The dangerous weapons one under it is greatttt
roflmao
Chomsky is such an ass that it’s fun just to see him stuck with Ali G in his office.
How so? You think he “fell for” Ali-G?
And why is he an ass? I know some people think cussing him is some kind of badge of honor, but I’ve never read a good explanation of why. All I hear is that Chomsky “hates” America, so he is somehow “intellectually bankrupt” or something. Maybe you can set me straight MFGR.
For starters, he was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge.
Not Ali G’s best…
No, he isn’t. Get your facts straight.
http://www.radioislam.org/totus/CGCF/file14chomsky.html
[quote=“Noam Chomsky”]Totus
[ Accueil Totus ] [Cambodia Genocide Controversy]
CAMBODIA GENOCIDE CONTROVERSY FILE 1.0
14/ CHOMSKY REPLIES TO MORRIS, 1984
Wall Street Journal, 6 September 1984.
Leftists Can Be in the Right
Stephen Morris’s editorial page article (“The Left’s Selective Moral Outrage”, Aug. 15) is an intellectual and moral disaster, though of some minor sociological interest. I will illustrate with a few of his statements concerning “Mr. Chomsky’s views”.
According to Morris, I idealized the Indochinese Communists and portrayed them as “morally untarnished victims,” specifically, Pol Pot, whom I defended from charges of atrocities while attempting to discredit reports based on refugee testimony. He is careful to avoid references, since he knows that I described the “record of atrocities” of the Pol Pot regime as “substantial and often gruesome,” adding that “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and repression, primarily from the reports of refugees.” I cited the analyses by U.S. intelligence as probably the most reliable (his claim that I suspected CIA “connivance in fabricating many of these stories” is sheer fabrication), and I recommended Francois Ponchaud’s study based on refugee testimony, praise which he acknowledges and reciprocates in the American edition of his book. I compared the Pol Pot atrocities to the near-genocidal Indonesian invasion of East Timor (supported by the U.S.). As Morris knows but conceals, I have always been a harsh critic of Leninist ideology and practice.
Morris could have cited favorable comments on Pol Pot, for example, by his colleague Douglas Pike, a government expert on Indochina who now heads the Berkeley Indochina archives, who described Pol Pot’s DK regime as a “bloody but successful peasant revolution with a substantial residue of popular support” in which most peasants “did not experience much in the way of brutality”. Morris could also have observed that the Cambodian resistance that he recently visited consists primarily of Khmer Rouge forces, and that the State Department has explained U.S. support for DK today on grounds of its “continuity” with the Pol Pot regime. The truth being inconvenient, Morris reverts to a mode that come more easily to him.
Noam Chomsky, Cambridge, Mass.
[The same issue of the WSJ had, in the same column, two letters against Morris, one from Joseph Short, Executive Director, Oxfam America, pointing at “several inaccuracies” introduced by Morris in his discussion of Cambodia, and another one by Bruce Zessar, dealing with Central America, and concluding: “Morris accuses many leftist academicians of deceit and betrayal, yet in the last analysis the finger points at him.”]
END
| Accueil Totus | [Cambodia Genocide Controversy]
The electronic address of this document is:
abbc.com/totus/CGCF/file14chomsky.html
totus@abbc.com[/quote]
Someone who has a photo of Chomsky as his avatar is not the most objective person to discuss this issue.
Educate yourself.
mekong.net/cambodia/media1.htm
OK, so calling him an apologist for the Khmer Rouge was going too far. Let’s just say that he was naive and wrongheaded and in denial to the full extent of their evil, and for a while even publicly doubted that the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities existed at all, weren’t just an invention of Western propaganda.
Was he not also quoted during the time as saying sometimes a little blood has to be shed?
Anyway, when I find someone who is impressed with Chomsky and his idea, I usually can calculate the number of books that he has read on the subject to: ONE.
Incredibly in Sunday’s Taipei Times, a NY Times reporter noted how Orientalism by Edward Said has been thoroughly discredited and all the while making note of this, the reporter still could not help coming to the conclusion that while the ideas were sound (of the author he was doing the critique on) he could not help that Orientalism “felt right.” Sigh. These people have been brainwashed to such an extent…
How so? You think he “fell for” Ali-G?[/quote]
Nope. That’s why I only express that I think it’s funny to see him “stuck” with Ali-G in his office. It doesn’t seem to be a huge pleasure for him.
Chomsky isn’t “intellectually bankrupt” – he abstracts matters to such an extent and in such novel ways that he is clearly quite smart. However, anybody who (like Chomsky and many others) enjoys taking arguments to their extreme and absurd ends can justifiably called an ass. Cussing him is not a badge of honor – it’s actually quite easy. Take a stubborn somewhat smug guy who appears to take a bit of pleasure in irritating others, and people will cuss him. That’s how it is.
Thus, although it is far from Ali-G’s best performance, it is fun to see Chomsky stuck with Ali-G in his office and a wee bit uncomfortable with it. You can see that Chomsky handles himself OK but is clearly struggling to figure out what is going on until he recovers with a declaration that nobody will be interested in the language that Ali-G is creating on the spot.
Anyone ever see the short video clip of Andy Rooney stuck in his office with Ali-G? It was priceless. The same uncomfortable look from Rooney for the short duration that it was.
Andy bailed in the end, didn’t play Ali-G’s games. Classic moment.
[quote=“fred smith”]Was he not also quoted during the time as saying sometimes a little blood has to be shed?
Anyway, when I find someone who is impressed with Chomsky and his idea, I usually can calculate the number of books that he has read on the subject to: ONE.
Incredibly in Sunday’s Taipei Times, a NY Times reporter noted how Orientalism by Edward Said has been thoroughly discredited and all the while making note of this, the reporter still could not help coming to the conclusion that while the ideas were sound (of the author he was doing the critique on) he could not help that Orientalism “felt right.” Sigh. These people have been brainwashed to such an extent…[/quote]
Vacuous statements.
It would be more worthwhile to explain why you disagree with Chomsky’s arguments and ideas rather than making assumptions or speculating on things that you could just as easily have verified. So far the only one with any interesting criticism at all is mofangongren.
Thanks for sharing how many books you have read. Keep enjoying Noam! We have been through all these threads before and since you like MFGR’s comment, here’s another of his that I will quote: Thanks for playing!!!