Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Interesting. I just got redded by some fruitfly, with this comment.

Another conservative idiot who deserve a red just being stupid

Which, as I haven't revealed my position on this matter, would seem to make the fruitfly the stupid one.

^ I can smell a conservative rat light years ahead. Your argument pattern and attacks against Ant are highly suspicious and highly motivated. Enough for me to call the shots.

Get the fuck out if you are not prepare to debate, it's that simple

Why are there no intelligent conservatives posting here on TD? I know they do exist in the real world, as I have had the pleasure to meet (and even befriend) quite a few over the years.....

Just curious......

^ yeah, yeah, in your dreams, go to bed or sober up

Originally Posted by cujo

I just read this whole thread, nowhere did I see where AA called Ant stupid.

Really:

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Keep buying into Chomsky’s load of BS, after all Chomsky is laughing all the way to the bank about the gullibility of his followers.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Chomsky is for lightweights who want their hatreds reaffirmed and not questioned. He is glad to profit from this market.

Perhaps if I were so inclined as AA I'd cast aspersions on your reading comprehension skills.

AA has provided a LOT of evidence and support for his position.
You two are crying foul because you can see he's kicking your ass

You know, the ironic thing about all of this is that I bet you didn't even read half the stuff AA cut 'n pasted. You didn't did you. AA himself admitted that some of the stuff he pasted was worthless; yet here you are, seizing on it as ' conclusive evidence'. What's wrong with this picture?

Do I really need to respond in kind, cluttering up the thread, to 'kick his ass'. If you see good Googling skills and ability with mouse-clicks and paste functions as a substitute for independent, logical and rational thought then good for you. I don't.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Why are there no intelligent conservatives posting here on TD? I know they do exist in the real world, as I have had the pleasure to meet (and even befriend) quite a few over the years.....

Heh...

A partial Resume' of Noam Chomsky, lifted from a recent Bangkok Post interview with him-

"He opposed the Vietnam War long before it was fashionable to do so. He revolutionised the field of linguistics and helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology. He changed the way scientists approach the study of the human mind.


His "Chomsky Hierarchy" is taught in basic computer science because it offers insight into the nature of how languages are structured. His theories of Generative and Universal Grammar indicate that the human mind comes hard-wired with default settings that enable infants to quickly learn any language spoken around them.


When the US dropped the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Chomsky walked off into the woods to be alone and contemplate what he later called "one of the most unspeakable crimes in history".


For the last 50 years Avram Noam Chomsky, now in his 80th year, has been a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was voted No. 1 in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll, a list of the 100 most important living public intellectuals, compiled in November, 2005 by Prospect Magazine of the UK and Foreign Policy of the US on the basis of a readers' ballot consisting of more than 20,000 votes.

Chomsky was followed by, in order, Unberto Eco, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Krugman, Jurgen Habermas, Amartya Sen, Jared Diamond and Salman Rushdie. Further evidence of the quality and resonance of his work comes from the 1992 Arts and Humanities Citation Index, which noted Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from the 1980 to 1992 period, and was the eighth-most cited scholar during any period."

Bangkok Post | Outlook | 'Resonant and unwavering'

Any discussion of Chomsky on a public forum such as this inevitably comes down to politics. Predictably, Right leaning Conservative folk seek to discredit him, even as a scholar, because of his dissidence to US foreign (and domestic) policy in many cases. Some of the criticism above may be warranted, most is out of context quotes that I can't be bothered analysing individually.

I'll repeat again- Your views on Chomskys politics, and Dissidence, are no argument against his intellectual standing. You are pissing against Thunder.

"Manufacturing Consent" should be required reading for anyone interested in Issues, and the Media treatment of them.

^ I might come around and read that one, was very pleased with the long documentary which tried to summarize his views and thoughts,

And listening to the arguments from the horse mouth, was definitely a plus

Anyone see Mondays' Bangkok Post? Chomsky is now claiming the USA is responsible for the brutal regime in Burma?

Is there a single negative aspect of the world that Chomsky does not blame on the USA?

Yet he lives and pays taxes in the USA?

Before reading this interview, I said the only conclusion Chomsky ever comes to (regardless of issue) is America is bad. Here he does it again. He plays this same old tired song over and over and over again.

