Noam Chomsky

[Beirut]

I just watched a few tapes my buddy had of Noam Chomsky. One was called Rebel with a Cause, and the other was Chomsky on Charlie Rose. It's not the first time I've seen Chomsky, but it brought back fond memories for this insanely intelligent and insightful person.

I'm curious why some people hate him so much. Not just hate, but bitter seething contempt. Chomsky espouses freedom of speech, thought, and information at every turn, and does it as eloquently as any man alive. Yet the right wing, who use the word freedom to name everything from their military operations to their french fries (Operation Freedom Fries?) can't stand the guy because he exercises the rights they say everyone across the planet should have.

Is it that he's wrong, or just that the right believe in freedom, but just not for him?

[Fragony]

Read two of his books, Rogue states and the Fatefull Triangle, didn't seem that bad to me but I am not that informed.

edit, come to think of it, did got pwned here a few times when I used him as a refefrence.

[Vladimir]

You mean the guy that thinks the NFL is part of a "bread and circuses" conspiracy? That the federal government actively supports it because it helps keep the population passive? Or that if we stop "committing terrorism" that others will follow suit? That Noam Chomsky?

Brilliant within his own walls and very, very academic. Far too many of his insights are useless outside his own world or without his particular definitions.

I haven't heard much about this guy in years. I prefer to focus on those who advance our knowledge of the sciences and better life as a whole. I (third time :shame:) am very right wing but don't use the word hate to describe him. Not sure where you're getting that from.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hah! Chomsky! A girl I know quite well studied at MIT last year, for her Ph.D. She's a linguist, and very leftwing. Extremely bright too.

Naturally, she was really excited about working with Chomsky, which she did for a full semester. Boy, was that a dissapointment...

Apparantly, in his daily life, mr. Chomsky is of a completely unagreeable character, insufferable even. A tyrant for his underlings. Worst of all, rude to the supporting staff, the cleaners and such.

Since I disagree with both her and Chomsky about both politics and linguistics, their little conflict of characters is an endless source of amusement to me. I can tease her for it till her grave, and well intend to. :beam:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Louis:

Where does Chomsky fall short in your assessment? Note: I myself take a largely Habermasian view of communicative interaction and meaning.


On other levels:

Chomsky is a bright fellow, clearly embracing of the political "left" in his outlook on events. His commentary on foreign affairs and government are criticisms he is perfectly entitled to make, but would carry less weight with me than would commentary by Kissinger or Powell. On the other side of the coin, I'd listen to and consider Chomsky's comments on Saussure and Language more carefully than I would those of Powell or Kissinger. Similarly, Michael Jackson's comments on pop music and dance are based on an informed perspective. I would not nominate him for SecDef.

[JAG]

I'm curious why some people hate him so much.

Because simply, he is a very intelligent man whose critiques of the American system, foreign policy and leaders is so biting and true it is hard for those who disagree with him to accept anything he says. It just turns into blind hatred.

[GoreBag]

I have a problem with his views on cognition and language acquisition. Besides that, I've never met the guy, but the whole of the field of Linguistics is so largely full of Chomsky's worshippers that I've developed a contempt for him that manifests itself not unlike the way I laugh when I watch Oderus beat Jesus at basketball.

[CountArach]

I'm currently reading through Failed States and finding it quite eye-openning. I don't agree with every conclusion he makes, though I do find myself believing a lot of his conclusions. I have also read What We Say Goes, which is a series of interviews with him. I am also working my way through Interventions, a series of short essays by him. All of them I have found quite cutting in their criticisms and often well-supported. However, some of his conclusions are a little bit spurious.

[Geoffrey S]

A genius he certainly is, both in linguistics and in his (abstract) political views. But his genius doesn't necessarily lay in being right: it's to be found in presenting strongly a vision of his own, one which people can disagree with with equal strength. It's the ease one can disagree with him which makes him an attractive target, and people often aim to score points by denouncing his well-publicized views without actually stating their own with equal clarity. That's always the easier way.

Edit: for example, it's easier to denounce someone as un-American than to define exactly what is American.

[Vladimir]

A genius he certainly is, both in linguistics and in his (abstract) political views. But his genius doesn't necessarily lay in being right: it's to be found in presenting strongly a vision of his own, one which people can disagree with with equal strength. It's the ease one can disagree with him which makes him an attractive target, and people often aim to score points by denouncing his well-publicized views without actually stating their own with equal clarity. That's always the easier way.

Edit: for example, it's easier to denounce someone as un-American than to define exactly what is American.

Freedom hater!

