BF2S Forums Noam Chomsky on Hamas/USA foreign policies and terrorism

OK, this might get some actual praise from right wingers, but why do you guys beat off Noam Chomsky so much? Why is it always "Well Noam Chomsky said..."

He's a guy with opinions. Big fucking deal. Everyone has opinions.

bruisehound wrote:

Agreements or disagreements with my summaries of Israeli and Hamas policies?

I'd have to say that's not a bad assessment.

Whittsend, thanks for responding.  My apologies to anyone who wants to read about the actual thread topic -- you should read bruisehound's post at the top of this page.  As for this, read it if you want, but it will probably be tedious, especially if you haven't read the previous posts.  Sorry. 
_________________
Let's recap:

  1. Spumantiii posts the video.
  2. You, whittsend, question Chomsky's credibility, citing three points from a magazine I have never heard of.  These three points, the sole apparent basis of your assertion, constitute my first contact with said magazine.
  3. I find the three points questionable and/or essentially irrelevant to Chomsky's focus, and summarize in a post their absurd logical basis, in order to highlight what I find most questionable.
  4. I then try to find out more about why this magazine calls itself Reason when it seems to have a somewhat shaky and/or disingenuous grasp on the real-world concept whose name it "borrows".
  5. On the wikipedia page for this magazine, I see a cover of an issue apparently commemorating Ayn Rand.  This cover promises to explain why she is "more relevant than ever".  I take this to mean the magazine considers Ayn Rand "more relevant than ever".
  6. I reflect that their weak character assassination is consistent with the magazine's sense of "relevance", and that their claim on the word "reason" is roughly as credible as Rand's claim on "objectivism".  Which is to say, not credible.
  7. I end my search for information on this magazine whose points I found specious, having arrived at an explanation for this that satisfies my curiosity.
  8. I add to the bottom of my post a link to the cover, along with some references to the demonstrably cultish following she engendered -- and indeed encouraged -- among supporters during her lifetime and, apparently, beyond.  This I do, out of shock and amusement at the brevity of the search, and not because I feel that an association with Ayn Rand will "smear" the magazine in anyone's eyes, unless they already feel she is NOT "more relevant than ever".

Please note the order of the correlations made.

Tell me where in that chain I make "sweeping judgements", "based upon the most superficial information".  I assume you're not talking about the points you copied from the magazine to prop up your assertion, however superficial those points happen to be.  In fairness, I'll grant you probably saw the cover pic in my post before you could read the text above it, which might have affected your judgement.

The point is you made a single assertion (Chomsky = hypocrite) supported only by the points from this magazine.  That is what we are discussing.  I addressed those points specifically in my first post, and right up until your last post, you've been sidetracked by your penchant for trite proverbs and crude attempts at condescension.  So is it okay by you if I judge a magazine by the quotes you pull from it, if not its cover?

If you really want to discuss Ayn Rand and her alleged post-Cold War relevancy, we could, but only if you can promise not to get sidetracked by one of my "smear" attempts.  (Is that really how you feel about an association with Ayn Rand, btw?  That it amounts to a smear? ANYWAY...  to your response to my first post, finally... )

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

ReasonMagazine wrote:

1. Chomsky joined the faculty of MIT not as a member of the Linguistics Department but as part of the Research Laboratory of Electronics. Lab professors were blessed with lighter teaching loads, higher salaries and extensive support staff.  The only catch was that their work, reports Schweizer, "was funded entirely by the Pentagon and a few multinational corporations."  The professor saw no problem in railing against the entire defense establishment while he drew a salary from the same and conducted research the generals found useful.

1. Your paycheck is hush money

1) The point wasn't that it was 'hush money', the point was that the work he did directly benefited entities of which he was HIGHLY and OPENLY critical, to wit, the Defense Department.  Why, if the defense department is as nasty as Chomsky regularly claims, would he benefit them with the fruit of his intellect for any sum?

A recurring element in some of Chomsky's work is that the Pentagon acts as a kind of umbrella, or funnel, for most government funding of hi-tech research in the US.  If this is true, such a relationship would seem to be, if not inevitable, certainly not unheard of for a professor at MIT.

Further, the DoD is governed by policy, rather than directly shaping it.  Unless you have some information as to what exactly he is providing to the DoD, and how such action belies some stated opinion of his, I find this a weak basis for a supposed lack of credibility.

