Find a flaw.
>>823649
Khmer Rouge
>>823649
Linguistic or political?
>>823695
either
>>823649
He's a stupid fucking idealist who bashes the most morally advanced countries in the world because they don't live up to an impossible ideal.
It's fine to critique the US on its many failures, but to act like the US is somehow irreparably evil reveals an immaturity one would expect in a feminists studies class.
>Also a total hypocrite, has millions and avoids taxes dogmatically while talking shit to businesses that do the same.
Fuck Chomsky, the high regard he's held in shows just how immature and childish the West has become.
>>823704
My knowledge of linguistics is pretty shallow. On the political side his whole "free speech must be protected for everyone" view is kind of childish imo.
>>823649
>>823649
Has yet to kick the bucket.
>>823649
he criticizes without putting forth viable alternatives besides stick your head in the ground. The truth is any macro level policy is going to create bad effects, point them out isn't hard.
>>823733
>He's a stupid fucking idealist who bashes the most morally advanced countries in the world because they don't live up to an impossible ideal.
He bashes western society because it's the society he lives in and its the society that he can influence through critique. That doesn't equate endorsement of evil committed by non-Western countries. So for instance, he doesn't talk about the Holocaust unless it's in relation to something that's happening right now. Why? Because condemning the Holocaust is morally useless since it already happened and can't be affected, it's a kind of show activism; you're not going to accomplish anything by condemning it.
Meanwhile, if he can influence public opinion in some small way, he can have a real tangible effect on American foreign policy. The example he uses is Iran-Contra. Why was it controversial? Because the effects of Vietnam made the American public harshly opposed to the kind of action that Reagan wanted, so he was forced to use covert means. Had he been president in 1950 and wanted to fund the Contra, he could have done so overtly, which would have been more efficient, more effective, and ultimately more bloody.
So when he criticizes America, he's doing so to try to influence public opinion away from the kind of imperialist action that the US is known for. People may oppose these kinds of actions, but they feel individually powerless to do so; Chomsky's work has been to bring these issues to the public consciousnesses in order to try to shift the weight of public perception towards foreign policy. Because despite his criticisms of the country, he believes that it's still quite free and people have the ability to influence government decisions if they put in effort.
>>823763
Who should determine what kind of speech should and shouldn't be protected? How should it be enforced? People have tried to addressed those questions in the past, and the answers haven't been pretty for dissidents.
>>823733
Would Chomsky even be accepted in the world that he wants to create?
>>823733
>the most morally advanced countries in the world
... the PRC?
>>823841
Who should determine what is illegal? Who should enforce these rules? Those questions are applicable to all laws, not just speech. The justice system in the US has a lot of problems and has historically been used as a tool of oppression, that doesn't mean society shouldn't make anything off limits.
>>823669
He asked questions based on the information available at the time. Once the information changed, so did his position.
>>823704
Linguist here.
His research program is basically vacuous, especially in its most recent (ie "Minimalist"/third factor) iteration.
>>823888
Because crimes generally have a victim and a perpetrator, and some damage that comes from them. Speaking outside post-structuralism, these are generally easier to recognize than any "damages" caused by freedom of speech. And yeah, the justice system in the United States has the potential to be abused, just like any system of power, it should have oversight.
>>823893
>basically vacuous
>founder of modern linguistics
Even if everything he's done in the past 30 years is ultimately meaningless, (And I don't believe it is) he's still contributed more to the field than probably anyone else in history.
>>823933
That's the thing. I don't agree that he’s the founder of modern linguistics. His work has led to important developments in psychology and computer science, but as far as linguistics goes he's basically sterile.
Do you even know of any linguists that aren't Chomsky?
>>823970
Are you serious? The idea of Universal Grammar is "basically sterile"?
And yes, I'm a linguist as well, that's the avenue that I first became familiar with Chomsky
Ugly glasses
>>823649
I don't have a problem with his own writing, I don't like how he wants to judge other writers for not following his own framing of issues.
For instance, as we transition into a more interconnected and globalized world, it makes less and less sense to focus criticism on our own nation because we are effected and influenced by forms of power everywhere. The idea that it's bigoted for Christian Americans to analyze Islam in the middle east, is a view that assumes objectivity is merely a tool of the elites, and that you're either with the noble resistance to American hegemony, or are an oppressor. It's a juvenile framework to apply to everyone.
>>824001
Are you joking? The top band provides essential structural support in an elegant way, while the lower band rests effortlessly on his nose.
The rim concaves in a way that masks the lenses' thickness and the nose pads aren't distracting.
They're beautiful glasses
>>824076
Ask yourself this; what is the function of you or me analyzing Islam in the middle east. What end does it serve? Will people there agree that Islam needs reforming if they're told as much by the irreligious West? Or is it largely a means to convince the American public that Islam (and Arabs by extension, regardless of their personal religious views) is savage and therefore the US is justified in intervening militarily? Try to provide one example in history of an invasion where there wasn't massive effort by the invading party to convince the public that the country being invaded was morally corrupt. That system of propaganda is by no means exclusive to America, you can find it in any aggressive society.
Islam may be morally evil, it may not be. But the actual question of its morality is irrelevant as far as Western power centers are concerned. Their concern is to spin it that way to gain popular support.
The same thing happened in Vietnam, the same thing happened in the Philippines, the same thing happens everywhere.
He is unable to admit that countries opposed to the United States can do evil without American influence. So the Cambodian genocide was a result of American bombing, and the Rwanda and Bosnian massacres didn't happen.
He also conveniently ignores Communist dictators in order to build a narrative of the Cold War where only the U.S. was toppling democratic governments and supporting dictatorships around the globe. Someone who only reads Chomsky probably doesn't even know people like Francisco Macias Nguema, Mengistu Haile Mariam or Juan Velasco Alvarado ever existed, or that the KGB worked as hard as the CIA to influence the world (Salvador Allende was their agent, for example).
>>824112
It's a mix of both being sort of effective and sort of serving elite interests. More importantly, it is sometimes serving the interest of honesrly addressing one of the most relevant cultural/political issues effecting the world, facing a generation of intellectuals terrified of talking about these issues, for fear of being called imperialist and racist. What's frustrating about chomsky is that he seems to automatically want to judge and categorize any intellectual into the dichotomy you expressed, when there are a variety of other interests to consider.
>>823763
Literally the only admirable position he holds.
>>823998
>And yes, I'm a linguist as well
Where'd you get your PhD? What did you research?
>>823998
>The idea of Universal Grammar is "basically sterile"?
Given that it now consists of only MERGE and MOVE ALPHA, which can do pretty much anything without constraint, yes UG is a sterile notion at this point, and the most exciting work coming out of the field now has very little to do with Chomsky's approach.
test
>>823844
No, he'd complain about it too much.
I mostly see Chomsky as a previous-generation fellow. He's so into criticizing the west (usually about justified things mind you), but he hasn't realized that he's no longer the underdog. Most people are aware and quite critical of western imperialism and meddling. Now the idiot masses are very much on his side, and are also very loud due to the internet. With this comes stupid opinions that may or may not express the same thing Chomsky expresses, but will use him as an authority regardless.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that he's washed up. Not useful anymore. Outdated. It was good while it lasted.
