9 ms·

Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time. The man has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by voicing his thoughts. Too bad he is getting up ther

Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time. The man has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by voicing his thoughts. Too bad he is getting up there in age but hopefully we will enjoy his presence for many more years.

fixxer 13y ago
Agreed. He is so very adept at reducing a complicated system into simple relationships of cause and effect. No government is to be trusted not to manipulate the population through fear. That should be taught in grade school.
- lukifer 13y ago
  "The burden of proof must always be on state power to justify itself."
jgalt212 13y ago
Irrespective of anything Chomsky says on the whole Snowden affair, Chomsky is bad American/borderline traitor. If there's an anti-American government position to take on an issue, he'll find it and take it.
- pfraze 13y ago
  Dissent isn't treason, even if you do it a lot.
  - jgalt212 13y ago
    He dissents, per Chris Hitchens, even when such dissent is "stupid and ignorant." So if Chomsky is too smart to be "stupid and ignorant," he must do so out of his need to be a bad American. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/05/chomskys_follies.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
    - pfraze 13y ago
      Disagreement is not evidence of treason or conspiracy. Chomsky can be both smart and wrong.
    - grandalf 13y ago
      I think you might be trolling so I hesitate to make this comment, but Chomsky is anti-authoritarian in the same way as most US founders were. For some reason in the middle of his career, Hitchens took a very strong toward statism and the associated hypocrisy and authoritarianism. That doesn't make Hitchens' intellect any less entertaining, but if you look closely at his worldview it's clear that he willfully indulged a big blind spot for the follies of state power and coercive force. Rand would surely agree with my assessment.
  - junto 13y ago
    Yet
- northwest 13y ago
  Why would you think that criticism of something is the same as being fundamentally against that thing? I'd say what you're doing here is "emotional thinking". Try being more rational when thinking. When you love your country, you actually have the duty to point things out that are wrong. That's the only way problems can be corrected. Otherwise it would mean you're ok with your country decaying. (Just like with your boy/girlfriend or husband - if you love them, you need to openly talk about the problems.)
- kaonashi 13y ago
  Says the Ayn Rand disciple. Anti-government is great, unless it's anti-American government, then it's treason.
  - jes 13y ago
    Objectivism is not anti-government, and indeed, sees government as necessary in order to protect the rights of individuals (all individuals) from those who would otherwise violate them.
    - kaonashi 13y ago
      Right, it's just power worship. So government in service of the powerful at the expense of the weak is a-ok; the converse, evil.
WayneDB 13y ago
He is a great intellectual, but he MAY also be acting as just another control mechanism, a gatekeeper: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.... https://startpage.com/do/search?query=chomsky+gatekeeper https://startpage.com/do/search?query=chomsky+gatekeeper Bio of the author of the first article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-abrahamson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-abrahamson (Has the mention of this simple possibility offended you? If you think it's impossible, tell me why.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - WayneDB 13y ago
    Sorry...what does colloidal silver have to do with it? Did you read the author's bio? He's no slouch - Yale grad, litigator with experience in the Supreme Court, writes for HuffPo...but I guess we should write it off immediately because...colloidal silver? You tell me because I don't know anything about colloidal silver.
- recusancy 13y ago
  Oh good. Trutherism and NWO conspiracies.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  I have no opinion on Chomsky as I am not really acquainted with his works. However, I was interested in him and trying to get some sort of minority opinion on Chomsky I decided to investigate your links. My conclusion is based on this great quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I have seen zero citations, links or verifiable research on the pages, so for the time being I will use more conventional facts about Chomsky.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    I agree with the principle of "extraordinary proof", but in practice, what qualifies as extraordinary is highly subjective. To a Creationist, spontaneous generation of life is extraordinary. To a Truther, the buildings falling due to fire alone is extraordinary, etc. I prefer the idea that an extraordinary amount of certainty requires extraordinary proof. Skepticism should be the default position.
galois17 13y ago
"Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time" This is undoubtedly true. He is one of the most cited authors of all time. It is unfortunate that the american media does not give him the attention he deserves. In fact, in Europe Noam Chomsky and his opinions are very highly regarded and his writings are taught in schools. I am Greek (living in the U.S for the last 5 years) and I was first introduced to Noam Chomsky during a writing class in my (public) high school. I guess the fact that he is an anarchist and very often criticizes the U.S government and foreign policy does not make him popular within the U.S. Btw, some of us, no matter what country we are from, need to understand that when someone criticizes our country's government and its actions, it does not mean automatically that they are criticizing us. I honestly find it very naive when someone defends their government's policies just because they feel somehow they have to do so.
- speeder 13y ago
  I am from Brazil, he is not formally taught at schools, but I heard many geography and history teachers mention or cite him.
  - berntb 13y ago
    I started to read up on Chomsky a couple of times but didn't get far. The first time, I saw his opinions re USA's/NATO's intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. It just seemed like conspiracy theories, especially when I googled and found his apologetics for the Khmer Rouge (before they were found to be massmurding crazies). The second time, I got a link to a Chomsky interview. I got shocked -- Chomsky claimed that he didn't talk about the Sudan atrocities, because he couldn't influence much. WTF?! If the most famous academic US-critic, beloved by dictators, publicly condemned the Darfur handling etc by Sudan's government as 1000 times worse than what he complained about Israel, it would have an effect... I wrote Chomsky off as another effect of the US right/left being equally crazy. Here in Europe we mostly get the left crazies, so he is big. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe. It seems to me Chomsky argues by (correctly) noting that governments lie a lot -- then he comes with really weird explanations to what really happens.
    - 13y ago
MarkMc 13y ago
I agree that his linguistic and academic contribution is of the highest order, but I'm not so sure about his political analysis. Here are his comments in 1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable." And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account." Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where the truth lies'? [1] http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html

fixxer 13y ago

Agreed. He is so very adept at reducing a complicated system into simple relationships of cause and effect. No government is to be trusted not to manipulate the population through fear. That should be taught in grade school.

