Is Noam Chomsky a "dweeb"?

Is he?


  • Total voters
    50
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not surprised one bit that someone hanging from the tit of Brzezinski takes an intense disliking to Chomsky.

Have you... read Brzezinski? Oh, I suppose that an imperialist mass murderer isn't worth the time.

Anyway, it's not that I think that anybody who is a socialist or thinks that America has committed crimes is stupid, or not worth reading. It's just that Chomsky's work is an incredible dumbing down of everything I know about geopolitics and America's foreign policy, made simple for rabble-rousing and armchair activists. It's really incredibly sad that someone like that is taken seriously. He's more celebrity than scholar. And not many people who actually understand what they're talking about go out of their way to refute him or his works, because the people who know what they're talking about aren't the type of people who write popular books or go after pseudointellectuals. He's either ignored or praised.

Have you ever asked yourself why America invaded Iraq, or why Israel has historically been aggressive towards the Palestinians? Those are serious questions. Or does everything eventually go back to the desires of the capitalist elite?
 
I disagree, the mainstream opinion(like what you'd learn from your teachers in school, from mainstream media outlets, from your parents, etc.) seems to view the United States as a benevolent force. Unless someone has a special interest in this sort of thing, what Chomsky has to say would probably bring new things to their attention. I think you're expecting way too much from him, I don't think he's trying to have the most novel opinions, just trying to increase the awareness of how the average American citizen towards how their government operates. I know for me personally reading his works was very beneficial when I was in high school.

I've been of the opposite experience. In a casual/scholastic context most people I know discuss the United States and American foreign policy as a dubious force at best and often express the desire that the United States would remove itself from international politics, "Splendid Isolation"-style. There's a lot of self-loathing of the United States, or at least palpable self-doubt.

Maybe I am just surrounded by dirty, gutless lieberals, though.
 
I've been of the opposite experience. In a casual/scholastic context most people I know discuss the United States and American foreign policy as a dubious force at best and often express the desire that the United States would remove itself from international politics, "Splendid Isolation"-style. There's a lot of self-loathing of the United States, or at least palpable self-doubt.

Maybe I am just surrounded by dirty, gutless lieberals, though.

The US cannot simply "isolate" itself from international politics, for quite a few fundamental reasons which I don't feel like expounding on here (but it's easy to cry imperialism when you see that United States involving itself so deeply in world affairs that ostensibly do not concern it, which is what causes most of this stupidity). Chomsky readers are among the most ignorant people that I've ever met. The gap between what he writes and what serious political scientists or historians write is, without hyperbole, as large as the difference between astrology and astronomy.
 
I've been of the opposite experience. In a casual/scholastic context most people I know discuss the United States and American foreign policy as a dubious force at best and often express the desire that the United States would remove itself from international politics, "Splendid Isolation"-style.
The so-called Splendid Isolation was a joke and did not actually constitute a withdrawal from a protagonism in world or European politics by any British government. It did not constitute a cessation of British attempts to play the entente game, either.

It was also the period of the most blatant, egregious and expansive British imperialistic conquests, so, there's that too. Not exactly a good metaphor.
 
The so-called Splendid Isolation was a joke and did not actually constitute a withdrawal from a protagonism in world or European politics by any British government. It did not constitute a cessation of British attempts to play the entente game, either.

It was also the period of the most blatant, egregious and expansive British imperialistic conquests, so, there's that too. Not exactly a good metaphor.

That's all true, though I chose the comparison because I'm not certain any of the people making such criticisms would be willing to actually step back from American world power -- they are more concerned with the image or quality of that power seeming benevolent. Thus the quotation marks.

It's a feeble defense. I kind of realized how unwieldy and inappropriate the comparison was after posting it. :blush:
 
American linguist. Very influential in the field. He's probably best known for his political activism, which comes from a far left perspective, identifying at various points as a libertarian socialist and an anarcho-syndicalist. He's a very articulate and prolific writer, so he's become one of the most significant voices of these views in American today. So if any of those things interest you, you ought to care about Noam Chomsky.
 
