Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus
by yyyk on Tuesday April 19, 2022 @09:11AM
(#31082611)
>Why is dismissive labelling ok in one case, and not another?
Because the only source given for the quote was Chomsky himself*. In that case, the question of Chomsky's credibility is directly relevant.
* It's possible Chomsky had an actual source etc., but if so, it was not provided in the original comment.
Re:UK Government Officials Infected with Pegasus
by Chris2048 on Tuesday April 19, 2022 @09:33AM
(#31082840)
The issue isn't if Chomsky's credibility is relevant, but on the credibility swipe itself: If Chomsky can be dismissed on all topics (zero credibility on anything) for alleged genocide denial, why isn't that "rhetoric that ignores X" for whatever X Chomsky might discuss?
Feel free to demonstrate where this exists in the comment you replied to. I can just as easily decide the more relevant topic is "rhetoric used to ignore ethnic nationalism", which your post could be.
EDIT:
I'd also note the comment you replied to says:
> Israel plays the anti-semitism card much too loosely to be taken seriously
your own comment elsewhere (on Noam Chomsky):
> Noted genocide denier (repeatedly) with zero credibility on anything.
Why is dismissive labelling ok in one case, and not another?