5 ms·

2005 was dark times. Iraq had become the first war of the 21st century, and had already descended into medieval decapitations. There were intellectuals that st

2005 was dark times. Iraq had become the first war of the 21st century, and had already descended into medieval decapitations. There were intellectuals that stood as symbols against the abomination of it all. Chomsky was one such personality. So polarizing were these times, that one had to question whether an academic criticism was based in legitimate intellect, or simply represented a contrived effort to discredit and ruin a politically relevant individual. With Fox News on the prowl, Chomsky's co-authorship of the book, Manufacturing Consent, made him a valid target for character assassination, and simultaneously a defensible individual to those Fox News would so polarize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent Maybe this other scholar's criticisms are academically valid within the context of linguistics, but without considering the cultural relevance and stature Chomsky held during that period to those that despised the premise of Iraq, he had doomed himself to the cold shoulder of many. His writings, after all, would not be published in a vacuum. This is the context under which the author of this article should come to understand his situation. It was bad timing. Tone deaf to debacles unfolding elsewhere.

_yosefk 10y ago
Would it be OK to publish criticism of Chomsky's work in linguistics 3 years later when Chomsky shook hands with the leader of Hezbollah, which targets civilians and children in its offensive operations? Or would Chomsky's standing as an intellectual have gone up at that moment because Hezbollah targets the right kind of civilians and children? Which political views should shield a scientist from criticism in their own field? If you can tell, I'm sure many will rush to adopt those views, and great benefits to science will follow.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  It all very much depends on whether or not you can use the failure of the Ottoman Empire as a tool in understanding events on the ground. If the base-layer ... situation for Hezbollah is in essence, an anarchy, then you go down one branch. If it's that ... reasonably good States exist, but these folks are just unreasonable people[1], then you go another. [1] many of these folks are cast in the mold of Sayyid Qutb, who I can never seem to make "reasonable" in my own mind.... Chomsky's political writings ( at least the ones with which I am familiar ) use an expression of surprise at the venality of state actors as the main ... thing.
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  Evidence that Hezbollah targets civilians and children?
  - _yosefk 10y ago
    Here you go (there's tons more but it's not my job to answer questions like "Evidence that Hitler was a Nazi?" in detail): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar My favorite section is "Treatment in prison": During his imprisonment, Kuntar married Kifah Kayyal (born in 1963), an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of militant prisoners. They later divorced. While they were married, she received a monthly stipend from the Israeli government, an entitlement due to her status as a wife of a prisoner.[25] Kayyal is an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin from Acre, now residing in Ramallah, who was then serving a life sentence for her activities in the Palestine Liberation Front.[30] Kuntar was allowed conjugal visits with his wife while in prison.[31] They had no children. In addition, while in prison Kuntar participated in a program under which Palestinian security prisoners took online courses from University in Israel, and graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Social and Political Science.[32]
    - youdontknowtho 10y ago
      That was a really interesting read. Thank you. That being said. Hitler is to the Nazi's as attacking children is to Hezbollah isn't really equivalent. I get it. You are pro-Israeli. There's no need for that BS.
      - _yosefk 10y ago
        I meant that it's equivalent in that it's common knowledge; I could and maybe should have used "evidence that ducks quack" as my analogy. If it's not common knowledge where you live, I apologize for assuming that you were demanding evidence of an obvious fact, though the ones who should really apologize is the media in your part of the world that cared to tell you about Hezbollah but did not bother to tell you what they do.
derriz 10y ago
This aspect is acknowledged in the article. I.e. that criticism of Chomsky's linguistic theories are seen as an attack on this political views. But that's hardly a justification for attacking Everett who has never expressed an opinion on Chomsky's politics. Surely these aspects of Chomsky's work are completely independent? For example, I can appreciate Watson's work on DNA but abhor his racism. Similarly I can question Chomsky's linguistic theories while agreeing with (aspects of) his politics. Also, I must say that I find the ad-hominem nature of the attacks on Everett to be quite ugly.

_yosefk 10y ago

Would it be OK to publish criticism of Chomsky's work in linguistics 3 years later when Chomsky shook hands with the leader of Hezbollah, which targets civilians and children in its offensive operations? Or would Chomsky's standing as an intellectual have gone up at that moment because Hezbollah targets the right kind of civilians and children? Which political views should shield a scientist from criticism in their own field? If you can tell, I'm sure many will rush to adopt those views, and great benefits to science will follow.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It all very much depends on whether or not you can use the failure of the Ottoman Empire as a tool in understanding events on the ground. If the base-layer ... situation for Hezbollah is in essence, an anarchy, then you go down one branch. If it's that ... reasonably good States exist, but these folks are just unreasonable people[1], then you go another. [1] many of these folks are cast in the mold of Sayyid Qutb, who I can never seem to make "reasonable" in my own mind.... Chomsky's political writings ( at least the ones with which I am familiar ) use an expression of surprise at the venality of state actors as the main ... thing.
youdontknowtho 10y ago
Evidence that Hezbollah targets civilians and children?
- _yosefk 10y ago
  Here you go (there's tons more but it's not my job to answer questions like "Evidence that Hitler was a Nazi?" in detail): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar My favorite section is "Treatment in prison": During his imprisonment, Kuntar married Kifah Kayyal (born in 1963), an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of militant prisoners. They later divorced. While they were married, she received a monthly stipend from the Israeli government, an entitlement due to her status as a wife of a prisoner.[25] Kayyal is an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin from Acre, now residing in Ramallah, who was then serving a life sentence for her activities in the Palestine Liberation Front.[30] Kuntar was allowed conjugal visits with his wife while in prison.[31] They had no children. In addition, while in prison Kuntar participated in a program under which Palestinian security prisoners took online courses from University in Israel, and graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Social and Political Science.[32]
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    That was a really interesting read. Thank you. That being said. Hitler is to the Nazi's as attacking children is to Hezbollah isn't really equivalent. I get it. You are pro-Israeli. There's no need for that BS.
    - _yosefk 10y ago
      I meant that it's equivalent in that it's common knowledge; I could and maybe should have used "evidence that ducks quack" as my analogy. If it's not common knowledge where you live, I apologize for assuming that you were demanding evidence of an obvious fact, though the ones who should really apologize is the media in your part of the world that cared to tell you about Hezbollah but did not bother to tell you what they do.

derriz 10y ago

This aspect is acknowledged in the article. I.e. that criticism of Chomsky's linguistic theories are seen as an attack on this political views. But that's hardly a justification for attacking Everett who has never expressed an opinion on Chomsky's politics. Surely these aspects of Chomsky's work are completely independent? For example, I can appreciate Watson's work on DNA but abhor his racism. Similarly I can question Chomsky's linguistic theories while agreeing with (aspects of) his politics. Also, I must say that I find the ad-hominem nature of the attacks on Everett to be quite ugly.