153
the basis for chomsky's anarchism is that age of consent laws are an unjust hierarchy that places adults above children
(hexbear.net)
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
153 points (100.0% liked)
Chapotraphouse
14272 readers
591 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not gonna stand by everything the guy ever said. But he is 97 years old for lord's sake.
He was born just a decade after the fall of Tsarist Russia.
Nobody stays the same over 100 years. Chomsky's been getting noticeably more inconsistent in his actions and statements since like.. the year 2000, which is when basically all these criticisms are from.
I'm not saying 'ignore all old people', but I am saying people change enormously over half a century and we shouldn't judge them as if they are exactly the same person they were. To start picking apart the consistency of the ramblings or actions of a ninety-seven year old as if he's still an on-the-ball scholar just feels a bit unnecessary.
Chomsky seems to be consistent in his exceptionalism and imperialism
Howso? A lot of his work and speeches pre-turning 70 seem to focus on how the US (and the west more generally) has no justification for any of its wars and criticising its other forms of imperialism.
A lot of Chomsky's interviews or the ones I've seen deal with how freedom of speech is above everything, how violently opposing war is irresponsible, how the best way is to talk it out and put the responsible ghouls in charge.
He demeans the violent demonstration against the invasion of Vietnam.
It's the same with reformists that try to redirect the anger and indignation into impotent ballots
He can proclaim be against war but if he bashes those who oppose it through any kind of disruption, I will still call him someone that perpetuates the empire
Edit: it's early in the morning and I'm rambling so I'll probably elaborate latter during the day
EDIT: Not actually interested in defending him on re-think. My whole point is just that he's scatterbrained and not the same thought figure he was.
Not really, people have been calling him out since the early 90s for hanging out with the head of the CIA and being a warhawk shitlib
Well, yes really, almost all the shared criticisms are of post-2000 events.
And I agree that stuff is bad. I'm not saying he is completely defensible pre-2000, but he was much more politically consistent then than now.
I mean even before the 90s I could mention how most of his sociological output is just re framing already existing sociology in a manner that defangs its revolutionary potential - hes been ribbing on Steven Lukes and shit his entire career.