1. m-i-t-t-e-n-s liked this
  2. chameleonwren liked this
  3. madwomanwithawarehouse liked this
  4. himynameisjesyblue reblogged this from onemuseleft
  5. satanic-gay-clown liked this
  6. corporalhomestuckfangirl liked this
  7. aydansparrow reblogged this from immoralq
  8. chanclasinallweather reblogged this from djeterg19
  9. djeheuty-bros liked this
  10. beast-master66 liked this
  11. luxuriantegg liked this
  12. aprettyodd-fever reblogged this from coredesignixandnekonee
  13. marieloufoqua reblogged this from luciferstempest
  14. marieloufoqua liked this
  15. xclcbx reblogged this from holdyourghost
  16. quemtemmedodemulherpelada reblogged this from inknpaperlove
  17. livrarada liked this
  18. jdc1717 liked this
  19. newobsessioneveryweek reblogged this from goldenpariah
  20. ciceroandsibelius liked this
  21. 14brooms reblogged this from seyvetch
  22. 14brooms liked this
  23. imsodonewiththissite liked this
  24. artfuljammydodger reblogged this from holdyourghost
  25. artfuljammydodger liked this
  26. valhamham reblogged this from one-man-ensemble
  27. valhamham liked this
  28. seyvetch liked this
  29. acti-veg said: @tragicallyphosphorescent that said I think i was probably a bit too defensive here and I apologise for that, when you referred to Chomsky as a communists the alarm bell rang that this was one of ‘those’ comments, but obviously that’s not what was happening.
  30. acti-veg said: @tragicallyphosphorescent it’s the same with us vegans isn’t it? There are legitimate problems with representation and accessibility, and those criticisms come from a good and legitimate place, as yours do here. Then there is just this wave of misinformation too, people saying that veganism is racist/classic etc, pretending we have positions that we don’t hold, as a way to avoid having to engage with any of our points.
  31. acti-veg said: you are doing here at all.
  32. acti-veg said: @tragicallyphosphorescent I definitely agree with that assessment. As with any thinker, I think it’s important to disseminate their work, take the good ideas that are there and toss out the others. I am just placing this in the context of an awful lot of people who don’t want to have to listen to criticisms from the likes of Chomsky or Owens, and instead label them as communists or violence apologists or whatever, as a method of silencing their critiques. Obviously I appreciate that isn’t what
  33. one-man-ensemble reblogged this from whatwouldfreddiedo
  34. acti-veg said: I can more than understand that. I just wanted to clarify what it is that Chomsky was actually saying, since there is quite so much misinformation on this topic from people who couldn’t care less about the Bosnian genocide and just want to weaponise that issue as a way to silence leftist critique.
  35. acti-veg said: @tragicallyphosphorescent apologies then, perhaps I misunderstood. You said ‘The Bosnian genocide is a myth??? What?’ The implication I took from what is you were saying that Chomsky called the Bosnian genocide a 'myth’, which is what I was objecting to and what I was stating is untrue. As I’ve already said, I don’t wonder why so many of you have an issue with Chomsky on the basis of what he said,
  36. omelettedufromage-24601 liked this
  37. acti-veg said: I do see a lot wrong with the idea that applying the word ‘genocide’ in that context in any way cheapens the word, what I was specifically objecting to was the claim that A) Chomsky is a communist and B) that he called the Bosnian genocide 'a myth’. The rest of your criticisms are completely legitimate and I have no issue with them.
  38. acti-veg said: If you just want to object to Chomsky as a person because of his views on genocide, I can understand that, and I don’t actually agree with Chomsky myself on that. I share that particular criticism, what I object to is criticising any person on the basis of something they didn’t even say.
  39. acti-veg said: Again - the notion that Chomsky denied the fact that 8,000 people were brutally murdered, or that he called it a ‘myth’, is objectively, demonstrably untrue. There is no room for belief there. That just is not true.
  40. acti-veg said: it does. I can’t deny my senses. They’re both archived, you can read them yourself. You can find what he said abhorrent, that’s completely fine and I can certainly understand and support that. But you can’t say that a recorded interview says something other than it does.
  41. acti-veg said: I am also not even defending him here, again, you can condemn Chomsky all you want, just condemn him for things he actually did, not for things his opponents said he did as a way to discredit him. It’s not a matter of ‘believing’ anyone - there is no need for belief of disbelief. The interview and subsequent essay is empirical evidence - I can’t 'believe’ anyone that it says something other than
  42. acti-veg said: That statement was absolutely, categorically untrue.
  43. acti-veg said: @tragicallyphosphorescent except ‘all bosnians and albanians’ don’t tell us that. Chomsky has plenty of Bosnian defenders. It’s fine for you not to support him on the basis of what he said, I wasn’t objecting to that, I was objecting t othe fact that you didn’t actually appear to know what he said. you said that Chomsky called the Bosnian genocide a 'myth’, implying he denied it even happened.
  44. goldenpariah reblogged this from scriberat
  45. acadia posted this