Noam Chomsky

[cadets08]

Has anyone heard of Noam Chomsky who is a professor at MIT? He seems very controversial to me. What does everyone else think about him.

Ali G interviewed him once on language. Hillarious.

Noam, "I think it's possible your cousin will grow up to be bi-lingual."
Ali G, "Whoa I don' fink dats very fair to say my couzin will grow up liking boys and girls."

[E-Dog Night]

I'd venture to say that there's a large number of people on this board who are familiar with Noam Chomsky. If I'm not mistaken, it's where chomerics gets his name.

I'd go further to say that there is a large swath of opinions about him on here. Let's just say that Chomsky's site likely isn't Sarge's home page.

If you want a nice introduction in the Chomsky world, check out "Manufacturing Consent" (a documentary featuring some speeches and general philosphy).

Whatever your opinions are about him, you can't deny that he's (a) brilliant and (b) one hard working dude.

[BURGUNDYBLEEDER]

He is not a big fan of Capitalism/Western Society...so of course his calling is to educate our youth.

[SkinsOrlando]

He is not a big fan of Capitalism/Western Society...so of course his calling is to educate our youth.


You can add piece of **** to the list as well.

[Barney B]

He is not a big fan of Capitalism/Western Society...so of course his calling is to educate our youth.

Yet paradoxically, while such educators as Chomsky have supposedly been corrupting our youth with their anti-capitalist ideologies, our political zietgeist has drifted generally rightward for the last few generations. :whoknows:

[BURGUNDYBLEEDER]

Yet paradoxically, while such educators as Chomsky have supposedly been corrupting our youth with their anti-capitalist ideologies, our political zietgeist has drifted generally rightward for the last few generations. :whoknows:

Can you define "rightward?"

[#98QBKiller]

Noam Chomsky is an interesting character. He makes some great points about the United States' involvement in foreign affairs. I think that a lot of people can't handle criticism about their country very well and that's where he gets under people's skin. His work is very hard to read sometimes too. If I'm not mistaken, his book on 9/11 drew a lot of harsh criticism.

[Barney B]

Can you define "rightward?"

I'm talking about the ascendancy of conservative thought in the American political marketplace since at least the administration of Ronald Reagan, with roots going back as far as Barry Goldwater. The Democats have been forced toward the center as a result.


But don't take my word for it, Clark Judge has the bona fides to make a far better case:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2932101.html

[BURGUNDYBLEEDER]

I'm talking about the ascendancy of conservative thought in the American political marketplace since at least the administration of Ronald Reagan, with roots going back as far as Barry Goldwater. The Democats have been forced toward the center as a result.


But don't take my word for it, Clark Judge has the bona fides to make a far better case:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2932101.html

I understand what you mean since Goldwater and Reagan though I am too young to have a sense of the atmosphere before their emergence. I guess I just misread your initial post to suggest that politicians and how they legislate is moving rightward.

[phishhead]

Chomsky is one of the greatest thinkers of our time, and like others have mentioned his working schedule is unbelievable.

For an introduction on Chomsky, I would look for the book "Understanding Power", its really a great starter for a person looking to get into how he thinks.

[BURGUNDYBLEEDER]

Chomsky is one of the greatest thinkers of our time, and like others have mentioned his working schedule is unbelievable.

For an introduction on Chomsky, I would look for the book "Understanding Power", its really a great starter for a person looking to get into how he thinks.

Sorry to stereotype but I can't say I am surprised with this quote coming from a poster with a username that contains "phish" in it.

I do like "Farmhouse" a lot, though.

[RVAbrendan]

Sorry to stereotype but I can't say I am surprised with this quote coming from a poster with a username that contains "phish" in it.

I do like "Farmhouse" a lot, though.

If I were to say the same thing, you could have a field day :laugh:

[Jumbo]

You can add piece of **** to the list as well.


He's a socialist nutjob. He should stick to psychology.

:laugh:

While I didn't agree with most of his politics, he hardly merits my contempt. In fact, he receives my respect and even admiration. He contributed an impressive body of work that helps the world today in several fields, including working with developmentally disabled children as I often do.