(well stated)

[Devastatin Dave]

Because simply, he is a very intelligent man whose critiques of the American system, foreign policy and leaders is so biting and true it is hard for those who disagree with him to accept anything he says. It just turns into blind hatred.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, its JAG!!! Missed you old friend, hugged any child molestors lately?:laugh4: When are you coming to the States to see some Civil War Sites, the offer's still out for free room and board at Casa' Dev Dave...

Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.

[CountArach]

I forgot to say that if anyone wants some free Chomsky stuff (Interviews and the like... i think there might even be a couple of books), you should go here:
http://www.chomsky.info/

[Vladimir]

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, its JAG!!! Missed you old friend, hugged any child molestors lately?:laugh4: When are you coming to the States to see some Civil War Sites, the offer's still out for free room and board at Casa' Dev Dave...

Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.

SPELLING! :furious3:

[LittleGrizzly]

SPELLING! :furious3:

All Capitals! :furious3:

[Devastatin Dave]

All Capitals! :furious3:
I WANT TO USE THE SAME SMILEY!!!!:furious3:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now that the fraternal spam fritters have been shared with a returning comrade, perhaps we can return to the topic, gentlemen?

:bow:

[Fragony]

I'm currently reading through Failed States and finding it quite eye-openning. I don't agree with every conclusion he makes, though I do find myself believing a lot of his conclusions. I have also read What We Say Goes, which is a series of interviews with him. I am also working my way through Interventions, a series of short essays by him. All of them I have found quite cutting in their criticisms and often well-supported. However, some of his conclusions are a little bit spurious.

Can't shake the feeling that he is wrapping the math around an assumption but it's up for others to denounce it. It's good reading regardless, steamroller arguing that never misses a beat. Keep thinking so bloody what but if you know where he is comming from it's hard not to apreciate.

[Beirut]

Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.

Why is Chomsky a hippo-kryt? He says everyone has the right to express themselves and everyone should look deeper into the meaning of government and corporate actions to see what lies below and what presents a threat to personal freedom.

Honestly, of all the people on this forum, you exercise the most freedom in your self-expression, and you blow like a hurricane if any Mod challenges your right to express yourself as freely as you feel you have the right. That makes you more Chomsky-esque than all of us.

:music: "Dave and Chomsky sitting in a tree... bashing all authority... first comes freedom... then comes dissent... then comes Dave & Chomsky sharing the rent."

[Fragony]

Any idealist that doesn't sell his house to start a school in Africa is a hypocrite in my humble opinion, that is not idealism it is perfectionism and perfectionists tend to look for the highest building that needs an additional floor. Perfectly fine to call him a hpyocrite, he is enjoying the freedom that allows him to critisise it, if it gets any better then that let me know and I'll move there.

[KrooK]

who is noah chomsky?

[KukriKhan]

who is noah chomsky?

Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky)


...an American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


His political views often conflict with the views of those in (US) power.

[CountArach]

His political views often conflict with the views of those in (US) power.
And everywhere else apart from Venezuela :laugh4:

[Incongruous]

So is he one of those guys that sits in a uni his whole life drowned in books and admiring students? Who never really does anything?
Why doesn't he enter politics?
Because TBO Uni is not the real world and you can always tell when a person has spent their whole life in one, something my IR lecturer despised.
I have met a few like that, they seem very smart, but usually out of touch with "things".

[CountArach]

Actually he does travel the world and give lectures. He writes a tonne of open letters to politicians and meets a great deal of world leaders (I believe he recently met one of the leaders of Hezbollah). He has also travelled to Beirut, Lebanon and a lot of other hot spots in the world, getting to know people and talking to experts.

[Geoffrey S]

Might want to look up the life of Keynes. Having something worth saying and being a politician don't necessarily (some would leave that previous word out...) equate.

[Adrian II]

Brilliant within his own walls and very, very academic. Far too many of his insights are useless outside his own world or without his particular definitions.Well said. And it explains much of the hatred. Chomsky expresses his political views in the same academic style and with the same apparent authority as his linguistic theories. He is an egg-head par excellence, and a sizeable part of the American right-wing hates anyone with a working brain and above average vocabulary.

Chomsky is also an idiot who has obviously never born responsibility for anything beside his books, his yacht and a couple of research programs.

[Beirut]

Chomsky is also an idiot who has obviously never born responsibility for anything beside his books, his yacht and a couple of research programs.

My dearest Adrian II, what else would you have him bear responsibility for?

If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

a sizeable part of the American right-wing hates anyone with a working brain and above average vocabulary.
Now, this one is signature-worthy. :2thumbsup: I'm not putting quotes in my signature though. :shame:

If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.
Or death warrant - in the case of Turkey. :skull:
.

