“Anything critical of the Amerikkkan empire” and the person in question has denied the Cambodian and Bosnian genocide 😭

[u/GoldenStitch2]

[u/Mean_Ice_2663 → u/[deleted]]

He's literally spreading the NATO sob story and openly defended the Khmer Rouge...

[u/mramisuzuki → u/[deleted]]

Norm Chomsky is a linguist and not a political historian?

Of course he’s really good at cooking his takes.

[u/I_Am_U → u/[deleted]]

Disinformation 101 - Poison the well by introducing false claims that undermine the credibility of the human target.

Chomsky is an outspoken critic of authoritarian socialism, so claim he is a communist. Chomsky is an outspoken critic of genocide, so portray him as a denier of genocides.

He's literally addressed the false claim you're repeating, but few have time to fact check in their busy lives:

Chomsky, on use of the term 'genocide,' when describing events:

I just am reluctant to use the term. I don’t think it’s an appropriate one. So I don’t use it myself. But if people want to use it, fine. It’s like most of the other terms of political discourse. It has whatever meaning you decide to give it. So the question is basically unanswerable. It depends what your criteria are for calling something genocide.

Here's a research study conducted by an academic journal specializing in genocide studies, with peer review, debunking the slew of false accusations based around distorting Chomsky's statements.

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol14/iss1/8/

The semantic trick here is to falsely conflate 1) a denial of the applicability of terminology with 2) the accusation of genocide denial.

To fight disinfo, you can repost this passage whenever you see this false claim :D

[u/lukeskylicker1 → u/I_Am_U]

Genocide minimization is genocide denial. Pure and simple. From claiming that Srebenicia wasn't genocide because 'only' the men were killed and the women and children were trucked out (so they could be raped instead), to trying to paint KLA gurellias as being worse (a half truth at best, KLA massacres primarily targeted Serbian police, while Serbian massacres almost exclusively targeted civilians), insidious wordplay by referring to Serbian massacres as "population exchange" while correctly referring to the massacres of other belligerents as ethnic cleansings, and even promoting a conspiracy theory on Serbian TV in criticism of the Kosovo bombing, that the bombings weren't because the bodies of Albanian's were being shipped back and buried in Serbia, which are still being uncovered to this day, in order to hide what was very clearly the start of another fucking genocide, but because the US government got a bit sad that poor underdog and benevolent Serbia wouldn't bow down to them.

Noam Chomsky considers anything short of the Holocaust in scale to not be a genocide (except, of course, the ones he does) and that kind of shit is the same twisted line of thinking as "Oh no the Armenian genocide wasn't a genocide because the term wasn't invented yet!"

You should be disgusted by yourself for defending this man.