NationStates Jolt Archive

Your opinions. Please back up your assertions with facts, please.

Got a good name, i'll say that for him.
But why do you care what people think about him?

Makes a change from all the "we hate moore" threads, should open up discussion into a man who does his homework and sticks to the facts :)

I don't have the patience to listen to him... He's too long winded. He has good ideas, but he can make even the most interesting topics...DRY!!

While I disagree with his conclusions often (nearly always), it is not because his logic is lacking, but because we start from different positions and weigh the benefits/harms of policies differently. Definetely among the most intelligent people in the word today, he has the ability to see and reveal relationships most of us would never consider - it is rare that I come away from an extended reading of him without new insight into the functioning of the world. Alas, unless one is willing to put forth a fair ammount of effort into examining his work, anyone who doesn't agree with his social goals is apt to find him flakey. Despite his work in linguistics, he is not a good communicator, he has a serious problem in his inability to see beyond his own logic and this limits him to preaching to the chior instead of converting the masses.

Facts to back up my opinions? I suppose I could reread some Chomsky to provide examples to document my analysis and demonstrate how I came to my conclusions, but is it really necessary? If you are familiar with him then the "facts" supporting my opinions should be familiar to you, and if not then it would take so long to post them that my post alone would dominate pages of the thread.

I wouldn't say the guy 'speaks the truth' as such, but he certainly has a way, and an ability to make you look at issues and events from angles others rarely do.

And he is an academic, meaning he actualyl uses and argues with facts and proper theory. Something sorely lacking in general US political discourse.

Chomsky is interesting . . .

Hey, where's Letila?

I liked his earlier stuff, especially 'Detering Democracy'. Very well written and researched.
However he seems to rehash a lot of his earlier arguments over and over lately. I can't help but wonder if he hasn't the time anymore to do the research. He''s too busy being Noam Chomsky, galavanting around the World giving speeches about the evils of Big Business in Politics. Also I think he's gone a little extreme in his latest messages over Iraq.
Still, for a while it seemed like there was only him and John Pilger bothering to highlight the appalling foreign policies of various governments and I still have a lot of respec for him because of that.

Noam Chomsky is a very clever guy. As said, he approaches topics from viewpoints rarely considered and he sticks to the facts. Unlike much of what passes for "political discussion" in America, his work is neither hysterical nor too partisan.

Chomsky is really brilliant as an academic. He is biased, but he's an academic, not a journalist, so that's okay.

My problem is Chomsky is that his writing style is manipulative. Because of his mastery of linguistics, he's able to present his opinions in a way that makes them sound like facts. The simplest way he does this is by presenting a series of facts, all worded and structured similarily, and in the middle will be opinionated conclusions presented in the same manner. THis is likely why a lot of his work is so long winded.

I haven't read anythingof his in the last little while, and I've lent out all my Chomsky so I can't put in any examples, but check it out for yourself.

It's interesting none of the "OMG, Moore is fat and stupid" brigade have turned up. I guess none of them can claim Chomsky is untruthful.

It's interesting none of the "OMG, Moore is fat and stupid" brigade have turned up. I guess none of them can claim Chomsky is untruthful.

I'd venture a guess that the 'omg' part of the conservative brigade hasn't read a lot of Chomsky! I have to shift out of 'practical application' mode and into 'academic' mode to read him with much gusto...but he is quite compelling.

I'd venture a guess that the 'omg' part of the conservative brigade hasn't read a lot of Chomsky! I have to shift out of 'practical application' mode and into 'academic' mode to read him with much gusto...but he is quite compelling.
I reckon they haven't read much that isn't the Bible, or has been massively censored so they're precious little eyes don't get that rose-coloured glass shattered, forcing them to see reality for what it is. :rolleyes:

I do agree with your last statement. If I stop thinking about how long-winded his is and remind myself that I could instead be reading something by Charles Dickons, I think Chomsky's work would be a worthy read.

He is also well spoken.

Chomsky is an idiot and a liar.
"Chomsky should properly be identified as the very definition of the lunatic fringe. He hates the United
States of America with a fiendish passion. He has no shades of gray when it comes to declaring that it is our country that is the primary state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and September 11 is a small piece of comeuppance."

http://killdevilhill.com/generationxchat/read.php?f=25&i=128&t=128

"One of the first things one is struck by when reading Chomsky is the propagandistic nature of his effort and his shrill, pedantic and often times snide tone. His work is also extraordinarily dense and generally a chore to read. He packs detailed anecdotes, facts and figures among his diatribes in an almost overwhelming manner. The sympathetic reader’s conclusion: there is simply so much evidence; Chomsky must be a genius and his conclusions irrefutable. Chomsky’s intent may also be to inundate his critics in order to produce sheer physical and mental exhaustion if not ultimately ideological surrender. "
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11902

i.e., simple minded sheep stay in the flock.