[Fragony]

Well if they don't report bad post after that they must be stupid indeed. Or a bit tired.

[Geoffrey S]

If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.
A dissenting opinion is easy if one doesn't have to carry the weight of consequences, and thus far the consequences have been rather good for Chomsky.

[Beirut]

A dissenting opinion is easy if one doesn't have to carry the weight of consequences, and thus far the consequences have been rather good for Chomsky.

The consequences of a dissenting opinion can be weighty indeed. Ranging from public embarrassment, to public condemnation, to a public beheading. It's not easy writing something controversial that is then printed and can be rolled up and used to whack you on the head with afterwards.

There is no reason the consequences of Chomsky's writing should not be beneficial to him in equal measure as potentially detrimental. Newton et al.

[Fragony]

Newton et al.

I would pick being Newton in the Vatican over being Stuart Mill between socialists.

[Adrian II]

My dearest Adrian II, what else would you have him bear responsibility for?

If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.My good friend, there is nothing unworthy indeed about entrusting one's thoughts to paper, be they dissenting in anyone else's view or not. My point is that Chomsky's systemic, nay conspiratorial view of politics reflects his lack of practical political experience. He has no idea how any political machinery, government department or newspaper board actually works. And he has never gotten his hands dirty, except, say some, when he defended the Khmer Rouge regime in the early 1970's, an episode that is hardly ever spoken of in Chomskyite circles.

[Beirut]

My good friend, there is nothing unworthy indeed about entrusting one's thoughts to paper, be they dissenting in anyone else's view or not. My point is that Chomsky's systemic, nay conspiratorial view of politics reflects his lack of practical political experience. He has no idea how any political machinery, government department or newspaper board actually works. And he has never gotten his hands dirty, except, say some, when he defended the Khmer Rouge regime in the early 1970's, an episode that is hardly ever spoken of in Chomskyite circles.


My dearest Adrian II, it is with great pleasure that I have chance to converse with you. :sunny:

I question whether "hands on" experience is required for reasoned dissent. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that an amputation is not required to cure a broken finger, and I would feel safe voicing that opinion.

On matters of human rights and freedoms and the machinations of politics, any man can voice a worthy opinion because these topics are fundamental and require every man to voice an opinion. From my experience, I have heard the most illuminating thoughts on government from farmers and mechanics. They haven't a day's experience in politics, but they know a good (or bad) idea when they see one.

As for Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge, I don't know about that. I'll have to read up.

[Geoffrey S]

The consequences of a dissenting opinion can be weighty indeed. Ranging from public embarrassment, to public condemnation, to a public beheading. It's not easy writing something controversial that is then printed and can be rolled up and used to whack you on the head with afterwards.

There is no reason the consequences of Chomsky's writing should not be beneficial to him in equal measure as potentially detrimental. Newton et al.
Anyone in the West can write can write what they want without physical consequences, for the moment Muslim problems notwithstanding. While I respect Chomsky's consistency in the face of opposition that does not make his views any more worthwhile or give him any sort of moral highground, simply because he has never had to face the consequences of his words (would say actions, but what are they exactly?) and can go as far as he likes due to the freedom of speech of the exact same nation he frequently derides.

I agree that anyone has the right to voice their moral opinion. But that in no way equates to how practical such views are, for which experience frequently is necessary, and Chomsky has the luxury of never having to find out.

[Beirut]

Are you saying that for a dissenting opinion to carry any weight there must be the threat of a furious beating immediately thereafter?

What exactly are the practical consequences required for one to have legitimate right to express his views?

[Geoffrey S]

Are you saying that for a dissenting opinion to carry any weight there must be the threat of a furious beating immediately thereafter?
No, I'm not. Merely that there is a difference between having a moral opinion, and actually putting it into practise. Many of his ideas would be thoroughly unpractical for any government to execute, which shows quite clearly that his ideas only have relevance in the theoretical realm. That is why I attach less weight to his dissenting opinion.

What exactly are the practical consequences required for one to have legitimate right to express his views?
None. I'm not denying his right to express his views under any circumstance, only asserting my own to disagree with him.

[Beirut]

No, I'm not. Merely that there is a difference between having a moral opinion, and actually putting it into practise. Many of his ideas would be thoroughly unpractical for any government to execute, which shows quite clearly that his ideas only have relevance in the theoretical realm. That is why I attach less weight to his dissenting opinion.

Theory oftens precedes practice. One must have an idea in mind before he has it in hand. And though the theories put forward might be impractical, any civil criticism of authority in the area of rights and freedoms is its own reward.


