WMN: t3_2vb7n1_t1_cogcsat

[TITLE]

CMV: Noam Chomsky is as bad as the most slanted pundit on Fox News

[jimmyjazz2000]

I'm a pretty liberal, progressive person, have read Chomsky's books and seen him speak in person, and held him in pretty high regard for a long time. But I've grown disenchanted with his 30-year "America's Evil" campaign. No solutions, only endless indictments. Feels less like a learned man speaking the truth to power, and more like a hack working an angle. As slanted as the hacks on Fox News, just in a different direction. The thing is, I miss my idealized view of Noam Chomsky. Please, change my view.

[TheSonofLiberty]

quotes with citations?

[jimmyjazz2000]

Do your own homework, you're supposed to be changing my view, yeah? Eh, here's Christopher Hitchens taking Chomsky down in Slate from 2011, found it after I posted this, realize now that I read it then, probably began my gimlet-eyed view of Chomsky. It has the reference to Chomsky's equivalence of 9/11 with U.S. "atrocities." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/05/chomskys_follies.html

[TheSonofLiberty]

[STA-CITE]>Do your own homework, you're supposed to be changing my view, yeah? [END-CITE]Well it is difficult to argue when you paint someone's positions with a broad brush; it is much easier to have a discussion when someone clearly states positions their opponent takes with quotations and its citation (to provide context). For example, which books of his do you disagree with? Do you disagree with 100% of his books? 75%? 10%? Do you only disagree with what is presented in the 9/11 article? I don't think your position is well defined at the moment.

[jimmyjazz2000]

I've already stated my view and backed it up with a relevant citation. I'm not interested in writing a term paper about Noam Chomsky. If you don't care to endeavor to change my view on him, that's fine. But I think I've made my position quite clear.

[hellaurie]

You've only provided one source, which is an article written critiquing Chomsky, and others have already responded to that. If you wish to make your point that he is 'as bad as the most slanted pundit on Fox News' you'll have to make a stronger case than that, otherwise we can't change your view. I personally don't agree with you - yet I find it difficult to search around on the internet for sources that would agree with you so that I can argue against them.

[GnosticGnome]

Chomsky isn't a journalist and thus isn't bound by the same sort of journalistic ethics. If his words aren't strictly true or unbiased, so? Those are not part of a linguist's code of ethics or the "general umbrella academic" code of ethics to the extent that such a code exists. His words are designed to fit into a specific narrative. That is entirely appropriate for certain fields but totally inappropriate for a journalist.

[jimmyjazz2000]

But when he is used on the left/progressive media side in the same way that Fox guest commentors are used on the right, what's the difference? He's kind of like Anne Coulter, but he gets treated like Dr. Spock, a benevolent and learned truth teller. I just stopped buying it after a while. This emperor has no clothes.

[soctrap]

Why would you "buy it" anyway? You sound like a like a jilted lover. He is not the messiah. He is a very intelligent, articulate and well read man who gives the other side of the story and cuts through indoctrination and irrational patriotism. He can also be wrong and guilty of exaggeration to force and alarm people to look at both sides.

[jimmyjazz2000]

But he brings his own indoctrination and irrationality to the party. That's kind of my whole point. He's not pointing to the absurd see-saw that is American political discourse, he's on his side of it, helping it go up and down.

[TheSonofLiberty]

[STA-CITE]> he's on his side of it [END-CITE]This is why I don't think your position is as clear as you say. Chomsky routinely says the left and Democrats are as much of the "establishment party" as the right and Republicans are. He says they are two sides to the same coin and sometimes calls this the "Business party" considering that many (not 100%) of policies of both parties placate to banks and other big business interests, e.g. pharma companies, military companies, etc.

[parentheticalobject]

There are plenty of ultraconservative hacks who blast the Republican party for not doing enough of what they want. Criticizing the mainstream party doesn't make you any less on one side of the debate.

[jimmyjazz2000]

Okay, instead of referring to him as leftist against the right, I'lll call him an outsider against insiders. I still find the uniformity of his opinion as intellectually dishonest as when insiders from either side of the aisle see the world all one way.

[soctrap]

Yes. He is outside the Establishment of the most powerful nation the world has every known. He is a rather solitary figure out there. One man. Against the media, military and political power centres.

[jimmyjazz2000]

This is the hero worship I'm rebelling against. I don't think the 2015 version of him deserves it.

