Is Noam Chomsky a "dweeb"?

[Lord of Elves]

And as far as being "anti-American" is concerned, for many of those who claim he must be that as well:

This sort of thing is precisely why I don't take Chomsky seriously. He doesn't actually answer the question out right "No, I am not anti-American" or simply state what he thinks about people who say that "[I think] people who think that way are manipulable or are backing an authoritarian agenda", instead he goes on this cute little rant where he very distinctly implies people who disagree with him are control freaks and misanthropes hiding behind the American flag without actually saying that this is what he thinks or without giving those people the benefit of the doubt.

I feel like I kind of have to qualify myself as not having an issue with the idea that he likes to take a bite out of the United States. There's nothing new in that. His style of writing or speaking or whatever is just abrasive.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the positions of others is hardly "abrasive". And it is quite clear what he thinks of the accusations. Calling it "taking a bite out of the United States" also reveals your apparent sentiments despite claiming otherwise.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the positions of others is hardly "abrasive".

I think you are intentionally missing my point. I've basically had to pepper my posts with "I do not think his [attacking America/American politicians/etc] is [abrasive/annoying/frustrating] I think his [style of writing/debate/oratory] is [annoying/childish/sanctimonious]."

At this point I'm kind of holding up a giant sign that reads "This Is What I Don't Like About Noam Chomsky" but you seem to be choosing to ignore it.

EDIT: Is criticizing the United States not "taking a bite out of the United States"? Would you have preferred a more non-committal, vague euphemism for his critiques that wouldn't have tripped your anti-jingoist alarm?

 

[Traitorfish]

This sort of thing is precisely why I don't take Chomsky seriously. He doesn't actually answer the question out right "No, I am not anti-American" or simply state what he thinks about people who say that "[I think] people who think that way are manipulable or are backing an authoritarian agenda", instead he goes on this cute little rant where he very distinctly implies people who disagree with him are control freaks and misanthropes hiding behind the American flag without actually saying that this is what he thinks or without giving those people the benefit of the doubt.

He takes a concept, breaks it down, and shows it to be contradictory. That's not bad behaviour or an "abrasive" tone, it's pretty basic critical method with a slight rhetorical spin. There's no obligation to accept a set of assumptions just because they comes packaged with a question mark at the end.

 

[Leoreth]

OK. Now that was funny. Touche.

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Winston Hughes]

Again, even a single example would do much to lend your own hyperbole-laden acrimony a semblance of credibility.

The examples I discovered myself, which related to the war in Kosovo (upon which I was writing a paper at the time), are lost somewhere in my attic. If memory serves, they involved taking individual phrases out of context so as to present sources as supporting points which they did not, with regards to the motivations for American involvement. Only someone who went to the effort of cross-checking what were, in many cases, rather obscure sources would ever have realised that their evidence was markedly less compelling than suggested by Chomsky's references.

In any case, if you just want a single clear example, the first one to pop up on my google search is this from Oliver Kamm:

He manipulates a self-mocking reference in the memoirs of the then US ambassador to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, by running separate passages together as if they are sequential and attributing to Moynihan comments he did not make, to yield the conclusion that Moynihan took pride in Nazi-like policies

...which sounds exactly like the Chomsky I came across in the course of my own research.

What are his motives then? Is he just a self-publicist, looking for the main chance?

That's my best guess, yeah. I mean, it's not like you need to play fast and loose to highlight the moral vacuum behind US foreign policy, or its (frequently horrific) consequences. But I guess that's how you stand out from the crowd: tell stories that are just a little too perfect to be true.

 

[Formaldehyde]

EDIT: Is criticizing the United States not "taking a bite out of the United States"? Would you have preferred a more non-committal, vague euphemism for his critiques that wouldn't have tripped your anti-jingoist alarm?

Only he is clearly not "criticizing the United States", but the some of the policies of the government. That is essentially the same as claiming he is "anti-American". Now isn't it?

In any case, if you just want a single clear example, the first one to pop up on my google search is this from Oliver Kamm:

...which sounds exactly like the Chomsky I came across in the course of my own research.

Yet that is not really an example at all. It is the personal opinion of one person quoting the personal opinion of another without any actual details.

But his article which also spends a great deal of time praising Chomsky as well does point out one quite important fact. Noam Chomsky is not a historian. He doesn't even claim to be one. He is merely voicing his own personal opinions.

What seems to be the real issue here is that many universities invite him to speak about those personal opinions, much to the chagrin of the author of this article.

 

[Winston Hughes]

that is not really an example at all. It is the personal opinion of one person quoting the personal opinion of another without any actual details.

But her article which also spends a great deal of time praising Chomsky as well does point out one quite important fact. Noam Chomsky is not a historian. He doesn't even claim to be one. He is merely voicing his own personal opinions.

What seems to be the real issue here is that many universities invite him to speak about those personal opinions, much to the chagrin of the author of this article.

Translation: flannel flannel flannel flannel.

Lame.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Exactly. Why should an academically trained sociologist have any more credibility in history than an academically trained linguist?

