Thread: Noam Chomsky: A Linguistic Genius

Accidental Ajarn.

For someone with such self proclaimed intelligence, you're not very convincing.

Just a couple of points, the Khmer Rouge came to power because of indiscriminate bombing of Cambodia by the US,
so who is worse, one that says they may have a mandate or one that causes them to gain power?

Also the US has supported Mao, especially in trying to create a counter to Soviet power, an arangement that fell apart when Mao found out that the US was negotiating with the Soviets behind their backs regarding the nuclear test ban treaty.

These are indisputable facts

Anyway you asked me a question,

“he's a dissident, that's his job.”

What does that mean?

What do you think that means, do I really need to explain?
It's not difficult.

Dissident.

adj. Disagreeing, as in opinion or belief.

n. One who disagrees; a dissenter.

c.1534, from L. dissidentem (nom. dissidens), prp. of dissidere "to be remote, disagree, be removed from," lit. "to sit apart," from dis- "apart" + sedere "to sit"). The noun in the political sense first used 1940, with rise of totalitarian systems, especially with ref. to the Soviet Union. The noun is first recorded 1766, in allusion to Protestants.

adjective1. characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards 2. disagreeing, especially with a majority [syn: dissentient]
noun1. a person who dissents from some established policy [syn: dissenter]

It's not like he is trying to hide his credentials or that his audience is unaware of his standpoint.
In fact I'm sure he would be proud to describe himself as a dissident.

Now perhaps you could answer one of my questions. How many books or essays by Chomsky have you read?

Actually these are not conclusions from Chomsky, but there are plenty of other sources that can confirm these as facts,
nor do I have to be a mental giant to understand the history or politics of SEA or wherever, just open minded and objective and well read.

Thanks for the compliment but I'm not a leftist either.

A simple "no I haven't read any of his books" would suffice.

"but there are plenty of other sources that can confirm these as facts"

This just gets funnier and funnier.

You are just putting me on aren't you, you can not possibly believe this, can you?

No one in academia would ever claim anything dealing with cause and effect in a social science is an indisputable fact. Well, maybe except Chomsky, but he doesn't really count.

What was that saying about opening one's mouth and removing all doubt?

^

Who could find any fault in your logic? Your post was logical reasoning at its perfection.

"Try reading a book or two."

Ok, But I prefer writing them

Originally Posted by Accidental Ajarn

"I'd like to know which books you have written."

Nothing that has sold as well as Chomsky's books, but also not as well as some books on UFOs. I go for a different market, I write for an academic audience (limited and not overly profitable I know), and I think it is fair to assume you have never read any of my work.

Nor have I, but I have read your posts in this thread, and quite frankly, it does not make me yearn for more....

In my opinion Sabang and to some extent IRB argued their cases well, you did not. I guess some of us are willing to listen to dissidents, regardless of whether we agree fully, partially or not at all, whereas others would like to repress their freedom to express their views.

I think it is a credit to western countries like the US and most European states that we allow people like Chomsky to speak freely, and if other parts of the world would allow their dissidents to do the same, rather then jailing, killing or intimidating them to silence, the world would surely be a better and not least more interesting place to live.

We should all try to question conventional thinking, ask questions and demand answers, even when they are likely to be unpleasant to ourselves or those who rule over us. This is especially important in the world of politics and history, but also in other areas like religion, science, morality, justice, etc. Just because someone shares your views (or vice versa) should not exempt them from scrutiny.

Dissidents are often wrong, but history has plenty of examples of dissidents who have ended up changing history. The least we can do is to listen to them before making up our minds.

Originally Posted by floorpotato

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

... I think it is a credit to western countries like the US and most European states that we allow people like Chomsky to speak freely, and if other parts of the world would allow their dissidents to do the same, rather then jailing, killing or intimidating them to silence, the world would surely be a better and not least more interesting place to live...

Although Chomsky has been voted the world's leading intellectual and can speak with great clarity and authority about Middle Eastern and Latin American politics, he is non-existent on all major American media outlets. One could say that he's virtually banned from expressing himself to large media audiences. As a result, most Americans have no idea who he is. Dissident intellectuals in the USA often suffer a fate worse than jail -they're simply ignored.

How interesting, indeed, FP.

One of the most cited authors in the entire world for years....is not even heard.