WHo does he think he is fooling?

Wait, he knows exactly who he is fooling and how to fool his true believers and have these wanna-be anti-capitalists support his high-living lifestyle.

Chomsky is laughing all the way to the bank. Soak it all up and keep buying and reading his books, afterall we don't want to see Chomsky fall into a lower tax bracket, do we?

In Today's Bangkok Post

Resonant hypocrite

Re: The interview with Noam Chomsky, Bangkok Post, July 14. Writer Alan Becker lionises Chomsky as a figure whose convictions are "resonant and unwavering".

Further examination of Chomsky paints a far different picture. In his book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, author Peter Schweizer shows that "anti-capitalist and pro-environmentalist" Chomsky is actually a rich boy worth millions of dollars, with stock holdings in the oil companies and military contractor firms he claims to despise.

When confronted with that fact, Chomsky defended holding the stocks for the enrichment of his family members, and stated that just because he was anti-capitalist he shouldn't have to live in "a cabin in Montana".

Noam Chomsky is quick to call others hypocrites, when he himself is the quintessential hypocrite _ hardly a man whose convictions are "resonant and unwavering".
BEN LEVIN

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Anyone see Mondays' Bangkok Post? Chomsky is now claiming the USA is responsible for the brutal regime in Burma?

Well heres Chomsky, quoted from said article:-

"Burma had one of the few elected governments in the region in the 1950s, and was intent on pursuing a neutralist course. The Eisenhower administration was carrying out vigorous efforts to enlist the governments in the region into its Cold War crusades. As part of this broad campaign of subversion and violence, Washington installed thousands of heavily armed Chinese Nationalist troops in northern Burma to carry out cross-border operations into China. Burma vigorously objected, but in vain. The China forces began arming and supporting insurgent minorities in that turbulent region. In reaction, power within Burma began to shift to the military, leading finally to the 1962 coup. The matter is discussed by Audrey and George Kahin, Subversion as Foreign Policy. George Kahin was one of the leading Southeast Asian scholars, virtually the founder of the academic discipline in the US. The consequences of the US-UK-Israeli operations you describe are, of course, to strengthen the military junta. These matters are unreported and unknown in the US, apart from specialists and activists, because they interfere too dramatically with the doctrine that "we are good" and "they are evil", the foundation of virtually every state propaganda system."

Bangkok Post | Outlook | 'Resonant and unwavering'

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but if you are going to call him wrong on this do so, and tell us how he is wrong.

All you are doing right now is moaning that he blames the USA for everything.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Is there a single negative aspect of the world that Chomsky does not blame on the USA?

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

Yet he lives and pays taxes in the USA?

I think it's called democracy?

Oh, hang on. Democracy is forcing your brand of capitalism onto other sovereign states. My bad...

“I don't have a dog in this hunt, but if you are going to call him wrong on this do I don't have a dog in this hunt.”

The US had almost no stake or presence in post-war Burma, and the presence of Chinese nationalistic forces was not totally opposed by the Burmese government as claimed by Chomsky, instead many inside Burma (Saying the Burmese or Americans did this or that ignores the fact the within every country and every government there are competing and conflicting forces at work) thought of the Chinese forces as a buffer against imperialistic advances (such as what has seen in Tibet) that Communist China has been known for.

Chomsky, The linguistic and activist, claims this one factor that is loosely connected with the USA is the reason that Burma moved to a military dictatorship, while most historians concentrate on two very different factors. First there are the ethnic divisions within the country, and during the British colonial period, most of local armed forces came from the Karen, Karenni, and Shan minorities and therefore the loyalties of these groups have always been questioned by the majority Burmans. When independence came, the ethnic groups lost their privileged positions in society and tensions naturally followed. These ethnic divisions, and the arming and military training the ethnic minorities received under the British helped lead the country into constant ethnic war over the last 60 years.

Second you had the totally incompetent government before 1962 of U-Nu, who had the idea of running a country according to Buddhist ideas. The corruption and incompetence of the U-Nu government made the initial years of military rule seem “better” and allowed military rule to firmly take root.

I recommend The River of Lost Footsteps by Thant Myint-U (Which just so happens to be sitting on my desk at the moment) if you are interested in Burmese affairs.

