Chomsky is full of crap

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


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.

Being aware of something doesn't mean having a clue about it. I'm aware of, say, Nostratic theory, but I couldn't meaningfully debate it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by 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"?

There's a lot I could say but then I'd just be travelling down this road of nonsense with you. I'm only interested if you disagree with his ideas and how so. I'm not interested in discussing his debate abilities.

[Pekka]

Oncle Boris, no, I stated problems with his statements in the OP. If you have difficulties with my rather akward english, it's your problem. My english is not that bad.

Kid, ummm.. ok it seems we are in a different kind of debate here. I'm not taking so much .. sides with his opinions. Ok? NOt directly his debating skills either, but more to that direction. So no, I'm not here to debate his opinions. I wanted to establish, that he gives his opinions, and you can agree or disagree with it. Some stuff, sure I agree, some stuff I disagree with. But that's just opinions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
So no, I'm not here to debate his opinions. I wanted to establish, that he gives his opinions, and you can agree or disagree with it. Some stuff, sure I agree, some stuff I disagree with. But that's just opinions.

He backs up his opinions quite a bit. Can you show and example where he doesn't give support for his opinions?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Being aware of something doesn't mean having a clue about it. I'm aware of, say, Nostratic theory, but I couldn't meaningfully debate it.

Well, it's part of his academic cursus — professors attent conferences, talk with their colleagues, read books in fields that are not their specialty. And that's not counting his five years of pre-PhD education he's had, which are ample enough to cover multiple aspects of linguistics, in a way such that you can entool them for your own reasoning.

If you truly think that Chomsky doesn't understand culture, show it, instead of trying to assume things about what he knows and doesn't.

[Pekka]

The whole video, the power and justice or what ever it was called. That one for example. The problem is, you have to always accept the setting he offers, and he doesn't spend any time justifying that position. Sure, if the first setting is acceptable, the rest is only logical. I don't have a problem wiht that flow, but I do have a problem with him not offering any struggle with the starting point. Because if you do that, it becomes very simplistic, black and white, something Chomsky does a lot. So the outcome is, that it doesn't apply universally or even in most other cases, because there is no basic grounds. And that's why they are just opinions and nothing more.

And if you look at that video, I think it's the latest video (freely found in google's video), you quickly see he has no theory of .. anything. So, it WILL be open to critics, like all of this stuff should be.

[Last Conformist]

I haven't said Chomsky doesn't understand culture. I've only said that his linguistics background doesn't automatically means that he does.

[Pekka]

Oh and that video is the 1h+ on 911.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
The whole video, the power and justice or what ever it was called.

I watched the first part of that. Is that what you are talking about? Or are you talking about some other parts?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
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.

Still, as much as these "valid and clever" advances might fire a few neurons behind the high walls of academia, they are illustrative of why the general public questions the subsidization of philosophy in this day and age. Bottom line how is it going to make their lives easier?

[Kidlicious]

There's the freedom to consume as much as you can, to make your life easier, and then theres another kind of freedom.

[Pekka]

Kid, no, I meant the video on 911.. it was power and something, the name of it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Kid, no, I meant the video on 911.. it was power and something, the name of it.

I watched a couple of those. There's no debate. He's just expressing his opinions. His main idea is that the US has used this event for it's own gain, and used propaganda to do so, such as the terms used and such. I think a lot of what he says backs that up. What's your point?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And we've seen the rigor of your analysis of Islam.

I don't know what your qualification in Islam is, but mine is certainly good. Especially if I can usually handle a serious discussion with Heresson, who seems to be the only one here who actually has education on that topic.

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

You appear ****ing retarded.
Chomsky's speciality is a mathematical analysis of syntax and grammar, and psychological aspects of grammar use.
He's contributed greatly to psychology and computer programming.

Doesn't make him an expert on history at all. Much less on Islam.

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

Of course they do.

For some reason, many think that Chomsky being a linguistics professor gives him authority on such things like history and modern political thought. He's a crappy demagogue for anarchists views.

[molly bloom]

Then I recommend prune juice every morning, bran flakes, bean sprouts, papaya, oatbran and broad beans (unhulled).

Castor oil if a diet of all of the above doesn't work.


Coming to a cinema near you, in somewhat truncated Chomskivision (letterbox format):

'Colon Impact',

starring Morgan Freeman as owner of a prune juice conglomerate whose headquarters is under threat from a runaway group of piss poor actors hitchhiking on an interstellar turd.