If it was just Chomsky’s past it would be one thing, but what really makes them defensive is the sudden realization that everyone who ever told them that Chomsky’s politics are in service to the Epstein class was right all along.
Truly astounding it took the fucking Anarchists to realize that the pro US state and democratic party intellectual might be made popular in the capitalist media for a reason. Then again, anarchists don’t have any real theory to develop critical thinking.
What has Chomsky even done? Besides manufacturing consent for an invented reality.
always reminded of one of his lectures where he gave the parent/child relationship as an example of unjustified hierarchy
I don’t know what Chomsky’s opinion was, but if the children are abused, the parental hierarchy becomes unjustified.
That’s just true though. Spitting out a child in general should not constitute getting to lord over said child. In American law they even describe it as just one example of a “slave, master” relationship. Another one being employment.
Being an American, its valid for noam critique our structure of parent child relationships, and it’s weird to draw parallels between that and pedophilia.
nobody said you’re supposed to “lord over” anybody. but yes you should take care of your kid and teach them shit and whether you wanna define that as a hierarchy or not is up to you to begin with but people talking about “in cases of abuse” and imo what you’re talking about, are talking about something totally different. i don’t remember the broader context of what noam said but he didn’t at all get into anything you’re trying to talk about or mention in cases of abuse or anything, he was talking about unjust hierarchies in general and threw it in as an example among a few others without expanding on the idea
Just like how social production is distinct to regular production I think the hierarchy between parent and child is also unique and incomparable to more material connections like ‘slave/master.’ Parents have some inherent justification to the life experience they lord over their literal immobile infant; how this changes over time and between individuals, and with intent, is a conversation to have, but in general a well-intentioned parent deserves to inhabit the position in the hierarchy.
I don’t disagree, and honestly I have not seen his lectures so I have no clue what his point was, it might be insane. I guess reflexively I tend to get combative towards people/parents who tend to justify the hierarchy even when the children are like practically adults. I also take issue with the basis that parents get to make all decisions for their children with no outward input. We have too many children dying from preventable diseases because parents decided “it’s my kid, my body” basically, and refuse vaccines or proper medical care for their children.
Yes this is a strong point I don’t disagree with either. I look at it like this: Yes, parents should be afforded their natural right to access their children. No, parents should not have medical, total financial, or personal control over their kids until an arbitrary age. The secret sauce imo is properly socialized childcare; parents could be granted the benefit of the doubt that they’ll do right because there’s so many resources available to them to make it manageable, this also ensures a social standard of education & healthcare applied at the youngest possible age.
At that stage you could severely increase the legal penalties for neglecting your child and introduce more safety nets in way of developmental check-ins and home visits. I would support an outright ‘parenting license’ in a hypothetical society where childcare was completely socialized.
Is there new stuff on Chomsky?
His fan boys are going insane calling anyone who brings up his close ties with Epstein and Bannon ‘Tankies’.
