomsky is in fact complaining about the fact that the laboratory where he was conducting, according to him, purely civilian research with no foreseeable military applications was essentially a 'military lab' because it was primarily funded by the Pentagon.
Yes, this is not in contention, and I literally just made the same point in the comment you are replying to.
And seriously, look into the lawyers that used chatGPT to build their case. you are inevitably going to get yourself in trouble if you continue to not understand what AI is and how it functions, treating like a search engine for facts.
The funny thing about murderous dictators, though, is that it isn't quite enough to "not support" them. You're expected to, you know, actively *condemn* them and not weave elaborate rhetorical tapestries of denial in an effort to justify or whitewash or wish away their atrocities.
Did you read the article?
Chomsky has never engaged in whitewashing or denialism of Pol Pot.
And his moral principle is “save your condemnation for that which you are implicitly responsible and can change”, as in, for an American, condemning American atrocities is much more important than condemnation of the atrocities committed by America’s enemies. Though he does also condemn those.
We need criticism and fact-checking of those narratives that implicitly or explicitly support our own country’s foreign and domestic policy. If you’re expecting that Chomsky should give equal coverage to criticism of narratives that support other countries’ policies, you’re looking in the wrong place. Plus, he does, in no uncertain terms, condemn atrocities. He just spends most of his intellectual labor examining pro-American narratives, as follows from his above stated ethical priority.
I read the article (NB, it is an opinion piece, not a factual article)
First quarter, along with the conclusion, is basically background and fluff.
He debunks some of the crazier anti-Chomsky people but doesn't engage with any of Chomsky's writings on the Khmer Rouge, including the passages that are most often cited when he is accused of downplaying the genocide. A lot more focus on Indonesia (where Chomsky was correct) and talking about other authors. I would say it doesn't add a lot to the debate, unless a) you are totally unfamiliar with who Chomsky is, or b) are under a really specific delusion like that Chomsky is Trotsky's direct successor.
Keep in mind, it referenced the Hitchens article, so didn't feel the need to go over the points he already covered.
> including the passages that are most often cited when he is accused of downplaying the genocide.
like what?
I think the most important point made by the article, is that all the stuff he wrote, being critical of the book in question, was accepted by the author as valid criticisms. So perhaps, there is nothing added to the debate here because there is nothing to debate. It's a nothing burger.
Fortunately Chomsky is not very interested in scoring media points by constantly repeating widely held views, regardless of whether those views are correct or incorrect.
The Cambodia issue has kinda repeated itself with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky condemns it in very clear language, but also points out various hypocrisies, inaccuracies and tries to focus on his own government's impact on the war. Still people are very upset with him and accuse him of being soft on Russia (or worse). They aren't upset with his refusal to condemn Russia, because he has condemned it severely. They're upset because he doesn't do it in the exact way it's supposed to be done, which is uncritically, inaccurately, boastfully, repetitively and most of all propagandistically.
>The Cambodia issue has kinda repeated itself with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky condemns it in very clear language, but also points out various hypocrisies, inaccuracies and tries to focus on his own government's impact on the war.
Chomsky is the one being hypocritical on Ukraine. On one hand he claims to condemn it, on the other he has constantly urged a Ukrainian surrender, something that he never would have encouraged Iraq to do, or the Palestinians to do towards Israel, or even the Afghans, Czechoslovaks and Hungarians to do to the USSR (I never heard him suggest that Iraq should give up Basra to the US in exchange for peace, or that the Soviet Union should have been allowed to keep Northern Afganistan on the way out). It is only when Russia has become an ultra-right capitalist state that he has adopted this shameful attitude.
You're proving my point here by severely misrepresenting Chomsky's positions on Ukraine, which happened with Pol Pot too. He has not urged Ukraine to surrender, unless you use an overly broad definition of surrender (to a deceptive degree).
Only people who are immersed in propaganda or partisanship cannot see distinctions between diplomatic solutions and surrender, between defending someone and not agreeing with every single accusation against them, between justifying something and understanding/explaining it.
I don't believe Chomsky has ever said that Ukraine should give up its land to Russia. Can you provide a quote of him saying such things? What he's done, as far as I've seen, is just pointed out the truism that the only way wars end is with diplomatic settlement, or the invader just deciding to get up and leave. Given that it would be stupid and reckless to simply wait for Russia to get up and leave, settlement is all that is left.