You are both essentially accusing him of academic dishonesty without even bothering to provide any actual proof. But even if he did not fully document his rationale on occasion, was he doing so as an academic? Were there footnotes? Was it presented as a definitive history? Or was he merely writing about a topic which happened to interest him as a non-scholar, which requires far less academic rigor?

 

[Alassius]

A large part of it is because he is ethnically a Jew, yet he is not a Zionist. He is quite critical of many of the policies of the Israeli government and the mistreatment of Palestinians. For that he is often even labeled as an anti-Semite, as many others are, which is beyond absurd. It just shows to what depths some are willing to go to try to discredit others for merely disagreeing with their own views.

And as far as being "anti-American" is concerned, for many of those who claim he must be that as well:

He's right about the similarity between "anti-American" and more nasty things. But he doesn't see it as natural tribal fighting - he'd probably blame it on some massive capitalist propaganda machinery. That is, some transcendental force corrupted man. Following on that, he doesn't see the difference between America and Germany, because that transcendental force still exists in some form. Yet in America he is in fact fairly well protected despite the transcendental force, and the "anti-American" lynching mob can't really do much to him.

To put it another way, bad things like imperialism is very much contained in America, compared to what 19th century colonial empires were like. It's still pretty bad, of course, and efforts to restrain it further is commendable. But that doesn't mean we were not on the right path. That doesn't mean there has been no progress - progress he could not see because he inherited the faulty logic from Marx where everything is categorised as either good or bad, where any bad stuff must be abolished. In the real world "things are still pretty bad" doesn't mean "things are as bad as before". Exaggerating America's ills to the level of "[w]e are just like the Nazis" is neither scholarly nor respectable.

In particular, "things are still pretty bad" doesn't mean we should give up on everything we've been doing, and start over in some unspecified way. In this Chomsky is like what Marx was. Their contribution to the society was limited to raising the awareness of social ills, which was very admirable. But they offered no solution other than a very rough sketch of heaven. I think Chomsky will freely admit that he has no actual plan or design for an ideal, but workable government. This is fine when nobody seriously listen to him. But if people take his revolutionary-ish views seriously, and begin overthrowing the existing order before having a concrete idea of a plausible alternative, what you'll end up with is another Comrade Ulyanov, regardless of how "tyrannical" the existing order is. By contrasting the actual world with an ideal paradise, they created an irresponsible promise which historically has been abused in unspeakable ways. For that they are guilty, with Marx more (innocently) so, as he actively fought to realise it for many decades. Chomsky had a much smaller impact.

And I'm not convinced about "[a] large part of it is because he is ethnically a Jew". That sounds rather like "Chomsky is anti-American". A lot of people probably hate him simply because they don't like his fierce criticism.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And I'm not convinced about "[a] large part of it is because he is ethnically a Jew". That sounds rather like "Chomsky is anti-American". A lot of people probably hate him simply because they don't like his fierce criticism.

You quote mined that snippet by deliberately taking it out of context. Noam Chomsky does indeed get a lot of unwarranted criticism for supposedly being an anti-Semite for not completely supporting the Israeli government in everything it does, just as he is criticized for being an "anti-American" for merely expressing his opinions regarding the acts of the US government. In fact, he was a frequent victim himself of the anti-Semitism which used be far more pervasive in this country as he grew up.

Partners in Hate - Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers

Anti-Semite Noam Chomsky Denied Entry to Israel and West Bank

Noam Chomsky and the New Anti-Semitism

The Chomsky Hoax

Articles and documents exposing the dishonesty and fanaticism of extreme left-wing propagandist and genocide denier Noam Chomsky

But I would certainly agree that a lot of people do indeed hate him for merely having different opinions than their own. I never claimed otherwise. This thread and others which mentioned the views of Noam Chomsky is a testament of how virulent some of that hatred actually is.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Only he is clearly not "criticizing the United States", but the some of the policies of the government. That is essentially the same as claiming he is "anti-American". Now isn't it?

I'm not certain I understand or particularly care about the distinction. He can criticize the United States, he can criticize American policy, etc, however you prefer to view it, it's ultimately irrelevant except that this is (to my knowledge) the only cornerstone of his political and geopolitical works. It's not hard to take to task American policy and American policymakers as, being premier world power, we are all very familiar with the successes and failures of both. It's like taking candy from a baby and should carry the same intellectual prestige or rather, lack thereof.

But his article which also spends a great deal of time praising Chomsky as well does point out one quite important fact. Noam Chomsky is not a historian. He doesn't even claim to be one. He is merely voicing his own personal opinions.

So he is unverified and unqualified. What an upstanding representative of the academic intelligentsia.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not certain I understand or particularly care about the distinction.

That seems rather obvious.

So he is unverified and unqualified. What an upstanding representative of the academic intelligentsia.

Are you "unverified and unqualified" to express personal opinions regarding Noam Chomsky or US foreign policy? Is anybody "verified" and "qualified" to do so?

Why do you apparently hate "academic intelligentsia" so much?