I've read two things by Chomsky. One was an attempt to criticise Libertarianism in which he completely mischaracterised the ideology (the straw man fallacy) and one in which he was cheerleadering for the Viet Cong. I don't think America should have invaded Vietnam but the Viet Cong were barbaric and we shouldn't cheer them. I haven't read anything else by him and don't plan to.

Chomsky is an idiot and a liar.Prove it.
"Chomsky should properly be identified as the very definition of the lunatic fringe. He hates the United
States of America with a fiendish passion. He has no shades of gray when it comes to declaring that it is our country that is the primary state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and September 11 is a small piece of comeuppance."

http://killdevilhill.com/generationxchat/read.php?f=25&i=128&t=128Are you denying that America has sponsered terrorists and mass murderers?

"One of the first things one is struck by when reading Chomsky is the propagandistic nature of his effort and his shrill, pedantic and often times snide tone. His work is also extraordinarily dense and generally a chore to read. He packs detailed anecdotes, facts and figures among his diatribes in an almost overwhelming manner. The sympathetic reader’s conclusion: there is simply so much evidence; Chomsky must be a genius and his conclusions irrefutable. Chomsky’s intent may also be to inundate his critics in order to produce sheer physical and mental exhaustion if not ultimately ideological surrender. "
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11902

i.e., simple minded sheep stay in the flock.This is hilarious. Chomsky provides too many facts and figures. So that shows us that he must be a liar and an idiot obviously.

Chomsky is an idiot and a liar.
"Chomsky should properly be identified as the very definition of the lunatic fringe. He hates the United
States of America with a fiendish passion. He has no shades of gray when it comes to declaring that it is our country that is the primary state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and September 11 is a small piece of comeuppance."

http://killdevilhill.com/generationxchat/read.php?f=25&i=128&t=128

"One of the first things one is struck by when reading Chomsky is the propagandistic nature of his effort and his shrill, pedantic and often times snide tone. His work is also extraordinarily dense and generally a chore to read. He packs detailed anecdotes, facts and figures among his diatribes in an almost overwhelming manner. The sympathetic reader’s conclusion: there is simply so much evidence; Chomsky must be a genius and his conclusions irrefutable. Chomsky’s intent may also be to inundate his critics in order to produce sheer physical and mental exhaustion if not ultimately ideological surrender. "
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11902

i.e., simple minded sheep stay in the flock.

Have you ever read anything of Chomskys?

I've read two things by Chomsky. One was an attempt to criticise Libertarianism in which he completely mischaracterised the ideology (the straw man fallacy) Did he mischaracterise it or critique a different form of the ideology to yours (say the Libertarian Party or the minimum goverment brigade)? I haven't read the particular piece you're talking about.and one in which he was cheerleadering for the Viet Cong. I don't think America should have invaded Vietnam but the Viet Cong were barbaric and we shouldn't cheer them. I haven't read anything else by him and don't plan to.That's a reasonable critique of Chomsky and one of his main failings. He has a tendency to react to the injustices of western imperialism by siding with the underdog, whereas I prefer a Shakespearean "a plague on both your houses". I'd say similar about his quoted "held my nose and voted for Clinton". His best work (apart from the stuff on lingustics which I find impentrable but friends of mine who work in the field think highly of) is his stuff on media distortion- I'd recommend "Manafacturing Consent". I take it you acknowledge that the criticisms we're both making of Chomsky are ideological ones as opposed to believing he's a liar.

For Liberals such as me (Ultra Socialist ((bordering on Communism)), liberals) - Chomsky = Our God.