None. I'm not denying his right to express his views under any circumstance, only asserting my own to disagree with him.

:bow:

[Papewaio]

Having an idea and sticking beside that idea, does not make that idea correct.

Civil criticism is fine, actually delivering practical solutions is better. And these require a realistic understanding of the current nature of things before changing them to another.

[Beirut]

Having an idea and sticking beside that idea, does not make that idea correct.

No, but I do like people who stick to their guns in the face of oppostion.


Civil criticism is fine, actually delivering practical solutions is better. And these require a realistic understanding of the current nature of things before changing them to another.

Criticism is criticism. Solutions are solutions. Though it's great if one person can provide both, it's not required. Obviously the better the understanding of a situation the better one can justifiably criticize it. But a critic's job is not to provide the solution, his job is to criticize. It can take just as much guts and be just as beneficial to say "you're wrong" as it takes intelligence and insight to say "this is how we fix it".

To go back to my silly doctor analogy, I don't need four years of medical school to tell me that amputation is not an acceptable cure for a broken finger, regardless of whether I know how to set the bone myself or not. If I was to wait until I learned how to set the bone myself before voicing my opinion, I'd have no finger left.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wow, Beirut. He writes dissent. Big deal. So what? Just about anyone can and be stubborn enough to stick to it. Dissent isn't some great, noble, thing in and of itself.

A writer should be praised for good ideas. Chomsky writes a lot of dissent - so what? As others have already pointed out, his ideas are not tempered in reality, but in ivory towers.


It can take just as much guts and be just as beneficial to say "you're wrong" as it takes intelligence and insight to say "this is how we fix it".

No. Not now, in our culture. Anyone can be a critic, saying 'that's wrong' doesn't take great ability. Critics are useless. He's really not insightful. And I would call no one who fights for socialism someone who fights for freedom. Chomsky is intelligent, and that's apparently rare enough in socialist and anti-American circles that's he's held up as a great figure.


No, but I do like people who stick to their guns in the face of oppostion.

You're a fan of President Bush then? ~;p

CR

[Papewaio]

I would call no one who fights for socialism someone who fights for freedom.

So Europe and Australia and New Zealand and Canada are anti-freedom now because they have a more socialist outlook? :laugh4:

[CountArach]

So Europe and Australia and New Zealand and Canada are anti-freedom now because they have a more socialist outlook? :laugh4:
Didn't you see the Liberal Party Election adds? Labor isn't socialist now, they're Communists!

[Beirut]

BFD. So what?

BFD? Bush Fondles Democrats? Sounds like a big deal to me.


Dissent isn't some great, noble, thing in and of itself.

Yes, it is. An act of dissent can have the most exta-ordinary consequences. :sunny:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/declaration-independence.jpg


A writer should be praised for good ideas. Chomsky writes a lot of dissent - so what? As others have already pointed out, his ideas are not tempered in reality, but in ivory towers.

Instilling in people the motivation to question authority, to look beneath the surface of government actions, and to think independently are good ideas and certainly not ivory tower goals.


No. Not now, in our culture. Anyone can be a critic, saying 'that's wrong' doesn't take great ability. Critics are useless.

Criticism come in as many flavours as the critics themselves. Posting criticsm on the internet, for example, requires no discipline and carries little weight in the real world. I mean, any gaseuos emmision could log onto a game site, use his pet's name for a title, and then espouse at length about the state of the world. Who cares what he says.

On the hand, a distinguished proffesor from MIT who writes books and gives lectures that try to expose the corruption inherent in the world's most powerful governments and corporations is very useful indeed. Both for what he says, and as a figurehead for others who also feel the system is corrupt and are looking for someone smarter than themselves to help them understand what's going on.


He's really not insightful. And I would call no one who fights for socialism someone who fights for freedom.

I've heard him called many things, but not insightful is a first.

As for the freedom thing, I have noticed that the vast majority of people who despise Chomsky are people who talk endlessly about freedom themsleves, but getter madder than hell when Chomsky does it.

As for socialism, I'm a socialist by youir standards. Do I sound un-free to you?


Chomsky is intelligent, and that's apparently rare enough in socialist and anti-American circles that's he's held up as a great figure.

He is intelligent, and he may be a socialist by your standards, but anti-American? I don't buy it. It's too easy a call. It's right up there with calling someone an anti-Semite because they think the Palestinians have rights. (Not something you said yourself.)

I'm sure the vast majority of people you might describe as anti-American are quite fond of the country and the people. They just don't like the government that's temporarily representing the country. It's a huge difference, and if overlooked, can cause serious problems in communication.


