Is Noam Chomsky a "dweeb"?

[choxorn]

How the hell did we go from "Is Noam Chomsky a dweeb" to a discussion about pseudo-intellectualism?

 

[Leoreth]

Pseudo-intellectuals entered the thread.

 

[GhostWriter16]

\
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?

Israel hates Palestine because in 1948 Israel tried to steal Palestinian land and Palestine did not let them do so. Palestine is also being idiotic at the moment for thinking they can get Israel to leave completely or that they should do so, but Israel and Great Britain were the first initiators of the conflict. As for Iraq, are you freaking kidding me? Because Bush was a bloodthirsty mass murderer with a grudge.

Socialists fail at economics but at least Chomsky doesn't support murder.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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.

Come RPF where I can actually give rep for awesome comments like this (Just don't talk about economics too much). Specifically just for the bolded portion. I love when someone gets how bull the pro-Empire propaganda is, whatever else you may believe.

The US cannot simply "isolate" itself from international politics, .

Nor does anyone think we should. What those of us who rightfully oppose world government and empire want is for the United States to stop INTERVENING in foreign countries. We, or at least those of us on the right who support what is commonly falsely labeled "Isolationism" predominately support free trade, and many of us support free immigration as well. Its not as simple as interventionism or isolationism.

 

[Mouthwash]

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"?

What are you rambling about? He may be a competent linguist. I don't know or care. That doesn't give him any sort of intellectual authority over subjects outside his field.

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?

Disregarding the fact that you ignored by question about the relevance of Brzezinski's opinions on Israel or the Iraq war, where have I quoted anyone? Who have I quoted? Chomsky's opinions differ so radically from Brzezinski's you can't even contrast the two. Brzezinski openly advocates US hegemony.

His critique of the Iraq war (which you are currently "quote-mining" now) have more to do with upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East than some sort of liberal anti-imperialist statement. His statement that Israel should have voted for Palestinian statehood was, and I do NOT quote-mine: "I think it would have been much smarter as someone did propose, I think, I forget who said that but someone very prominent said he wished both Israel and the United States had voted for it. It would have been far more effective. In fact it wouldn't have altered the outcome but it would have given a totally different spin."

Brzezinski is a geostrategist. Chomsky is a Marxist. And again, WHO HAVE I QUOTE-MINED? I still want that answer (but I won't get it).

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?

Are you an idiot? First, the part about "purported scholarship" is a misquote. Second, I. AM. DONE. WITH. YOU. Any attempt to argue with you or engage you inevitably leads to more insults and rhetoric and to you flagrantly ignoring every single thing I say. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED TO ANSWER MY PREVIOUS POST. Please get out and save whatever dignity you imagine you have left. Respond again and I will flag your post. This is nothing but completely unprovoked harassment.

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'm sorry... this is coming from someone who studied the Middle East? I think we might be dealing with fractal wrongness here.

Let me correct some of this insanity:

1. Brzezinski did not do what he did out of some sort of ideological enmity towards what you label "communism." The rivalry between the US and the USSR was the same as any other national conflict: two powers that had conflicting interests.

2. Empowering terrorists that were ideologically opposed to Western values that happen to be on the other side of the world fighting your worst enemy and had no interest in the United States was by no means a foolish thing to do. I suppose he should have predicted that giving them help and winning a major victory against Soviet expansion would result in America withdrawing almost completely and giving the Mujahideen a sense of betrayal, which would eventually result in the rise of an Islamic suicide cult that hated America, which later supported a wealthy Saudi called Bin Laden, who then engineered terrorist attacks to happen in New York 20 years after the event.

But hey, it's clear that you're a knowledgeable person who totally understands geopolitics without seeing them through the lenses of ideology.

This statement means literally nothing in this conversation.

So did yours. I'm not interested in whoever is the biggest realist. I'm interested in the material.

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.

OBVIOUSLY there is no such thing as being objective. You can get a lot closer to objectivity, though, if you make an effort to understand and analyze how states interact with each other. What I read in Hegemony or Survival was something I would expect from a celebrity pundit who makes his millions out of the pockets of ideologues and armchair analysts. So I assume that he is. I don't understand your last sentence.

