Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[M_B]

41 minutes ago, rico1304 said:

She calls out Chomsky for his support of a Holocaust denier called Faurisson. 

But he wasn't supporting Faurisson's views. Chomsky was supporting his right to free speech. Chomsky is not a holocaust denier or AS, which is what she is implying.

[moof]

Well I guess that’s chomsky’s career over, hard to see how he recovers from this 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Apparently she’s been meeting with some MP in looking at getting her own political career going. Not sure how true it is. Just like Countdown though, I won’t taking any fucking notice. 

[Rico1304]

19 minutes ago, M_B said:

But he wasn't supporting Faurisson's views. Chomsky was supporting his right to free speech. Chomsky is not a holocaust denier or AS, which is what she is implying.

 

Interesting take on it. So I’d expect that Chomsky would support Count Dunkula then. 

 

Apparently Chomsky wrote a forward to his book or something, so as well as his free speech support he actually supports him. I think I’m this thread one of the cool kids says supporting someone with far right ideas makes you far right.  If I wasn’t locked out and freezing my arse off I’d check.  

 

It’s very funny to watch, if I die on this porch you continue to make me piss myself with the contortions (although that’s bad as the piss is now frozen on my leg).   

[cloggypop]

I read that in the voice of Captain Lawrence Oates. 

[M_B]

You can read it for yourself

 

Faurisson_affair

[moof]

9 minutes ago, rico1304 said:

 

Interesting take on it. So I’d expect that Chomsky would support Count Dunkula then. 

 

Apparently Chomsky wrote a forward to his book or something, so as well as his free speech support he actually supports him. I think I’m this thread one of the cool kids says supporting someone with far right ideas makes you far right.  If I wasn’t locked out and freezing my arse off I’d check.  

 

It’s very funny to watch, if I die on this porch you continue to make me piss myself with the contortions (although that’s bad as the piss is now frozen on my leg).   

You are painfully thick and hopelessly ill informed. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Anti-Semites everywhere!

 

 

 

[Section_31]

Think she's losing the plot good style. She seems to have called Chomsky 'antisimetic scum'.

 

 

[Red_or_Dead]

Ha, she's going bonkers.  Galloway is a twat though!

 

[moof]

Apparently she’s been having regular private meetings with fucking Mogg, discussing her potential political future. 

 

There’s also been a recent spate of “Philip Cross” edits to her Wikipedia page. 

 

I wonder who is feeding her information. This is all very bizarre. 

[Jairzinho]

Raochel Moatley

[Boss]

This is the thing I hate about twitter. She posts a single page, highlighting a single paragraph, from an entire book, and uses it to denounce Chomsky because Faurisson (the author) put an excerpt from an article Chomsky once wrote about free speech in his book - without Chomsky's permission. 

 

Then her sheeple followers accept it as fact and next time someone mentions Chomsky they'll say "He's a Holocaust denier him" "Is he?" "Yeah, one of his hero's was this guy who said the Holocaust didn't happen". This is why we have the political class we have running this country. This Rachel Riley twitter meltdown is who we are as a society, in a microcosm. 

[aRdja]

Not sure why people think this Faurison saga as new info. It was pretty clear what Rachel was referring to when she accused Chomsky of being an anti-semite. The whole thing is on the internet and has been debated over and over again. Seems some freedom of speech fighters only want it applied on views they support.

[Em City]

8 minutes ago, Boss said:

This is the thing I hate about twitter. She posts a single page, highlighting a single paragraph, from an entire book, and uses it to denounce Chomsky because Faurisson (the author) put an excerpt from an article Chomsky once wrote about free speech in his book - without Chomsky's permission. 

 

Then her sheeple followers accept it as fact and next time someone mentions Chomsky they'll say "He's a Holocaust denier him" "Is he?" "Yeah, one of his hero's was this guy who said the Holocaust didn't happen". This is why we have the political class we have running this country. This Rachel Riley twitter meltdown is who we are as a society, in a microcosm. 

 

It's not coincidence rico's contribution to political discourse on here amounts to posting Twitter links.

 

A greater platform for the tragically dim, there has never been.

[Strontium]

11 minutes ago, aRdja said:

Not sure why people think this Faurison saga as new info. It was pretty clear what Rachel was referring to when she accused Chomsky of being an anti-semite. The whole thing is on the internet and has been debated over and over again. Seems some freedom of speech fighters only want it on views they support.

 

There's a bit of goalpost moving here, isn't there? Nobody has tried to deny anyone's freedom of speech. All they've done is derive conclusions from what that speech contains.

 

Chomsky is wrong when he claims that Holocaust denial has "no anti-Semitic implications", and he was wrong to sign a petition in support of a Holocaust denier. Quite why someone should be vilified for pointing these facts out is beyond me, but I suppose this is a brave new world, where Jews can be accused of having "agendas" when they complain about racism against them, and nobody bats an eyelid.

[Rico1304]

22 minutes ago, aRdja said:

Not sure why people think this Faurison saga as new info. It was pretty clear what Rachel was referring to when she accused Chomsky of being an anti-semite. The whole thing is on the internet and has been debated over and over again. Seems some freedom of speech fighters only want it applied on views they support.

