Is Noam Chomsky a "dweeb"?

[dutchfire]

(As somebody who actually owns a few of Chomsky's political books (they're okay) I felt like I should contribute, but I didn't have anything to say. So here we are.)

I wouldn't expect you to be so motivated by private ownership.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, but the motivation is to share the Chomskological wisdom derived from that property. And is that not an eminently communistic one?

 

[Lord of Elves]

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?

I don't have a "severe enmity" towards Noam Chomsky. I don't think he's qualified within the field he is apparently best known in to most of the people in this conversation, and I don't think he makes particularly enlightening or useful observations. I also don't hate or despise him -- I am (largely) indifferent.

The accusation that I am strawmanning you is meaningless. So far you have spent a large amount of text trying to accuse me of hating Noam Chomsky because he takes a less-than-admiring view of the United States. I don't hate Noam Chomsky, and I don't object to his criticism of the United States or American policy. I also don't think he has anything innovative, new or useful to say. It is very easy to build a career on criticizing a great power for acting immorally or amorally because that's the job description of a nation-state in the sphere of traditional realpolitik.

I would find his writing more elucidating if he criticized the effectiveness and/or practicality of American policy. Talking about the horrors of wars and massacres inflicted on the world by the United States or Britain or Russia or China [etc] is certainly necessary -- we should all condemn unnecessary bloodshed -- but it is not courageous.

Only the most sheltered and ignorant jingoist is going to be unaware of this sort of thing. The way Chomsky presents himself, or is presented by his most ardent acolytes, as a prophet of truth in the world of Anglo-American media lies and corporate deceit, is self-aggrandizing and demonstrably false.

 

[civver_764]

Only the most sheltered and ignorant jingoist is going to be unaware of this sort of thing.

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.

 

[Winston Hughes]

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.

Eh? You're the one who challenged my assertion that 'anyone who thinks the sun shines out of Chomsky's backside should spend a little time checking up on his use of sources'. The only reason there's a 'discussion' at all is because you leapt to the guy's defence, demanding evidence - which I gave, and you handwaved away - and accusing me of acrimonious hyperbole.

In any case, I agree with you that Chomsky is an eloquent speaker, and I agree with you that he's quite well versed on the topics. He also misuses sources to make his arguments look stronger than they are, and I think it's quite reasonable to point that out, so that we're clear on who we're dealing with here.

 

[Alassius]

Chomsky is a neo-Kantian, not a Marxist.

But he inherited Marx's flaws nevertheless

I would find his writing more elucidating if he criticized the effectiveness and/or practicality of American policy. Talking about the horrors of wars and massacres inflicted on the world by the United States or Britain or Russia or China [etc] is certainly necessary -- we should all condemn unnecessary bloodshed -- but it is not courageous.

Precisely, you cannot be wrong criticising something. Which is the entire reason Marx or Chomsky sounded convincing. As soon as they move to proposing an idea you will find that their ideas have more holes than a sponge. Whatever they criticise look like a solid house in comparison.

 

[Traitorfish]

But he inherited Marx's flaws nevertheless

I don't think that makes sense. First, it's not really clear how Chomsky can inherit a flaw from somebody who doesn't really exert an influence on him, either as an academic or a political commentator. Second, the belief in an unalloyed good is very prominent in Kant, and pretty much absent in Marx, so it's not apparent that a Marxian inheritance is either necessary to explain these alleged flaws, or that it actually capable of doing so.

Far as I can tell, you're just trying to crowbar Marx into a discussion where he doesn't belong because you get off on complaining about him.

 

[Alassius]

I don't think that makes sense. First, it's not really clear how Chomsky can inherit a flaw from somebody who doesn't really exert an influence on him, either as an academic or a political commentator. Second, the belief in an unalloyed good is very prominent in Kant, and pretty much absent in Marx, so it's not apparent that a Marxian inheritance is either necessary to explain these alleged flaws, or that it actually capable of doing so.

Far as I can tell, you're just trying to crowbar Marx into a discussion where he doesn't belong because you get off on complaining about him.

Bear in mind that much of the intellectual class believed in Marx for more than a century. When Chomsky was born, Soviet Union was fashionable and communism still looked like the future. Those who believed otherwise were actually the minority. You don't need a direct influence to have something in common with Marx. My point is that they have in common a basic belief of the nastiness of the world, that is, the world is foundamentally ugly, and needs to be foundamentally changed, instead of progressively improved by building on what has been done. He would not accept a reformed version of capitalism, just like Marx, and unlike pretty much every modern economist. The difference between "Reform or Revolution" is what I'm trying to get at.

The discussion of what the ideal world is "pretty much absent in Marx" is exactly what went wrong. The lack of discussion doesn't mean it wasn't important. It simply meant that Marx thought it was easy. The achievement of that perfect world is the single, utmost, the one and the only goal for Marx. It was the solution to every ill in this world. What is not apparent to me is how you could even think it's not prominent.

And if I don't agree with him, I've been brainwashed, which is also a sentiment he shared with Marx. Or (this is new to me) that I have some perverse fetish. Did Chomsky or you learn that from Kant?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well you are just mashing like fifty different things together in that post, and I really have no interest in trying to pick them apart. All I'm getting is "Chomsky is a leftie, Marx was a leftie, therefore, Chomsky is a crypto-Marxist, probably", which is, on the face of it, pretty stupid. If there's more to it than that, and who knows, I've been surprised before, I can't see it.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I guess if you want to use "brainwashing" to mean "imprinted with the predominant world-view of the specific society and time in which you exist" then yeah, you're brainwashed. We all are. It's inescapable. The difference between you and us being that we understand that and try to compensate for it. You are so fully consumed by it that you can't even see that it exists.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't think that makes sense. First, it's not really clear how Chomsky can inherit a flaw from somebody who doesn't really exert an influence on him, either as an academic or a political commentator.

Reincarnation.

 

[Gucumatz]

And if Chomsky is a dweeb, by similar definitions used here we are all "dweebs" here using arguments of lack of academic credential and what not. So the joke option is probably the most relevant.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

He's extremely punchable.

Do you have any proof of this, such as video evidence of someone actually punching him?

 

[Berzerker]

the dude is over 80 and he's extremely punchable?

how old ru?

 

[MobBoss]

This is a current issue sparking scholarly debate all throughout the land. Dweebotologists at universities across this great, manly nation have been arguing endlessly over the question of whether Noam Chomsky can correctly be classified as a "dweeb". What is CFC's take on this very important issue?

Personally, I think I saw him wearing glasses or something, so he's definitely a dweeb.

Lovin' the poll results.

Guess I was right after all. Thanks, Zack for confirming it for us all.

 

[Mouthwash]

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.

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.

 

[Zack]

Lovin' the poll results.

Guess I was right after all. Thanks, Zack for confirming it for us all.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think when someone's a world-famous linguist he can very well be called an intellectual.

Of course that doesn't have any bearing on his qualifications to talk about politics.

This would be extremely useful to you.

 

[Dachs]

I think when someone's a world-famous linguist he can very well be called an intellectual.

Nope. Only if he hangs out at CFC OT.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

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.

I'm not surprised one bit that someone hanging from the tit of Brzezinski takes an intense disliking to Chomsky.