He has contributed more of use to his fellows than some pieces of ****, I'm sure ;) . I bet he'd have figure out how to get off of NNT quickly. He probably would have read TK's big "READ ME"-stickied "No New Threads" thread at the top of the Stadium forum every gameday all year last year that explained the whole deal step by step. :)

Here is the cliff notes version for the OP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Maybe someday we'll all read about the brilliance of Slateman and Skins Orlando. If not, maybe we'll at least be voting the same ;) :laugh: :cheers:

[chomerics]

I'd venture to say that there's a large number of people on this board who are familiar with Noam Chomsky. If I'm not mistaken, it's where chomerics gets his name.

:laugh: I never noticed the coincidence, but I did not get my name from him. Actually, my name is the name of the first company I worked for out of college, the rest is mere coincidence. . .but I will admit a funny one ;)

His books are both insightful and very disturbing in there is a lot of truth and he questions our foreign endeavors. It is also why there is so much contempt for his writing, style and theme. He is a bit to leftist for me, but he is definitely one of the brightest minds of our time, and he will be looked at like other thinkers were of other generations. People like Freud, Kant, Jung, Neitzchie and others.

[#98QBKiller]

:laugh: I never noticed the coincidence, but I did not get my name from him. Actually, my name is the name of the first company I worked for out of college, the rest is mere coincidence. . .but I will admit a funny one ;)

His books are both insightful and very disturbing in there is a lot of truth and he questions our foreign endeavors. It is also why there is so much contempt for his writing, style and theme. He is a bit to leftist for me, but he is definitely one of the brightest minds of our time, and he will be looked at like other thinkers were of other generations. People like Freud, Kant, Jung, Neitzchie and others.



I like your signature quote Chomerics. :)

[Sarge]

Far left, unber socialist/communist America hating nut job

In other words, the next nominee for president from the Democrats

[Mr. S]

I've pretty much heard what Chomerics said. He is a brilliant person and very knowledgeable. He has gone against party politics in general, dems or repubs. I have not read too many of his articles, but from the few I read, very socialistic in views.

[chomerics]

Far left, unber socialist/communist America hating nut job

Well, according to Sarge's view of the man, he must be a great American :laugh: I mean anyone who is hated by the uber-right hast to be good ;)

[Spaceman Spiff]

His first name spelled backwards is Maon.

[JMS]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned linguistics. Chomsky basically invented the modern science of linguistics.

generative grammar one of the most significan contributions ever to theoretical linguistics.
verbal behavior
philosophy of language
chomsky-Schutzenberger hierarchy the clasification of formal language
According to the "Arts and Humanities Citation Index" in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar. during the 1980-1992 time period, and was eighth most cited scholoar in any time period.

[chomerics]

His first name spelled backwards is Maon.

Hey, you're going to be put on Remlik's kclab list for that one :laugh:

[headexplode]

You can add piece of **** to the list as well.

Interesting point. You must've done a lot of research.

[Henry]

I'm not a big fan of his politics. Honestly I didn't know of any of his contributions other than his outspoken criticism of US policy. Of course I'm probably just an ignorant jerk and not representative of mainstream American sentiment, but it seem to me that it's unfortunate his many accomplishments are being overshadowed by his extreme political rhetoric.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

I hope he gets terminal cancer.

[headexplode]

My favorite Chomsky book is "Hegemony or Survival," a fairly recent one, in which he masterfully elucidates the nationalistic and overly aggressive manner in which america spreads her wings over the world.

"Nutjob" is not a word you can use to describe him. He's one of the the most unreactionary and knowledgeable thinkers alive right now, and has been for years.

I mean, he doesn't have the intellectual authority of a Sarge or LeesburgSkinFan, but he's pretty smart.

[techboy]

Am I allowed to appreciate his contributions to the field of Psychology (I think I've even used him as a source once or twice as an undergrad in a paper) without being labeled a godless commie?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Hey, you're going to be put on Remlik's kclab list for that one :laugh:

Oooo! Sounds nifty!

