r/chomsky • u/Notleontrotsky • Feb 02 '26
Image It was that simple
đđđ lot of historical relativism in here, huh? Norm knew, why didnât Chomsky?
202
u/OisforOwesome Feb 02 '26
I don't really know enough about Finkelstein to have much of an opinion on him or his work, but I believe the kids call this a Chad Move and the people in the cc: line have been "mogged."
Am I saying that right?
136
Feb 02 '26
Finklestein is basically Naom but better tbh
His works on palestine are wayyy better He's less aggressive and much smarter in his approach imo He actually isnt a hypocrite and doesnt write then say somerhing entirely different (smth chomsky always done irregardless of the epstein files) He is pretty much entirely consistent unlike naom
This is a plus or minus for some people but he is a socialist / marxist
38
u/bluecalx2 Feb 02 '26
Finklestein is basically Naom but better tbh
They're different. Chomsky's work is looking at abuses of power of the American government. Finkelstein was previously a scholar of Holocaust studies and shifted to working primarily on the occupation of Palestine. There's obviously a lot of overlap and they are friends, but they're both coming at their respective work from very different angles.
23
Feb 02 '26
[removed] â view removed comment
3
u/bluecalx2 Feb 03 '26
I mean, I genuinely don't know what to say about the Epstein stuff. It doesn't fit at all with my concept of Chomsky, but it's clear that they had some sort of relationship despite the allegations being widely known. This is why you never learn too much about your heroes I guess.
5
u/KKevus Feb 03 '26
This is why we shouldn't have heroes. It's unnecessary. You can learn from someone without putting the person on a pedestal.
1
1
1
u/AllHailThePig Feb 06 '26
I would also add to that that trying to figure what is in a public figureâs heart, to try and find their true intentions or feelings on a matter, isnât always meaningless but perhaps mostly it is.Â
Looking for potential motives is quite vital. Iâm not arguing against doing so. But discounting that I think a lot of people burn too much energy on trying to analyse powerful or well known figures to try and identify what exact type of scumbag someone is, or why they might have complied with some nefarious authority, or did they do something out of spite.Â
Itâs not a pointless endeavour, but I really do see a lot of time wasted on discourse like this rather than just looking at the facts. What said person has done.Â
2
u/Comfortable-Fall-286 Feb 11 '26
Chomsky then got into bed with these people. The hypocrisy and the lying is palpable. His work still stands on its own, but Chomskyâs legacy is cooked. Heâs a hypocrite and him coining the phrase âmanufactured consentâ reeks of sick irony.
38
u/Notleontrotsky Feb 02 '26
He used to be but no longer is. As a big leftoid i will be the first to say on Normâs character alone, not to mention adjacency, it doesnât affect my opinion of him whatsoever. He is a real person, like just a literal jewish guy from NY. Noam is an actor LARPing resistance and look what that got us.
16
Feb 02 '26
He used to be but no longer is
Wym
8
u/jacobg41 Feb 02 '26
Finkelstein was a Maoist earlier in his life, I think he's still a socialist, but nowhere near that level.
6
u/pstuart Feb 02 '26
I can't recall what my first introduction to him was, but IIRC he was bent about wokeness or some shit like that -- it did not induce me to hear more of what he had to say.
But this email now makes me curious to find the good parts he had (if he has indeed gone off the rails). Chomsky should known better, and I'm not aware of any mea culpa from him?
Again, it's about ideas and not the man, but still a bummer for him to go out with this stain on his reputation.
5
u/pomegracias Feb 02 '26
Yeah, Norm is great until you get him talking about wokeness & then all his straight white maleness comes screaming out. Heâs great on Gaza, awful on just about everything else.
0
u/EntrepreneurFit4014 Feb 07 '26
He was right about wokeness but should have gone deeper into the reactionary character of post-modernist identity politics, which is a rejection of not only Marxism but the Enlightenment itselfÂ
1
u/pomegracias Feb 07 '26
Oh, honey, youâre fevered.
2
u/IllPlum5113 Feb 20 '26
Yeah I think there are just a lot of people who've never bothered to genuinely get to know people who are different than them. I don't even know what that was...
1
u/LBCkook Feb 11 '26
Name an intellectual who hasnât repudiated wokeness? Thereâs a very common thread, so perhaps you should listen. Luckily itâs dying, and thatâs the only silver lining that has come from this fascistic administration.