I remember reading about him 10 years ago.
Still have no idea who he is, but I learned how to be an effective, right-winger-ish poster on these forums thanks to this nugget:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000051.html

Misdirection

Now to show you how this works in the real world, I need to tell you a story about a real man named Robert Wayne Jernigan. I guarantee you this story will make you very angry, but this is the kind of world we live in today.

Robert Wayne Jernigan is now 28 years old. People who knew him said he was quiet, somewhat stand-offish. He was not widely liked in high school.

Four years ago, a witness reported seeing Jernigan enter a building in a remote suburb of Dallas with an axe. Four people were found dead at the scene, including a nine year old girl. No charges were filed. Less than two days later, Jernigan turned up again, this time at the scene of a suspicious fire in a day care center. Miraculously, no one was injured. But it was just a matter of time.

During the next several weeks, it is possible to place Jernigan at the scene of no less than thirteen suspicious fires. Eleven people died. Eyewitnesses were unshakable in their determination that Jernigan had been on the scene. And yet the police did nothing.

Jernigan had long been fascinated with fire. A search of his apartment revealed fireman-related magazines, posters and memorabilia. Despite the deaths of fifteen people, despite repeated eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence placing Jernigan at these fires, no criminal charges were ever filed against Robert Wayne Jernigan. He remains a free man to this day.

And rightfully so. Because Robert Wayne Jernigan is an ordinary fireman for the Dallas Fire Department.* He is not a serial arsonist at all.

Now re-read the previous paragraphs and tell me where I lied.

Everything I told you was factually true. But the spin, the context, the misdirection. The press always reports serial killers with all three names. Robert Wayne Jernigan sounds a hell of a lot more ominous than Bobby Jernigan. Quiet, stand-offish, not widely liked. Instant psychopath, if you read the papers. Entered the building with an axe oooh! That ought to get the blood boiling. That the people had died from smoke inhalation I decided was irrelevant to the story.

And so on. And so on.

This is how you lie by telling the truth. You tell the big lie by carefully selecting only the small, isolated truths, linking them in such a way that they advance the bigger lie by painting a picture inside the viewer's head. The Ascended High Master of this Dark Art is Noam Chomsky.

I have long admired Noam Chomsky. It must be absolutely intoxicating to be able to write so free of any ethical constraints. Chomsky flitters and darts through the vast expanse of human experience, unerringly searching out those few, isolated data points that run contrary to the unimaginably vast ocean of facts crashing ashore in the opposite direction.

Here's a Noam Chomsky moment for those of you without enough duct tape to wrap around your heads to keep your brains from exploding while you actually read his works:

Let's say we stand overlooking the ocean along Pacific Coast Highway. From high atop the cliffs, we look down to the waves and the sand below. I ask you what color the beach is. You reply, reasonably enough, that it is sandy white. And you are exactly right.

However, there are people who cannot see the beach for themselves because they are not standing with us on this very spot. This is where Noam earns his liberal sainthood. Noam takes a small pail to the beach and sits down in the sand.

If you've ever run sand through your fingers, you know that for all of the thousands upon thousands of white or clear grains, there are a few dark ones here and there, falling through your fingers. With a jewelers loupe and an EXCEEDINGLY fine pair of tweezers, you carefully and methodically pluck all of the dark grains you can find, and only the dark grains, and carefully place them, one by one, into your trusty bucket.

It will take you a long time. It has taken Chomsky decades to fill this bucket, but with enough sand and enough time, you will eventually do so. And then, when you do, you can make a career touring colleges through the world, giving speeches about the ebony-black beaches of Malibu, and you can pour your black sand onto the lectern and state, without fear of contradiction, that this sand was taken from those very beaches.

And what you say will be accurate, it will be factually based, and you will be lying like the most pernicious son of a that ever lived.

Why do so many people take this hocus-pocus at face value? Because, like any audience at a Magic show, they want to believe.

Do this long enough, and you will become an Icon. No more hours spent sorting sand for you! No sir! And finally, after a few decades as Icon, you may manufacture whatever data you need to make your case, and not one of your followers will call you on it.


*Edit*
Er, to gather the 1000 grains of sand about a subject you care about, not to mislead. :hammer2:
 
4%20right%20banner.jpg



Yep, seems like a reliable source to me.
 
4%20right%20banner.jpg



Yep, seems like a reliable source to me.