You're a fan of President Bush then? ~;p


On a personal level, at a BBQ, he's probably a riot and very good company. And yes, I do admire his ability to stand up in the face of powerful opposition. As a president, though, I have little doubt that will go down in history as the worst ever to take office.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, it is. An act of dissent can have the most exta-ordinary consequences.

Ahh, but they provided a solution. They didn't sulk around saying the King sucks. They are great and remembered today because they waged a war to fix the problem.


Instilling in people the motivation to question authority, to look beneath the surface of government actions, and to think independently are good ideas and certainly not ivory tower goals.

Yes, indeed. But a lot of people have said that, and if I understand correctly, that's not the main reason why people praise him.



On the hand, a distinguished proffesor from MIT who writes books and gives lectures that try to expose the corruption inherent in the world's most powerful governments and corporations is very useful indeed.

He has a certain view of what he thinks is corrupt and wrong - and his criticism is only as useful as his reasons behind them (like the socialist conspiracy theories about media and sports). If the corruption and conspiracies he sees are but phantasms he fights in his mind, then he isn't very useful, is he? I think his praise is out of proportion to his deeds even if his criticisms are valid.

As for socialism, I view any government program to take money from some and give it to others as inherently unfree.


I'm sure the vast majority of people you might describe as anti-American are quite fond of the country and the people. They just don't like the government that's temporarily representing the country.

As I understand it, Chomsky hasn't been fond of any modern American government, and would like more socialist ones.


As a president, though, I have little doubt that will go down in history as the worst ever to take office.

Care to make that assertion interesting? ~;p

CR

[Beirut]

A-ha! A vibrant debate. :duel:


Ahh, but they provided a solution. They didn't sulk around saying the King sucks. They are great and remembered today because they waged a war to fix the problem.

I would venture to say that those who first dissented were what led to the writing of that document, but did not write it themselves.


Yes, indeed. But a lot of people have said that, and if I understand correctly, that's not the main reason why people praise him.

Yes, but it matters more amongst the public when someone of his stature and intellect says it.

Your understanding of the reasons why people praise him may be better than mine, but I think it is exactly why most people praise him.


If the corruption and conspiracies he sees are but phantasms he fights in his mind, then he isn't very useful, is he? I think his praise is out of proportion to his deeds even if his criticisms are valid.

If the corruption and conpiracies he sees are only in his mind, countless millions will be greatly relieved.

As for what level of praise he deserves, I think it's more important to listen to the criticisms of him. That is where the discerning mind will see the validity in either his arguments or those who disagree with him.


As for socialism, I view any government program to take money from some and give it to others as inherently unfree.

Funny, I see caring for your fellow countrymen as the foundation of a civilized and progressive society.


As I understand it, Chomsky hasn't been fond of any modern American government, and would like more socialist ones.

Wouldn't we all. :sunny:


Care to make that assertion interesting? ~;p

CR

Name it, baby. ~:smoking:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I would venture to say that those who first dissented were what led to the writing of that document, but did not write it themselves.

From my understanding of American history, I would disagree. Those who began protesting and the like were involved in putting forth the idea of independence.


Yes, but it matters more amongst the public when someone of his stature and intellect says it.

Fair enough.


Your understanding of the reasons why people praise him may be better than mine, but I think it is exactly why most people praise him.

And it seems out of proportion to what he's actually done, considering a lot of targets of his criticism (Government criticism is all well and good, as long as you criticize them for things they're doing, not what some socialist conspiracy nut thinks they're doing). I think a lot of his reverence comes from his socialist inclinations - like why so many leftists love Chavez. His criticisms and ideas don't matter so much that his ideas are socialist.


As for what level of praise he deserves, I think it's more important to listen to the criticisms of him. That is where the discerning mind will see the validity in either his arguments or those who disagree with him.

Here's one;
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110008997

To his supporters Noam Chomsky is a brave and outspoken champion of the oppressed against a corrupt and criminal political class. But to his opponents he is a self-important ranter whose one-sided vision of politics is chosen for its ability to shine a spotlight on himself. And it is surely undeniable that his habit of excusing or passing over the faults of America's enemies, in order to pin all crime on his native country, suggests that he has invested more in his posture of accusation than he has invested in the truth.

To describe this posture as "adolescent" is perhaps unfair: After all, there are plenty of quite grown-up people who believe that American foreign policy since World War II has been founded on a mistaken conception of America's role in the world. And it is true that we all make mistakes--so that Prof. Chomsky's erstwhile support for regimes that no one could endorse in retrospect, like that of Pol Pot, is no proof of wickedness. But then the mistakes of American foreign policy are no proof of wickedness either.

