Philosophical Vegan Forum

What do people make of this or Chomsky in general:

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/15524

I think Chomsky is generally very spot-on. He's always very focused on the actual data and facts, how controversial it might be.

He's right on a lot of things, but he's wrong on some important issues

1. Is obsessed about the US. It's almost as if he thinks the US is responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. For example, I don't recall him ever talking about all the shit Turkey have done and are doing

2. Doesn't seem to think people can be motivated by religion, everything it just geo-politics to him

3. Equates collateral damage with intentional killing of civilians

4. Thinks military intervention is basically always wrong no matter how backwards a dictatorship is

5. His newest hairstyle is really awful

knot wrote:1. Is obsessed about the US. It's almost as if he thinks the US is responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. For example, I don't recall him ever talking about all the shit Turkey have done and are doing

He's mostly talking about the US because that's where he lives and where he can have some actual influence. Not only that, but the US is also the biggest geopolitical force in the world at the moment.

knot wrote:2. Doesn't seem to think people can be motivated by religion, everything it just geo-politics to him

That's a strawman of his position. And there is a big difference between whether it 'seems' to you to be the case and him actually saying it. I guess it's not where his interests lie, so he just doesn't talk about it.

knot wrote:3. Equates collateral damage with intentional killing of civilians

Well, it is in some sense true, but it's mostly semantics. Bombing a location is a package deal; you know there to be innocent civilians, and yet you still intentionally choose to take the deal and bomb it. The real questions should be about whether it is justified to bomb and thereby causing collateral damage, which should be done on case by case basis (like Chomsky actually does).

knot wrote:4. Thinks military intervention is basically always wrong no matter how backwards a dictatorship is

That's again a strawman. Chomsky is always interested in specific military interventions, and whether those can be justified or not. And most of the time (maybe all of those he has written about, I don't know) he thinks it is not justified, and gives good facts-based reasons for why he thinks that is the case.

knot wrote:5. His newest hairstyle is really awful

There you got a valid point.

That's a strawman of his position. And there is a big difference between whether it 'seems' to you to be the case and him actually saying it. I guess it's not where his interests lie, so he just doesn't talk about it.

Go watch literally any video where he talks about Islamic extremism, he always turns the conversation into "Fuck U.S.A." in a matter of seconds and keeps it there

Well, it is in some sense true, but it's mostly semantics. Bombing a location is a package deal; you know there to be innocent civilians, and yet you still intentionally choose to take the deal and bomb it. The real questions should be about whether it is justified to bomb and thereby causing collateral damage, which should be done on case by case basis (like Chomsky actually does).

Sure, but at least the U.S. makes some kind of cost/benefit analysis and is not completely callous towards innocent lives. On the other hand, Islamists just want to kill as many people as possible, civilian or not.

That's again a strawman. Chomsky is always interested in specific military interventions, and whether those can be justified or not. And most of the time (maybe all of those he has written about, I don't know) he thinks it is not justified, and gives good facts-based reasons for why he thinks that is the case.

He's categorically against intervention if it's not in self-defense. No matter how evil a society is, we basically just have to watch, because we have no right to do anything about it. That seems immoral to me

knot wrote:Go watch literally any video where he talks about Islamic extremism, he always turns the conversation into "Fuck U.S.A." in a matter of seconds and keeps it there

Could you point me to one, because he seldom talks about it (I only see some misleading video titles on YouTube). He is (which we can agree upon) focused on the actions of the US.

knot wrote:Sure, but at least the U.S. makes some kind of cost/benefit analysis and is not completely callous towards innocent lives. On the other hand, Islamists just want to kill as many people as possible, civilian or not.

In some cases this is not all that clear to be honest. In the cost/benefit-analysis, the wellbeing and public opinion of the people living in the countries being bombed is more often then not, not given all that much weight. The US is making many mistakes on this front, which Chomsky calls out on.

You can point to Islamists which certainly aren't the good guys in middle east conflicts, but that's mostly a distraction from this topic: the US is still morally responsible for it's own actions, pointing to worse crimes isn't going to make it any better.

knot wrote:He's categorically against intervention if it's not in self-defense. No matter how evil a society is, we basically just have to watch, because we have no right to do anything about it. That seems immoral to me

I don't think he is categorically against intervention. I would have to check, but I thought he is basically for intervention if the majority of the people actually want to be helped and there being some possibility of success. His general distaste for intervention is coming from the fact that this is seldom the case, nor are the motives and/or results behind the interventions in favor of the people the US was claiming to help.