So he's the Kropotkin of Linguistics?Of course. All of his work on linguistics is just a clever front to disguise his left wing anarchist agenda.
But how could impeccable qualifications and international renown in an esoteric academic field like linguistics possibly compare to completely baseless charges that he is a proselytizing self-righteous pseudo-intellectual, much like so many of his critics? After all, he is supposedly a dweeb instead of a jock.Even completely ignoring his politics and contributions to philosophy, he's likely the single most influential living person in the field of linguistics.
The two are not mutually exclusive.But how could impeccable qualifications and international renown in an esoteric academic field like linguistics possibly compare to completely baseless charges that he is a proselytizing self-righteous pseudo-intellectual, much like so many of his critics?
Because you specified linguistics. Unless there was some peculiar quality that meant linguists can not be internationally renown[sic] proselytizing self-righteous psuedo-intellectual authorities, that would be an unnecessary qualification.What makes any academic field a distinguished one?
I think he is largely irrelevant outside of linguistics. So I went ahead and voted for the joke option.
But how could impeccable qualifications and international renown in an esoteric academic field like linguistics possibly compare to completely baseless charges that he is a proselytizing self-righteous pseudo-intellectual, much like so many of his critics?
Moderator Action: Why is that you can't keep personal attacks out of your posts? Comment deleted.tl;dr: He's a world-famous linguist! No, he's not a pseudo-intellectual, his opponents are! That's that.
<snip>
Kropotkin didn't make clever fronts about anythingSo he's the Kropotkin of Linguistics?