Maybe I can get an iron on patch and secret decoder ring, too? :wavetowel :wavetowel

[Sarge]

I mean, he doesn't have the intellectual authority of a Sarge or LeesburgSkinFan, but he's pretty smart.

No one does

Kneel before Sarge.......er..........Zod


http://www.zod2008.com/kneel.jpg


http://www.zod2008.com/

[LeesburgSkinFan]

My favorite Chomsky book is "Hegemony or Survival," a fairly recent one, in which he masterfully elucidates the nationalistic and overly aggressive manner in which america spreads her wings over the world.

"Nutjob" is not a word you can use to describe him. He's one of the the most unreactionary and knowledgeable thinkers alive right now, and has been for years.

I mean, he doesn't have the intellectual authority of a Sarge or LeesburgSkinFan, but he's pretty smart.

I never claimed he wasn't an intellectual authority. I'd just enjoy seeing him tossed into a woodchipper.

[chomerics]

I never claimed he wasn't an intellectual authority. I'd just enjoy seeing him tossed into a woodchipper.

Have you ever read his writing? Just curious, because 99 times out of 100 when people talk like this, they have never actually read anything of his, or god forbid, actually try to understand some of his concepts. I'd put money down that Sarge has never read Chomsky.

Lets look at it this way, the left has Noam Chomsky. . .the right has Ann Coulter. I'll take Noam over ape hands any day :laugh:

[Sarge]

I never claimed he wasn't an intellectual authority. I'd just enjoy seeing him tossed into a woodchipper.

Made by John Deere :D

[headexplode]

Made by John Deere :D

I wouldn't stuff a human being in any other brand.

[Destino]

Chomsky is very smart but lacks intellectual honesty.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Have you ever read his writing? Just curious, because 99 times out of 100 when people talk like this, they have never actually read anything of his, or god forbid, actually try to understand some of his concepts. I'd put money down that Sarge has never read Chomsky.

Lets look at it this way, the left has Noam Chomsky. . .the right has Ann Coulter. I'll take Noam over ape hands any day :laugh:

I read something by him following 9/11 that seemed to imply that the United States deserved it.

[Sarge]

Have you ever read his writing? Just curious, because 99 times out of 100 when people talk like this, they have never actually read anything of his, or god forbid, actually try to understand some of his concepts. I'd put money down that Sarge has never read Chomsky.

Lets look at it this way, the left has Noam Chomsky. . .the right has Ann Coulter. I'll take Noam over ape hands any day :laugh:

I stopped reading him years ago while he was spouting his postion that communism was no threat to the world

He's someone that lives in his own little utopic world, much like you

[chomerics]

I stopped reading him years ago while he was spouting his postion that communism was no threat to the world

Was he right? :laugh: I don't seem to think communism is a threat to world peace right now, do you?



He's someone that lives in his own little utopic world, much like you

Ummm, a empyrean world? Evidently you have not read any of his books in a long LONG time, because he describes the world as nothing like a utopia.

[chomerics]

I read something by him following 9/11 that seemed to imply that the United States deserved it.

Actually, he never said the United States deserved it, he said nothing of the sort, and this is a point righties fail to understand.

Acknowledgment of the events that led to 9-11 is not saying "we deserve it", it is simply stating that our global policy concerning the Middle East has led to the current conditions and climate we face. This is nowhere close to stating we "deserve it", it is pointing out the facts and underlying issues that led to us being hated in the world.

You can take that view and change it, or you can continue down the same path and continue to make the same exact mistakes. Examining your foreign policy, and exposing blunders is not saying we are to blame, it is telling everyone how NOT to do business in the future. If more people had understood this, we never would have invaded Iraq in the first place.

[Henry]

"...innumerable people around the world are entitled to bomb Washington causing tens of thousands of casualties in retribution for the acts of the terrorist commanders who operate there with impunity."

