Noam Chomsky - Right Wing Media = Nazis

[Cynic]

But the only reason anybody to take his bizarre "republicans are Nazis" rant seriously in the first place is that he is Noam Chomsky, the famous MIT professor. If Joe Blow, the San Francisco-based "socialist activist", had said the exact same thing, nobody would care.

You can't have it both ways. You can't first claim his rants deserve to be taken seriously because of who you think he is, and then, when the ugly truth about who he really is is (again) exposed, to claim it's suddenly irrelevant.

Well, it's a little like picking a book out to read. Reputation and credentials might guide you to something you're more likely than some others to appreciate. So choosing to bother to listen to what Noam Chomsky has to say in the first place might make sense, because while he's a linguist, he's known first and formost for being smart and opinionated. That's why we discuss things here, after all, and not at sewingcircle.com. But once there, how he is shouldn't matter so much.

 

[Cobalt]

Well, it's a little like picking a book out to read. Reputation and credentials might guide you to something you're more likely than some others to appreciate. So choosing to bother to listen to what Noam Chomsky has to say in the first place might make sense, because while he's a linguist, he's known first and formost for being smart and opinionated. That's why we discuss things here, after all, and not at sewingcircle.com. But once there, how he is shouldn't matter so much.

That's still saying you're gonna hear him out because he's famous. And he isn't necessarily speaking on his area of expertise.

 

[Cynic]

That's still saying you're gonna hear him out because he's famous. And he isn't necessarily speaking on his area of expertise.

No, it's saying I'd hear him out because he's got a reputation for having interesting opinions. Experts are often the very worst sources of interesting and different. But really, I don't think anyone ever needs to go around justifying why they listen to who. What matters is objectively evaluating what they say, and not falling into the trap of worrying about who they are. That's the important part. For instance, how many people here have fallen into the trap of dismissing his opinion because he's not an expert? It doesn't matter what he is.

 

[Cobalt]

No, it's saying I'd hear him out because he's got a reputation for having interesting opinions.

Allright, let me ask you this. Do you think that you'd know of said reputation if he wasn't a famous linguist? If Noam Chomsky was just as everyman as John Doe, would you give a **** ?

Experts are often the very worst sources of interesting and different. But really, I don't think anyone ever needs to go around justifying why they listen to who.

Oooookay, don't know where justification for who you listen to came from, but, whatever then.

What matters is objectively evaluating what they say, and not falling into the trap of worrying about who they are. That's the important part. For instance, how many people here have fallen into the trap of dismissing his opinion because he's not an expert? It doesn't matter what he is.

It might affect how he came to said opinion. And people are dismissed all the time based on who or what they are. The whole "Joe the Plumber" fiasco for example.

 

[†= Crap!]

That's still saying you're gonna hear him out because he's famous. And he isn't necessarily speaking on his area of expertise.

No one listens to him because he is a famous linguist. He is most well known for his political opinions. His politics is why he is famous, not his linguistics. Most peole couldn't care less about his achievements in linguistics.

He has written almost twice as many books in politics as he has linguistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Noam_Chomsky

He has dedicated a large chunk of his life to studying, writing, and talking about political issues for almost half a century now. That hardly makes his opinions equal to that of some average Joe Schmo off the street.

 

[Cynic]

Allright, let me ask you this. Do you think that you'd know of said reputation if he wasn't a famous linguist? If Noam Chomsky was just as everyman as John Doe, would you give a **** ?

As has been pointed out, he's not famous for linguistics, so yeah.

It might affect how he came to said opinion. And people are dismissed all the time based on who or what they are. The whole "Joe the Plumber" fiasco for example.

It seems as if you're arguing in favor of the logical fallacy of arguing from authority and it's opposite. I understand what you're saying here, but there's a fine line between considering the source and ignoring the argument.

 

[Cobalt]

No one listens to him because he is a famous linguist. He is most well known for his political opinions. His politics is why he is famous, not his linguistics. Most peole couldn't care less about his achievements in linguistics.