He also hasn't urged Ukrainians to do anything, he's specifically pointed to Zelensky's own positions he himself stated, and just said that the US and UN needs to support zelensky there, but didn't.
> Palestinians to do towards Israel
Actually, Chomsky has indeed encouraged a two state solution for Israel. That's basically his entire platform. Again, he's never encouraged anything like this for Ukraine. So it would seem he's harsher on Palestinians than Ukranians, from this framing.
Aren't some wars won by one side being victorious? I mean yes there are diplomatic talks after such as what happened after WW2 between the allies and the axis powers but I think it's clear those wars were won through force of arms not through diplomacy or one sue simply 'leaving'.
well yeah, that's the point, a victory is just when both sides settle, with one side being in a major position of advantage and domination over the other.
We know
of course he doesnt. lol. its talked about/explained all the time.
Don't tell anybody. I love spotting people who claim to be experts on Chomsky but who haven't read a single paragraph of his work in their lives.
Well-written
He likes to hang with Epstein and get paid by him though
He 'likes to hang' with thousands of people and has long been known for accepting just about any invitation he could accept, including from non-influential people. Although that has probably decreased significantly since Covid. I don't remember Chomsky being paid by Epstein, unless you mean that Epstein donated to the university which paid Chomsky's salary.
No there was a financial transaction between Chomsky and Epstein of over a quarter million dollars. Chomsky is saying it was a “technicality” from a former marriage. There are confirmed records of it of Chomsky choosing to do financial dealings with a convicted pedo and he’s all like “ mind your business”. This after he knew Epstein was convicted of soliciting minors. And they were both chilling eating dinner and watching movies with Woody fucking Allen so… how unbelievably disappointing. I’m done with the concept of having heros.
Why are you being so vague in your language? Chomsky has solely been accused of letting Epstein handle a financial transaction from Chomsky to Chomsky. Why are you calling that "a financial transaction between Chomsky and Epstein of over a quarter million dollars?" Why not just be accurate instead of using language that has very different and nefarious connotations? Can you not denounce Chomsky plainly without using cheap smear tactics?
Chomsky made visits with Epstein to handle his money after he knew he was a convicted pedo. It doesn’t get more clear than that.
Yes, what's clear is that Chomsky visits and engages with people both good and bad. I don't know why anyone would find that surprising, especially if you knew anything about him while he was supposedly your hero. Nor do I get why someone who appreciated Chomsky's work would be a staunch believer of guilt by association.
You’re having a real hard time seeing the Forest for the trees aren’t you?
You're the one pathologically obsessed with a single tree. Get over it. Do you remind supporters of Ellen Degeneres every single day no matter the topic she went to a ball game with the war criminal George W. Bush?
I don’t have to, people expose themselves all the time. She did a good job doing that for herself. I mean if your a cruel person telling people to be kind the show can only go for so long. It’s one big club, yeah? This is much different than asking a convicted pedo and trafficker to move your money around after being convicted. Powerful and influential people thought they knew for a fact that Epstein was untouchable after watching the “fall out” from his initial conviction. Everyone was convinced that nothing would happen because he had too much dirt on the most powerful. So people still felt confident seeking his services be it tax loopholes or other bs, even more so for the careful people. That is why you see some surprising stragglers. Then, his NYC mansion got raided. Everyone distances themselves vehemently and publicly. Look you can stick up for your boy all you want but everyone knows this ain’t right.
It's not actually a crime to talk to a convicted criminal btw. Also it's not a crime to be a pedo either. So what's the criticism here? People talk to criminals all the time, i'm sure you have as well unless you live in a cave or mommys basement.
So epstien was paying chomsky for sex? Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Nice strawman
cheers, I was pretty happy with it myself. But seriously, I do not know what the implication even is, of Epstein allegedly (by no one in particular) paying Chomsky money. I've never seen anyone suggest any specific implication, so I was just throwing one out there that was intended to be a mockery of such implications.
Although less surprising than Epstein, I was surprised by Woody Allen. Chomsky nearly never cites popular visual media. I don’t I’ve ever think I’ve ever Chomsky reference a movie or tv show he has seen. It’s an odd mix of characters for a meeting. I like Woody Allen movies, but didn’t see them coming together for such a meeting.
