• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Noam Chomsky Sucks



I think the reason the idealogues of the right associate Chomsky with liberals is because they can. Too few liberals stand up to distance themselves from him, and so it makes for easy pickings.

Yes, he is much like Coulter et al because his role is much like that of the pamphleteers of old -- he is dealing in the creation of perception and his appeal is to people's emotions rather than their intellect. His use of hyperbole is very much like that of those on the far right in terms of degree, what with his relentless comparisons of Israel or the United States to Nazi Germany and whathaveyou. If you read through his polemics and just look for the way he uses adjectives, the hyperbolic nature of his writing should jump off the page at you.

I'll take somebody like Thomas Freidman any day.
 
The Real McCoy said:
How old are you? He's a god on college campuses. Most cited living person according to Humanities. Ranks among the top ten most cited along with Shakespeare and the Holy Bible.

Only time I ever heard of him while attending college was in my Linguistics class; his political opinions never came up. As far as Linguistics goes, he has several interesting-- and compelling-- theories.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Only time I ever heard of him while attending college was in my Linguistics class; his political opinions never came up. As far as Linguistics goes, he has several interesting-- and compelling-- theories.

Are you saying he is a cunning linguist?:rofl
 

Yes but Chomsky has said that intelectuals should be held accountable for what they do not just what they say and that they have to practice what they preach so should Chomsky not be held up to his own standards? He's worked for the pentagon which he claims is the most evil force in the world and let's not forget that this self proclaimed anarchist has supported every totalitarian communist regime of the 20th century just so long as they dislike the U.S. Chomsky supported Pol Pot for christ sakes, he's a hypocritical lier and a supporter of tyrants, I despise the man.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes but Chomsky has said that intelectuals should be held accountable for what they do, not just what ... so should Chomsky not be held up to his own standards?

Point taken.

Trajan said:
Chomsky supported Pol Pot for christ sakes, he's a hypocritical lier and a supporter of tyrants, I despise the man.

Have to admit, supporting Pol Pot and denouncing the Pentagon is awfully hypocritical.
 
Have to admit, supporting Pol Pot and denouncing the Pentagon is awfully hypocritical.

He never really supported Pol Pot. Somebody wrote a book early on that criticized Pol Pot. He wrote an article with someone called Ed Herman that criticized the book. They actually said it was worth reading but they were arguing that the author purposefully manipulated information about the attrocities.

Heres a quote from Chomsky:
What happened with that was, the same way people criticized him for supporting a nazis right for freedom of speech, people take this as support for these people. But thats not true, as you can see.
 

Bullshit elsewhere in that artilce which I have read he said that the attrocities were on both sides it's another in his long list of trying to claim some sort of moral equivalency between those who commit the attrocity and those who are being slaughtered. The man did a cheerleading speech in South Vietnam at the height of the conflict. The man supports tyrants end of story.
 
FinnMacCool said:
What possible reason would he have to support tyrants?

I don't know why don't you ask him?

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…