He has written almost twice as many books in politics as he has linguistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Noam_Chomsky

He has dedicated a large chunk of his life to studying, writing, and talking about political issues for almost half a century now. That hardly makes his opinions equal to that of some average Joe Schmo off the street.

As has been pointed out, he's not famous for linguistics, so yeah.

Okay, fair enough. Personally I knew him as a linguist before a political commentator of sorts. But that's me, and I'm one odd person.

It seems as if you're arguing in favor of the logical fallacy of arguing from authority and it's opposite. I understand what you're saying here, but there's a fine line between considering the source and ignoring the argument.

I'm not really arguing anything. Just discussing back and forth.

 

[Skeptic]

That's still saying you're gonna hear him out because he's famous. And he isn't necessarily speaking on his area of expertise.

Chomsky, his achievements in linguistics aside, long ago became one of those "public intellectuals" -- an academic celebrity famous mostly for being famous.

There is ground to believe that he became a "public intellectual" because his linguistics views began to meet serious opposition and criticism. This is, in fact, a sign of their significance: only sterile theories remain the unchallanged, complete "truth" for long. But opposition hurt his ego, so he looked for another field where he can still be an unchallanged guru, and came up with far-left politics.

A natural choice, since those masochists always hunger for some sage to tell them how awful they are. But the price was for him to earn a place on Ko-Ko's list of "society offenders who may well be underground", i.e., as "the idiot who praises / in exhilirated tone / all centuries but this / and every country but his own".

 

[Praktik]

So Skeptic, you're alleging that he began talking about politics more visibly not because he cared deeply about the issues he was talking about - but for publicity and base self-satisfaction?

Let me offer you a comparable psychic analysis: your conclusions about his turn to politics stem not from any fact-based appreciation of Chomsky's mind, but from your opposition to his political conclusions.

 

[Skeptic]

So Skeptic, you're alleging that he began talking about politics more visibly not because he cared deeply about the issues he was talking about - but for publicity and base self-satisfaction?

Most "public intellectuals" are like that, I think, on the right or the left. It's extremely tempting to be a sage. Look at -- to give a non-political example -- someone like "Dr. Phil" or "Judge Judy". Their professional importance in their chosen field (psychology or law) is precisely zero, so they prefer to go over the professional community's head and become the general public's "gurus" on law, or behavior, or psychology, or relationships.

 

[Praktik]

Most "public intellectuals" are like that, I think, on the right or the left. It's extremely tempting to be a sage. Look at -- to give a non-political example -- someone like "Dr. Phil" or "Judge Judy". Their professional importance in their chosen field (psychology or law) is precisely zero, so they prefer to go over the professional community's head and become the general public's "gurus" on law, or behavior, or psychology, or relationships.

So there is no actual evidence to apply this general rule to Chomsky, just the categorization of him as a "public intellectual"?

Weak...

Should be easy enough in a skeptic's forum to admit you're basing things on a personal hunch.

 

[Skeptic]

Actually, no, there is evidence for this applying to Chomsky -- namely, the increase interest he has in politics as the attacks over his views of linguistics increased.

But anyway this is besides the point. I'm sure that, whatever the psychological motivations he had for starting to be interested in politics instead of linguistics, Chomsky began to care more and more about politics. He now, no doubt, very deeply cares.

So what?

Many people deeply care about politics, and, in particular, every conspiracy theorist does (far too much). That is no qualification, no reason to listen or take them seriously. Chomsky's rather cartoonish "eeeeeeeeevil USA!" world view is hardly a reason to take him seriously.

 

[Praktik]

Ok there we go. You were attempting to paint his interest in politics as the result of selfish, vain ambition and celebrity.

That's what i took issue with because it would require a deep personal knowledge of Chomsky - or psychic powers - to support.

Cant you just disagree without having to resort to such unsupportable rhetorical tricks?