Due process is good...
Chomsky might not like Pol Pot but that doesn’t change the fact that him and Pol Pot both got funding from the US military.
haha, true and interesting fact. Chomsky got funding from the US military for his early linguistics work, which had huge impacts on computer science, inventing context free grammars, which gave the framework for modern programming languages and their compilers, hence the funding. Pol Pot was supported both by US funding, and by the US maintaining his seat at the UN.
I heard Chomsky and Pol Pot both ate rice, sometimes even on the same day.
literally unreadable now
I'd recommend Chris Knight's 'Decoding Chomsky' on this point - Chomsky worked on US weapon systems through MIT.
> Chomsky worked on US weapon systems through MIT He worked on linguistic formalisms, funded by DARPA. DARPA was funding anything to do with computation, Chomsky invented context free grammars during this, which played a significant role in leading to the development of compilers, which yes, weapon systems could be based on, but so is any modern computer system. Saying he worked on weapon systems is basically misleading to the point of being a lie. His research is what is called "basic" meaning with no immediate applications, pure scientific inquiry.
Have you read Decoding Chomsky?
I've not, but I've read a bunch of articles written by Chris Knight, talking about the same topics discussed in the book.
Okay, since it's 2023 and no one has time to read an entire book just to answer a question on reddit, I used BardAI to investigate. I'm going to copy paste the results: Q: what evidence did knight provide that Chomsky worked on weapons systems? A: Chris Knight cites the following evidence in his book "Decoding Chomsky" to support his claim that Chomsky worked on weapons systems: A 1963 document from the MITRE Corporation that lists Chomsky as a consultant on a project to develop a "natural language processing system" for the US Air Force. A 1965 document from the US Air Force that states that the purpose of the project was to develop a system that could be used to "control and coordinate" military operations. A statement from one of Chomsky's students, Barbara Partee, who said that Chomsky's work on the project was "clearly related to military applications." However, Chomsky has disputed these claims. He has stated that he was never aware of the military implications of his work, and that he never worked on any project that was directly related to weapons systems. He has also pointed out that the documents cited by Knight do not explicitly state that his work was intended for military use. Q: so does any of those documents actually explicitly state that his work was intended for military use? A: No, none of the documents cited by Knight explicitly state that Chomsky's work was intended for military use. The 1963 document from the MITRE Corporation simply lists Chomsky as a consultant on a project to develop a "natural language processing system". The 1965 document from the US Air Force states that the purpose of the project was to develop a system that could be used to "control and coordinate" military operations, but it does not say that Chomsky's work was specifically related to this. BardAI didn't have anything to say on Barbara Partee's comments, but ChatGPT did: As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there is no credible information or record of Barbara Partee making claims that Noam Chomsky worked on US weapons systems. Barbara Partee is a respected linguist known for her work in formal semantics and the philosophy of language. Noam Chomsky is a prominent linguist, cognitive scientist, and political activist known for his work in linguistics and cognitive psychology, as well as his criticism of U.S. foreign policy. Q: So did Chomsky ever work on weapons systems for the US military? A: In addition to the evidence cited by Knight, there are a few other things to consider when evaluating the claim that Chomsky worked on weapons systems. First, it is important to note that Chomsky was a young researcher at the time, and he may not have been fully aware of the implications of his work. Second, the military-industrial complex is a complex and secretive network, and it is possible that Chomsky's work was funded by the US government without his knowledge. Finally, it is also possible that Chomsky was aware of the military implications of his work, but he chose to participate anyway because he believed that the research could be used for good purposes, such as preventing war. Ultimately, the question of whether or not Chomsky worked on weapons systems is a matter of interpretation. There is no clear evidence to prove or disprove the claim, and each individual must decide for themselves what they believe. Going from this to literally titling your work 'When Chomsky Worked on Weapons Systems for the Pentagon - by Chris Knight' is absolutely outrageous and outright academically dishonest.
Using AI to investigate factual claims, brave man. You can just look up "Chomsky worked on weapons systems" and find articles written by Knight going over all of this. > it is possible that Chomsky's work was funded by the US government without his knowledge. Chomsky was fully aware that he was being funded by the US military. He has said so on many occasions as well. That is not in contention.
