Opinion of Noam Chomsky

[Thunderbird is the word]

Vote!

[Antonio the Sixth]

YOU SHOULD START POLL OPTIONS WITH FF!!!!

[Sumner 1868]

YOU SHOULD START POLL OPTIONS WITH FF!!!!

This is true.

Anyway, I'm pretty neutral. While I prefer him vastly to his neoconservative foes, for a genius, he drifts into black-and-white thinking a surprisingly large amount of the time.

[© tweed]

the Godfather of the left.  "a truth-teller on an epic scale", as one of his book jackets put it (it may have been Hopes and Prospects.)

the best work was the critique of major media and thought control in democratic societies, in both Manufacturing Consent and its follow-up Necessary Illusions, both of which have been formative in my political thinking.

the earlier essays, collected in American Power and the New Mandarins, are also quite good.

I write all this in case there's a teenager reading this and looking to start out with his work.

[Goldwater]

YOU SHOULD START POLL OPTIONS WITH FF!!!!

[Phony Moderate]

Relative FF.

[WalterMitty]

an odious individual.

we live in the same town.  ive never seen him out and about.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

YOU SHOULD START POLL OPTIONS WITH FF!!!!

[Miles]

YOU SHOULD START POLL OPTIONS WITH FF!!!!

[Murica!]

Obvious FF is obvious.

[Thunderbird is the word]

YOU SHOULD START POLL OPTIONS WITH FF!!!!

Seeing this post followed by your avatar made it look like you were gunning me down over this.

[bedstuy]

I feel like he gets by mostly on the fact that he has a memorable name.  If his name was Bill Olson, nobody would know who he is. 

My problem is that he's a devil's advocate against America and the forces of so-called "neo-liberalism."  Everything is the fault of America and/or neo-liberalism.  I think that's ridiculous, and it leads him to white-wash the crimes of non-American/non-neo-liberals, misinterpret the world and just build up these unfair arguments based on shoddy evidence. 

And, that's the problem with being a general expert of politics and linguistics.  Nobody is a general expert on that many topics and if you try, you're a first-class idiot.  Even the smartest person, and Noam Chomsky is very smart, would do well to be circumspect and humble as a thinker.  If you think you have the world figured out, or have some special insight, you're almost certainly wrong.  And, the longer you stay on that academic perch, the more out of touch and biased you become.  Your information net because more and more tainted by your own cognitive bias. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

the Godfather of the left.  "a truth-teller on an epic scale", as one of his book jackets put it (it may have been Hopes and Prospects.)

the best work was the critique of major media and thought control in democratic societies, in both Manufacturing Consent and its follow-up Necessary Illusions, both of which have been formative in my political thinking.

the earlier essays, collected in American Power and the New Mandarins, are also quite good.

I write all this in case there's a teenager reading this and looking to start out with his work.

They can start with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_normal_form

[TNF]

Freedom Fighter, in spite of some very real shortcomings (such as his apparent lack of understanding as to what Marxism is).

[© tweed]

My problem is that he's a devil's advocate against America and the forces of so-called "neo-liberalism."  Everything is the fault of America and/or neo-liberalism.  I think that's ridiculous, and it leads him to white-wash the crimes of non-American/non-neo-liberals, misinterpret the world and just build up these unfair arguments based on shoddy evidence. 

he has stated in response to this line of argument that it's not his position to criticize or organize against power systems he has no capacity to influence.  it's not his job to criticize, say, Vladimir Putin's crackdown on Russian civil society, just as it wasn't the job of Soviet dissidents to organize against the Vietnam War.

[© tweed]

the Godfather of the left.  "a truth-teller on an epic scale", as one of his book jackets put it (it may have been Hopes and Prospects.)

the best work was the critique of major media and thought control in democratic societies, in both Manufacturing Consent and its follow-up Necessary Illusions, both of which have been formative in my political thinking.

the earlier essays, collected in American Power and the New Mandarins, are also quite good.

I write all this in case there's a teenager reading this and looking to start out with his work.

They can start with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_normal_form

I've never been able to read more than a few pages of Syntactic Structures.  not my thing at all.  though he does occasionally give non-technical interviews on language that I can understand and find interesting.

[bedstuy]

My problem is that he's a devil's advocate against America and the forces of so-called "neo-liberalism."  Everything is the fault of America and/or neo-liberalism.  I think that's ridiculous, and it leads him to white-wash the crimes of non-American/non-neo-liberals, misinterpret the world and just build up these unfair arguments based on shoddy evidence. 

he has stated in response to this line of argument that it's not his position to criticize or organize against power systems he has no capacity to influence.  it's not his job to criticize, say, Vladimir Putin's crackdown on Russian civil society, just as it wasn't the job of Soviet dissidents to organize against the Vietnam War.

Isn't the convenient, "it's not my job to be fair or honest!  I'm sorry, if you're not being fair or honest, you're part of the problem.  If you are willing to divorce your beliefs and your actions from reality because you think you have an "enemy," you've just become a insane fanatic.  It's thoroughly unprincipled.

And, that's why you like him, you're a ridiculous, unprincipled fanatic. 

[© tweed]

it's the opposite of fanaticism, it's pragmatism.  if I have no conceivable way to change what happens in Somalia, but I do have plenty of ways which *may* influence what happens in New York, it makes sense for me to focus my energy on the latter.

[bedstuy]

it's the opposite of fanaticism, it's pragmatism.  if I have no conceivable way to change what happens in Somalia, but I do have plenty of ways which *may* influence what happens in New York, it makes sense for me to focus my energy on the latter.

It's not pragmatic to influence something just for the hell of it.  That's not the point of politics.  The point is to influence the world in a positive way, to improve people's lives and advance the cause of peace and justice.  So, you first need to have a principled understanding of the world and how to make it better, before you just declare one group "the enemy" and everyone else a "victim."

If you influence the world, and that influence is out of step with your principles or it doesn't actually help people, that's not good.  So, leave New York alone please.

[© tweed]

thanks for that breakthrough treatise on morality & politics. I'll be referring back to it frequently.

besides, most of what I've taken part of in New York is quite benign. getting a rental housing unit approved in my hometown, organizing for state campaign finance reform, etc.  [redaction by Torie], but the moment is not quite right.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

YOU SHOULD START POLL OPTIONS WITH FF!!!!

[Türkisblau]

Accidentally voted FF due to your heinous layout.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

HP

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

My problem is that he's a devil's advocate against America and the forces of so-called "neo-liberalism."  Everything is the fault of America and/or neo-liberalism.  I think that's ridiculous, and it leads him to white-wash the crimes of non-American/non-neo-liberals, misinterpret the world and just build up these unfair arguments based on shoddy evidence. 

he has stated in response to this line of argument that it's not his position to criticize or organize against power systems he has no capacity to influence.  it's not his job to criticize, say, Vladimir Putin's crackdown on Russian civil society, just as it wasn't the job of Soviet dissidents to organize against the Vietnam War.

It's an interesting argument, but the idea that we leave protest to those in a position to influence it begs the question whether those people actually have a comparable voice in their society as we do in ours. Meaning that, we have a level freedom to speak out in our society, as imperfect as it may be, which is not found as much in much of the world.  So if we speak only on the faults of our own nation, and do not at least offer our moral support to those who are being persecuted for speaking out against the crimes of their nations, we result in a condemnation of our own nation while giving the impression through silence that other nations are blameless and meet with our approval.