Think about the type of mind that generates the phrase “questioned Holocaust orthodoxies”.pic.twitter.com/f7osbUnaEA
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.