Talk:Noam Chomsky

2009-04-09T12:34:10Z

Spartan2600: /* the agenda against Chomsky here */

why do you keep reverting my edits, its not vandalism, its removing POV --[[User:UncleJalapeno4|UncleJalapeno4]] 09:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
::Noam's support for Hezbolla is not just an accusation, it's a fact.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:33, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Cite it --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|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. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|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. --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|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. --[[User:Keep_the_faith|Keep the faith]] 6:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::::The terms `libertarian socialist' and `anarcho-syndicalist' are pretty much interchangable [[User:Michaelmuffin|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. --[[User:Agnapostate|Agnapostate]] 18:47, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

== 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.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}

Don't you understand? That is the point of conservapedia. Anyone to the left of Augusto Pinochet or who criticizes anything the US Christian Right stands for, especially Israeli policy, they are fair game to slander and attack. The founder of Conservapedia openly stated that the point wasn't to provide a "balanced" (as abused as that word is) source of information, it was to combat the perceived threat of liberalism from academia, science- the establishment. It is also a source of information for homeschooled children who are made to suffer the indoctrination from their parents. They must be kept inside a walled-garden where nothing the Religious Right authority says is questioned, so wikipedia is off-limits, and the founder had to create a bizarro-pedia, conservapedia. This isn't too unlike totalitarian governments who must provide their own bizarro alternatives to everything to keep the people from questioning anything.

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Noam Chomsky