Unversity cancels Michael Moore speech

[transplant99]

Well if you'd like, we could easily cobble together a list of 10 political scientists and historians who share his particular viewpoint.

Are they qualified?

Honestly have no idea what you are getting at Rouge.

Does Chomsky have the same point of view as many others? Of course he does. So what?

Does Rush Limbaugh fall under that same parameter? Yup.

Niether one however, can offer anything more than THEIR viewpoint with their own spin on things. One can do it a lot more meticulously and eloquently than the other. Doesnt make his POV correct any more correct. Both are extremist in their beliefs.

[HOZ]

An nice run down on Chomsky

New Criterion

Still looking for those quotes Rouge...it will take more time. Maybe tomorrow.

[transplant99]

There are, however, two glaring omissions from their analysis: the role of journalists and the preferences of media audiences. Nowhere do the authors explain how journalists and other news producers come to believe they are exercising their freedom to report the world as they see it. Chomsky and Herman simply assert these people have been duped into seeing the world through a pro-capitalist ideological lens.

Nor do they attempt any analysis of why millions of ordinary people exercise their free choice every day to buy newspapers and tune in to radio and television programs. Chomsky and Herman fail to explain why readers and viewers so willingly accept the world-view of capitalist media proprietors. They provide no explanation for the tastes of media audiences.

This view of both journalists and audiences as easily-led, ideological dupes of the powerful is not just a fantasy of Chomsky and Herman’s own making. It is also a stance that reveals an arrogant and patronising contempt for everyone who does not share their politics. The disdain inherent in this outlook was revealed during an exchange between Chomsky and a questioner at a conference in 1989 (reproduced in Chomsky, Understanding Power, 2002):

Man: The only poll I’ve seen about journalists is that they are basically narcissistic and left of center. Chomsky: Look, what people call “left of center” doesn’t mean anything—it means they’re conventional liberals and conventional liberals are very state-oriented, and usually dedicated to private power.
In short, Chomsky believes that only he and those who share his radical perspective have the ability to rise above the illusions that keep everyone else slaves of the system. Only he can see things as they really are.

Sounds like a battle that is waged on this very forum daily!!!

Great read though...meticulous and eloquent. Good foot-notes to back up his writings as well. Interesting.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 09:06 PM
There are, however, two glaring omissions from their analysis: the role of journalists and the preferences of media audiences. Nowhere do the authors explain how journalists and other news producers come to believe they are exercising their freedom to report the world as they see it. Chomsky and Herman simply assert these people have been duped into seeing the world through a pro-capitalist ideological lens.

Nor do they attempt any analysis of why millions of ordinary people exercise their free choice every day to buy newspapers and tune in to radio and television programs. Chomsky and Herman fail to explain why readers and viewers so willingly accept the world-view of capitalist media proprietors. They provide no explanation for the tastes of media audiences.

This view of both journalists and audiences as easily-led, ideological dupes of the powerful is not just a fantasy of Chomsky and Herman’s own making. It is also a stance that reveals an arrogant and patronising contempt for everyone who does not share their politics. The disdain inherent in this outlook was revealed during an exchange between Chomsky and a questioner at a conference in 1989 (reproduced in Chomsky, Understanding Power, 2002):

Man: The only poll I’ve seen about journalists is that they are basically narcissistic and left of center. Chomsky: Look, what people call “left of center” doesn’t mean anything—it means they’re conventional liberals and conventional liberals are very state-oriented, and usually dedicated to private power.
In short, Chomsky believes that only he and those who share his radical perspective have the ability to rise above the illusions that keep everyone else slaves of the system. Only he can see things as they really are.

Sounds like a battle that is waged on this very forum daily!!!

Great read though...meticulous and eloquent. Good foot-notes to back up his writings as well. Interesting.

I'm not sure if I'd describe one (1) footnote as 'Good footnotes'. Also, simply picking out small pieces of Chomsky's writing without context is the same thing as Chomsky himself has been accused of. The difference is that this author uses only Chomsky's work to decry him. Chomsky uses the world and the state-actors in it as his sources.

Also, he's definitely biased. The man favours peace, equality, and responsible government. Don't ever think that he doesn't have an agenda, he does. And that's it.

No one replied to my earlier comment, if Chomsky is lying/misrepresenting his points, why? What does he have to gain? He doesn't exacly live a lavish lifestyle, and basically spends every second of every day tucked away at a computer, reading and writing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by HOZ+Oct 2 2004, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ Oct 2 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What you have demonstrated, HOZ, is that you know how to take things out of context. Maybe present some evidence that Chomsky does it and that will be relevant.

If that is his preferred method of doing things, I think it will be quite easy for you to prove it.

Out of context? What did I take out of context there Underwear? My own quote?

As for the evidence....hmm...lets see here, right in the old pack pocket.

Haven't read Chomsky in years now and to do the research through his volumous writing and reference his quotes will take.....time. A little more than the 10-50 second of writing up a post. [/b][/quote]
You demonstrated how to take things out of context with the whole South Africa thing. That was a textbook example of how to do it, and that's what I thought you were trying to show us.

What's with the eyes rolling? You made a charge, I asked for proof. Why would you roll your eyes at that?

[transplant99]

Also, simply picking out small pieces of Chomsky's writing without context is the same thing as Chomsky himself has been accused of. The difference is that this author uses only Chomsky's work to decry him.

