About time someone took the time to address these man’s inconsistencies and questionable logic and morality.
The devotion of Chomsky
Chomp-chomp-chomsky… that’s what he does.
Does anyone have anything positive to say about chomsky? ER like Michael Moore does he contribute to rational and meaningful debate? Just curious who the fans are or even those who do not take his positions but think that he has something to say.
NO CHOMSKY, NO!!!
“Chomp-chomp-chomsky… that’s what I do.”
Seriously Broon Ale:
Have you read him? What do you think of his views? Is he an intellectual giant or a self-serving syllogistic dwarf?
Seriously, IronLady, I think we can agree that Chomsky is a smart guy and an idiot at the same time. I don’t agree with his philosophizing.
All I’ve read of his is Manufacturing Consent, and that book - while a dense read - made sense. What I’ve heard of his opinions more recently, though, it sounds like he’s buying into his own hype way too much.
EDIT: I should say, all I’ve read of his outside of linguistics related stuff is Manufacturing Consent…
Speaking as a complete non-expert on the subject, and bearing both the flag of truce and the King’s “X” 
:
I think in his own field, linguistics, it’s not too much of an exaggeration to compare Chomsky’s stature to that of Einstein’s in physics. So I’m going to go a little bit out on a limb to say that the better comparison of Chomsky (than to Michael Moore) would indeed be an imaginary one, to Einstein.
I realize that my comparison is probably tenuous, but I think it gives some idea of why some folk pay heed to Chomsky. Additionally, unlike Michael Moore, Chomsky has been writing about geopolitical issues for decades. So I think it might help if you try to imagine Einstein as a prolific writer of long standing on geopolitical issues. Even if one vehemently disagreed with such a person, and even if there’s no reason to believe the wine of such a person’s peculiar mental talents would travel well into another province, I don’t think it’s too difficult to imagine that he would gather a crowd of devoted followers over the years.
One other comparison, maybe also inappropriate: In (Louisiana politician) Huey Long’s first run for governor, he was a long-shot, and he knew it. Realizing his odds, but wanting to get his name “on the map,” he reportedly confided to a friend something like this: “I’m going to go into each parish and cuss out the Sheriff. That right there should get me at least a third of the vote.”
It’s a truism that many Americans across the political spectrum don’t like and don’t trust their government. From what little I’ve read of Chomsky’s and about Chomsky, I’m guessing the hallmark of his work is mistrust of the government. The shape of people’s mistrust of government depends on many factors within each person, but there will always be a goodly pool of people in the populace who simply enjoy hearing a person publicly “cuss out the Sheriff.”
I apologize in advance if I have detracted from a better understanding of the matter.
But isn’t Chomsky’s reputation as an “expert” in linguistics also sort of “manufactured consent” among a certain tribe of thinkers?
He reminds me more of Derrida with his wide cult following in small college philosophy departments and among urban thinkers. He is not so well received among fellow philosophers. Deconstruct that!
I get the feeling that nothing anyone says is going to convince you that while Chomsky should probably stop running his mouth on political issues, he is an expert in linguistics.
Well what exactly has he done that is so “remarkable” in terms of linguistics and are his theories universally accepted. Second will they stand the test of time or fade like Derrida’s deconstructionism? Therefore is Chomsky a Derrida or an Einstein?
In terms of linguistics - Chomsky has created a new theory of syntax, which was universally accepted for a long time and the basics of it still are.
Let an old man be - he is about 200 years old and perfectly harmless…
[quote=“Notsu”]In terms of linguistics - Chomsky has created a new theory of syntax, which was universally accepted for a long time and the basics of it still are.
Let an old man be - he is about 200 years old and perfectly harmless…[/quote]
Moreover, Fred, what’s so damn bad about the guy? Just because some right-wing hate-filled website that you links to raves about some new right-wing hate-filled book, doesn’t mean we should believe them, does it?
Tell us, Freddy, what has Chomsky done or said that you disagree with (and be honest. . . no googling for criticism by Ann Coulter or Rush). You seem to dislike the guy. What precisely bothers you about him?
Incidentally, the fact that people gush praise for Chomsky does NOT prove that they’re blindly following him, as you suggested. Maybe they gush praise for him because he’s right.
For me as I said repeatedly, it was his unwillingness to admit that the killing fields were going on in Cambodia despite all the evidence. AND I dislike his cheap anti-Americanism but worse I hate the even cheaper anti-Americanism it inspires in his little accolades who run around Berkeley with copies of his 911 and miss the irony of looking like little Maoists brainwashed into correct political thinking. How’s that?
