Of course, this is a standardized lie that Chomsky flacks use. Chomsky went beyond his pointed selection of Faurisson as a free speech cause to sanitize the French Holocaust-denier as a “relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.”
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
There’s a subtle key in Greenwald’s framing—Faurisson “questioned Holocaust orthodoxies”—that exemplifies the oppositional nihilism of Chomsky and his imitators.
Prikaži ovu nit -
No one denies that Robert Faurisson is a Holocaust-denier—no one, except subtly, Noam Chomsky, who originally recast Faurisson as a “relatively apolitical liberal”, and Greenwald, who now says that Faurisson “questioned Holocaust orthodoxies.”
Prikaži ovu nit -
If pressed, Greenwald would likely admit that Faurisson is a Holocaust-denier, because it would be too damaging to equivocate. (Chomsky, whose moral idiocy operated in an earlier era, might have continued to wriggle. Let me know, if you can.)
Prikaži ovu nit -
But why not admit it loudly from the beginning? To immediately and clearly admit that Faurisson is a rank Holocaust-denier would have strengthened their pose in defense of free speech. Yet both Chomsky and Greenwald’s initial instinct was to recast Faurisson as something else.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It’s only later, when criticized, that Chomsky and Greenwald go to the mattresses with their rationale about Holocaust-denial being irrelevant to defending free expression, or making it more urgent. Because it serves them, they purport THEN to be clear-eyed about Faurisson.
Prikaži ovu nit -
This subtle shifting, like the rhetorical equivalent of an infected tooth, indicates the rot at the base of the oppositional nihilism Chomsky & Greenwald represent: it’s not principled, it’s about ANY principle, that erodes the foundations of our society, which they simply hate.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It indicates that the oppositional nihilism that Chomsky and Greenwald represent is not about critically challenging ourselves or seeking the truth. It is meant to manufacture uncertainty about the truth, so we destroy ourselves.
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I'm sure you're already familiar with it but
@DavidNeiwert recounts Greenwald's history of defending Nazis. http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-pontifex-maximus-and-his-lawyer.html … -
I am, but I’ve been on this squalid Greenwald beat since like 2006. I’m actually the one who first found that Greenwald had been illegally recording people while defending Matthew Hale, which Neiwert mentions. http://www.johnpaulpagano.com/2008/05/illegal-wiretapping-indeed.html?m=1 …
- Još 5 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.