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!

No, first one must try and understand the world, then you can pinpoint where these problems are emanating from. In contrast, Chomsky whines about brutality and greed, then seeks to find out what causes them. Are you seriously being serious about Brzezinski agreeing with Chomsky? Brzezinski is a straight-up advocate of hegemony. Simply because they happen to oppose the war in Iraq and Israel's settlements in the West Bank does not make their interests congruent in any real sense of the word. It's like pointing out that Glenn Beck and Alex Jones both oppose gun control, and using that to establish some sort of ideological agreement between the two. Are you absolutely out of your mind?

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.

tl;dr: Chomsky is popular and widely read by educated people while I'm just a little homeschooler and don't know anything (although I apparently do more than you)!

In my experience, appeals to popularity or authority are either indicative of laziness or ignorance. I suspect both.

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

George Friedman. Martin Gilbert. Benny Morris. Why should I name everyone I read for your convenience? Is it because I insulted Chomsky so you need to square it off in a dick-measuring contest with me? I'm too tired to deal with this now.

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

Ah, well, I'll write that down then.

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.

No, because you evidently love Chomsky, I'm simply asking you- why do you think these invasions or wars occurred? We aren't simply talking about how evil the barbaric American war of imperialism was, we're asking ourselves why it happened in the first place. Put yourself in both America's and Iraq's shoes. That's what I'm asking, because hard-leftists generally don't bother to think that way.

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.

What "status quo?" Professional, disinterested histories and analyses have always been considered the only books worth reading. People don't want to read those things, so they settle for rhetoric about the evils of American imperialism. How do you think Glenn Beck became so "respected?"

 

[Mouthwash]

Israel hates Palestine because in 1948 Israel tried to steal Palestinian land and Palestine did not let them do so. Palestine is also being idiotic at the moment for thinking they can get Israel to leave completely or that they should do so, but Israel and Great Britain were the first initiators of the conflict. As for Iraq, are you freaking kidding me? Because Bush was a bloodthirsty mass murderer with a grudge.

Socialists fail at economics but at least Chomsky doesn't support murder.

When did Israel initiate the conflict? Israel agreed to the two-state settlement, the Palestinians did not. Israel expanded its borders in the war because the neighboring Arab countries didn't accept Israel as a result of Pan-Arabism. This account is accepted by Pro-Israelis and Pro-Palestinians alike. Have you ever touched a book on history?

Yeah... it's clear that that's all we really need to know about the Iraq war. "Bush is evil."

 

[Birdjaguar]

In my experience, appeals to popularity or authority are either indicative of laziness or ignorance. I suspect both.

Do you feel that this rule should be applied to religious discussions?

 

[Mouthwash]

Do you feel that this rule should be applied to religious discussions?

Why, is someone using Plotinus's opinions to endorse their own views on Christianity and shoot down discussion?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why, is someone using Plotinus's opinions to endorse their own views on Christianity and shoot down discussion?

Well, yes folks here do use Plotinus' opinions to support their opinions, but that is not the impetus for my question.

My question was pretty straight forward. You made a statement about what is /is not appropriate to discussion and I wanted to know if you would apply that same standard to a discussion involving religion. Since I am a long-standing, very opinionated, supporter of religion and participant in religious discussions here, such issues are dear to my heart.

It seems appropriate that your post calls for an elaboration on the point. A simple yes or no is fine with me, but, as always, a bit of explanation is usually helpful.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not going to get into a point-for-point bickerfest about an issue that doesn't really matter, and certainly not with someone so snide and supercilious as Mouthwash. But there are a few points that do merit comment.

First, Chomsky is not a Marxist, he's a libertarian socialist. He shows deference to Marx, but does not subscribe to any Marxist methodologies. He's just not that interested in it.

Second, I don't love Chomsky. I think he's useful on some things, and that's about it. If you read Ask a Red more and trolled in it less, then you might have seen that.

