I should add that I'm not really sure where I stand with it, but that considering the possibility of the most cynical position is a good idea. He may very well have been a completely willing and knowing participant who enjoyed the rewards of being one. It is even easier than ever to see the case for that with this shit.

[–] MarxMadness@hexbear.net 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're on to something. Anyone who's serious about criticizing capital and the U.S. (Chomsky definitely counts) at some point wonders if what they're doing with their life is consistent with their beliefs. I don't see how someone so critical about power can be so close to power and not ask themselves what role they're playing.

I do think it's possible he justified his actions in some way (e.g., "I'm changing things from the inside"), but he had to at least have considered the issue.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

It's really hard to make the case for that when "the inside" is fantasising about a pedophile island for trafficked children. There's absolutely no deniability either due to his conviction for it. I would extend benefit of the doubt pre-conviction but post-conviction these people all know.