This is important. For it is his ability to excite not just contempt for American foreign policy but a lively sense that it is guided by some kind of criminal conspiracy that provides the motive for Prof. Chomsky's unceasing diatribes and the explanation of his influence.
...
Prof. Chomsky is an intelligent man. Not everything he says by way of criticizing his country is wrong. However, he is not valued for his truths but for his rage, which stokes the rage of his admirers.

Chomsky's writings are anti-American because they are not objective - he will mitigate whatever evil our foes do while criticizing America. He is just an embodiment of American leftist thought.


Funny, I see caring for your fellow countrymen as the foundation of a civilized and progressive society.

Having money you worked for forcibly taken from you has precious little to do with caring or charity.


Wouldn't we all.

Funny, isn't it, that Eastern Europe has been moving away from that. And that France elected a conservative who's breaking the big unions. And that Canada elected a conservative.


Name it, baby.

Well, Kamikhann already owes me the earth and the moon...
Let's bet title of 'Premier Political Prognosticator' according to whether general US public opinion in 2018 thinks Bush is the worst president ever to serve (a long time, but time must mellow the fiery passion of the present into the cool study of history).

CR

[Beirut]

From my understanding of American history, I would disagree. Those who began protesting and the like were involved in putting forth the idea of independence.

It goes without saying that if someone refuses to be subjegated that they therefore want to be free, but how that comes to fruition is/could be another matter arrived at by other people.

Were the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence also the first to dissent against Britain's rule? I don't know, I'm asking. My thoughts are that the dissent took place years before and began with a few ordinary guys saying "The King is a fink." Their act of dissent was the catalyst. Others, I think, came up with the cure.


And it seems out of proportion to what he's actually done, considering a lot of targets of his criticism (Government criticism is all well and good, as long as you criticize them for things they're doing, not what some socialist conspiracy nut thinks they're doing). I think a lot of his reverence comes from his socialist inclinations - like why so many leftists love Chavez. His criticisms and ideas don't matter so much that his ideas are socialist.

Depends on whether you see Chomsky's goals as inherently socialist or not. Freedom, according to some, is not the purvue of socialists. Yet in this case we have a "convicted socialist" raising a stink because the people who think they are more free than the socialists are telling the socialists that they are hurting freedom by saying there should be more of it.

You need an Advil after a thought like that.


Chomsky's writings are anti-American because they are not objective - he will mitigate whatever evil our foes do while criticizing America. He is just an embodiment of American leftist thought.

So American leftist are anti-American?

And the lines to the gulags start... where?


Having money you worked for forcibly taken from you has precious little to do with caring or charity.

Indeed. Charity translates into Hebrew as duty. You know - Duty, Honour, Country. You have that down south, don't you?


Funny, isn't it, that Eastern Europe has been moving away from that. And that France elected a conservative who's breaking the big unions. And that Canada elected a conservative.

As long as you know that the majority of our conservatives support socialized medicine and would rather sell their daughters to a biker gang than even consider legalizing the carrying of handguns.


Well, Kamikhann already owes me the earth and the moon...
Let's bet title of 'Premier Political Prognosticator' according to whether general US public opinion in 2018 thinks Bush is the worst president ever to serve (a long time, but time must mellow the fiery passion of the present into the cool study of history).
CR

I'm there. ~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

'Premier Political Prognosticator' would shorten to PPP...

[Geoffrey S]

And it seems out of proportion to what he's actually done, considering a lot of targets of his criticism (Government criticism is all well and good, as long as you criticize them for things they're doing, not what some socialist conspiracy nut thinks they're doing). I think a lot of his reverence comes from his socialist inclinations - like why so many leftists love Chavez. His criticisms and ideas don't matter so much that his ideas are socialist.
I think that's doing him a disservice. In their own way his writings are brilliant and he does in my opinion raise a number of valid issues with America's policies. But as with someone like Marx, also an extremely persistent person, raising valid issues isn't where their genius is flawed: it's in providing realistic, practical answers. There Chomsky's writings tend to fall flat. Particularly when he defends his initial ideas to extremes, leading to such debatable matters such as his apologist stance on Pol Pot's regime mentioned earlier, or his views on the Israeli situation.

Though even in such cases, his writing is interesting enough to provide new questions, if not answers.

[Beirut]

...or his views on the Israeli situation.

I heard some of those views. If true, they are illuminating to say the least.


Though even in such cases, his writing is interesting enough to provide new questions, if not answers.

Always a good thing. They say recognition of a problem is 50% of its solution. In that light, Chomsky's criticisms of government are very important.