He is quite simply one of the greatest minds in Political Analysation and current affairs to exist. Check out some of his debates - Then you'll understand why a British Professor described Chomsky in a debate as a 'terrible and relentless opponent'. I don't caree whether somebody starts throwing around the Word fanboy - I read a far larger variety of books on the subjects I want to research (most recently Nicaragua and Southeast Asia) than just Chomsky, it's just the fact you find yourself being drawn back to him after finishing another book. The man is a genius, he's modest, he's helpful and what infuriates the Right the most is the fact the closest thing they have to a Chomsky is Anne Coulter :p

He has not been coined "The most important intellectual alive" for nothing ;)

Did he mischaracterise it or critique a different form of the ideology to yours (say the Libertarian Party or the minimum goverment brigade)? I haven't read the particular piece you're talking about.That's a reasonable critique of Chomsky and one of his main failings. He has a tendency to react to the injustices of western imperialism by siding with the underdog, whereas I prefer a Shakespearean "a plague on both your houses". I'd say similar about his quoted "held my nose and voted for Clinton". His best work (apart from the stuff on lingustics which I find impentrable but friends of mine who work in the field think highly of) is his stuff on media distortion- I'd recommend "Manafacturing Consent". I take it you acknowledge that the criticisms we're both making of Chomsky are ideological ones as opposed to believing he's a liar.

First I would like to say that I rarely agree with Chompsky.(Yes some of us moderate conservatives do read, much like the modern liberals.) To compare Chompsky who provides empirical evidence and well thought out conclusions to Moore is laughable. If you wish to establish Moore's credibility then you have to take down giant media houses (including his publisher) that say he is basically full of shit. Moore likes to use half truths and assumptions to make his cases. The only thing Moore manages to make a conclusive point about is that the American populace is stupid. He calls them stupid over and over again and yet they still support him. He lets Hezbollah distribute his material and claims to be against terrorism.
Chompsky goes line by line into policy But I will say he does make clever points on th historical schema. Again I don't agree with his angles and conclusions like the, "vietnam was the American version of the holocaust thing." (This I found to be quite anti-semitic for an intellectual given the scope of the real holocaust.)
Nevertheless Chompsky sticks by his word. And I admire him for some of his stances.

Noam Chomsky made some important contributions to the field of Developmental/Cognitive Psychology as well as having a delicious political brain. I'd like to eat it.

For Liberals such as me (Ultra Socialist ((bordering on Communism)), liberals) - Chomsky = Our God.

He is quite simply one of the greatest minds in Political Analysation and current affairs to exist. Check out some of his debates - Then you'll understand why a British Professor described Chomsky in a debate as a 'terrible and relentless opponent'. I don't caree whether somebody starts throwing around the Word fanboy - I read a far larger variety of books on the subjects I want to research (most recently Nicaragua and Southeast Asia) than just Chomsky, it's just the fact you find yourself being drawn back to him after finishing another book. The man is a genius, he's modest, he's helpful and what infuriates the Right the most is the fact the closest thing they have to a Chomsky is Anne Coulter :p

What about Camus? He taught limited government.. which flies in the face of modern liberalism. He may be dead but many still read his works today. Camus is still alive in the hearts and minds of his contemporaries. Camus where ever you are thank you for supporting the modern conservative in his steadfast criticism of big government, and rebellion not merely for the sake of rebellion but against government injustice.

I have dibs on Chomsky's brain!!!

Chomsky is an idiot and a liar.
"Chomsky should properly be identified as the very definition of the lunatic fringe. He hates the United
States of America with a fiendish passion. He has no shades of gray when it comes to declaring that it is our country that is the primary state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and September 11 is a small piece of comeuppance."

http://killdevilhill.com/generationxchat/read.php?f=25&i=128&t=128

"One of the first things one is struck by when reading Chomsky is the propagandistic nature of his effort and his shrill, pedantic and often times snide tone. His work is also extraordinarily dense and generally a chore to read. He packs detailed anecdotes, facts and figures among his diatribes in an almost overwhelming manner. The sympathetic reader’s conclusion: there is simply so much evidence; Chomsky must be a genius and his conclusions irrefutable. Chomsky’s intent may also be to inundate his critics in order to produce sheer physical and mental exhaustion if not ultimately ideological surrender. "
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11902

i.e., simple minded sheep stay in the flock.It is ironic that a fellow who quotes random jingoistic extremists from the internet rather then posting his own opinions would call others 'simple minded sheep.' Think about that for a moment.

I have read Chomsky with a critical eye and I must say that his analysis is quite astute. You have apparently only read shrill and unacademic potshots hurled at him from radical neocons without any credibility whatsoever. These 'articles' have no factual basis behind them and provide no real examples or evidence, so it is ironic that the argument is based on the fact that Chomsky provides too much of it.