Don't you think your efforts would be better spent not attacking Noam Chomsky or his qualifications to discuss current events, but discussing what he actually stated instead?

 

[Berzerker]

when I gripe about policy I'm a patriot, when you gripe its unamerican

 

[Lord of Elves]

That seems rather obvious.

I've reached the conclusion that having this debate is impossible as you seem convinced that my expression of dislike for Noam Chomsky is a salute to fascism and genocide or an agenda that permits those things. You cannot cherry-pick parts of my posts outside of context and address them as a separate argument and maintain any sort of integrity.

I was apparently fooled by your previous posting that you were above those kinds of cheap tricks.

Are you "unverified and unqualified" to express personal opinions regarding Noam Chomsky or US foreign policy? Is anybody "verified" and "qualified" to do so?

No one's publishing my opinions in an academic context.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Exactly. Why should an academically trained sociologist have any more credibility in history than an academically trained linguist?

You are both essentially accusing him of academic dishonesty without even bothering to provide any actual proof. But even if he did not fully document his rationale on occasion, was he doing so as an academic? Were there footnotes? Was it presented as a definitive history? Or was he merely writing about a topic which happened to interest him as a non-scholar, which requires far less academic rigor?

You seem to be missing the point. The tendency to treat Chomsky as some great, nigh-infallible authority on foreign policy is precisely what I was arguing against in my initial post. If you already grasp that he's far from being that, then I wasn't talking to you. However, the people who do see him that way (and I've encountered an awful lot of them in my time), really should take a closer look at his use of sources, as it shows him in a rather different light.

 

[Alassius]

You quote mined that snippet by deliberately taking it out of context. Noam Chomsky does indeed get a lot of unwarranted criticism for supposedly being an anti-Semite for not completely supporting the Israeli government in everything it does, just as he is criticized for being an "anti-American" for merely expressing his opinions regarding the acts of the US government. In fact, he was a frequent victim himself of the anti-Semitism which used be far more pervasive in this country as he grew up.

Partners in Hate - Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers

Anti-Semite Noam Chomsky Denied Entry to Israel and West Bank

Noam Chomsky and the New Anti-Semitism

The Chomsky Hoax

But I would certainly agree that a lot of people do indeed hate him for merely having different opinions than their own. I never claimed otherwise. This thread and others which mentioned the views of Noam Chomsky is a testament of how virulent some of that hatred actually is.

Fair enough, I don't really read right-wing, left-wing is much more fun

I'm not certain I understand or particularly care about the distinction. He can criticize the United States, he can criticize American policy, etc, however you prefer to view it, it's ultimately irrelevant except that this is (to my knowledge) the only cornerstone of his political and geopolitical works. It's not hard to take to task American policy and American policymakers as, being premier world power, we are all very familiar with the successes and failures of both. It's like taking candy from a baby and should carry the same intellectual prestige or rather, lack thereof.

There is a difference in the sense that you can criticize America because you like America, and you don't want it to do the wrong things. Attacking him for being anti-American is unfair. On the other hand, "[p]ointing out the obvious hypocrisy in the positions of others" is not by itself unabrasive. You can point out the hypocrisy in an abrasive way, and that's exactly what Chomsky does. In short, he is abrasive, sensationalist, occasionally correct but often exaggerated, occasionally dishonest but mostly well-intended, and not anti-American.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I've reached the conclusion that having this debate is impossible as you seem convinced that my expression of dislike for Noam Chomsky is a salute to fascism and genocide or an agenda that permits those things. You cannot cherry-pick parts of my posts outside of context and address them as a separate argument and maintain any sort of integrity.

How can anybody possibly have a discussion about your severe enmity towards someone who apparently just disagrees with your own personal opinions when you continue to concoct such absurd strawmen of my position?

No one's publishing my opinions in an academic context.

What proof do you have that Chomsky was doing so outside of his particular academic specialty, besides apparently none at all?

You seem to be missing the point. The tendency to treat Chomsky as some great, nigh-infallible authority on foreign policy is precisely what I was arguing against in my initial post. If you already grasp that he's far from being that, then I wasn't talking to you. However, the people who do see him that way (and I've encountered an awful lot of them in my time), really should take a closer look at his use of sources, as it shows him in a rather different light.

The "point" that nobody I happen to know does anything of the sort? Do you have an example of even one person in this forum who does so?

Noam Chomsky is an eloquent speaker who is quite well versed on the topics which he speaks. If a handful of people consider him to be some sort of demigod seems completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Gucumatz]

when I gripe about policy I'm a patriot, when you gripe its unamerican

Hear, hear! Just the nature of debating about intellectual cotton candy. Its always fluffy and can twist into many weird ends. I see nothing wrong him professing his opinion, heck that's what half of this forum is. I just don't see it as all that relevant [Much like most of our opinions here are largely irrelevant unless we act upon them somehow]

 

[Traitorfish]

[P]rogress he could not see because he inherited the faulty logic from Marx where everything is categorised as either good or bad, where any bad stuff must be abolished.

Chomsky is a neo-Kantian, not a Marxist.