I know, this is old ashes, but still there is something in the Faurisson's affair that keeps open the question: who the fuck is choosing a person like Chomsky to be the super intellect of the ... what was it, really?
Anyhow, the Faurisson's affair starts with a knee-jerk reaction of Chomsky to protest a seeming attempt to limit someone's freedom of speech. A laudable action, followed by an unauthorised use of Chomsky's article as an intro to Faurisson's hateful book. Perfectly excusable so far.
But what follows later, is a slapstick comedy, where the mega-intellect really shows his true colours.
Chomsky on Faurisson:
Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.
Try to trace the logic of that famous scientist, that ruler of minds, that ultra-intellectual:
Leap of logic #1:
- I do not know his work very well.
- I find no evidence to support either conclusion.
Leap of logic #2:
- ... is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi?
- As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.
Would a sentence like "I cannot hate cats - I own a hardware store" make sense too, then?
Or "No, officer, I did not piss in the parking lot - I am a brain surgeon, you see...".
This from a professor of linguistics? A leading intellectual of whatever it was? A shining example of something or other?
Fucking A...
0 comments:
Post a Comment