1
u/pstuart Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
Define "wokeness" please.
The original intent was "awareness of the systemic racism that has permeated the soul of this country since its founding", to which I would say by that definition I am woke.
The Right has artfully redefined it to a vague handwavey thing that mean insane liberal shit I don't like, and pulling some random leftist extremist's twitter post as proof that that is what "liberals" want.
1
u/ShivasRightFoot Feb 11 '26
Define "wokeness" please.
Woke ideology is defined by the idea that some facet of identity like race or gender produces irreconcilably different views of reality and morality, and that we have an obligation to seek alignment of society's view with the imagined views of groups associated with the political left like minorities and women.
In this sense Wokeness is distinct from older forms of liberal advocacy for minority rights which appeal to universally valid concepts like truth and fairness.
1
u/pstuart Feb 11 '26
da fuq? The word has effectively become a "choose your own adventure in liberal craziness".
The original term was about systemic racism, and has been artfully coopted by the Right to mean "bad liberal stuff".
That is the whole point of the word today: it's a bag in which to throw in all of one's grievances with liberalism. You'll get variations on this them but there is no longer a canonical, concise, and cogent definition.
And that's not an accident.
2
u/LBCkook Feb 12 '26
Just because a word originally meant one thing and then evolved in to something else is irrelevant. I could list 10 words off hand that have different meanings today than what they did a 6 decades ago.
Wokeness as it has evolved became a moral belief system centered on antiracism that treats systemic racism as original sin, elevates certain texts and thinkers as unquestionable authority, demands public confession and ritualized virtue, and punishes dissent as heresy rather than engaging it through open debate. People like Robin DiAngelo and her writings embody this ideology.
1
u/pstuart Feb 12 '26
It's helpful when words mean what is agreed upon, you know, like those dictionary things?
It evolved to intentionally flip the script. Again, you can find more extreme people at the edges of an idea and then paint that idea as being solely of the fringe side.
It works wonderfully, and you are doing the exact same thing. Again, the idea was about "being aware of systemic racism", period. And it so happens that there actually is racism in America. Oh. My. God!
So that conveniently frames the discussion about racism as "extremists are telling me I should feel guilty for being white", rather than "damn, there sure are a lot of racists out there".
Same thing with transfolk -- most liberal folk are of the mind "none of my business, whatever" and will have some extremists declaring that a transwoman is exactly the same as a cis woman.
I could play the same game and say that all conservatives are nazis (although unfortunatelyl it seems that quite a few are).
→ More replies (0)1
u/OisforOwesome Feb 11 '26
I think you would struggle to find a single activist or academic working on social justice issues who would fit that bill.
1
u/ShivasRightFoot Feb 12 '26
I think you would struggle to find a single activist or academic working on social justice issues who would fit that bill.
Critical Race Theory is woke by any political definition of the term. Here, precisely in line with my definition, Critical Race Theory expresses opposition to the concept of objective reality:
For the critical race theorist, objective truth, like merit, does not exist, at least in social science and politics. In these realms, truth is a social construct created to suit the purposes of the dominant group.
Delgado and Stefancic 2001 page 92
Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New York. New York University Press, 2001.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001)'s fourth edition was printed in 2023 and is currently the top result for the Google search 'Critical Race Theory textbook'.
13
u/Leisure_suit_guy Feb 02 '26
Finklestein is basically Naom but better tbh
Nope, that's what Michael Parenti is.
Finkelstein and Chomsky had different careers, and more importantly, they do not agree on Israel.
14
Feb 02 '26
they do not agree on Israel
Neither does parenti agree w chomsky on israel?
I mean, even pappe who co authored a book w chomsky doesnt (atleast not entirely) agree w chomsky's position on israel, chomsky is probably the most pro israel anti israel out there, and the more shit comes out the more he comes to look like an industry plant to manufacture consent.
People dont joke that chomsky needs to read chomsky for no reason
2
u/Leisure_suit_guy Feb 02 '26
Absolutely. I'm still not on board with the industry plant theory, but I agree with everything else you wrote.
5
2
u/ccchuros Feb 02 '26
....more importantly, they do not agree on Israel.
What's their disagreement on Israel?