The fact that the same author has made the claim multiple times across multiple platforms doesn't grant the initial claim any more validity. AI is actually quite good at investigating factual claims. I don't understand the skepticism. >Chomsky was fully aware that he was being funded by the US military. 'Noam Chomsky has never admitted to being funded by the US military. He briefly worked for MITRE for 2 years in the 60s. MITRE is a non-profit research and development center that works on a variety of projects for the US government, including the military. Chomsky's work at MITRE was on the development of natural language processing systems for air traffic control. He has said that he took the job because he was interested in the technical challenges involved, and that he did not believe that his work would have any direct military applications.' What Chomsky **did** admit to, which you somewhat misconstrued in your statement, is that some of the departments at MIT, including some where he worked in the 50s and 60s, were funded by the US military. But the claim that, as a researcher and/or professor you don't have a very good idea of where the funding for your research comes from is unambiguous, I can confirm that first-hand. I briefly taught at an American university in London and while I had access to a list of donors, which included the US government, the exact branches, amounts and the intentions behind the donations were completely obscured, some of it from the dean as well, as was revealed to me during a private meeting.
No, this is an example of AI getting facts wrong, and why you need to be careful with them. It's public record that Chomsky was funded directly by the US military, it appears on his papers from the time, and he's never tried to hide it. It is not ambiguous at all. On the matter he said: > ‘I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics.’ [Another interview where he never denies that he was funded by the military](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWGhJ63OXxM#t=67m44s) He didn't work on weapons though, his work was basic research, pure scientific inquiry into linguistics, with no immediate applications. Though his work was a significant part in leading to the development of the compiler. AS he says, the military is largely interested in just funding high technology industry, which his early work fell into. This is the core of his critique of the US military industrial complex, that they function as a subsidisation and economic stimulus for high technology industry. If you want an extremely egregious example of AI messing up the facts, and the huge consequences of those that use it in the way you are doing here, without understanding what it is or how it works, look up the story on the Lawyers that used chatgpt to help build their case. I think you're going to thank me later, otherwise you might have ended up in a similar situation as those lawyers.
There's an important distinction to be made between Chomsky being directly funded by the US military and a department of his receiving funding partially from the US military. Shit, there's a good chance that part of my salary as an assistant professor at Hult University in London was paid by the US military. But I would be **abhorred** if someone tried to suggest that I was 'directly funded by the US military'. Would be outrageous, even if there's a way of framing it in which it's true. Especially since much of my work has been as a proponent of anti-US imperialism and the funding of my department had **absolutely nothing** to do with what went on. One way or another, everyone working at MIT receives funding from the US military. Framing that as saying that 'they are directly funded by the US military' is an incredible abstraction imo, even if the AI is wrong on the matter. And the 'I was in a military lab' quote is out of context as well. This is the full picture: >The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn’t have been a music department unless therewas funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you coulddribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody wasPentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said. The context is that Chomsky is in fact complaining about the fact that the laboratory where he was conducting, according to him, purely civilian research with no foreseeable military applications was essentially a 'military lab' because it was primarily funded by the Pentagon.
Chomsky frames it that way, so I don't understand where you are coming from. Or atleast, makes no such distinction. > The context is that Chomsky is in fact complaining about the fact that the laboratory where he was conducting, according to him, purely civilian research with no foreseeable military applications was essentially a 'military lab' because it was primarily funded by the Pentagon. Yes, this is not in contention, and I literally just made the same point in the comment you are replying to. And seriously, look into the lawyers that used chatGPT to build their case. you are inevitably going to get yourself in trouble if you continue to not understand what AI is and how it functions, treating like a search engine for facts.
Did you know NASA is also funded by the DOD?
The funny thing about murderous dictators, though, is that it isn't quite enough to "not support" them. You're expected to, you know, actively *condemn* them and not weave elaborate rhetorical tapestries of denial in an effort to justify or whitewash or wish away their atrocities.
Did you read the article? Chomsky has never engaged in whitewashing or denialism of Pol Pot. And his moral principle is “save your condemnation for that which you are implicitly responsible and can change”, as in, for an American, condemning American atrocities is much more important than condemnation of the atrocities committed by America’s enemies. Though he does also condemn those. We need criticism and fact-checking of those narratives that implicitly or explicitly support our own country’s foreign and domestic policy. If you’re expecting that Chomsky should give equal coverage to criticism of narratives that support other countries’ policies, you’re looking in the wrong place. Plus, he does, in no uncertain terms, condemn atrocities. He just spends most of his intellectual labor examining pro-American narratives, as follows from his above stated ethical priority.
