SIVACRACY.NET

Still another facet of the problem are folks who identify as liberal or leftist simply because it gives them a socially acceptable framework from which to hatemonger. I get very tired of the racist and misogynistic bile that is deemed perfectly justifiable, laudable even, because it is directed at people who act reprehensibly or hold reprehensible views. For example, it's amazingly easy to take down Ann Coulter based on the odious lies she spreads - do we really need to call her a bimbo or a transexual? Isn't Michelle Malkin's idiocy easy enough to mock without making allusions to stereotypes about Asian sexworkers? Ugh.

I've been studying the misogyny of the blogosphere a bit this summer, and the proportion of prominent female bloggers is relatively small, but the proportion of abuse they take is huge. This holds true across political orientation. Liberal identified women bloggers are vilified disproportionately to their numbers and readership by rightwingers, but conservative women receive the same disproportionate, vilely sexist abuse from the Supposedly Liberal Dudes.

I commented on the lack of logic in Berube's rants in an earlier post on this blog. To summarize: Berube uses a lot of hand-waving and guilt by association to smear Chomsky. He offers little data or analysis to make his case. Instead he embeds links to other sites. He seems to be hoping that you will interpret the very presence of such links as authoritative, since if you were to actually follow them, you would find that they (in many places) substantiate Chomsky's analysis or data.

Chomsky does not defend ruthless dictators, unless you are silly enough to believe in Bush style cliches such as "if you are not wish us, you are against us" or "giving aid to the enemy" (by arguing against our action). Chomsky has repeatedly pointed out two things: his criticisms are mostly limited to U.S action (for two reasons: this is where he lives and what he can change, and we being the most powerful nation have a disproportionate impact). You should not take his word for anything. He urges you to follow his pointers and any others you may find, to reach your own. He has few hidden ideological commitments and makes his case using data and analysis, as opposed to character-assassination and hand-waving.

Finally, it is patently silly to equate the analytical left with such nonsense as the examples of misogyny and racism listed above. The facts will clearly demonstrate that it is the "liberal/progressive" faction that bloggers who indulge in this sort of nonsense (a fringe example may be Jane Hamsher's blackface business last week). I can imagine Al Franken making a transsexual joke about Coulter. Can you imagine Chomsky doing that?

Someone elsewhere mentioned that his recent wave of anti-Chomsky rants among the centrist liberals is a payback for the pomo attacks of the 90s. This is payback from the non-sciences for what scientists and analytical philosophers put the pomo crowd through, back then.

Irrespective of whether this is the case (and I am mostly sympathetic to the pomo side, in fact, on that old debate -- see my blog for references), it is destructive for us to have this sort of expression of disagreement within the left. This is the sort of behaviour we expect from the right! If you have disagreements, it is worthwhile to present a rational argument, however much a blog gives license to vent.

Any extensive follow up to my comment above would derail the conversation you should have with Siva about his post; I'll do a post of my own on the Supposedly Liberal Dudes, since you are correct that there is an important distinction between them and a public intellectual like Chomsky, who I disagree with but would never call a hatemonger.

Berube uses a lot of hand-waving and guilt by association to smear Chomsky. He offers little data or analysis to make his case. Instead he embeds links to other sites.

Well, it's called "citation." And don't worry, I'll get back to Chomsky's apologetics for Milosevic later this week. For that's what they were: when someone says "Milosevic didn't even know about Srebrenica, and was horrified when he heard about it," s/he is engaging in Milosevic apologetics. To say so is not to "smear" Chomsky; it is to take him seriously and disagree with him -- still, I note, a forbidden thing in a few doctrinally-driven quarters of the left, where some people are taken to be infallible.

The point behind doing citations is to use them to make one's point. Not to embed links within a blanket claim and let the reader assume that the links make the case, even which in your case, they do not!

With regards to your point about Chomsky and Milosevic: what he writes, as quoted by you, is this:

> The worst crime was
> Srebrenica but, unfortunately for the International Tribunal, there
> was an intensive investigation by the Dutch government, which was
> primarily responsible their troops were there and what they concluded
> was that not only did Milosevic not order it, but he had no
> knowledge of it.

This is not Chomsky claiming something, but Chomsky reporting the findings of another body. Interestingly, the very "citation" you provide points to a report that backs up Chomsky on this:

> A six-year, 6 million US dollar investigation by the Dutch
> government's Institute for War Documentation concluded in a
> 7,000-page report last April found no evidence linking the Belgrade
> government to the Srebrenica massacre.

To write "a pack of lies" is exactly to smear Chomsky, when the evidence provided is embedded links that in parts back up his story. To assume that he is not just wrong but is intentionally misrepresenting the truth is indeed a smear.

I am sure there are very valid criticisms of Chomsky. He is (and it should be needless to say) a fallible human being, though more meticulous, analytical and detailed than most.

I look forward to your getting back to providing a more substantive critique of Chomsky's analysis. In doing so, I hope you will not fall back to psychoanalysis and hyperbole, but convince us using rational argument.

To Siva:

You wonder why you can't be against killing of both Israeli and Lebanese babies. etc. etc. Of course you can and should be. Apart from a very insignificant (for this debate) fringe nobody is for the killing of babies, in general. But these killings are, it is argued, to be analysed differently. We do not add much by stating general discontent with Muslims getting killed or Hindus getting bombed. We do gain by looking at why the Muslims are getting killed and the Hindus bombed. Perhaps we may find that in the one case it is an abuse of power (on the part of the Hindu majority) and in the other a frustrated and misdirected response to that abuse.

Ann: thank you for response. I am glad to note you do see the difference between principled leftists like Chomsky and the babbling heads.

In the meantime, let us hope (together) for a Lamont victory tonight!

One more thing and I will finish up my contribution on this thread. I hope to post a more detailed analysis of Berube's post at my blog within a week.

Chomsky's main thrust in his argument is to examine the US-NATO act (of attacking Yugoslavia) and how it stands against their stated reasons. He examines their own claims and whether they match up against their own findings or the findings of other bodies who would if anything be on their side.

The ACLU *actually* defends ruthless people (e.g: Nazis), often in the cause of higher principles (e.g: freedom of speech). I am guessing that to some extent both of you (Siva and Berube) would support the ACLU. On the other hand, Chomsky is not defending Milosevic but examining the US-NATO story about him.

Finally, rhetoric such as "Lunatic Left", "nuts" (earlier post by Siva about Chomsky) are not just divisive and inflammatory, but cast you in a poorer light than your target. It may not be wise to sacrifice articulation in pursuit of the cool.

In that spirit I withdraw the more "flamy" parts of my critique of Berube.