He's ignored.

The US mainstream media is heavily censored and heavily controlled.

Am I the only one who believes Chomsky is a leftist?

“Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.

However as one begins to examine the interviews and writings of Chomsky, a different picture emerges. His books, so vociferously lauded in leftist circles, appear to be calculated disinformation designed to distract and confuse honest activists. Since the 1960's, Chomsky has acted as the premier Left gatekeeper, using his elevated status to cover up the major crimes of the global elite.

His formula over the years has stayed consistent: blame "America" and "corporations" while failing to examine the hidden Globalist overclass which pulls the strings, using the U.S. as an engine of creation and destruction. Then after pinning all the worlds ills on American imperialism, Chomsky offers the solution of world government under the United Nations.”

Dr. Kanya Vashon McGhee

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml

A Pro-Chomsky review

”Noam Chomsky is the master of looking-glass politics. His writing exemplifies the ability of the Western Left to criticise everything from the West - except itself.”

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1106445,00.html

Here is an article Chomsky wrote for the Website “Green LEFT online”

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/688/35733

Why would Chomsky want to be identified with the Left if he is not part of it?

“Chomsky the linguist has redefined the meaning of linguistics. By viewing language as a creation of the human mind, he has changed linguistics into a tool for studying the mind, and indeed, the whole question of human intelligence. He is a scholar who has constantly modified and improved his theories. Chomsky the political activist, on the other hand, is a man who has never changed his views about anything.”

http://dyske.com/index.php?view_id=804


Here is a piece Chomsky wrote for the new LEFT review

http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=264

How many articles has Chomsky wrote for “conservative” magazines or blogs? Why is he willing to write for sites that proclaim themselves part of the “Left” if Chomsky was not part of the left?
Although Chomsky says his viewed are stifled by the US Government, He was allowed to speak at the US Military academy; another example of his hypocrisy.

http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2006/04/21/news-gbchomsky-04-21.html

reason for edit; Changed my mind, I can't be bothered trying to discuss it with him.

Interesting point about Chomsky not getting media coverage in the US,
I wonder if there was a poll how many would recognise his name, could say what his nationality is or his what he is well known for.

I guess if you asked most Australians who John Pilger is most would know, and the UK has a heritage of looking beyond the flat dimension of the media stream.

^
Chomsky is far better known than Sen or Becker or Granger, Nobel Prize winners and true scholars working on improving the lives of people living in poverty. He has hardly been silenced by the evil US government and media.

No one has shown any empirical evidence that Chomsky’s world view has any validity. That is because there is none out there.

I could provide hundreds of empirical studies that support the opposite of what Chomsky advocates. Here are a few.

Anderson, K 2005, ‘On the virtues of multilateral trade negotiations’, Economic Record, vol. 81, no.255, pp. 414-438.

Arora, V & Varnvakidis, A 2005, ‘How much do trading partners matter for economic growth?’, IMF Staff Papers, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 24-40.

Berggren, N & Jordahl, H 2005, ‘Does free trade really reduce growth? Further testing using the economic freedom index’, Public Choice, vol. 122, no. 1-2, pp. 99-114.

Farrell, D 2004, ‘The case for globalization’, The International Economy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 52-55.

Langenfeld, J & Nieberding, J 2005, ‘The benefits of free trade to U.S. consumer’, Business Economics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 41-51.

Walde, K & Wood, C 2004, ‘The empirics of trade and growth: Where are the policy recommendations?’, International Economics and Economic Policy, vol. 1, no. (2/3), pp. 275-292.

Unlike Chomsky, I have actually studied the evidence before coming to my conclusions.

There are hundred of economic studies conducted according to a variety of acceptable research methodologies by researchers with varying political orientations. Results of the studies are extremely consistent, but interpretation of the results differs. Results contradict what Chomsky advocates.

This is what research is about, objectively finding evidence and then subjectively interpreting the evidence.

This is not Chomsky’s way, he invents or selectively uses only the evidence that supports his findings while ignoring the vast major of previous research.

It is not surprising that academia ignores the political and economic work of Chomsky, because his political and economic writings are not academic in nature. However activists like his propaganda. Apparently academia has not ignored his linguistic work since it apparently is based on reliable and valid research methodology, however I have never read any of this so I will not comment.