It's a jumped up form of "he shouldn't bite the hand that [only partially] feeds him" or, as I put it: "your paycheck is hush money".  I will, of course, consider alternative interpretations.

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

ReasonMagazine wrote:

2. The MIT mandarin often identifies with the working class and calls himself a socialist, but he acquired one home in Lexington, Massachusetts, valued at $850,000 and another estate in Wellfleet worth at least $1.2 million.  The Wellfleet home is smack dab in the middle of a state park, and any further developments are prohibited by law.  The radical historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History  of the United States is one of the few neighbors who could afford to buy in.

2. You must either (a) extol the virtues of the system, or (b) renounce property

2)  Here the point was not that one must renounce property or extol the virtues of the system, but for one with socialist beliefs like Chomsky to live in high style in the midst of a state park does not fit with his vision does not really help others in the way that his rhetoric woud imply is his desire.  Nor do his multi-million dollar trusts.

The fallacy employed here is to suggest it's somehow hypocritical or dishonest to develop your political beliefs independently of your net worth.  This might be an article of faith in some places, despite any number of prominent or massive exceptions, but it's not remotely tenable without industrial-strength blinkers.  Even Reason magazine knows this.

In fact, given the almost reasonable treatment of George Soros in this Reason article, it seems their problem with Chomsky is that he doesn't have enough money, not that he has too much.  On the other hand, Soros doesn't call himself a "socialist" (does Chomsky?), and they definitely don't like him so much in this earlier article, so we're back to "you have money; you cannot criticize the system" again.

Even if he does call himself a socialist (source?), you apparently are aware that socialists see poverty as a societal problem, and not solvable via charitable donations at the individual level.  So where is the hypocrisy here, exactly?

To be honest, I think the magazine is really just trying to discredit him in the eyes of what they imagine are his idealistic "followers", thinking they will disdain his not living out of a cardboard box.  I find this funny, but then I'm not a "follower" of "Chomskyism" or any -ism that would require me to see things this way.  Maybe they, and you, find this kind of attack on credibility effective.  I don't.

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

Reason Magazine wrote:

3. Chomsky is dead set against tax havens and has railed against trusts as tools for the rich to perpetuate structural inequality.  And yet, "A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm Palmer and Dodge and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in 'income-tax planning,' set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets against Uncle Sam."  When questioned about this, Chomsky told Schweizer, "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren."

3. I have no idea what this refers to, who he is supposed to have condemned or for what, or why it speaks to his credibility on matters which are many orders of magnitude greater

I didn't summarize this point because I was not familiar with the alleged particulars.  Instead, I questioned how such allegations -- even if true -- speak to his credibility on his subject matter: the use and abuse of state-level power not by "the wealthy", but by those institutions which operate at that level.

It's institutional analysis -- he rarely talks about even very powerful individuals except to say whether they largely adhere(d) to, or constitute(d) an anomaly within, the greater institutional pattern.  Anybody who has as much as glanced at the back cover of one of his books knows this. 

whittsend wrote:

you shouldn't compare what a Canadian buck buys in Vancouver to what a greenback buys on Cape Cod.  The exchange rate doesn't have much to do with purchasing power, so you only demonstrate your lack of understanding.

The point was that "one...   MILLLLLLLLION  DOLLLLARS!" isn't what it used to be to your average evil scientist, even if it still packs rhetorical punch for people who haven't seen any Austin Powers movies.  And I converted the value to US$ to give a sense of the relative values to those not familiar with the exchange rate.  Don't worry, I'm not about to buy property in the US... in Canadian dollars.  Thanks for the concern, though.

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

Btw, I went to their site, but they've got such a hate-on for Chomsky, he seems to be in every other issue in some way or another.

Strange, I don't recall reading another article featuring criticism of him.  Care to be specific (after all, if you are going to demand specificity, why shouldn't I)?

Go here, and search for "Chomsky".  Yes, some hits point to letters to the editors (who then decide which letters to publish).  It's funny you think you would remember.  Guess you read it a lot.  It's also funny you said I "exept" myself from requests for specifics, despite this being your first such request.  You're welcome.