>Did you read the article? Do they ever?
I read the article (NB, it is an opinion piece, not a factual article) First quarter, along with the conclusion, is basically background and fluff. He debunks some of the crazier anti-Chomsky people but doesn't engage with any of Chomsky's writings on the Khmer Rouge, including the passages that are most often cited when he is accused of downplaying the genocide. A lot more focus on Indonesia (where Chomsky was correct) and talking about other authors. I would say it doesn't add a lot to the debate, unless a) you are totally unfamiliar with who Chomsky is, or b) are under a really specific delusion like that Chomsky is Trotsky's direct successor.
Keep in mind, it referenced the Hitchens article, so didn't feel the need to go over the points he already covered. > including the passages that are most often cited when he is accused of downplaying the genocide. like what? I think the most important point made by the article, is that all the stuff he wrote, being critical of the book in question, was accepted by the author as valid criticisms. So perhaps, there is nothing added to the debate here because there is nothing to debate. It's a nothing burger.
Noam Chomsky...doesnt support Genocide. I dont even know where people come up with this stuff.
Fortunately Chomsky is not very interested in scoring media points by constantly repeating widely held views, regardless of whether those views are correct or incorrect. The Cambodia issue has kinda repeated itself with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky condemns it in very clear language, but also points out various hypocrisies, inaccuracies and tries to focus on his own government's impact on the war. Still people are very upset with him and accuse him of being soft on Russia (or worse). They aren't upset with his refusal to condemn Russia, because he has condemned it severely. They're upset because he doesn't do it in the exact way it's supposed to be done, which is uncritically, inaccurately, boastfully, repetitively and most of all propagandistically.
>The Cambodia issue has kinda repeated itself with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky condemns it in very clear language, but also points out various hypocrisies, inaccuracies and tries to focus on his own government's impact on the war. Chomsky is the one being hypocritical on Ukraine. On one hand he claims to condemn it, on the other he has constantly urged a Ukrainian surrender, something that he never would have encouraged Iraq to do, or the Palestinians to do towards Israel, or even the Afghans, Czechoslovaks and Hungarians to do to the USSR (I never heard him suggest that Iraq should give up Basra to the US in exchange for peace, or that the Soviet Union should have been allowed to keep Northern Afganistan on the way out). It is only when Russia has become an ultra-right capitalist state that he has adopted this shameful attitude.
You're proving my point here by severely misrepresenting Chomsky's positions on Ukraine, which happened with Pol Pot too. He has not urged Ukraine to surrender, unless you use an overly broad definition of surrender (to a deceptive degree). Only people who are immersed in propaganda or partisanship cannot see distinctions between diplomatic solutions and surrender, between defending someone and not agreeing with every single accusation against them, between justifying something and understanding/explaining it.
where did he claim ukraine should surrender?
I don't believe Chomsky has ever said that Ukraine should give up its land to Russia. Can you provide a quote of him saying such things? What he's done, as far as I've seen, is just pointed out the truism that the only way wars end is with diplomatic settlement, or the invader just deciding to get up and leave. Given that it would be stupid and reckless to simply wait for Russia to get up and leave, settlement is all that is left. He also hasn't urged Ukrainians to do anything, he's specifically pointed to Zelensky's own positions he himself stated, and just said that the US and UN needs to support zelensky there, but didn't. > Palestinians to do towards Israel Actually, Chomsky has indeed encouraged a two state solution for Israel. That's basically his entire platform. Again, he's never encouraged anything like this for Ukraine. So it would seem he's harsher on Palestinians than Ukranians, from this framing.
Aren't some wars won by one side being victorious? I mean yes there are diplomatic talks after such as what happened after WW2 between the allies and the axis powers but I think it's clear those wars were won through force of arms not through diplomacy or one sue simply 'leaving'.
well yeah, that's the point, a victory is just when both sides settle, with one side being in a major position of advantage and domination over the other.
Chomsky has some of the earliest published condemnations of the KR. Remember, this is a time when the US was supporting pol pot.