But maybe all the historians are wrong and Chomsky is right. America was at fault and the local conditions and the Communist forces in the region had nothing to do with Burma becoming a military dictatorship. America's desire to help countries on the patht to democracy naturally leads these countries to become brutal dictatorships? Communist China and other dictatorships had nothing to do with leading Burma to the path it went down? Well, that is Chomsky logic for you. Democracy leads to brutality and dictatorship leads to freedom?

What proof does Chomsky use to come up with his conclusions? Who knows? He doesn’t tell us, we are just supposed to buy into it because the great one said so?

Maybe the uneducated and uninformed will buy into his conclusions, but those of us with some detailed knowledge of these subjects are not likely to be swayed by a person who only knows a single tune, that tune is America is evil and the cause of all the world’s troubles.

Well thanks for that- I have now heard two quite differing accounts of the 'decline of Burma' within a couple of days . Guess I've learned something- when it comes to Burmese history I'm in the dark.

It's certainly fair to say there is more than one cause, and if the depth of Chomskys research on the matter is no more than this he's open to criticism for a monocled perspective.

Seems you know some of Burmese history AA, so sorry for the off topic question but where do these ex-Chinese nationalists sit with the Burmese hierarchy or society today?

'Ava green, anyway.

Sabang, I am not an expert on Burmese affairs, but I did previously work with an organization which focuses on helping people from Burma and I am currently doing some basic research on the topic for a book I am working on.

I can only give you an educated guess on your question, as far as I know most of the nationalist forces were either killed or sent to Taiwan, the ones who remained got into the drug trade pretty heavily. I suspect some of these are now turning legit and focusing on trade between Burma and China. But don't take this answer for gospel truth.

well, this should be easy to research, I am sure Chomsky is not the only academic working on the Burmese affairs, so a consensus on what happened there exactly must be available somewhere on the net. Of course if that academic consensus (international) is the same as Chomsky, you don't have a case to call him a traitor or an hypocrite, that would be you instead.

^

BF

I don't know about "on the net," but of course this issue has been covered in a number of academic journals, especially those focusing on Asian Studies. I have read a number of articles (and even wrote a short one that was critical of current US policy) on Burmese affairs and history. Chomsky assumes his readers do not read academic journals or are knowledgable about the subject at hand. Anyone knowledgeable about a subject can easily see that Chomsky is producing very selective evidence to make his case.

Actually I know about Khmer history and affairs than Burmese, and Chomsky's view that America is the cause of all Cambodian's recent problems is not one shared by the majority of respected historians and scholars.

^ like I said, if an international academic consensus support this then you have a case, but knowing Chomsky, and him being an academic, he wouldn't get away from his peers if his claims were entirely false. I have an hitch that he might be in the right direction, and you are writing articles for right wing blogs nutters.

Apologies in advance if I am wrong about this. I will try to google more about this.

“if an international academic consensus support this then you have a case, but knowing Chomsky, and him being an academic, he wouldn't get away from his peers if his claims were entirely false.”

What peers in academia? Chomsky is considered a joke in academia, his views (on political issues) are dismissed out of hand by all serious scholars. His audience is not academics, his audience is wanna-be anti-establishment types.

Chomsky’s views on Burma, Cambodia, and economics are not respected in academia at all. Check it out. But Chomsky doesn’t care, but just calls his opponents the establishment and the radical left eats it up with a spoon.

“have an hitch that he might be in the right direction, and you are writing articles for right wing blogs nutters.”

Wrong, books and peer-reviewed articles mostly. Although political science is not my field, I work in the field of International Business with a focus on Asia, I do some inter-disciplinary work so I am familiar with a substantial amount of historical, political science and area studies that deal with the Asia-Pacific region.

Unlike Chomsky, my work is not radical and is based on existing evidence, this doesn't sell as well as wild unsubstantiated claims (Books on UFOs outsell those on market economies), so while I promote capitalism, I don’t benefit from capitalism nearly as much as Chomsky does by opposing it.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

“if an international academic consensus support this then you have a case, but knowing Chomsky, and him being an academic, he wouldn't get away from his peers if his claims were entirely false.”

What peers in academia? Chomsky is considered a joke in academia his views (on political issues) are dismissed out of hand by all serious scholars.