I also hear about how smart or deep he is but no one can ever quite verbalize just what it is that makes him so smart. Er he is a “linguistics expert” and like the “Einstein of his field” but really is he? or are these nothing but public relations inspired Key Messages that have obviously gotten through VERY successfully? That’s all.
Well, he really is a linguistic expert and this is how I know him. Being far from the US or any English-speaking countries I’ve only seen his linguistic works.
I don’t want to judge his political works as I know nothing about them; you shouldn’t judge his linguistic works.
Old men tend to think they are experts on everything as they have read many books in they’re lives. So does Fred Smith, so does Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky’s thoughts on geopolitics are annoying because he basically refuses to comment on the behaviors of other countries as they jostle and bump against each other. Correct me if I am wrong on this, but I recall that he tends to think the dead are just dead – 1 million of dead people of a particular nationality or killed for a particular reason are, simply, just 1 million dead. I think he ignores how human psychology really works, how people really think and act.
Chomsky probably is helpful in that he gets people to open their eyes to a new perspective. However, he doesn’t exert all that much influence in that the people in power around the world either: 1) don’t listen to him because the people-in-power set is a somewhat self-selecting group that don’t listen to people like Chomsky; and 2) are stuck with a lot of very practical governance problems that cannot be dealt with a unilateral adoption of his philosophies.
Here is the entirety of Fred’s stated opposition to Chomsky.
I asked you to please state your personal reasons for disliking him and not to rely on what Rush, or someone of his ilk, might have said, but I think you did exactly that. I do not believe you were old enough to understand such matters when the killing fields occurred, so you are apparently relying on someone else’s opinion, but no matter.
I believe in the 1970s Chomsky was strongly opposed to US intervention in Indochina and to our government secretly invading Laos and Cambodia, countries with which we were not at war. That’s certainly a valid criticism. He can’t be faulted for that.
Regarding him denying that the killing fields were going on “despite all the evidence,” show me the evidence. Not a quote from Ann Coulter, but real evidence. Show me a dated statement that Chomsky made denying the existence of the killing fields, and show me “all the evidence” that others in the west had at that time of their existence. Until you produce that I deem your remark unsubstantiated right-wing defamation.
The problem Fred, is that you consider any criticism of US governmental policies or actions to be anti-American, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. When Americans criticize inhumane, illegal or wrongheaded US policies, particularly involving invasions of other countries, they usually do so because they love the US, not hate it. They love the constitution, the laws and the principals upon which it was founded and they hate ignorant, small-minded politicians who subvert, demean, circumvent and ignore the laws, cheapening our country and what it stands for. Maybe it sounds corny to you but it’s true. Is it love to defend your government no matter how wrong it may be, or is that just ignorant compulsive behavior?
I see. You hate the guy because you feel his fans at Berkeley (how many Berkeley Chomsky fans have you known?) look like brainwashed Maoists. One could say the same about many Christians, too, couldn’t one? Would that be cause to hate Jesus?
Oh. You hate him because people have trouble explaining why they are so impressed with him so you suspect that he isn’t impressive afterall, and its just a PR success. How many people can articulate clearly what’s so impressive about Mozart, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Picasso and Einstein? If people have trouble doing so is it fair to conclude that their supposed greatness(es) are all due to good PR and we should actually dislike them?
MT – I think Chomsky is wrongly thought of as “anti-American” because he only comments on the behavior of the U.S., on principle. Basically he criticizes the actions of the United States without ever balancing them with comments on the behaviors that may have led the U.S. to do the things that it has done. I don’t think he does it because he hates America – he has chosen only to offer his ideas on his home country.
By commenting on only one country’s actions, it is a bit disconcerting. It’s a little like one of those Bob Newhart phone-call comedy routines in which you only hear one side of the conversation.
In what little I"ve read of Chomsky, he does talk about other countries, such as East Timor, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, etc…
His focus seems to be on America though, as has been pointed out in this thread already.
MT:
Was old enough to remember his comments on the Killing Fields. Later saw his pathetic attempts to explain it away. That was the crux. He could not admit that he had made a mistake and was trying to explain away his actions at the time.
No time to find a direct quote today. Did several times in other threads. I do not get all my info from rightwing sites nor do I soley read Ann Coulter as you very well know. Shall I tell you to go back to printing pamphlets at Berkely or can we desist with the labeling?
Quickly, you may not hate Marx or Lenin but you have to be extremely concerned about what their ideas led people to do.