4 ms·

>Chris Knight explores “the Chomsky problem” — the paradox of a thinker who belongs to the “professional and scientific elite” even as he espouses populist poli

by gajomi 10y ago

>Chris Knight explores “the Chomsky problem” — the paradox of a thinker who belongs to the “professional and scientific elite” even as he espouses populist political ideas. Ok, this work is not the substance of the interview, but what is the paradox? Should I believe that it is strange that scientists studying fluid dynamics use conventional toilets and sinks outside of the lab?

farright 10y ago
The problem is Chomsky claims that the "professional and scientific elite" are compromised by their role in society, and end up taking up self-serving political views that seek to preserve this role. So the natural question is what make Chomsky different.
- wamsachel 10y ago
  He's not different, and he openly acknowledges that a lot of his linguistic research was funded by the Pentagon. Edit: He also thought that his activism would get him fired, and so his wife started going back to school.
  - pravda 10y ago
    >Edit: He also thought that his activism would get him fired, and so his wife started going back to school. No, not get him fired. Get him imprisoned! His wife went back to school so she would be able to support the family, if he ended up in stir.
- ianai 10y ago
  I always find this criticism silly. It's a form of normalization. "Elites must have elitist opinions or they and their opinions are not elite." No, there's usually more than one way to arrive at the same position. Not all paths will be equally complicated or well founded.
mc32 10y ago
I think one of the preeminent examples was his initial and sustained support for Pol Pot [ignoring evidence of wrongdoing [1]] while there existed much evidence for not supporting them [the KR] because it clashed with his sympathies for the Communist movement in SEAsia at the time. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
- becs 10y ago
  He never supported Pol Pot. I do not understand why everybody keeps saying that and keeps relying solely on those who have no evidence to support that position. Let's go the source: I have the book Manufacturing Consent in front of me. I have used it on a few occasions for two research projects and am pretty familiar with its contents. I have emailed him directly regarding this book, too. So, with the book in front of me, I will quote the one statement that has everybody's dicks hard for hating Chomsky: "The victims of Pol Pot, a Communist leader, were worthy, although after he was ousted by the Vietnamese in 1978, Cambodians ceased to be worthy, as U.S. policy shifted toward support of Pol Pot in exile. The East Timorese remained unworthy in the 1990's, as the table suggests." So, without reading the book, you would think he's talking about worthy and unworthy the way that we normally mean it. However, he munificently describes the difference: "Our prediction is that the victims of enemy states will be found 'worthy' and will be subject to more intense and indignant coverage that those victimized by the United States or its clients, who are implicitly 'unworthy'." But, it's a lot easier for all of you with single digit IQ's to look up secondary-source material like Wikipedia which is essentially a mashup of opinions and has never been considered a reliable academic medium. No book or publication can ever be sourced by Wikipedia yet you all do this all day long. Manufacturing Consent is not an easy read, but if you would actually read the entire thing you would understand that he never even closely supported Pol Pot.
- abalone 10y ago
  This is a total mischaracterization and unsupported by the citation. Chomsky and Herman examined mass media coverage of U.S. enemies vs friends, finding that similar atrocities by enemies would be trumpeted and exaggerated beyond their already atrocious reality (e.g. Cambodia), while those by friends would be ignored or downplayed (e.g. East Timor). To call this "support" or "sympathy" for enemies is a commissar mentality.

by gajomi 10y ago

farright 10y ago

The problem is Chomsky claims that the "professional and scientific elite" are compromised by their role in society, and end up taking up self-serving political views that seek to preserve this role. So the natural question is what make Chomsky different.

wamsachel 10y ago
He's not different, and he openly acknowledges that a lot of his linguistic research was funded by the Pentagon. Edit: He also thought that his activism would get him fired, and so his wife started going back to school.
- pravda 10y ago
  >Edit: He also thought that his activism would get him fired, and so his wife started going back to school. No, not get him fired. Get him imprisoned! His wife went back to school so she would be able to support the family, if he ended up in stir.
ianai 10y ago
I always find this criticism silly. It's a form of normalization. "Elites must have elitist opinions or they and their opinions are not elite." No, there's usually more than one way to arrive at the same position. Not all paths will be equally complicated or well founded.

mc32 10y ago

I think one of the preeminent examples was his initial and sustained support for Pol Pot [ignoring evidence of wrongdoing [1]] while there existed much evidence for not supporting them [the KR] because it clashed with his sympathies for the Communist movement in SEAsia at the time. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

becs 10y ago
He never supported Pol Pot. I do not understand why everybody keeps saying that and keeps relying solely on those who have no evidence to support that position. Let's go the source: I have the book Manufacturing Consent in front of me. I have used it on a few occasions for two research projects and am pretty familiar with its contents. I have emailed him directly regarding this book, too. So, with the book in front of me, I will quote the one statement that has everybody's dicks hard for hating Chomsky: "The victims of Pol Pot, a Communist leader, were worthy, although after he was ousted by the Vietnamese in 1978, Cambodians ceased to be worthy, as U.S. policy shifted toward support of Pol Pot in exile. The East Timorese remained unworthy in the 1990's, as the table suggests." So, without reading the book, you would think he's talking about worthy and unworthy the way that we normally mean it. However, he munificently describes the difference: "Our prediction is that the victims of enemy states will be found 'worthy' and will be subject to more intense and indignant coverage that those victimized by the United States or its clients, who are implicitly 'unworthy'." But, it's a lot easier for all of you with single digit IQ's to look up secondary-source material like Wikipedia which is essentially a mashup of opinions and has never been considered a reliable academic medium. No book or publication can ever be sourced by Wikipedia yet you all do this all day long. Manufacturing Consent is not an easy read, but if you would actually read the entire thing you would understand that he never even closely supported Pol Pot.
abalone 10y ago
This is a total mischaracterization and unsupported by the citation. Chomsky and Herman examined mass media coverage of U.S. enemies vs friends, finding that similar atrocities by enemies would be trumpeted and exaggerated beyond their already atrocious reality (e.g. Cambodia), while those by friends would be ignored or downplayed (e.g. East Timor). To call this "support" or "sympathy" for enemies is a commissar mentality.