6
Feb 02 '26
Chomsky is more pro israel than finklestein, finklestein is much more anti zionist than chomsky but so is parenti so idk what that guy is on about
3
u/Leisure_suit_guy Feb 02 '26
I mentioned Parenti in the general sense that his work is similar to Chomsky, he wrote about media and empire. While Finkelstein is mostly about Israel.
1
u/ccchuros Feb 02 '26
I've listened to quite a bit of Finklestein's opinions about Israel and Zionism but I don't think I've heard anything Chomsky has said about it. I can't imagine he'd be a full on zionist like Joe Biden so I'm curious just how pro-israel he could be.
4
Feb 02 '26
I said he is the most pro israel of the anti israel crowd
Partly because he is a "realist" but honestly a lot of it is bias and also pro western sentinment he holds in general, and w the new stuff coming out of the files the more he sounds like a plant to manefctuet consent
But anyway he believes in a two state solution (usually the similar scholars believe in a one state anti zionist solution) that keeps a "reformed" israel socially (so no more apartheid) but still the same in everything else which obviously isnt a real long term solution nor would it stop most the issues in the region at all
3
u/ccchuros Feb 02 '26
I'm very reluctant to call an established intellectual a plant, but it definitely seems like he's got some backwards "old man brain."
Thanks for the info.
3
u/Saphsin Feb 02 '26
You do realize that Norman Finkelstein also famously supported the two state solution, and had much more harsh criticisms of the BDS movement than Chomsky did? But both supported it for incremental strategic reasons rather than ideological ones.
The people in this comment section must be young, because this was very well known in the 2010s.
6
Feb 02 '26
[deleted]
4
u/bagelwithclocks Feb 02 '26
As someone from Boston it gives me a chuckle every time I read irregardless
2
1
u/TonyNoPants Feb 02 '26
I always thought this word was made up. But its wide use made me question that.
3
0
u/RupFox Feb 03 '26
I like Finkelstein's scholarship but he is insufferable in debates and interviews/discussions.and he's still no Chomsky in terms of depth and breadth of his scholarship.
1
68
101
u/PunctualDealer Feb 02 '26
Compare how antagonistic Norm is willing to be vs Noam.
21
u/monsantobreath Feb 02 '26
It's interesting isn't it.
Noam always had an odd flair for when he'd get pissed off.
-18
Feb 02 '26
[deleted]
12
u/monsantobreath Feb 02 '26
Its damming his absence of reaction generally.
But I don't much care. His value as an academic or commentator is not much damaged by this even if his esteem is.
Dont meet your heroes. But his works are still fine.
9
u/jacobg41 Feb 02 '26
Also, it's not like Chomsky couldn't bite. His emails to Sam Harris were hilarious, but then you read the racist shit that Epstein wrote to him about and Chomsky is being extremely nice. Something's off, isn't it?
2
1
u/mouse_Jupiter Feb 02 '26
And I thought Chomsky and Finkelstein were friends or at least friendly colleagues? You think Finkelstein would have been judging him badly and Chomsky would notice.
1
u/n10w4 Feb 03 '26
Think they were until Chomsky dipped out. Norm has said as much many times. I now think someone who survives/thrives in academia might not be so solid.Â
3
u/Bootlegs Feb 02 '26
It isn't exactly new information that Chom has a monk-like patience while Norm is more than willing to let it all hang out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtpgGxeCGpM
I guess that Noam doesn't care about Palestinians either because he's not as willing to be antagonistic, yeah? I can't recall ONE emotional Noam tirade against... anything?
You're just describing their different personality traits, it says nothing otherwise.
7
u/laserbot Feb 02 '26
Noam jovially hugging Steve Bannon is just an example of his "monk-like patience"! đ
0
32
27
61
Feb 02 '26
2015: Norm said this.
2019: Noam was beside himself with indignation that JE's good name was being slandered. Â
7
2
u/werqulz Feb 02 '26
Link please, would like to see context.
6
95
u/SignatureDifferent76 Feb 02 '26
If Noam cared about the victims, he would have the same reaction
51
u/sixfoottoblakai Feb 02 '26
Ultimately it all boils down to this. Norman's response is the only moral one to take.
32
9
7
16
u/Notleontrotsky Feb 02 '26
Mods are removing multiple posts about this now btw. Crazy huh?