He rolled all his essays from that blog into a successful book in 2004 that got no bad reviews until 17 months ago. You should buy it :D

http://www.amazon.com/Silent-America-Essays-Democracy-War/dp/0976405903/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Chicken soup for the American soul after 9/11 mmm

*Edit*
Hmm, this book also got mostly 5 stars. Maybe it's more about the spirited defense of capitalism and not all the other stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Revolution-Rands-Government/dp/0230341691/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Anyway, if you don't want to spend $20, can always google his essays one at a time. I'm sure they are floating around the internet individually.
 
Have you... read Brzezinski? Oh, I suppose that an imperialist mass murderer isn't worth the time.

I have read Brzezinski. I throw him out because he's a crazy ex-Polish Aristocrat whose rabid hatred for leftism caused a brinkmanship foreign policy, and he was the most vocal proponent of supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

Kissinger is far more useful than Brzezinski, because he is more into realpolitik than ideology. He was the architect of detente, after all, which Brzezinski purposefully destroyed.

Anyway, it's not that I think that anybody who is a socialist or thinks that America has committed crimes is stupid, or not worth reading. It's just that Chomsky's work is an incredible dumbing down of everything I know about geopolitics and America's foreign policy, made simple for rabble-rousing and armchair activists.

So you're upset that his world view conflicts with yours. Boo hoo.

It's really incredibly sad that someone like that is taken seriously. He's more celebrity than scholar.

Yeah, not really. I don't expect a teenage homeschooler to have a great idea of just how useful, popular that he is.

And not many people who actually understand what they're talking about go out of their way to refute him or his works, because the people who know what they're talking about aren't the type of people who write popular books or go after pseudointellectuals. He's either ignored or praised.

And who are these "people who know what they're talking about," that Chomsky isn't one of them?

Have you ever asked yourself why America invaded Iraq, or why Israel has historically been aggressive towards the Palestinians? Those are serious questions. Or does everything eventually go back to the desires of the capitalist elite?

Never. I've never asked myself those things. Why would I? I lived through them, watched them happen. I studied them for my degree in college. But I've never ever asked why they happened, until just now, when you prompted me.

I'm curious to hear what your attributed reasons are.
 
I just picture a talking frog whenever I see Chomsky. I tried to read 'Hegemony or Survival' but had to stop after a few pages because of all the emotional populist BS funneling into my eyes. If you want to understand why bad things happen, you'd do better reading Zbigniew Brzezinski's writings on geopolitics, geostrategy, and how nations behave and interact in the modern era than reading Chomsky's work, which can be summed up by "America wants to rule the world and look at all the bad things they do! Imperialism!" It only appeals to people who need to point fingers and feel oppressed rather than try and see how the world works or why this stuff actually happens.
You mean this Zbigniew Brzezinski?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: US, Israel Should Have Voted For Palestinian Statehood

US won’t follow Israel 'like a stupid mule' - Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Obama must 'stand up' to Netanyahu

The mistakes of the Iraq war are not only tactical and strategic, but historical. It is essentially a war of colonialism, attempted in the post-colonial age.

[President George W. Bush] has a vision which can be described with two other words: Manichaean paranoia ... the notion that he is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil, that in that setting, the fact that we are morally superior justifies us committing immoral acts. And that is a very dangerous posture for the country that is the number one global power. ... The fact is he squandered our credibility, our legitimacy, and even respect for our power.

I am very worried that most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant. That is an unhealthy condition in a country in which foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued. And it makes it much more difficult for any president to pursue an intelligent policy that does justice to the complexity of the world."

Perfect example here: Formy's spamming of the statistic showing more Palestinians have died than Israelis. It's no longer about preventing suffering or stopping murder and genocide, it's about mindlessly shouting slogans against whatever country you want to be evil.
You appear to be the one who is again "mindlessly shouting slogans against whatever country you want to be evil" by trying to rationalize and defend reprehensible acts in Iraq and Isreal with an extremely simplistic notion of the world in general.

I'm not surprised one bit that someone hanging from the tit of Brzezinski takes an intense disliking to Chomsky.
I think it has far more to do with his age. Many youth seem to find difficulty in understanding the complexities of the world, so they get fixated on people like Ayn Rand and quote mine people like Machiavelli and Brzezinski for what appear to be easy answers to inherently difficulty issues. It is a matter of not being able to understand the nuances inherent of shades of grey in a world they perceive to be black and white.