Well I'm obviously going to say he speaks the truth as I find his methods of research thorough and taken from a variety of sources - however, his opinions also correlate closely to mine which, yes makes me biased. Oh well :)

As a linguistics student as well, his theory on children's language aquisition is interesting.

Did he mischaracterise it or critique a different form of the ideology to yours (say the Libertarian Party or the minimum goverment brigade)?
He mischaracterised it. He was talking specifically about the so called anarcho-capitalists. (a stupid name but a sound ideology).

I'd recommend "Manafacturing Consent".
Thanks but no thanks. I've got too many books I want to read and Chomsky has already failed the bullshitometer test.
I take it you acknowledge that the criticisms we're both making of Chomsky are ideological ones as opposed to believing he's a liar.
I haven't read enough to say whether he's a liar or just an asshole. Either way I'm not interested.

First I would like to say that I rarely agree with Chompsky.(Yes some of us moderate conservatives do read, much like the modern liberals.) To compare Chompsky who provides empirical evidence and well thought out conclusions to Moore is laughable. If you wish to establish Moore's credibility then you have to take down giant media houses (including his publisher) that say he is basically full of shit. Moore likes to use half truths and assumptions to make his cases. The only thing Moore manages to make a conclusive point about is that the American populace is stupid. He calls them stupid over and over again and yet they still support him. He lets Hezbollah distribute his material and claims to be against terrorism.

Precisely the point I was making. It's notable that you and Libertovania are some of the few right wingers on here that have actually read Chomsky and are prepared to debate on this thread yet they're all over the Moore threads. Why do you reckon that is? I must admit that I suspect serious cowardice. (Have you got proof that Moore let's Hezbollah distribute his material?)
Chompsky goes line by line into policy But I will say he does make clever points on th historical schema. Again I don't agree with his angles and conclusions like the, "vietnam was the American version of the holocaust thing." (This I found to be quite anti-semitic for an intellectual given the scope of the real holocaust.)
Nevertheless Chompsky sticks by his word. And I admire him for some of his stances.Chomsky's actually Jewish. I don't think he's in any way anti-semitic. I don't think that's a literal comparison- I think he's arguing that Vietnam makes the same kind of stain on the conscience of the US that the holocaust does on Germany or that some of the actions of the Empire does on the UK).

Precisely the point I was making. It's notable that you and Libertovania are some of the few right wingers.....
I'm not right wing. I'm in favour of legalising victimless "crimes", ending corporate welfare, unrestricted immigration, free speech, ending imperialism, human rights and the non-initiation of violence.

I'm not right wing. I'm in favour of legalising victimless "crimes", ending corporate welfare, unrestricted immigration, free speech, ending imperialism, human rights and the non-initiation of violence.Fair point. Right wing economically, left wing socially.

Fair point. Right wing economically, left wing socially.
Ending corporate subsidies, ending corporate political influence, abolishing the limited liability corporation, abolishing the IMF and World Bank, allowing 3rd world producers access to our markets, abolishing anti-union legislation and ending labour mobility restrictions. Are these right wing goals? Libertarianism is old school left wing if anything a.k.a. classic liberalism. Even as late as 1848 the classic liberal Frederic Bastiat sat on the left side of the French assembly, the very definition of left wing. Since "left wing" and "liberal" have been corrupted beyond all recognition I stick to "Libertarian".

He is biased. He is far left. Sometimes he strikes me as a bit "off" -just a bit.

Having said that, I voted for option #3. I almost never agree with him. But, he is extremely intelligent, and very respectable. He draws his conclusions from logic and reason, not pathos and gullibility. He is the antithesis to people like Moore, and the kind of ideologue the world could use much more of(on both sides of the fence).

My main complaint with him? He alienates the common man. I, personally, don't give a fuck if the drooling masses don't understand intellectual, relevant rhetoric. But because he IS so smart, and does not edit his messages to appeal to said mental midgets, he will never be as popular as those who "modify" the truth, or lie outright, as Moore, Limbaugh, etc. do. The world is run by morons. It's a shame people like Chomsky don't get more attention.

I agree with Chomsky politically, but even if I didn't, I would have to respect the man's contributions to his field. He is a brilliant linguist and very talented. I respect him a great deal.

By the same token, there are times when he's babbled about things that I really wish he'd kept his mouth shut. But then again, that's normal for about everybody.

For every brilliant statement out of someone's mouth, there's an equally stupid moment later to come. I don't hold that against the man.