lukifer 13y ago
"The burden of proof must always be on state power to justify itself."

jgalt212 13y ago

Irrespective of anything Chomsky says on the whole Snowden affair, Chomsky is bad American/borderline traitor. If there's an anti-American government position to take on an issue, he'll find it and take it.

pfraze 13y ago
Dissent isn't treason, even if you do it a lot.
- jgalt212 13y ago
  He dissents, per Chris Hitchens, even when such dissent is "stupid and ignorant." So if Chomsky is too smart to be "stupid and ignorant," he must do so out of his need to be a bad American. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/05/chomskys_follies.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
  - pfraze 13y ago
    Disagreement is not evidence of treason or conspiracy. Chomsky can be both smart and wrong.
  - grandalf 13y ago
    I think you might be trolling so I hesitate to make this comment, but Chomsky is anti-authoritarian in the same way as most US founders were. For some reason in the middle of his career, Hitchens took a very strong toward statism and the associated hypocrisy and authoritarianism. That doesn't make Hitchens' intellect any less entertaining, but if you look closely at his worldview it's clear that he willfully indulged a big blind spot for the follies of state power and coercive force. Rand would surely agree with my assessment.
- junto 13y ago
  Yet
northwest 13y ago
Why would you think that criticism of something is the same as being fundamentally against that thing? I'd say what you're doing here is "emotional thinking". Try being more rational when thinking. When you love your country, you actually have the duty to point things out that are wrong. That's the only way problems can be corrected. Otherwise it would mean you're ok with your country decaying. (Just like with your boy/girlfriend or husband - if you love them, you need to openly talk about the problems.)
kaonashi 13y ago
Says the Ayn Rand disciple. Anti-government is great, unless it's anti-American government, then it's treason.
- jes 13y ago
  Objectivism is not anti-government, and indeed, sees government as necessary in order to protect the rights of individuals (all individuals) from those who would otherwise violate them.
  - kaonashi 13y ago
    Right, it's just power worship. So government in service of the powerful at the expense of the weak is a-ok; the converse, evil.

WayneDB 13y ago

He is a great intellectual, but he MAY also be acting as just another control mechanism, a gatekeeper: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.shtml http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskygatekepper26sep05.... https://startpage.com/do/search?query=chomsky+gatekeeper https://startpage.com/do/search?query=chomsky+gatekeeper Bio of the author of the first article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-abrahamson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-abrahamson (Has the mention of this simple possibility offended you? If you think it's impossible, tell me why.)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- WayneDB 13y ago
  Sorry...what does colloidal silver have to do with it? Did you read the author's bio? He's no slouch - Yale grad, litigator with experience in the Supreme Court, writes for HuffPo...but I guess we should write it off immediately because...colloidal silver? You tell me because I don't know anything about colloidal silver.
recusancy 13y ago
Oh good. Trutherism and NWO conspiracies.
vdaniuk 13y ago
I have no opinion on Chomsky as I am not really acquainted with his works. However, I was interested in him and trying to get some sort of minority opinion on Chomsky I decided to investigate your links. My conclusion is based on this great quote: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I have seen zero citations, links or verifiable research on the pages, so for the time being I will use more conventional facts about Chomsky.
- lukifer 13y ago
  I agree with the principle of "extraordinary proof", but in practice, what qualifies as extraordinary is highly subjective. To a Creationist, spontaneous generation of life is extraordinary. To a Truther, the buildings falling due to fire alone is extraordinary, etc. I prefer the idea that an extraordinary amount of certainty requires extraordinary proof. Skepticism should be the default position.

galois17 13y ago

"Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals of our time" This is undoubtedly true. He is one of the most cited authors of all time. It is unfortunate that the american media does not give him the attention he deserves. In fact, in Europe Noam Chomsky and his opinions are very highly regarded and his writings are taught in schools. I am Greek (living in the U.S for the last 5 years) and I was first introduced to Noam Chomsky during a writing class in my (public) high school. I guess the fact that he is an anarchist and very often criticizes the U.S government and foreign policy does not make him popular within the U.S. Btw, some of us, no matter what country we are from, need to understand that when someone criticizes our country's government and its actions, it does not mean automatically that they are criticizing us. I honestly find it very naive when someone defends their government's policies just because they feel somehow they have to do so.

speeder 13y ago
I am from Brazil, he is not formally taught at schools, but I heard many geography and history teachers mention or cite him.
- berntb 13y ago
  I started to read up on Chomsky a couple of times but didn't get far. The first time, I saw his opinions re USA's/NATO's intervention in ex-Yugoslavia. It just seemed like conspiracy theories, especially when I googled and found his apologetics for the Khmer Rouge (before they were found to be massmurding crazies). The second time, I got a link to a Chomsky interview. I got shocked -- Chomsky claimed that he didn't talk about the Sudan atrocities, because he couldn't influence much. WTF?! If the most famous academic US-critic, beloved by dictators, publicly condemned the Darfur handling etc by Sudan's government as 1000 times worse than what he complained about Israel, it would have an effect... I wrote Chomsky off as another effect of the US right/left being equally crazy. Here in Europe we mostly get the left crazies, so he is big. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe. It seems to me Chomsky argues by (correctly) noting that governments lie a lot -- then he comes with really weird explanations to what really happens.
  - 13y ago

MarkMc 13y ago

I agree that his linguistic and academic contribution is of the highest order, but I'm not so sure about his political analysis. Here are his comments in 1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable." And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account." Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where the truth lies'? [1] http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html