The US cannot simply "isolate" itself from international politics, for quite a few fundamental reasons which I don't feel like expounding on here (but it's easy to cry imperialism when you see that United States involving itself so deeply in world affairs that ostensibly do not concern it, which is what causes most of this stupidity). Chomsky readers are among the most ignorant people that I've ever met. The gap between what he writes and what serious political scientists or historians write is, without hyperbole, as large as the difference between astrology and astronomy.
I guess that explains why he has so much of a following in universities and academia, two groups widely known for their "ignorance" and belief in astrology "without hyperbole".
 
Is that supposed to be funny because we're in a Chomsky thread?

That actually never occurred to me.

I have read Brzezinski. I throw him out because he's a crazy ex-Polish Aristocrat whose rabid hatred for leftism caused a brinkmanship foreign policy, and he was the most vocal proponent of supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

Criticism of leftism is not "hatred" of leftism. Supporting the mujahedeen resulted in one of the greatest defeats of the Soviet Union and stopped any southward expanse towards the Persian Gulf. Seems like he did his job.

Kissinger is far more useful than Brzezinski, because he is more into realpolitik than ideology. He was the architect of detente, after all, which Brzezinski purposefully destroyed.

I've read some of Brzezinski's work and it seems pretty solid to me.

So you're upset that his world view conflicts with yours. Boo hoo.

No, I'm upset that he doesn't follow basic standards of scholarship and objectivity when writing his books. Again: Celebrity.

Yeah, not really. I don't expect a teenage homeschooler to have a great idea of just how useful, popular that he is.

A teenage homeschooler who wants to know more about how the world works, rather than trying to find out what is wrong with it and getting angry at people who don't agree with me. Interesting when you understand that our minds are literally hardwired to send "error messages" when we hear opinions or facts that we disagree with.

And who are these "people who know what they're talking about," that Chomsky isn't one of them?

Political scientists. Strategists. Historians. Heard of those?

Never. I've never asked myself those things. Why would I? I lived through them, watched them happen. I studied them for my degree in college. But I've never ever asked why they happened, until just now, when you prompted me.

I was not talking about your purported scholarship. I was asking about how you viewed the way which you understand geopolitics and history. If you disagree with anything I've stated, be a big boy and muster together an argument. You make me ask you this far too frequently.

I'm curious to hear what your attributed reasons are.

Why? Why should I give you history lessons? That wasn't the point of my question. I'm not here to debate you on this thread.


I agree with all three of his statements. You might notice that I'm not the one who responded to any neutral statement of yours about the fact that you liked Chomsky by bringing up irrelevant subjects that I thought would offend you. This is possibly the funniest statement you've made so far, Formy. Facts don't do it for you? You don't seem like someone pursuing truth, because you always opt to uttering inflammatory remarks as a poor substitute for actual argumentation.

You appear to be the one who is again "mindlessly shouting slogans against whatever country you want to be evil" by trying to rationalize and defend reprehensible acts in Iraq and Israel with an extremely simplistic notion of the world in general.

I don't understand how you can simply squawk back the exact same things that I accuse you of at me. Did you imagine that I am a neoconservative religious Zionist who can't bear to hear criticism of America's or Israel's foreign policy? If so, why did you assume that?

I think it has far more to do with his age. Many youth seem to find difficulty in understanding the complexities of the world, so they get fixated on people like Ayn Rand and quote mine people like Machiavelli and Brzezinski for what appear to be easy answers to inherently difficulty issues. It is a matter of not being able to understand the nuances inherent of shades of grey in a world they perceive to be black and white.

Am I being trolled?

I guess that explains why he has so much of a following in universities and academia, two groups widely known for their "ignorance" and belief in astrology "without hyperbole".

Does this merit a response? I drew my own conclusions about Chomsky after comparing his work to that of other historians and scholars. If some college kids think that reading Chomsky gives them intellectual superiority over the sheeple who don't understand the capitalist plans of world domination, it doesn't really concern me.