Anyway, I'm not going to quote the rest of your stuff, because it's apparently based on the misapprehension that Noam Chomsky is a philosopher or ideologue who advocates some method for solving all the world's problems.  Sure, you've suffered brushes with freedom from such misapprehensions...

whittsend wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

Be specific about your criticisms, or admit they're just a bunch of fallacious deflections from his actual points.

Here I will have to concede that a search for relevant data has been unsuccessful.  I'm unable to find any but the most vague pronouncements that tax havens are bad.

...but somehow manage to keep them intact nonetheless...

whittsend wrote:

Still, knowing his principles, I continue to believe ...

You mean, "knowing recycled criticism of his principles".  In fact, the points you quoted aren't even that -- they're recycled attempts to discredit the source, with no regard for what he actually says.

Again: be specific about your criticisms, instead of relying on other sources to do a piss-poor job of discrediting somebody on your behalf.  But don't bother replying if you're just going to accuse me of shit I never did.  Here's a handy dandy shortlist of shit you have erroneously tried to pin on me so far, for your reference:

*Holding others to a standard I do not adhere to myself
*Not being specific when requested
*Dismissing Reason - the magazine out of hand just because of one measly "more relevant than ever" crazy bitch on its cover

BTW, have you seen my post about the traditional left/right model of politics?  There's a link to politicalcompass.org I think you might find interesting, since it goes into some detail about the varied threads of libertarianism.  Take their test and post your results!  I'd be interested to hear your views on the fidelity of your assessment.

Cheers

Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-07-02 05:56:34)

spastic bullet:

I find that I am repeating myself as I consider what to write in reply.  I won't remake points I believe I have already addressed; I will only respond to what I consider to be new/valid challenges.

spastic bullet wrote:

The point is you made a single assertion (Chomsky = hypocrite) supported only by the points from this magazine.

True enough.    Given what I know about Chomsky (as noted before, hardly an expert, but hardly uninformed, either), it rang very true to me.   Furthermore, I believe the author made a very good case: The easiest way to prove he IS a hypocrite, is to get a copy of the book in question, and look up the footnotes for Chomsky's quotes:  He is directly quoted as saying things directly in opposition to his actions, and I have no reason to believe that he made those quotes up.  This would, in my opinion, end the discussion quickly (if Chomsky in fact said what he was quoted as saying, and in context, that would be fairly damning; and if he didn't, or if it were out of context, then the argument of hypocrisy fails), and if I find myself in a bookstore, I may do just that.  For the immediate future, however, I hope you will excuse me if this is not at the top of my priority list.

spastic bullet wrote:

So is it okay by you if I judge a magazine by the quotes you pull from it, if not its cover?[

If you can stick to the former and refrain from the latter, yes, that would be fine.

spastic bullet wrote:

If you really want to discuss Ayn Rand and her alleged post-Cold War relevancy

I don't.  You were the one who brought it up when you first critiqued Reason.  I am neither an Objectivist, nor a Rand groupie.  I believe she has interesting things to say, but she has some peculiar personality defects which, in my opinion, make her unreliable (much as Chomsky does).  I'm not driven by a need to defend her or discuss her.

spastic bullet wrote:

Is that really how you feel about an association with Ayn Rand, btw?  That it amounts to a smear?

Are you honestly saying you didn't intend it that way?  Read what you wrote, if that wasn't a case of dismissing the source with a quick brush-off-by-association, then I've never seen one.

spastic bullet wrote:

Further, the DoD is governed by policy, rather than directly shaping it.  Unless you have some information as to what exactly he is providing to the DoD, and how such action belies some stated opinion of his, I find this a weak basis for a supposed lack of credibility.

It doesn't make sense for a private individual with a gripe against policy to voluntarily advance that policy with the fruit of his intellect for money; and the DoD is a tool for the furtherance of policy.  There isn't anything else to say about this, if you can't see it, I can't help you.

spastic bullet wrote:

The fallacy employed here is to suggest it's somehow hypocritical or dishonest to develop your political beliefs independently of your net worth.  This might be an article of faith in some places, despite any number of prominent or massive exceptions, but it's not remotely tenable without industrial-strength blinkers.  Even Reason magazine knows this.

