139
It is not looking good for Chomsky
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
139 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14268 readers
806 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I did. But thank goodness I deepened my knowledge enough to leave him behind as an understandable if unfortunate contributor to my early leftism, something to be matured out of. I was fortunate that I did not to end up one of the people who he was put into place deliberately to siphon away from radicalism to be shepherded back to liberalism. But there are many from my age group and older (my father to some extent an example) who did end up like that, just as planned. I'll be curious to see what excuses are made or whether those I know who did idolize him will finally start to grow out of it.
I do think @Awoo@hexbear.net's take on it, cynical as it may be, is accurate - he knew what he was doing. Good on you and others for never falling for it like some of us though.
I should add that I'm not really sure where I stand with it, but that considering the possibility of the most cynical position is a good idea. He may very well have been a completely willing and knowing participant who enjoyed the rewards of being one. It is even easier than ever to see the case for that with this shit.
I think you're on to something. Anyone who's serious about criticizing capital and the U.S. (Chomsky definitely counts) at some point wonders if what they're doing with their life is consistent with their beliefs. I don't see how someone so critical about power can be so close to power and not ask themselves what role they're playing.
I do think it's possible he justified his actions in some way (e.g., "I'm changing things from the inside"), but he had to at least have considered the issue.
It's really hard to make the case for that when "the inside" is fantasising about a pedophile island for trafficked children. There's absolutely no deniability either due to his conviction for it. I would extend benefit of the doubt pre-conviction but post-conviction these people all know.