You've created an alternate cognitive model, disparate from reality, in which facts, statistics, and critical reasoning do not fall within your purview. Your threads and posts demonstrate this. Instead of rationally examining and engaging policies, institutions, and systems, you prefer to write unstructured, provocative diatribes aimed at attacking other people's ideologies (while supporting your own army). And then, when you find yourself backed into a corner, you have the mindbending chutzpah to accuse people who criticize you for this of using ad hominems.

I want to ask you: WHY did you bring up Brzezinski's statements on Israel and the Iraq war? What purpose did it serve for the conversation?
 
Isn't it ironic that Mouthwash's conception of linguistics compared to Chomsky is "as large as the difference between astrology and astronomy"? Yet Chomsky isn't the "scholar"?

That even Brzezinski generally agrees with Chomsky instead of him in regard to the "geopolitics" of imperialism in Iraq, as well as the governmental policies of Israel? That Brzezinski is actually in favor of committing moral acts instead of immoral ones, as well as justifying the acts of the US government on that basis? Yet Mouthwash doesn't even realize it in his haste to quote mine the parts that agree with his own opinions?

But why should Mouthwash give us "history lessons" as a home-schooled high school student when he'd much rather talk about the "purported scholarship" of someone who was accepted to Oxford's graduate degree program to further his own academic studies of history? That he continues to "opt to uttering inflammatory remarks as a poor substitute for actual argumentation" instead?

Freedom of speech is such an awesome right:

"In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of speech is protected more than in any other country. It is also a very free society." Noam Chomsky
 
Criticism of leftism is not "hatred" of leftism. Supporting the mujahedeen resulted in one of the greatest defeats of the Soviet Union and stopped any southward expanse towards the Persian Gulf. Seems like he did his job.

And it was a despicable one. You understand that Brzezinski's efforts that arose from his hatred of communism led to September 11? He literally thought empowering terrorists who hate the United States was preferable to a communist-controlled country.

I've read some of Brzezinski's work and it seems pretty solid to me.

This statement means literally nothing in this conversation.

No, I'm upset that he doesn't follow basic standards of scholarship and objectivity when writing his books. Again: Celebrity.

And what standards are those? What objectivity are you talking about? One of Chomsky's most admirable features as a commentator on political science is that he realizes that great truth that there is no such thing as being objective. He writes political science commentary and investigation, it's not a dry "even time for every idea" garbage history survey.

A teenage homeschooler who wants to know more about how the world works, rather than trying to find out what is wrong with it and getting angry at people who don't agree with me.

So finding out how the world works has nothing to do with finding out what's wrong with it? It seems that your problem with Chomsky is that he thinks there are things wrong with the world that you do not. Ironic that the person who you brought up as an ideological counterpoint to Chomsky, Brzezinski, agrees with Chomsky on many points in international relations!

So I guess you hate Zbigniev now, too right? Or just Chomsky still, because that's the fashionable thing to do nowadays.

Point is, you're not really in a position to accurately judge how "the world of scholarship" views Chomsky and his work, because you have only ever existed at the periphery of that world, and the area of it where he is most commonly used, aka college, you haven't gotten to yet. You'll encounter him all over the place once you get there, and once you meet people who approach ideas based upon their merits, and not merely on who thought of them or what the popular opinion of that person is.

Political scientists. Strategists. Historians. Heard of those?

Why don't you give me some names and examples then.

I was not talking about your purported scholarship. I was asking about how you viewed the way which you understand geopolitics and history. If you disagree with anything I've stated, be a big boy and muster together an argument. You make me ask you this far too frequently.

It's an unbelievably stupid question that I don't think merits my bothering to humor you with an answer to.

Why? Why should I give you history lessons? That wasn't the point of my question. I'm not here to debate you on this thread.

Because you clearly asked me that question with the belief that my opinions on those issues you asked are wrong. Else, you would not have begun with "haven't you ever questioned...?" So, I asked you what you thought the answers were, since you asked me to give you a history lesson.

Though I have to wonder: why are you asking someone if they've ever bothered questioning things when they are defending one of the most prominent questioners of that status quo? As if believing Chomsky was a part of the status quo, and someone like Brzezinski (and who else? You've refused to give names) was the heroic outlier challenger of that status quo? It don't make no sense.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it back in turn.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom