NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_urbanities-americas_dumbe.html

This is hardly news to anyone. O fcourse it's good to know what kind of person writes as he does. Nevertheless I'm still going to read his books and maybe even refer his texts.
Chomsky is quite extreme but he's hardly the only one. People should know by the age of 10 that one shouldn't blindly believe everything they see or read. At least he names the articles and documents on which he refers in his books. (not in 9/11 as also mentioned in the article, it's a non-book, just interviews ans speeches.)

Chomsky in my opinion is just sad.

wouldn't dealing with chomsky's analysis of us foreign policy on a factual level make a better argument than merely complaining that his analysis leads to him blaming much of the wrong in the world on that foreign policy? i mean, in order for this article to make a case against him you have to already assume that his arguments are wrong. and certainly no argument to back that position up was presented there.

wouldn't dealing with chomsky's analysis of us foreign policy on a factual level make a better argument than merely complaining that his analysis leads to him blaming much of the wrong in the world on that foreign policy? i mean, in order for this article to make a case against him you have to already assume that his arguments are wrong. and certainly no argument to back that position up was presented there.

http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2004/10/what-uncle-sam-really-wants-review.html

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/one_of_the_most.html

The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.”

What a retard, I can't believe this idiot is a college professor.

So he's a radical. Big deal.

I have no problem with people being radical. But saying something like that is moronic.

I have no problem with people being radical. But saying something like that is moronic.

I don't get the point of posting this article. So he's a moron. Big damn deal. It doesn't really mean anything, you know?

I guess the point is that he is influential among certain circles....and with the possible exception of linguistics, he shouldn't be.

The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.”
What a retard, I can't believe this idiot is a college professor.
Umm...and how do you know that quote is true? Just because a person who is very obviously an anti-Chomsky uses it doesn't necessarily makes it true, you know. By blindly believing the article, you're as guilty as the Chomsky-adherents the writer despises.




FYI, the quote is correct, but (surprise surprise) it's taken out of context. It was at the height of the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Politicians and the media were falling over themselves to trump each other with the numbers killed and it quickly rose to 4 million+ executed (which equalled about 40% of the population in less than 2 years). Clearly this is pretty unrealistic number. Chomsky was simply pointing this out - that the numbers being bandied about were exagerations. He NEVER said that they didn't happen, and the quote was in fact aimed at the media and their laziness in accepting politicians comments and not bothering to research. It was not aimed at being a sort of 'Holocaust-denial' type comment, though of course it's been used ever since as one by writers who dislike Chomsky to hammer him with it.

Even the CIA handbook now puts it at '1.5 million displaced people died from execution, enforced hardships, or starvation.' This was over the near 4 years the Khmer Rouge were in power (1975 towards the end of 78). Which shows that Chomsky was correct in stating the numbers being used during the 70s were gross exgerations.

Chomsky is too radical for my taste, and usually dismisses some parts of the historical context and gives too much relevance to others when trying to explain something. But he does raise interesting points nevertheless, which makes him worthwhile to read even if you know you won't agree with what he's saying but at least will get you to do some research to try to counter him.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_urbanities-americas_dumbe.html
Won't read the link because you are a extremist CRWN that don't like centre guys like Noam telling the truth :)

The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as “tales of Communist atrocities” based on “unreliable” accounts. At most, the executions “numbered in the thousands” and were “aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing.”


What a retard, I can't believe this idiot is a college professor.


Why not?

The Khmer Rouge was in power from '75 to '79. IT was in '77 that the first reports of the atrocities started to apear. They were viewed with some suspicion by pretty much EVERYBODY, and given that Cambodia did a good job of sealing up the country - the truth of the events was not known until AFTER the Vietnamese drove the Khmer out in '79.

And, after that point, when the truth became KNOWN rather than just rumoured, Chomski revised his opinion and stated his acceptance of the facts.

Wow - a professor wanting FACTS... go figure.


Oh yes, and for the the record the CIA final verdict was that it was between 50,000 and 100,000 people executed, and the bulk of the deaths (perhaps a million or so) was due to starvation. It was also noted that the death tolls increased as the reign of the Khmer Rouge progressed.

