Talk:Noam Chomsky

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

why do you keep reverting my edits, its not vandalism, its removing POV --UncleJalapeno4 09:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

Noam's support for Hezbolla is not just an accusation, it's a fact.Jaques 00:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Cite it --DemocraticSocialist 10:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok, i checked out the source, but it is pretty suspect. It has a strong right wing bias. How can we even be sure Chomsky said that. I've heard Chomsky denounce dictatorships of all political ideologies, and the only thing I've heard him say about the Khmer Rouge is why are they getting all the media attention while the Indonesian genocide is ignored. How is saying that supporting the Khmer Rouge. --DemocraticSocialist 11:01, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Well looks like you were right, Noam did meet with Hezbollah commanders, I'm dissappointed that Noam would speak with terrorists but just because he speaks with them doesn't mean he supports their brutal methods. Besides George Bush meets with Colombian president Uribe and the Saudi Arabian government and they are both terror states. --DemocraticSocialist 11:54, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Quite true. I don't understand why my (very measured) edits were deleted. It is a demonstrable fact that he does not support Hamas, nor did he support the Soviet Union, which he (again, in fact) described repeatedly as "a dungeon." He also, smaller point, identifies himself as a libertarian socialist, not an anarcho-syndicalist; perhaps that last bit is semantics, but still. --Keep the faith 6:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
The terms `libertarian socialist' and `anarcho-syndicalist' are pretty much interchangable Michaelmuffin 22:16, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
That's not necessarily true, actually. Anarcho-syndicalism is a type of libertarian socialism, but libertarian socialism is not necessarily anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-syndicalism itself is typically only a component of a wider ideology, usually anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-communism, as it focuses on workers' liberation, while the wider philosophies of anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism focus on society as a whole. (There's a distinction between those two as well.) I don't remember exactly what type of libertarian socialist Chomsky is, though he's almost certainly an anarcho-collectivist or anarcho-communist, probably the latter. --Agnapostate 18:47, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Contents

the agenda against Chomsky here

I've made a few edits. The only not so suspect piece is the one viz. his 2006 visit with Nasrallah. He explains it thus, as he wrote to me: "I visited Lebanon to give talks at the American U[niversity] of Beirut. While in Lebanon, I tried to meet as wide a range of leading figures as I could, along with popular groups, in order to learn something about the country, as I do everywhere, in fact as any sane person does who wants to learn something about a country and is not merely interested in repeating some Party Line. I therefore was pleased to be invited to speak to Nasrallah, the head of Hizbollah, and ... to be invited to Walid Jumblatt's Mukhtara, where I spent considerably longer time with him than with Nasrallah, including a meal... Jumblatt ... is not only one of the leading political figures in Lebanon, but also the most outspoken supporter of the US war in Iraq and the most outspoken opponent of Hizbollah."

The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander. There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here. I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him. All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keep the faith (talk)

-------------- YOU SUCK AT LINGUISTICS ---------------
If you're going to criticize Chomsky's work, you may want to start calling it by its right name. "Genitive grammar" doesn't exist. There's a genitive case, but not a genitive grammar. You're thinking about the generative grammar.

According to you guys, Chomsky's work has been criticized because it's been done primarily in English. This is like saying an American sociologist's work is not worth looking at because he only studies sociology from an American perspective. Also, Chomsky's work has been applied to thousands of languages (all of the SOV/SVO/OVS/OSV/VOS/VSO types), so you were pretty much just wrong about that. I'm sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

Additionally, a lot of the UG boils down to things like implicational universals which have been statistically tested more rigorously than most scientific theories. If you don't know what these are, you probably shouldn't be arguing about linguistics.

Finally, Chomsky DOES make predictions about what is possible in a language. Have you even read any of his work or did you just cite one of his critics without even understanding who the guy was? Sampson is a joke to linguists.
-------------- YOU SUCK AT LINGUISTICS ---------------

Who you talking to? If you want your hypertext to get read, you can try being civil. If you think your qualified to speak on this subkect, you can establish yourself as something other than a troll. Meantime, so long sucka. Rob Smith 15:55, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

'The academic world's biggest hypocrite'

What is the meaning of calling Chomsky 'the academic world's biggest hypocrite'? I know his marxist views and double-standards when talking about foreign policy are disgraceful, but he's still quite a good linguist, from what I hear. I don't really know anything about his genitive grammer, but it seems to be quite important in the field, him being the most cited academic author of all time.


Oaktree 08:18, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

Lunatic?

Actually, if the ACLU (an organization that I generally sympathize with) can be listed under the category "lunatics;" why not Chomsky?JakeRMurrin 21:45, 6 November 2010 (EDT)

Genocide denier

I think his views on the Cambodian genocide are a bit misrepresented and out of context. He makes his claims that (a) it wasn't genocide because it wasn't an attempt by the Khmer Rouge at eradicating a race of people (which is the definition of genocide), (b) he doesn't claim that people weren't killed in huge numbers in that era, but he dismisses that 2 million deaths should be attributed to Khmer Rouge. He thinks that for the 2 million number to be near accurate, we would have to take into account the killings by the American bombing campaign and would have to contribute the brutality from a broader and more general peasant uprising. He also doesn't necessarily agree that those who died of starvation could be attributed to the Khmer Rouge specifically, as there were many larger factors contributing to famine outside of the Khmer Rouge's involvement (including American military involvement). (c) He bothers to make these claims for secondary purposes which are important to factor in (1) it shows we inflate death tolls when an event involves American enemies and deflate the death tolls or negative effects of our own involvement, (2) it shows we are hyper-focused on what American enemies are doing, but remain unfocused on events where there is American involvement or the involvement of American "interests" such as East Timor, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, etc. His own sentiment is that it would be better if American's were more observant and critical of the conflicts where they are involved. (d) His claims about the Khmer Rouge's killings being "1000" times less than reported are specifically about the Khmer Rouge's KNOWN (not estimated) killings after they became an enemy of the state, so this estimate is not taking into account the executions and brutalities by the Khmer's People National Liberation Front that occured during the period where they were supported by the U.S. to fight against Vietnam.

Here is the full quote where he says "factor of 1000";

"in short, a factor of 1000 matters in estimating deaths, and we should try to keep to the truth, whether considering our own crimes or those of official enemies."

The importance of the words "official enemies" gives credit to my interpretation in argument (d). But this also becomes clear if you read the entire paragraph or chapter.

Also, in general, this section takes up way too much of the entire article. My personal opinion is that "genocide denier" should be reworded at very least and a few of the facts given should be checked and perhaps removed if found to be out of context. New sources might also want to be looked at, since many of the sources used are self-described "opinion" articles from blogs.

4tomic 00:17, 15 November 2012 (EST)

Personal tools