Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 500 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#91

Post by cbanek »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #89
cbanek wrote: post #11

I actually emailed Noam Chomsky asking questions about Manufacturing Consent and actually got a reply. I always thought he was really cool for being so accessible to those who just had honest questions. I really hope he gets well soon.

Same! I emailed him asking for his thoughts on robotics and anarcho-communism and he replied pretty promptly. He said it was an important subject and that he was moving offices (this was his move to Arizona), but I could ask again another time. I never quite had the time to prepare for what I would have asked for, some kind of discussion I could record, which he was doing a lot at the time, but I was very happy just…

That's definitely a big question. I asked a pretty open ended question about how he thinks the internet (and filter bubbles in specific) might have changed some of his thoughts in manufacturing consent as the main media went from TV / newspapers (broadcast) to internet (personalized). He said that basically the big companies own it all anyway.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#92

Post by froh »

UberFly wrote: post #72

[flagged]

he didn't support that cause. he radically supported free speech.

if someone has him discuss the paradox of (in)tolerance I'd appreciate links or pointers

ps: I come from a country with limits ob the freedom of speech and I defend those limits. I'm just saying Chomsky in contrast held freedom of speech as an absolute, even for anger and hate inciting lies.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#93

Post by Aloisius »

vintermann wrote: post #80
lamontcg wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point was always that the most inflated estimates of deaths in Cambodia were uncritically accepted by Western media and widely broadcast, while atrocities committed by friendly nations always leaned towards the very low estimates and the stories were buried.

Yes, the accusation that he denied the Cambodian genocide is false, and a tactical smear.

Chomsky wrote that "The 'slaughter' by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation."

I'm unsure as to how that would be anything but genocide denial.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#94

Post by Mikushi »

tines wrote: post #82
UberFly wrote: post #72

[flagged]

And the ACLU "supported" the Nazi movement in Skokie. Do you have any evidence that Chomsky himself denies the holocaust, or are you just slinging shit?

Just slinging, Chomsky only supported freedom of speech.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#97

Post by YZF »

houseplant wrote: post #87
YZF wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[EDIT: ok, I'm gonna remove my appeal/preaching] I think the parent is referring to the situation before Oct 7th and likely going back to Israel's withdrawal in 2005. The detail I think he's trying to put forward is that before Israel's withdrawal the settlers in Gaza operated a flower export business of about that economic magnitude and that the greenhouses and infrastructure that was used for that business was left…

[flagged]

I don't think I said that.

We're talking about the history of the conflict which I think is important. The Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005 is part of how we got here so I think it's important for people following the conflict to know the details and not just respond emotionally to the terrible images of war- which I agree are disturbing.

Re: Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

#98

Post by GolfPopper »

gklitz wrote: post #90
UberFly wrote: post #72

[flagged]

Independent of what people believe of him or his defense of Faurisson's freedom of speech one thing is clear, they have both been the target of extremely aggressive smearing campaigns by Israel. I would defend the right to freedom of speech of people who believe the earth is flat, that does not mean “I support the flat-earth movement”

Ultimately that leads to Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.[1] Do you defend the absolute freedoms of those whose goal is to destroy that freedom, along with you and many others with it? If yes, how do you stop them from accomplishing their goals? If no, where do you draw the line? (To be clear, I consider these critical but ultimately rhetorical questions with no obvious good answers.)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Post reply on HN