The CIA report of 1980 is here (http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/demcat.htm). The source notes in their preamble to this report that this has been discredited to some extent due to it's "lack of any discussion of the purges of 1977 and 1978".

Note that timeline! The purges of 77 and 78, and you are talking about Chomski's statement in '77 following some of the earliest rumours starting to show up from refugee camps.

It has been fairly well accepted that the worst of the atrocities were carried out in '77-'78. Chomski's comments that the early reports were not yet deemed reliable in '77 was therefore not exatly an unfair position to take. It was not yet substantiated, and the worst of the problems were not yet in full swing either.



So, a statement in '77 of "executions numbered in thousands" "aggravated by the threat of starvation" was in fact a fair statement to make AT THAT TIME given the limited knowledge available, and indeed given that it was just at the start of the purges may in fact have not been too far from the truth AT THAT TIME.


But hey - hindsight is 20-20 right....


Chomski treated refugee opinions - some of which might have had political reasons to exaggerate - with a grain of salt and said so. He wanted substantiation.



Don't you wish that GW and the CIA had treated Chalabi & Co. with the same level of suspicion?

Won't read the link because you are a extremist CRWN that don't like centre guys like Noam telling the truth :)
I quite like Noam. But I would hardly call him centre.

Chomsky is a genius. He is coined as "The most important intellectual alive"

So just ignore the people who don't know what they're talking about. If any of us had one inch of the brilliance of Chomsky, well, none of us do.. that is why we need Chomsky to keep people honest.

Chomsky is a genius. He is coined as "The most important intellectual alive"

Quite a statement. Care to explain what makes him such a genius?

I do respect his opinion and I think he has a point in many things, but I don't think he is as brilliant as most of his followers make him to be. He usually tends to minimize acts of violence and savagery historically commited by other peoples, while maximizing those of the US and Europe, which althoug current and therefore more important to us, doesn't necessarily offer a solution or provides better understanding on the particular human group. It just demonizes them.

Quite a statement. Care to explain what makes him such a genius?

Well the genius part is my opinion, that is why I didn't put it in quotes. ;)

Chomsky is a genius. He is coined as "The most important intellectual alive"

So just ignore the people who don't know what they're talking about. If any of us had one inch of the brilliance of Chomsky, well, none of us do.. that is why we need Chomsky to keep people honest.

Oh come on.

Someone like J.S. Bell is far more important that some linguistics professor with radical opinions.

Oh come on.

Someone like J.S. Bell is far more important that some linguistics professor with radical opinions.

Hey, what was in quotes is a well know position among intellectuals. I agree with it. However what was in quotes is what scholars do believe.

Hey, what was in quotes is a well know position among intellectuals. I agree with it. However what was in quotes is what scholars do believe.

Fair enough. I just don't think that a linguistics professor can ever be that important.

Fair enough. I just don't think that a linguistics professor can ever be that important.
Well, I think that if the opinion is well argued and researched, then it's deserving whether it comes from the town hick or a Nobel prize. If nothing else Chomsky has at least shaken the tree of established ideas and forced us to reevaluate them. I'd say that's important no matter what your background.

Fair enough. I just don't think that a linguistics professor can ever be that important.

I would agree if that was all there was to him, I think it's safe to say he is much more then a mere linguistics professor. Wouldn't you?

I would agree if that was all there was to him, I think it's safe to say he is much more then a mere linguistics professor. Wouldn't you?


Alright, he's a linguistics professor that writes introductions to books by holocuast deniers. It's not like he discovered DNA or anything.

Alright, he's a linguistics professor that writes introductions to books by holocuast deniers. It's not like he discovered DNA or anything.

So many these days are totally void of critical thinking, he really is one of the last critical thinkers of our time. I do hope there are more to follow. For now though, he seems to be agreed upon by most academics as the most important one alive at the moment.

So many these days are totally void of critical thinking, he really is one of the last critical thinkers of our time. I do hope there are more to follow. For now though, he seems to be agreed upon by most academics as the most important one alive at the moment.

Okay then. But I'll still go with JS Bell.

Okay then. But I'll still go with JS Bell.

Which of course is your right. :)

Alright, he's a linguistics professor that writes introductions to books by holocuast deniers. It's not like he discovered DNA or anything.