The issue is simply that Chomsky espouses a world view in which people voluntarily help one another.  Granted, his preferred vehicle is different than that in place currently, but in creating trusts to eliminate his responsibility under existing mechanisms, he is, in essence, saying that if people can't be helped 'his way', then they shouldn't be helped at all.  That is a bit of a surprise from such a principled libertarian socialist.  Furthermore, he has been known to be critical of trusts, and was quoted as such in the book.  Again, if time and convenience allows, I'll be happy to look at the footnote for the quote.  It isn't a case of, "Socialists can't have money," but simply that if they want everyone to contribute to the greater good, they should be prepared to contribute their fair share, and not do an end run around that which, in fact, exists to advance the greater good.

spastic bullet wrote:

Even if he does call himself a socialist (source?), you apparently are aware that socialists see poverty as a societal problem, and not solvable via charitable donations at the individual level.  So where is the hypocrisy here, exactly?

If everyone finds a way out of giving their money to the socialist state via trusts or other tax havens, the state will lack the funds with which to do good works.  This is not how a good socialist behaves.  (He calls himself a libertarian socialist - do you really need a source for that?)

spastic bullet wrote:

To be honest, I think the magazine is really just trying to discredit him in the eyes of what they imagine are his idealistic "followers", thinking they will disdain his not living out of a cardboard box.

I strongly doubt that many who find Chomsky's opinions valid are regular readers of 'Reason.'

spastic bullet wrote:

Anyway, I'm not going to quote the rest of your stuff, because it's apparently based on the misapprehension that Noam Chomsky is a philosopher or ideologue who advocates some method for solving all the world's problems.  Sure, you've suffered brushes with freedom from such misapprehensions...

He is a self-proclaimed libertarian socialist (as noted before, not related to American libertarianism).  This implies some very definite (if entirely unworkable) ideas about dealing with problems.

spastic bullet wrote:

You mean, "knowing recycled criticism of his principles".  In fact, the points you quoted aren't even that -- they're recycled attempts to discredit the source, with no regard for what he actually says.

No, knowing what comes from the horse's mouth.  I have read several interviews of him, and heard broadcasts of him speaking.  He discredits himself with what comes out of his mouth.

spastic bullet wrote:

be specific about your criticisms, instead of relying on other sources to do a piss-poor job of discrediting somebody on your behalf.

Fair criticism, but as noted, since a cursory search didn't help, I don't have time to do it right.

spastic bullet wrote:

*Holding others to a standard I do not adhere to myself

This relates to your criticism of Reason based on a cover.  Really, not good.  I am not saying you didn't address the text as well, but you clearly attempted to brush them as 'loony Randies' with your comments.  My criticism of you for it was entirely justified.

spastic bullet wrote:

*Not being specific when requested

You are right, it was a cheap shot.  I apologise.

spastic bullet wrote:

*Dismissing Reason - the magazine out of hand just because of one measly "more relevant than ever" crazy bitch on its cover

Is this how you deny the charge?

spastic bullet wrote:

BTW, have you seen my post about the traditional left/right model of politics?  There's a link to politicalcompass.org I think you might find interesting, since it goes into some detail about the varied threads of libertarianism.  Take their test and post your results!  I'd be interested to hear your views on the fidelity of your assessment.

I took the test, but I don't agree with the results:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

My issue with the test is that in some cases it asks questions of opinion, and makes the assumption that one's opinion on the subject indicates political support for action in that direction.  For example, I may believe that activity X is wrong, however that does not mean that I support regulation of that activity.  99 times out of 100, I think the state should keep its nose out of private affairs.  In short, I believe I am more libertarian and less right (politically, if not personally) than the test indicates.  In the end, as I noted before, this is the crux of my personal problem with Chomsky: He professes to believe in reduction of government authority, but he supports a system which will require compulsion by the state, or fail.

Edit:  Just realised they are calling the espousal of Economic freedom 'Right'.  I can't begin to disagree with that enough, but it makes sense given the results I got:  I am a strong proponant of Economic AND Social freedom.  I think what is traditionally labelled left/right is usually along these lines:  Left - social freedom/economic regulation.  Right - social regulation/economic freedom.  Not saying that image is correct, just saying that is more of what the popular understanding is.  So, when the test labelled me 'right' I was taken aback.  It makes more sense now, but I still think I am more libertarian in terms of social policy.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-03 09:22:49)