You’ve hit the fucking nail on the head there! 

 

Have a a look at the Dunkula thread and then compare and contrast.  

[Rico1304]

16 minutes ago, Em City said:

 

It's not coincidence rico's contribution to political discourse on here amounts to posting Twitter links.

 

A greater platform for the tragically dim, there has never been.

Ha ha, so that’s podcasts and Twitter we shouldn’t be using. 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Apparently she’s been meeting with some MP in looking at getting her own political career going. Not sure how true it is. Just like Countdown though, I won’t taking any fucking notice. 

 Nope, Swarwkbox made something up.  Fancy that? 

[Strontium]

2 minutes ago, rico1304 said:

 Nope, Swarwkbox made something up.  Fancy that? 

 

The IPSO has deemed Skwawkbox to officially be fake news. It's essentially the left-wing equivalent of Breitbart, and anyone citing it should be laughed at.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Can somebody PM me when she feels morally outraged enough to have a go at the antisemitism (the real stuff, not the "antisemites" who she's currently ranting about, who are also all, coincidentally, vocal critics of Israeli war crimes etc) in the Tory party and on the right? 

 

Her selective "outrage" says it all.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

28 minutes ago, rico1304 said:

Ha ha, so that’s podcasts and Twitter we shouldn’t be using. 

And Pew surveys...

[cloggypop]

2 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Can somebody PM me when she feels morally outraged enough to have a go at the antisemitism (the real stuff, not the "antisemites" who she's currently ranting about, who are also all, coincidentally, vocal critics of Israeli war crimes etc) in the Tory party and on the right? 

 

Her selective "outrage" says it all.

I want to see her punch a nazi. 

 

Bet she hasn't even got any Dead Kennedys. 

[M_B]

43 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

Chomsky is wrong when he claims that Holocaust denial has "no anti-Semitic implications", and he was wrong to sign a petition in support of a Holocaust denier.

He signed the petition because he felt the state should not determine historical truth. I believe that is right. Historical truth should be determined by academics and evidence, not the state. If the state becomes involved then it can be manipulated for political purposes. He did not sign the petition in support of Faurissons views. He was right to sign the petition.

 

As regards "he claims that Holocaust denial has "no anti-Semitic implications"", then this is the reply that Chomsky gave to Kolodney

 

https://chomsky.info/1989____/

 

Quote

The “statement” to which you refer is a distortion of something that I wrote in a personal letter 11 years ago, when I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it.

 

In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue.

 

The point is considerably more general. Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims. I am sure you agree with this point, which everyone constantly accepts. Thus, in the journal of the American Jewish Congress, a representative of ASI writes that stories about Hitler’s anti-gypsy genocide are an “exploded fiction.” In fact, as one can learn from the scholarly literature (also Wiesenthal, Vidal-Naquet, etc.), Hitler’s treatment of the gypsies was on a par with his slaughter of Jews. But we do not conclude from these facts alone that the AJC and ASI are anti-gypsy racists. Similarly, numerous scholars deny that the Armenian genocide took place, and some people, like Elie Wiesel, make extraordinary efforts to prevent any commemoration or even discussion of it. Until the last few years, despite overwhelming evidence before their eyes, scholars denied the slaughter of some 10 million native Americans in North America and perhaps 100 million on the [South American] continent. Recent studies of US opinion show that the median estimate of Vietnamese casualties [resulting from the Vietnam War] is 100,000, about 1/20 of the official figure and probably 1\30 or 1\40 of the actual figure. The reason is that that is the fare they have been fed by the propaganda apparatus (media, journals of opinion, intellectuals, etc., “scholarship,” etc.) for 20 years. We (at least I) do not conclude from that fact alone that virtually the whole country consists of anti-Vietnamese racists. I leave it to you to draw the obvious analogies.

 

In these and numerous other cases, one needs more evidence before concluding that the individuals are racists. Thus in the case of Wiesel, it is quite likely that he is merely following the instructions of the Israeli government, which doesn’t want Turkey embarrassed. In short, denial of even the most horrendous slaughter does not in itself establish the charge of racism, as everyone agrees. Since that is obvious and undeniable, one naturally questions the motives of those who deny the truism selectively, and produce charges such as those you relay.

You ask whether one wouldn’t at least suspect the motives of someone who denies genocide (the Holocaust, in particular). Of course. Thus, I do suspect the motives of Wiesel, Bernard Lewis, the anthropological profession, the American Jewish Congress and ASI, Faurisson, Western intellectuals who systematically and almost universally downplay the atrocities of their own states, and people who deny genocide and atrocities generally. But I do not automatically conclude that they are racists; nor do you. Rather, we ask what leads them to these horrendous conclusions. There are many different answers, as we all agree. Since the points are again obvious, a rational person will proceed also to question the motives of those who pretend to deny them, when it suits their particular political purposes.

 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Never try to paraphrase Chomsky, his words are always considered and the context necessary to understand them.