[hellaurie]

Can you give any more examples to explain why he doesn't deserve it currently?

[jimmyjazz2000]

Sure, actually, here's the one that started it off. His latest appearance in Salon magazine: http://www.salon.com/2015/01/26/noam_chomsky_on_the_terrifying_american_sniper_mentality/ He calls Chris Kyle a psychopathic murderer, and uses him to ladder up to calling Obama a psychopathic murderer for his global drone campaign. Here's the thing: I don't have a problem with Chomsky speaking truth to power. His invective is a little too overheated to be taken seriously, but he's talking about an important issue that needs to be discussed. However, what I do take great issue with is his willingness to piss on a dead soldier's corpse in order to take a swipe at his boss. Chris Kyle was doing his job as a soldier. If you have a problem with a war, take issue with its authors, not the poor schmucks who live and die fighting it. Liberals made this same mistake during Viet Nam. I never thought I'd live to see us make that mistake again. Yet here we are. And Chomsky's leading the chorus. I find it disgusting, especially because he's so smart. Totally calculated, amoral. Drives me crazy.

[soctrap]

I have used the words "a rather solitary figure" in this comment, and in my comment further up the thread I use "an intelligent, articulate, well read man.... (who) can also be wrong and guilty of exaggeration". I think the problem is you are not looking to be informed. You are looking to be led and need someone to throw your idolatry behind. If so, I would choose the state. Even if you are wrong you will do ok. Your view will change with your emotions, not facts.

[jimmyjazz2000]

Since you're speculating on my motivations, I can authoritatively tell you that you're wrong; I came here to be informed. Nothing you posted informed me. In fact, your posts mostly served to confirm my beliefs. I did give a delta to another poster, who did not quite change my mind but did soften my view of Chomsky somewhat. He said that while Chomsky is often guilty of the same provocative, intellectually dishonesty hyperbole that Anne Coulter engages in, at least he does it in service of the poor and powerless, rather than the rich and powerful. I don't hold the man in the same regard others do, but I don't find fault with his mission.

[BlackHumor]

Chomsky is not a pundit, he's a linguist. I feel weird even talking about his politics because the thing he is originally known for is coming up with generative grammar. Nearly everything we know about syntax is either based on his work or a reaction to his work. This includes, actually, [some work on formal grammars which is foundational to much of modern computer science as well](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy).

[jimmyjazz2000]

Again, we are talking about Noam Chomsky circa 1983. The 2015 edition seems to be a full-time anti-America propagandist, not nearly as concerned with scrupulous factual honesty as with making noise and scoring points. I don't mind that this is his pursuit, but I do mind that he is accorded more respect than full-time propagandists from the other side, like Anne Coulter. She's full of crap, but so is he. Not the linguist of years ago, but the anti-America blowhard of today. You may feel weird talking about his politics; Chomsky does not have that problem.

[BlackHumor]

Chomsky has been doing work in linguistics pretty consistently since he first published. I dunno where you got the idea that he stopped publishing in the 1980s.

[arcosapphire]

Yeah, the problem is he fell into the trap where he thought that, because he was a genius in one field, he had the authority to tackle another. I have the highest praise for his linguistics work, which laid the foundation of my field of study. But that gave him a platform he didn't really deserve in terms of political commentary--he's abusing his celebrity, kind of like Jenny McCarthy did, and you know how we all feel about her.

[perpetual_motion]

Alternatively, he fell into no such trap because he's right.

[arcosapphire]

It doesn't depend on whether or not someone is right.

[jimmyjazz2000]

Yeah, this is what I'm perceiving.

[arcosapphire]

Plus, aside from that, I really don't want to have the phrase "Noam Chomsky's work is phenomenal"--referring to his universal grammar work--replied to with, "that tool that hates America?", dismissing his extremely important academic work. It'd be like if Tesla were more well known as a laughingstock who loved a pigeon than as the guy who invented modern AC motors, and it made it hard to praise his work because people only thought of his pigeon stuff. Chomsky's linguistics contributions are universally known among linguistics students, but few others really understand his importance in that field. To most people, he's just some hack political commentator who likes to stir up trouble. And that's terrible for the reputation he actually *deserves*, which is that of a guy who revolutionized an entire field of study.

[jimmyjazz2000]

But he kind of did that to himself. Jenny McCarthy is still a hot chick, but it's not the first thing I think of when I see her now, due to her own public relations campaign. Same deal with Chomsky.

