[jcranmer]

Chomsky is very well known for the fact that his anti-US imperialism stance is strong enough that he becomes a standard bearer for any malodorous regime the US is against, starting from his denial of the Cambodian genocide and attempted habilitation of the Pol Pot regime through to, most recently, his denial of any Russian atrocities in Bucha, Ukraine (his last major public commentary before his stroke).

It is entirely in line with Chomsky's historical pattern that Epstein could walk up to him, say "the US government hates me and claims I'm a pedophile" and for Chomsky to then treat him like his best friend. It is also worth noting that when he eventually recanted his Cambodian genocide denial, he basically said something along the lines of "how could anyone have possibly known just how bad the regime was?" which is... essentially what this response is attempting to be, "how could we have possibly known that Epstein was actually a pedophile?"

[tgv]

I always got the feeling Chomsky went for "the big picture" so to speak, and ignored the details. At least, that would be consistent between his political and his linguistic work. In the latter, he built systems that were simply too complex to be representative of the human mind. I can imagine that he saw himself as a kind of continuation of Marx and Hegel, where the system matters, and human life is just a detail.

[u1hcw9nx]

You must also have noticed that he never engages his critics honestly. He just dismisses them as "elite propaganda".

There has been never part of interesting intellectual debate between him and anyone who has different opinion. He writes to his followers.