Quote:
it takes about 15 minutes to find numerous essays that put in question these very points about the man.
- selective sourcing
- sources that have turned out to be wrong and recanted though Chomsky never did
- and a history of giving left leaning govnerments the benefit of all doubt despite atrocities while pinning every ill of the world on western democracies.
The man has a serious bias and a very consistent one that has completely owned his work for 40 years.
|
Once again I implore you to read Chomsky instead of relying on -mostly hamfisted- criticisms of his work. The first article that Transplant posted is a classic example of that. They claim he's a hypocrite because he doesn't live up to his own standards. Fine. So he's a hypocrite.
That doesn't detract in any way from his critiques of US Foreign Policy.
Alan Dershowitz is a plagiarist but people still listen to him.
More specifically to your points:
Selective sources? Ok fine I don't know which sources you are referring to but Chomsky has written over 40 books and hundreds of articles. He may have used a faulty source in one or two books or one or two articles. Does that now somehow discredit his entire library?
With regards to giving left leaning governments the benefit of the doubt. I don't see much evidence, especially lately. Sure back in the polarized world of the 1970s you either gave the U.S. and its allies the benefit of the doubt or you gave the communist adversaries the benefit of the doubt. That hardly discredits him either.
Hell, I'll buy and send you a book of Chomsky's on the middle east for you to read. I very much doubt that you'll find any glaring factual or academic errors in his research.
But please, lets keep stuffing this man with straw. It's far easier to attack the individual than his purported truths.