[Chomsky was also involved in a high-profile controversy over an essay he wrote in defence of the right to freedom of speech of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, which was then used as the introduction to a book by Faurisson. See: Faurisson Affair.----From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.]

to say that is pure ignorance on your part fyi although you probably already know this chomsky is a jew its a shame more americans dont read chomsky even if you disagree with him/dislike him for whatever reason he's a very necessary intellectual who presents the "other" side of US foreign policy-the side thats not spoon fed to a blissfully ignorant american public

I'm not going to read this as I don't believe an article entitled: "America's Dumbest Intellectual" is going to be a very unbiased or good read.

What a retard, I can't believe this idiot is a college professor.

Wow.

Next time you come up with a linguistical theory that challenges and demolishes the accepted view of how children learn, one that rivals a psychological giants such as Skinner, give it a post.

Whatever your political views, calling Chomsky a 'retard' as you so eloquently put it, is quite an accusation. I've never been that confident.

Oh, and an article written by someone who can't get their mind round the idea that questioning American foreign policy isn't 'Anti-american' isn't worth reading.

Chomsky in my opinion is just sad.

Yes, that is your opinion. That is also the OPINION of this terrible article...terrible in the sense that it is a pretty poor attempt at journalism. Journalist should strive to acheive as much objectivity as possible, and yet this article is full of inflamatory anti-Chomsky rhetoric. Chomsky, let me point out, is NOT a journalist, nor does he pretend to be. He admits his biases openly, and meticulously backs up his claims with facts. If you've ever actually READ something of his (instead of just hearing the digested version through the slanted view of an article such as this), you would be confronted with an exhausting bibliography at the end of each essay, the majority of which are taken from the U.S government itself. I have heard a lot of anti-Chomsky talk over the years, yet I have never seen anyone able to dispute the information he collects and disseminates. The major complaint against him is that people don't 'like' what he is saying. Tough. Don't listen. Stooping to attacking him on a personal level is disgusting...especially since it often comes from the mouths of those who get up in arms about any negative comment about Bush.

Have any of you read something that Chomsky himself wrote? Or are you arm-chair critics who like your information digested for you?

This is also the journal that prints things like:

Black studies programs, fixtures at most universities since the radical wave of the late 1960s, have been from the beginning ghettos of academic mediocrity and political grievance-mongering. Instead of nurturing genuine academic achievement, they encourage black students to study not history, but black history, not literature, but black literature—promoting a segregated vision of the world that betrays the original ideals of the civil rights movement.


But even if these homeless are not physically dangerous, their colonization of public space does harm. Up at the Riverside Drive sandbox where my children used to play, six or seven homeless have been encamped until the Giuliani crackdown, sleeping on the benches, smelling bad, and talking loudly about drugs when they are awake. As two-year-olds toddle toward them, I see parents' faces fill with horror: what kind of antibiotic-resistant strain of TB does this guy have?

Fearmongering and stereotypes seem to be the norm in this rag. Enjoy your reading.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_urbanities-americas_dumbe.html
Chomsky is an ass who write hatespeech that appeals to only extremists.

Chomsky is an ass who write hatespeech that appeals to only extremists.

:D Based on....?

:D Based on....?
Based on his idiotic beliefs.

Based on his idiotic beliefs.
Idiotic beliefs. Interesting. So if you stupidly believe the world to be flat, you are a hatemonger? I challenge you to dispute a single claim made by Chomsky. That means actually reading his material (which you probably have not, preferring to have it regurgitated to you out of context by others), check his sources and then prove him wrong. Once. I'll wait, but I won't hold by breath.

Also, are you a citizen of the United States of America? If so, doesn't your nation guarantee freedom of thought, and freedom of speech? Did I miss the line where it says, "but only if you agree with me, otherwise you are spreading hate?"

Wow.

Next time you come up with a linguistical theory that challenges and demolishes the accepted view of how children learn, one that rivals a psychological giants such as Skinner, give it a post.

Whatever your political views, calling Chomsky a 'retard' as you so eloquently put it, is quite an accusation. I've never been that confident.

Oh, and an article written by someone who can't get their mind round the idea that questioning American foreign policy isn't 'Anti-american' isn't worth reading.

Linguitics is bunk.

I suppose you believe in Freud too.