[arcosapphire]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing. He had some fame and connections and used them to soapbox outside of his field of expertise. It doesn't really matter if he's *right* or not. It's a very complex situation, global politics, but I doubt anyone is really "right" about them, and I really doubt Chomsky is even very close. But even if he somehow managed to get it exactly right, he still abused his notoriety to get his viewpoint published. He didn't build up a respected career in political analysis first or anything.

[hellaurie]

How does one build up a respected career in political analysis? And does everyone who wishes to comment on politics have to do that? Who are some political figures that you admire? Have they all spent enough time in academia to be justified to say what they say? Hasn't Chomsky demonstrated quite clearly that he has educated himself very thoroughly about every issue he discusses? Can you give me one single example where he has gotten the facts wrong on anything?

[c_to_the_d]

I've always been a big fan of Chomsky so 3 days late I'll throw my hat into the ring on this one. 1.) Chomsky has said that he doesn't see himself as speaking truth to power, he sees himself as speaking truth to the vast majority of the public, and giving them some sort of intellectual self defense. 2.) As far as solutions, Chomsky has also said that he doesn't offer solutions quite deliberately. Or rather the solutions are the obvious and they are what they have always been. Organize, figure it out, figure out what needs to be done. I don't know what his motivation is for always having this be what he says when anyone asks him for a solution etc. But my suspicion is that it's because he doesn't want to put himself in a position where he's some kind of a leader. Or people listen to his prescriptions without due reflection, or without organizing amongst themselves and figuring it out. He's pretty suspicious of programs for social change on a large scale, Marxism, Leninism, etc. from what I've read. So I tend to think his vagueness on that count is deliberate. 3.) My feeling about his "working an angle" is that he's thinking about it from a moral perspective. It's not just some "reporting on the facts" type thing. I think his point, and I agree with him, is that we should be concerned with ourselves and the moral consequences of OUR actions. We (I) --possibly you-- are United States citizens. It's not noble, or brave to pay attention to what some other country does, or what their people do, and to criticize them. We have problems, we contribute significantly to the worlds problems. So I think for him, if there's a war somewhere, before saying, "Hey, why are you acting up?", he's inclined to ask, "What is our role in this as of right now?". So maybe there is violence in the world, the first thing we can do to mitigate it is to stop funding the violence, or sending guns etc. If we aren't going to go that far, then there's no point to criticizing what someone else is doing as far as the violence, because we're contributing. Now that isn't obviously every international conflict. You'll notice he's generally pretty quiet on the tragedies in Africa. That's because the solutions are not always that easy. The appropriate steps for the United States to take are not so clear cut. On most the issues he is most active on they relate to where there are clear cut things the US can do, and where there is blatant hypocrisy. That's the result of what, (he says), his moral obligation is. So I don't know. I've been reading Chomsky fairly regularly for about 10 years and I've never really understood the belief that Chomsky is on some "America is Evil" program. I think the best response to that is his response. The only way to maintain the belief that he believes America is evil is to embrace a totalitarian sense of self. You associate yourself and your identity with your government. (my words obviously not his) He says that governments generally use force (to the degree they're able) to coerce their own population (undoubtedly true), and the degree to which they can control the world outside their borders they will. I see nothing terribly controversial about that belief.

[jimmyjazz2000]

Thank you for your post. To be honest, I've run out of words on the subject, so I'll just say that while I still can't help but distrust the man, you and others have softened my view of him somewhat. At minimum, you've got me more interested in reading him again, something I haven't done in quite a few years.

[ignotos]

Are Chomsky's indictments disingenuous or inaccurate? Does he tell demonstrable lies?

[Tophattingson]

Chomsky accused the US Military of carrying out a "Silent Genocide" by causing the starvation of 3 to 4 million civilians In Afghanistan. Source: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21541 Demonstrable lie. Although he later backtracked on it once it became too obvious he was making shit up in the name of being anti-us, this does not excuse the initial lie he made. He also has a long history of downplaying or denying genocides in other countries, such as the Cambodian genocide or Sbrenica.

[Kman17]

Um, FrontPage Magazine & David Horowitz are *not* reliable sources. They are well known conservative hacks with an agenda of tracking and "exposing" the left, which is mostly just accusations on top of out of context quotes. Even that article you linked to was so erroneous there's an apology and correction at the top of it.