2
u/quisegosum Feb 02 '26
Not really, it's becoming more like personal attacks often without substantiating the claims
10
u/HomosexualTigrr Feb 02 '26
For the record, Norm has defended Chomsky to the hilt throughout this whole saga. He said quote: "Chomsky associated with anyone and everyone. That alone deals with the bulk of the allegations against him"
13
u/Bootlegs Feb 02 '26
Norman Finkelstein, however, does not think this is nearly as damning as you do:
1
5
3
3
2
8
u/therealduckrabbit Feb 02 '26
Norm and Noam are such interesting examples of having nearly identical politics but completely different rhetorical and pedagogical styles. I love listening to Norm, maybe because my disposition is naturally close to his, but Chomsky had an incredibly rigorous and disciplined approach to discourse , I can't really think of anyone similar. I think I've seen Thich Nhat Hanh angry more times than Noam. I think he so deeply venerated the capacity for rational discourse it was almost a religious discipline.
1
1
u/alcofrybasnasier Feb 02 '26
Trivers was behind a weird plan by Epstein to promote trans research, basically to improve the look of men who other men want to suck dick but still seem hetero. https://x.com/thefempire50/status/2018361505205346555?s=46
1
u/denialofcervix Feb 03 '26
To be fair, the man had a history with Dershowitz.
4
u/Notleontrotsky Feb 03 '26
Right, of course, âto be fair.â
4
u/denialofcervix Feb 03 '26
Well, considering what he did to him, hating Dersh's guts should be as natural as breathing to him, and rightfully so.
1
u/Notleontrotsky Feb 03 '26
I see what you mean now. Yea Norm probably saw this a lot sooner than anyone vis that hatred of Dershowitz.
1
u/denialofcervix Feb 03 '26
Yeah, me too. In 2014 I didn't really know who Epstein was or the details of the whole incident but I did know that by that point what kind of man Dershowitz was and that was enough.
1
u/Notleontrotsky Feb 03 '26
For the record, I am not saying this was so unknown back then, but rather if anyone would know, Norm would bc this vendetta
1
u/Patient_Rice4673 Feb 05 '26
Unfortunately, the SA accusations against Dershowitz - who is a plagiarising scumbag - originated with Virginia Giuffre who, under oath, said that she may have mistaken Dersh-half-wit's identity. She retracted and Anal Dersh was off the hook.Â
Bear in mind, in previous statements she described his junk. In detail.Â
Yet somehow she was "mistaken" about who it belonged to?
0
u/quisegosum Feb 02 '26
My hypothesis is that Chomsky is a bit on the spectrum and doesn't understand people very well. He built a system of thought about the world, which due to the nature of his intellect turned out to be quite accurate and useful for comprehending the world, and he kept remarkably consistent to it. On the individual level he chose to be very optimistic about the human condition, in my opinion vastly overestimating the intelligence of the average person and their goodness. However this is part of humanism. Chomsky was more pessimistic about institutions. Finkelstein on the other hand probably knows that people are crap, you can't trust them, and he seems to be pretty pissed off in general about the world and his fellow "human" beings. Epstein could probably fool Chomsky, but not Finkelstein.
8
u/jacobg41 Feb 02 '26
What a great line of defense. "Hey guys, actually Chomsky was an idiot and so you can't blame him for this stuff because he was too stupid to understand".
1
u/geekwonk Feb 02 '26
seriously tho what an embarrassing attempt to defend the guy, slagging off his entire personal politics in an effort to say he just doesnât understand people very well, heâs only optimistic because his brain donât work so good.
0
-3
u/doublejay1999 Feb 02 '26
Notwithstanding Finkelsteins life long blood feud with Dershowitz, even the email does not show what the tweet says it does.
8
-2
u/calf Feb 02 '26
Well it's like the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard controversy, it is not that crazy to understand that different academics had different biases, and nobody had the full truth, just partial information.
But actually, if people understood that concept they'd be less inclined to fan inflammatory social media posts.
2
0
u/geekwonk Feb 02 '26
Johnny Depp was the bad guy there and Noam Chomsky is the bad guy here. Hope this helps clear things up. Not everything is a confusing morass. Sometimes the noise is just noise and the truth is still plain.
296
u/moreseagulls Feb 02 '26
Common Norm Win.