Interpreting charitably: someone who had what was at the time a death sentence of an infectious disease and (if allegations are true) sexual relations with people who could not legally consent ... might suggest a certain amorality or immorality.
(I'm not specifically familiar with either Foucault's behaviours or Chomsky's description, I'm simply referring to the discussion here on HN, and its guideline "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>.)
You said "Chomsky called Foucault a morally bankrupt phony". He never said anything like that, and you should not use Chomsky's name to prop up your opinion of Foucault's philosophy.
This is a Monty Python skit. Chomsky called him amoral and his philosophy fake. He doesn’t disagree with Foucault’s “philosophy” he thinks it’s fake. A moral person doesn’t swingle people with lies. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
I am contradicting you because you are taking his words out of context.
Chomsky disagrees with the philosophy, but he never called Foucault morally bankrupt nor a phony. Those are your words, not Chomsky's.
PS: I'm actually genuinely sorry you and Chomsky don't understand Foucault. It's very illuminating when you do. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for your attempted character assassination on Foucault, though. And I do appreciate a lot of Chomsky's writings, and that's why I react so negatively to your attempts to bring Chomsky into that. Chomsky's dismissal of post-modernism as "not philosophy" is simply dim, and I'd say a variant of his obnoxious habit of dismissing linguists who take a different or broader view of the subject by simply saying that what they're doing "isn't linguistics". And I actually think that the intellectual quirk that causes him to do that is the same thing that makes him struggle with understanding the actual content of Foucault.
Contradiction isn’t a valid antithesis. Also I never used quotation marks around “morally bankrupt”, I put it together based on statements Chomsky made about moral relativism, post-structuralism, and Foucault, over a 30 year period from debate, talks, and his books including Manufacturing Consent. I understand Foucault, I understand that he’s a charlatan. Are you denying that Foucault advocated for eliminating age of consent in France or are you okay with that?
It’s not a “personal attack”. If a man drinks to excess everyday and I refer to him as an alcoholic I’m not attacking him. It’s simply an unpleasant fact. If I provide evidence to support a statement and someone irrationally denies it then it’s fair to say they’re in denial.
Search HN via Algolia for "by:dang personal attacks" to see his guidelines. In some cases he'll spell these out in more detail and the rationale behind them, which should further clarify rule, intent, and rationale.
Generally, mods' goals are something of a dual mandate: intellectual curiosity (see: <>), and trying to keep the discussion from boiling over, which it's constantly on the verge of. I'm not finding the comment I'd had in mind yet, but this one at least hints at the concept: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32588063>.
For clarity: I'm not a mod, I occasionally disagree strongly with mod's positions. But I've also come to understand, if at times grudgingly accept, their principles.
The point is that if you're consistently violating HN's guidelines, you'll find yourself penalised. Mostly by ordinary participants such as myself, but if you're persistent and insistent, mods will eventually step in.
And "just telling the truth" isn't a defence, justification, or excuse.
If you want to explore this issue further, you are free to search though dang's voluminous set of responses on this and other topics.