[Tophattingson]

[STA-CITE]>They are well known conservative hacks with an agenda of tracking and "exposing" the left [END-CITE]This has no impact on my argument. Even if they are anti-left, that doesn't mean Chomsky did not say that the US military was carrying out a silent genocide. By your standards I could ignore everything Chomsky says because he is a well known left-wing hack with an agenda of tracking and "exposing" the US government and military. [STA-CITE]>on top of out of context quotes. [END-CITE]What was the actual context then, if this is supposedly "Out of context"? Alternative sources that are not FrontPage Magazine if you have decided that the presence of it is so offensive as to completely discredit the article: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/111782.php http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2001/chomsky-1024

[Kman17]

Your articles point out that Chomsky was concerned about humanitarian aid and the delivery of food at the beginning of the Afghan war. His statement was that, according to UN & NYT numbers, there would be 7.5 million hungry Afghans from the war disrupting supplies - and was thus concerned that 3-4 million *would* die to the relative indifference of the USA. *Fearing a humanitarian disaster* from known information and *suggesting it happened when it didn't* are two fundamentally different things... your original post implied the later. Chomksy was alarmist & didn't like how nonchalantly we calculated (or ignored) expected war deaths - hence 'silent geoncide'. Horowitz interpreted that statement as 'Chomsky thinks America will intentionally starve 4 million. You read Horowitz and conflated that into "Chomsky accused the US of a genocide of 4 million. It's like a game of conservative telephone. That's the "out of context" nonsense I'm referring to.

[Tophattingson]

Saying that Chomsky was only concerned about a potential starvation crisis, and was not attempting to accuse the US of carrying out a genocide, is incorrect. 1. Genocide is not mass starvation due to indifference. A genocide has to have intent for the extermination of an ethnic group. Even IF Chomsky made a mistake or misuse of the definition here, it's a damnable misuse that trivializes genocide and should have been immediately retracted in full. Famous intellectuals should not throw around the word lightly. (Then again, Chomsky doesn't have a good track record with understanding what a genocide is) 2. "Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide." is not a concern that 3-4 million would die in the future, it's an accusation that they are already dying. Not what will happen, but what is happening. In reality, it never happened. This is a lie in itself.

[bananaTHPLIIIIT]

I don't think you're addressing the problem, though, which is that your source improperly referenced Chomsky.

[says_preachitsister]

1. There have been several genocides through engineered mass starvation (for example the eradication of the North American Buffalo or Saddam draining the marsh Arabs' land). All that's required to fit the genocide label is that the damage is targeted at a specific identifiable group. Destroying any semblance of food distribution networks and farming systems through a large-scale invasion certainly fits this description. 2. Making predictions and ringing alarm bells out of fear are not lies. You can argue that he overreacted, but by no means is it a lie. Nothing he said was factually inaccurate. This second point is the thing that really infuriates Chomsky's enemies; the guy is a fucking encyclopedia. He has been speaking publicly relentlessly for about a billion years, and he just never gets caught on facts. He often just hammers on one side of the story, a separate issue you may indeed fault him with, but he almost never fucks up his source material and always has about 14 examples, with exact names and dates mind you, right on the tip of his tongue to back up his claims.

[redem]

The term used was not "genocide" but "silent genocide", which from context is painted as the consequence of apathy rather than malice. This is not an error on his part, but yours. You're trying to force a definition of a word into a situation where it is not warranted. It is entirely permissible to coin a new phrase that does not mean the same as the individual words within it. The only valid criticism on this is that he may have used overly-emotive language.

[duckofsquid]

Really? I took the term to mean 'geonocide ignored by the media/public.' Is tophattington making up an interpretation, or you? Or both? What we do know is that Chomsky himself did not define it, indicating he thought standard language meanings would be ok. He is a linguistics professor - whatever can be said of his politics, I think we can assume he has the ability to communicate in a debate like this without freestyle word association.

[redem]

We know he did not explicitly define it, but the definition can be inferred from context. [STA-CITE]> I took the term to mean 'geonocide ignored by the media/public.' [END-CITE]So, apathy.

[jimmyjazz2000]

I think he started out from a more scholarly place, starting with a thesis and then finding facts to support or disprove that thesis. But, over time, he's strayed from that, adding more opinion, and less scientific method. For example, he said that Al Qaida's 9/11 attack was no worse an atrocity than Clinton's use of cruise missiles against Sudan in retaliation for bomb attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. That's his opinion, it betrays a bias against the U.S., and is not supported by an unbiased view of those two incidents. So yes, I think he says things that are disingenuous and/or inaccurate in support of his worldview. Just like Anne Coulter, who is a horrible person.

