Chomsky is full of crap

[Kidlicious]

I might be too tired, but I get absolutely nothing from this thread.

[Perfection]

Why do people give a rat's ass about what Chomsky thinks about politics anyways?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Perfection
Why do people give a rat's ass about what Chomsky thinks about politics anyways?

He's very smart.

"The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything... That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about."

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

[Pekka]

So pointing out the obviuos constitutes as smart these days? Hey, I'm not denying, I think he is very intelligent, but this whole sector is just a series of personal opinions, and no contribution what so ever. That's why I say nothing but hot air.

Chomsky is no way an author on propaganda or creating public discourse, once again, Foucault takes him for a ride, a genocide, if they ever talked about that. Why? He talks about the concept purely. He doesn't buy into 'EVIL AMERIKA!' BS crap. Oh, and he WAS a commie for real for a while, so it's not like they're the opposites.

Or if you want to talk about propaganda, why not just respect the originals, a modern one would be Edward Bernays.

I guess what I'm saying is that the only people who find Chomsky revealing and revolutional are people who in general don't bother to read. Chomsky is fast food entertainment, and nothing more. He has no contributions, that's why I keep saying this. These other people, both mentioned and more, they all contributed, that's because they came up wiht something. Chomsky didn't in political field. He is nothing but a wrinkly old bastard who will be punched in the face.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Pekka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes

What I find funny about those videos is that Foucault falls all over himself to show how notions of justice/decency/etc. are socially conditioned and thus have no discernable essence, but then at the same time is engaged in a debate about how to build a "just society."

If anything, the works of Foucault are more of a justification for detached cynicism than an actual blueprint for change. As much as Chomsky was pwned, at least he offers a remotely practical plan instead of mere "observations."

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
he has no idea of the history of islamic fundamentalism or arab discourse and culture.

And we've seen the rigor of your analysis of Islam.

he's a freaking linguist. he has no idea about culture or history and that crap.

That's ****ing retarded. Do you even have a clue what linguistic is about ?

he's just 'deconstructing' sh*t to fit his taste.

I don't see the point. People obviously talk following their own complexion.

[Last Conformist]

Chomsky should'a stuck to linguistics.


That said, I think his linguistics work is widely overrated too. I suspect that in the future, he'll be known more for catalyzing theoretical advances than for actually getting things right himself.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
So pointing out the obviuos constitutes as smart these days? Hey, I'm not denying, I think he is very intelligent, but this whole sector is just a series of personal opinions, and no contribution what so ever. That's why I say nothing but hot air.

Chomsky is no way an author on propaganda or creating public discourse, once again, Foucault takes him for a ride, a genocide, if they ever talked about that. Why? He talks about the concept purely. He doesn't buy into 'EVIL AMERIKA!' BS crap. Oh, and he WAS a commie for real for a while, so it's not like they're the opposites.

Or if you want to talk about propaganda, why not just respect the originals, a modern one would be Edward Bernays.

I guess what I'm saying is that the only people who find Chomsky revealing and revolutional are people who in general don't bother to read. Chomsky is fast food entertainment, and nothing more. He has no contributions, that's why I keep saying this. These other people, both mentioned and more, they all contributed, that's because they came up wiht something. Chomsky didn't in political field. He is nothing but a wrinkly old bastard who will be punched in the face.

Pekka, you aren't even saying anything meaningfull here. This is exactly the kind of crap that Chomsky talks about. How much of his writings have you read?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

That's ****ing retarded. Do you even have a clue what linguistic is about ?

Chomsky's linguistics do not have all that much to do with culture and history. His work is more towards the cogsci end of linguistics.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Darius871


What I find funny about those videos is that Foucault falls all over himself to show how notions of justice/decency/etc. are socially conditioned and thus have no discernable essence, but then at the same time is engaged in a debate about how to build a "just society."

If anything, the works of Foucault are more of a justification for detached cynicism than an actual blueprint for change. As much as Chomsky was pwned, at least he offers a remotely practical plan instead of mere "observations."

You hit the nail of the head.

Foucault is a philosopher, and a brilliant one at that. As such, he was perfectly aware that however valid and clever was his conceptual discourse, any real-world action requires some sort of 'suspension of disbelief'. He felt that irreconciliable tension direly, in his personal life — he was truly tormented, between the need for immediate relief of injustice, and the intellectual prudence induced from his theories.

Chomsky doesn't seem to show such concerns. He's not a philosopher. His political works are not meant as philosophy, but as immediate political action.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Chomsky's linguistics do not have all that much to do with culture and history. His work is more towards the cogsci end of linguistics.

It doesn't matter what his personal research is about — he's obviously aware of the other aspects of linguistics, even though he's not a specialist in them.

[Fake Boris]

BTW, Chomsky is not perfect, but he's made some clever observations.

I recall reading the transcript of an interview he gave in '91 or '92, where he predicted that now that communism is over, the US would soon invoke the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to justify its foreign policy.

That was 15 years ago. I think it's rather impressive.

[Pekka]

@ kid. I'm sorry, is it unfair to dismiss someone because they have 0 contributions? Because he hasn't contributed, what is left is opinions. Now, that becomes a matter of taste if one likes his opinions or not. For an average Joe, I'd say he has delightful insight on many things, but as a praised intellectual? BS.

That's like trying to say if you call someone a racist, well that is a racist statement. Any other ways Chomsky tries to pre-empt all criticism?

Here's a clue, he is not as much appreciated in the academic world than the opposite. I'm not talking his works as a linguist, he must be brilliant. But this hobby of his, the stuff he is more known in general public? He is nothing but a boy, has never achieved any kind of caliber needed to debate real opponents. Sure he's tried it few times, and all I've seen is he has gotten his ass handed to him. Maybe that's why he doesn't do it anymore, and that actually means he is smart.

When he contributes, that's when he has made something, and that's when he starts to count as the big boys. Before that? Not really. In his very own domain of linguistics, I'm sure he is accomplished and influential for a good reason, I'm not saying he is unprofessional. But this is just a hobby and it's quite obvious.

Ok so my claim is, since he hasn't made any contributions, has not created any kind of a framework or does not bother to take the abstract level into a serious battle, and that's why I think he is not particularly important or showing capability, .... exactly how is Chomsky speaking against this discrediting? Would that defense be the ultimate Godwin of all, "if you disagree with me, you are wrong, and you just proved it by disagreeing with me"?

[Pekka]

"Chomsky doesn't seem to show such concerns. He's not a philosopher. His political works are not meant as philosophy, but as immediate political action."

Right, and that makes him rather one-dimensional and not a true intellectual. That is, he can't be bothered with being consistent and solid. It's just announcing what the current events are and what he thinks about it. Nothing wrong in that, but that doesn't actually make him a contributor. Even O'Reilly gives his opinions.

[Fake Boris]

Look Pekka, if the only 'proof' you can establish of Chomsky being a run-of-mill, ordinary leftist, is that he was pwn3d by Foucault, then you'll admit that there are at most 10 or 20 individuals in the world worth listening to.

In any case, your own OP rant is full of badly-worded sentences and incoherent thoughts expressed in vague, undefined terms.