[Geoffrey S]

I heard some of those views. If true, they are illuminating to say the least.
His views absolving the Muslims side of the conflict from blame of causing and continuing the strife, by his assertions that their actions are a reaction to Israeli aggression? Illuminating indeed about the standards of his historical awareness and political experience.

[Beirut]

Chomsky spoke at length on the Charlie Rose PBS show (as well as in writing) about the Israeli/Arab situation, and put forward a very good argument saying that Israel is far from the victim in the neighbourhood. That Israel, with US backing, has deliberately used force, several times, when diplomatic means were at hand because they thought they could get more at gun point than at a conference table.

A serious problem that affects free debate in this area is that assigning Israel any blame at all is, to many, utterly unacceptable, bordering on sociopathic anti-Semitism. And that stigma, used to great effect as a targeted psychological weapon, stiffles free expression. This is where someone like Chomsky is a valuable asset to a free debate. He's willing to say publicly, and eloquently, naming names and dates and places, that Israel does bear a good deal of responsibilty for the state of the Middle East today. That makes him a pariah to the right wingers. But that is to be expected.

In this situation perhaps more than any, a dissenting view carries enormous risk. Being a critic in real life is not as easy as it seems.

[Geoffrey S]

The problem is, he goes further than that. I can agree that successive Israeli governments carry a large amount of responsibility for the continuing conflict, as can many others around the world. But his view is fundamentally unbalanced due to his being unwilling to acknowledge the equally large amount of responsibility resting on a large number of Palestinians and leaders of various Arab states.

Understandably, people question his motivations for these views. Cries of anti-semitism are cheap and a highly doubt they are valid, but there is a clear bias there, probably caused by Chomsky being selective about his facts and side on the debate so his perception of reality still fits neatly in his theoretical constructs.

[Beirut]

Understandably, people question his motivations for these views. Cries of anti-semitism are cheap and a highly doubt they are valid, but there is a clear bias there, probably caused by Chomsky being selective about his facts and side on the debate so his perception of reality still fits neatly in his theoretical constructs.

Well said. But true objectivity, especially in a situation like the Middle East, is difficult to achieve no matter who you talk to. Your sig spells it out nicely.

I wouldn't say Chomsky is unbiased, but objectivity is not what I look for in someone like him. I want subjectivity, I want opinion, I want "He's wrong and this is why... "

Though not always the case, I think there's a better chance of finding a middle ground on an issue by talking/listening to two people with strongly disparate viewpoints than listening to someone walk a tightrope of neutrality and polite objectivity.

This is fun. Chomsky and William Buckley.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

[Geoffrey S]

Then I think we are agreed. I was just set off by some comments on Chomsky which I found to be either overly positive or negative.

Objectivity is very difficult to achieve and certainly not something I'd demand, and as said a lack thereof makes for interesting and confrontational questions. In the case of Chomsky I really think his lack of objectivity makes him a very easy target, but this is a vulnerability largely caused by his own persistence in limiting his criticisms to capitalists and perceived imperialist states and people, particularly from the West. It limits him, and as a result also to a degree the debate.

[Beirut]

Oh-oh, we are almost agreed. Nothing left to banter about. :inquisitive:

But...

Chomsky points out that he limits his criticisms to US actions and the actions of those backed by the US because, as a US citizen himself, he bears some responsibility for the actions of his government and therefore also bears the responsibility to speak out concerning those actions.

That point of view may not earn him many friends at home, but there is a noble and mature quality to cleaning up your own mess before criticizing others for not cleaning up theirs. When it involves matters of human rights and freedoms, it is, as they say, doubleplus good!

Our governments spend all day talking about how bad other governments are; it's up to the citizens to talk about how bad their own government is.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That Israel, with US backing, has deliberately used force, several times, when diplomatic means were at hand because they thought they could get more at gun point than at a conference table.

And the Arab states haven't? That's all they've done, and did Chomsky say anything of that? I doubt it, and that is why he's so inadequate philosophically.

He doesn't have an objective view, and he only offers (poor) criticisms. Like I said, he's lauded only because his ideas are socialist, not because they're good or relevant. Heck, Beirut, I think you and JAG are alone in your admiration of him.

CR

[Beirut]

And the Arab states haven't? That's all they've done, and did Chomsky say anything of that? I doubt it, and that is why he's so inadequate philosophically.

He's covering the bases he decides to cover. As you, and everyone else is allowed to do as well.

Am I supposed to interpret your silence on a particular issue as a tacit endorsement of it? Should I disregard everything you say that does not include "the other side of the coin" of that issue?