[bananaTHPLIIIIT]

He was probably going strictly off the number of murders in the atrocities. He's quoted as having said that most previous presidents would have been hanged at the Nuremberg Trials, so I won't say that he shies away from extreme rhetoric.

[jimmyjazz2000]

You saying "I won't say that he shies away from extreme rhetoric", is me saying, "He's as bad as the most slanted pundit on Fox News." I'm seeing this a lot in this thread. Many posters who've come to defend Chomsky have basically restated my position, just softening the language.

[bananaTHPLIIIIT]

Nah, Fox News pundits lie. I can't think of one occasion where Chomsky has flat-out lied. The instances given in this thread were his words taken out of context by far-right bloggers.

[Kman17]

Chomsky is an activist, and he has an agenda. He has focused on telling the other side of the story, from the perspective of those that Americans tend to forget about. I sympathize a with fatigue of it after a while, given a lack of progress, lack of concrete objectives, and little that's actionable for the average person. That doesn't make him wrong or his input not valuable though. I'm unaware of demonstrably false claims. If you're looking for a 100% flawless social commentator whom has zero bias, reconciles the complexities of every issue and perspective, and prescribes every step needed to be taken with results... I'm afraid you're going to be terribly disappointed with every leader and every thinker ever. And he's simply not comparable to Fox News. Just because things are opposite does not make them equally valid. For starters, Fox News is supposedly journalism - they have responsibility to report the news with as little bias as possible. Their agenda and their reach is simply dangerous to democracy. I'd also suggest that it's much better to err in the direction of humanitarian aid, education, and protecting the poor than the opposite in one's activism.

[jimmyjazz2000]

You make a lot of good points. And I think Chomsky of a few decades ago was probably worthy of this eloquent defense. But he's grown more strident and less scholarly over time, with no apparent lessening of his prestige and influence. I already posted this in response to another post; Christopher Hitchens take down of Chomsky, using his "scholarship" about 9/11 as a very strong case in point. To be honest, I forgot that I'd seen this a few years ago, I believe it was when my view of Chomsky began to change. It's illuminating. Saying 9/11 was no greater an atrocity than Clinton's use of air strikes in the Sudan, which Chomsky said, is exactly as ridiculous and unfounded as anything you are likely to hear on Fox News: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/05/chomskys_follies.html

[Kman17]

Chomsky's claim that 9/11 was no greater an atrocity that Clinton's use of air strikes in Sudan is based on the death toll. 3,000 lives were lost in the 9/11 attack. The Germany's ambassador to Sudan believed thousands of civilian lives to have been lost indirectly, as a result of the bombing hitting a facility that produced 50% of the nations medicine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)#Al-Shifa_plant_bombing_and_controversy We can be awfully ignorant of or disconnected from those sorts of realties - why is why Chomsky uses such strong language. His only goal is to raise awareness of those issues. His claims often sound absurd *without context* - I'm not disagreeing with you there. It's totally fair to critique him for unnecessarily emotive language or the occasional apples to oranges comparison.

[c_to_the_d]

It's also important to note that Chomsky didn't himself make the claim, he was doing what he usually does, which is to say what it is that those who are familiar with the matter have said and believe. The UN estimated that the potential consequences of the bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan COULD have resulted in the deaths of thousands. This was not Chomsky's opinion, this was the UN's as I understand it. All he was saying was that if we're going to make a moral point we don't say that just because thousands didn't die, doesn't mean that the US wasn't willing to kill thousands since it undoubtedly knew the potential consequences. We decide morality based on the foreseeable consequences of ones actions. Which I think is basically the cornerstone of his motivation for being committed in his way to commentary, and commendable.

[jimmyjazz2000]

Well, I still don't buy this at all. Whether Chomsky came up with this himself or repeated the U.N., it still sounds like disingenuous b.s. I'm going to inform myself further on this topic, but from what I understand to date, Chomsky stretched a point to the limits of credulity, and many of his fans are stretching right along with him.

[jimmyjazz2000]

∆ I believe your last point is really a good one; I would restate it thusly: Chomsky may be a hack, but at least it's in service of people who could use the help.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Kman17. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Kman17)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]