Whilst I see what you're getting at there you might want to be careful how you phrase it. He is actually highly regarded in academia (he has been called 'the most important academic alive today' and is one of the most widely cited persons, living or dead, ever). His political views are an entirely different kettle of fish and it's misleading to link the two.

Unlike Chomsky, my work is not radical and is based on existing evidence, this doesn't sell as well as wild unsubstantiated claims (Books on UFOs outsell those on market economies), so while I promote capitalism, I don’t benefit from capitalism nearly as much as Chomsky does by opposing it.

Ahh so the plot thins! You'll have to forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here; but this read alongside your persistent mentioning of his financial status ( a focus which was puzzling me) can't help but make me wonder if there's not at least some 'professional jealously/envy' at the heart of all of this.

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

What peers in academia? Chomsky is considered a joke in academia, his views (on political issues) are dismissed out of hand by all serious scholars. His audience is not academics, his audience is wanna-be anti-establishment types.

Says it all. Chomsky is for pimple-faced teenagers - Socialist wannabees who eventually grow out of that phase w/exception of some aboard here...

“When the US dropped the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Chomsky walked off into the woods to be alone and contemplate what he later called "one of the most unspeakable crimes in history".”
Any intelligent person can see the decision to drop the atomic bombs had pluses and minuses. On the plus side, the war and the killing were brought to an abrupt end saving countless lives. On the down side, approximately 200,000 innocent people were killed instantly.
But why is this "one of the most unspeakable crimes in history". In numbers killed and method of death, the dropping of the bombs pale in comparison with the Nazi killing of Jews and others during World War II. And how about the 20 million or so killed by Stalin during his lifetime? Does Stalin’s acts which killed at least 100 times as many people count as another unspeakable crime? Of course not. How about the Great Leap Forward (A policy made by Mao who Chomsky admired), which caused the deaths of 30 million people? Is this not unspeakable because it was caused by stupidity (Belief in socialism) instead of intent to kill?

You can't seriously be engaging in an argument of moral relativism based on the numbers of people killed?? 'It's ok, we killed less people!' is never an argument or a mitigating factor.

What criteria did Chomsky use? Easy to figure out, Chomsky could not blame America for these other events. What makes the dropping of the Atomic Bombs so bad? Because the decision to do so was made by an elected government in the USA instead of by dictators in a socialist country.

Perhaps Chomsky, being American, holds himself and his nation to higher standards? This is the inherent flaw with your moral relativism argument as above and where it falls down; what real difference is there in a 'democratically' elected Govt. killing civilians as opposed to a dictatorship. End result's the same, people die. It's not as though the US Govt. of the time ran a poll to see if the bombs should be dropped, they jsut went ahead and did it.

If Chomsky then views this as "one of the most unspeakable crimes in history" then who are you to deny his opinion?

Chomsky claims the two most important issues of today are “Nuclear war and environmental disaster.”

Where does he claim this?

Ant
Give me a break, as a writer who advocates entrepreneurship and private investment as the most effect method to achieve poverty reduction (Which is impossible to disagree with if one is familiar with the economics research on the issue), I am the last person in the world that is jealous of the wealth of others. I promote the profit motive as an effect allocation of resources.
I don’t care how much Chomsky makes,

Cool yer jets, it was just a question. You've repeatedly referenced the money that Chomsky makes and, to this point, hadn't addressed the why(s) when I've asked you.

and if you don’t see the hypocrisy of Chomsky getting rich by selling anti-capitalistic bullsiht to wanna-be socialists, what can I say? You must be a true believer, if you accept Chomsky’s feeble excuses for not living the life he advocates.

For the last time, can you please drop this "true believer" bullshit. It's a basless and arrogant assumption on your part and does you no credit. If you need to resort to labelling me then you might as well give it up now.

What you've claimed above only serves to show me that you actually don't understand Chomsky and what he states; he doesn't "adovcate" any way of life. And making money? So what?? He's not allowed to because you claim he's "anti-capitalist" (which he's not actually, again another misconception on your part).

^

As Bobby Weir sang in Black throated wind, "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know."

So you will continue to be a true believer that America, democracy and free-markets economies are the three pillar of evil. If this makes you happy, Ok.

Others believe in UFOs, the Easter bunny and the gunman on the grassy knoll. Same-same.