Third, you have literally no idea how "hard leftists" think. Every assumption you've made about me, how I think, what I read, and who I like, has been wrong. So stop trying to speak for me and actually go on what I have said.

And fourth, for being apparently so well educated at home, your parents could have bothered to teach you a little manners between the different Cold Warrior historian sessions.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, yes folks here do use Plotinus' opinions to support their opinions, but that is not the impetus for my question.

My question was pretty straight forward. You made a statement about what is /is not appropriate to discussion and I wanted to know if you would apply that same standard to a discussion involving religion. Since I am a long-standing, very opinionated, supporter of religion and participant in religious discussions here, such issues are dear to my heart.

It seems appropriate that your post calls for an elaboration on the point. A simple yes or no is fine with me, but, as always, a bit of explanation is usually helpful.

Yes. Obviously. What explanation is required? Appeals to popularity or authority have no place in any rational discourse.

I'm not going to get into a point-for-point bickerfest about an issue that doesn't really matter, and certainly not with someone so snide and supercilious as Mouthwash. But there are a few points that do merit comment.

First, Chomsky is not a Marxist, he's a libertarian socialist. He shows deference to Marx, but does not subscribe to any Marxist methodologies. He's just not that interested in it.

Second, I don't love Chomsky. I think he's useful on some things, and that's about it. If you read Ask a Red more and trolled in it less, then you might have seen that.

Third, you have literally no idea how "hard leftists" think. Every assumption you've made about me, how I think, what I read, and who I like, has been wrong. So stop trying to speak for me and actually go on what I have said.

And fourth, for being apparently so well educated at home, your parents could have bothered to teach you a little manners between the different Cold Warrior historian sessions.

I'm not the one who began this conversation by telling you about how you "hang from the tit of Chomsky."

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes. Obviously. What explanation is required? Appeals to popularity or authority have no place in any rational discourse.

Thanks. A "no" might have been enhanced by additional words.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Mouthwash's words on the "hard left" notwithstanding, I'm not certain why so many people are defending(?) Chomsky. To my knowledge he is not the best or most able "anti-state" or at least anti-American-hegemony author available, even if he might be the most prolific. I make the sentimental mistake of respecting, even admiring, the far left for being largely uncompromising in its beliefs. Chomsky isn't the type of figure I associate with radical leftism.

Pick your battles?

 

[Traitorfish]

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"?

Link to video.

 

[Leoreth]

I for one would like to see more discussion between Mouthwash and GW.

 

[Silurian]

I for one would like to see more discussion between Mouthwash and GW.

We already have that.
But with other people.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'm not the one who began this conversation by telling you about how you "hang from the tit of Chomsky."

With every post you make in this thread, I become more confused, and you tread ever closer to failing the reverse Turing Test, or being mistaken for an associate of the March Hare.

 

[Borachio]

^ That's clever.

And don't we all risk failing the Turing Test?

The "reverse" Turing Test is what?

The Turing Test is for computer bots to see if they can pass for human.

So the reverse test is for humans to see if they can pass for bots?

So, failing it would mean that a human (e.g. Mouthwash) couldn't pass for a bot?

What's your meaning, then? He couldn't if he tried?

(To be honest, I've lost the thread. This happens far too often.)

 

[Oruc]

With every post you make in this thread, I become more confused, and you tread ever closer to failing the reverse Turing Test, or being mistaken for an associate of the March Hare.

What's confusing about what he said?
I don't see why so many dislike Mouthwash, he seems like a nice enough sort to me.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

A reverse Turing Test would be a person who attempts to appear to be a computer. The point being, his responses are increasingly erratic and nonsensical; if he were a computer, then his responses would be more predictable. Problem is, a normal human will give predictably wrong answers also, that follow their ideological beliefs (I don't agree with Luiz or MobBoss often, but I can guess what their answes will be to a specific situation). Both give reasonably predictable answers. But Mouthwash's responses are both erratic and unpredictable, meaning that he is failing to reproduce the computer-like responses that a consistent person might be expected to give, or otherwise has bats in his belfry.