This was quoted fromone of his books on this board a few years ago. Maybe it was taken out of context. But that's pretty extremist stuff in my opinion.

[chomerics]

"...innumerable people around the world are entitled to bomb Washington causing tens of thousands of casualties in retribution for the acts of the terrorist commanders who operate there with impunity."

This was quoted fromone of his books on this board a few years ago. Maybe it was taken out of context. But that's pretty extremist stuff in my opinion.

Funny, you google the phrase, and the first thing that comes up is a 02' thread which used it, and your reply in the thread :laugh:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-7270.html

Yes Henry, it was taken out of contest (as Romo said in that thread). He is not saying that these people have the right to bomb the US at all. What he is saying is that in their eyes, because of our actions around the world, they view a bombing on DC as payback. He was also referring to the Central American people in this quote I believe (88 was the year the book was released). . . Again, you need to read the entire chapter to understand the context.


Just to further his point, this was his writing on Sept 12, 2001.


As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more.

Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.

We can try to understand WHY, or we can refuse to do so. If we refuse, much worse lies ahead. Pretty spot on if you ask me. . .

[E-Dog Night]

:laugh: I never noticed the coincidence, but I did not get my name from him.

Huh. I always thought so. I am mistaken.

[headexplode]

Funny, you google the phrase, and the first thing that comes up is a 02' thread which used it, and your reply in the thread :laugh:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-7270.html

Yes Henry, it was taken out of contest (as Romo said in that thread). He is not saying that these people have the right to bomb the US at all. What he is saying is that in their eyes, because of our actions around the world, they view a bombing on DC as payback. He was also referring to the Central American people in this quote I believe (88 was the year the book was released). . . Again, you need to read the entire chapter to understand the context.


Just to further his point, this was his writing on Sept 12, 2001.



We can try to understand WHY, or we can refuse to do so. If we refuse, much worse lies ahead. Pretty spot on if you ask me. . .

Agreed. His point was simply that by the same logic we use to defend our war on terror and any other military action we might use, those on the opposite side can use the same justifications against us. Not exactly that radical. But because he's american, he is supposed to support and except any action the US govt takes to carry out its wishes.

To expand: people don't attack us because they "hate our freedom," they attack us because of specific policies (military or financial) that they view are destroying their ways of life. Again, this is not a radical statement. He doesn't much distinguish american violence from "foreigner" violence. He calls it what it is.

[DjTj]

Funny, you google the phrase, and the first thing that comes up is a 02' thread which used it, and your reply in the thread :laugh:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-7270.htmlThat's pretty funny ... in the entire internet, Extremeskins is the only place discussing that quote.

What's cool is that the third link is the Google books excerpt, where you can read the quote in context:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN074530270X&id=nhMcEPWTkIMC&pg=RA1-PA80&lpg=RA1-PA80&ots=JnGXmD1ZV_&sig=D1N_qFNfviY4GlNZ4IQrlnXzEeQ

Chomsky was just responding to someone who tried to justify the U.S. bombing of Libya in 1986 by saying that it was proper to kill innocent civilians or else terrorist states would never fear retribution. He's pointing out that if that's all the justification we need to kill civilians, terrorists could use the same logic.

[chomerics]

Chomsky was just responding to someone who tried to justify the U.S. bombing of Libya in 1986 by saying that it was proper to kill innocent civilians or else terrorist states would never fear retribution. He's pointing out that if that's all the justification we need to kill civilians, terrorists could use the same logic.

Yea, that is real extremist talk there :doh:

That was my initial point about his writings, and the people who bash him. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can read his books, and not have a better understanding of what is going on in this world. . .or how our foreign policy can screw up our country in the long run.

[Mufumonk]

Violence begets violence. That pretty much sums it up.

[Mr. S]

what's a good starting off book of his to read? I've known the name for a while, but haven't read anything yet other than some articles on his website.

[Henry]

Funny, you google the phrase, and the first thing that comes up is a 02' thread which used it, and your reply in the thread :laugh:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-7270.html


Hey look at that! I'm famous! :)

My response in that thread still works for me.