By the way, Chomsky has spoken about the Arab states, and in particular, has no lost love for Arafat. But if Chomsky's a weak thinker and biased, does that mean Arafat was a good guy?


He doesn't have an objective view, and he only offers (poor) criticisms. Like I said, he's lauded only because his ideas are socialist, not because they're good or relevant. Heck, Beirut, I think you and JAG are alone in your admiration of him.
CR

Objectivity is fine and dandy, but subjectivity is no less required. As I said, I don't look to Chomsky (or people like him) for objectivity; I want opinion, I want that person's subjective views of right and wrong and hear the information he used to arrive at those opinions. Then I want to hear the subjective views of the person who disagrees with him. I want to hear both sides go it at. If I can listen to Netenyahu (or someone like him) with his subjective opinions, why can't I listen to Chomsky? Or is Netanyahu and everyone "like him" wrong as well? Why can't I listen to both and decide for myself?

I don't listen to, or read Chomsky because he's a socialist. I couldn't care less if he was G.W.'s closet conservative love toy in college. I want to hear an eloquent and informed dissenting opinion, which Chomsky has. And I certainly don't find his criticisms weak, on the contrary, he puts forth very interesting views on important topics.

JAG, may, as I may, as you may, admire anyone he wishes.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, fair enough, Beirut. Cheers, I say, and will go off to argue in some other part of the backroom.

CR

[Adrian II]

He's covering the bases he decides to cover. As you, and everyone else is allowed to do as well.When he covered the Khmer Chomsky made a huge mistake that illustrates a big blind spot in his analysis of world affairs. A blind spot with which he will never be confronted since he never bears responsibility for any policy whatsoever.

I agree with everything else you say, Beirut, particularly the part about objectivity, subjectivity and informed criticism.

[Fragony]

File me under A at 'amazed'. Never knew about that.

[Adrian II]

File me under A at 'amazed'. Never knew about that.It's what babykilling pinko Eurosocialist friends are for. :coffeenews:

[Beirut]

It's what babykilling pinko Eurosocialist friends are for. :coffeenews:

I'm a weak-kneed welfare loving' commie igloo dweller from Canuckistan. Glad to meet ya. :sunny:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

I agree with everything else you say, Beirut, particularly the part about objectivity, subjectivity and informed criticism.
That makes two of us. :chef:
.

[JAG]

He doesn't have an objective view, and he only offers (poor) criticisms. Like I said, he's lauded only because his ideas are socialist, not because they're good or relevant. Heck, Beirut, I think you and JAG are alone in your admiration of him.

He is an anarchist.

The fact you don't understand that probably says enough about how much of his work you have actually read.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He is an anarchist.

The fact you don't understand that probably says enough about how much of his work you have actually read.

He's actually just a complainer. He is both a Statist and an Anarchist. Smart guy - makes some good points, but he is a self-loathing socialist who gets fed up with solving problems and goes back to anarchy.

[Fragony]

An anarchist with an UN-fetish?

[Crazed Rabbit]

He is an anarchist.

The fact you don't understand that probably says enough about how much of his work you have actually read.

Yeah, he can say he's an anarchist, but he still speaks in support of socialist type policies. He also heavily criticizes capitalism, which would be the economy of an anarchist society.

He says (according to his wiki page) that US participation in WWII was "probably justified, with the caveat that a preferable outcome would have been to end or prevent the war through earlier diplomacy." (Not a direct quote).

It is the moronic policy of appeasement and endless hope for a diplomatic solution that led to WWII in the first place.


Objectivity is fine and dandy, but subjectivity is no less required.

Chomsky's problem is he doesn't reach his subjective opinion based on objective facts. He doesn't look fairly at both sides before deciding which to support. And that is why he holds no wisdom or insight.

CR

[Beirut]

Chomsky's problem is he doesn't reach his subjective opinion based on objective facts. He doesn't look fairly at both sides before deciding which to support. And that is why he holds no wisdom or insight.

CR

Then neither do you and neither do I.

I hear you get your facts from Acme News, but I know that ACME News's parent company are a bunch of oil pumping, wildlife raping, slumlords all related to Dick Cheney. I, on the other hand, get my news from Newsco, who's founding members included three vegans who defected to the USSR back in '78 and sold their bicycles to raise money to support third trimester abortions.

Whose objective facts are the ones Chomsky should have read? Yours or mine? Where are the objective facts, if you please?

[CountArach]

Yeah, he can say he's an anarchist, but he still speaks in support of socialist type policies. He also heavily criticizes capitalism, which would be the economy of an anarchist society.
Actually, the system would be communalism. For the record, I am a great admirer of his as well.