Well of course he uses "only Chomsky's writiing" to decry him Thats the entire point of the article.

Also, he's definitely biased. The man favours peace, equality, and responsible government. Don't ever think that he doesn't have an agenda, he does. And that's it.

Really? Then why back Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro among others? Clearly 3 of those guys are among the most vile and brutal people we have seen in the last 50 years. Nothing "peaceful or equal" about that in any way shape or form.

No one replied to my earlier comment, if Chomsky is lying/misrepresenting his points, why? What does he have to gain? He doesn't exacly live a lavish lifestyle, and basically spends every second of every day tucked away at a computer, reading and writing.

What does he have to gain? How about power over the youth that reads his stuff as well as a whole bunch of money! Why does anyone misrepresent points?

Anyways, back to my original point, the guy hasn't got a political theory in his entire repetoire of writings. His only position is that if its the USA...it's the worst possible thing it could be. Anything else is better, even at the cost of millions of lives worldwide. He is most certainly allowed that opinion as well....because, ironically, that's the beauty of the USA. Freedom of thought and speech and the ability to question government.

Im just happy he only appeals to a small segment of the population as a serious option for information.

He is a propoganda machine...his own.

[Cowperson]

Chomsky reveals the secret of being an amateur political analyst like himself in this paragraph lifted from: "The Pentagon Papers and US Imperialism In Southeast Asia."

It is possible to give some useful advice to an aspiring political analyst who wants his work to be received as thoughtful and penetrating – advice, I am sure, which applies to any society, not merely {34} ours. This analyst should, first of all, determine as closely as possible the actual workings of power in his society, the actual structure of decision-making in social, economic and political affairs. Having isolated certain primary elements and a number of peripheral and insignificant ones, he should then proceed to ignore the primary factors, or perhaps dismiss them as unimportant, the province of extremists and ideologues. He should rather concentrate on the minor and peripheral elements in decision-making. Better still, he should describe these in terms that appear to be quite general and independent of the social structure that he is discussing ("power drive," "fear of irrelevance," etc.). Where he considers policies that failed, he should attribute them to stupidity and ignorance, that is, to factors that are socially neutral. Or, he may attribute the failures to noble impulses that led policy-makers astray, impulses that led them, in particular, to fail to appreciate the venality, ingratitude and barbarism of subject peoples. He can then be fairly confident that he will be regarded as thoughtful and perhaps even profound, and that he will escape the criticism that his efforts at explanation are "simplistic" (the truth is often surprisingly simple). He will, in short, benefit from a natural tendency on the part of the privileged in any society to suppress – for themselves as well as others – knowledge and understanding of the nature of their privilege and its manifestations.

Pretty straight forward.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1972----.htm

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Oh jesus, "power over the youth" and "lots and lots of money". You sound like one of those people back in the 80's who said the same things, only they were talking about Judas Priest.

He's an academic writing academic papers and books. The people who read them generally are academics or students.

Have you read all his books Transplant? You seem to be an expert on his writings, so I'll assume you have. I certainly haven't read all his books, or even one of them. I have seen him on television and he spoke rather at length about his personal political theories, and I would just assume that he has, at some point, place one in one of his books. But, since you've read everything he's ever written I admit I could be wrong. I suppose I'll have to look into it myself, just like you have done.

In other news, are you also happy that a draft-dodging drug addict with a high school diploma appeals to a very large segment of the population as a serious source of information? I'm not.

[transplant99]

Oh jesus, "power over the youth" and "lots and lots of money". You sound like one of those people back in the 80's who said the same things, only they were talking about Judas Priest.

He's an academic writing academic papers and books. The people who read them generally are academics or students.

Did i say ANYTHING different?? He writes KNOWING he will appeal to the youth of the world...whats the problem with admitting that? And it STILL doesnt make him some sort of political genius. Sorry.

Have you read all his books Transplant? You seem to be an expert on his writings, so I'll assume you have. I certainly haven't read all his books, or even one of them. I have seen him on television and he spoke rather at length about his personal political theories, and I would just assume that he has, at some point, place one in one of his books. But, since you've read everything he's ever written I admit I could be wrong. I suppose I'll have to look into it myself, just like you have done..

Nope i haven't. Never said I did either. So assume whatever you want. Ive seen him on television as well..and yes have read some of his stuff. WHat the hell is your point?

In other news, are you also happy that a draft-dodging drug addict with a high school diploma appeals to a very large segment of the population as a serious source of information? I'm not.

You know very well my whole thought on Limbaugh. Cant stand him, and have never said anything different. I hold Chomsky (your apparent hero) in the same regard though. Again, sorry if that get your knickers in a knot, but just like Chomsky himself and you, I can and will hold my own opinion.

The guy is a blowhard leftist who has never really mattered in the overall scheme of things in the world of politics. Just like his brethern on the right like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and the bunch.

Im sure he can speak the hell out of 5 languages though. Even better im sure he can form patterns of words to come to a conclusion better than anyone else in the USA.

Still doesn't mean a damn thing to me when we are talking about his political "knowledge".

Please feel free to prove me wrong though.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 12:45 PM
Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics
Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language

Theory, syntax and semantics. Doesn't that SCREAM spin-master? Or a better way of putting it.... the guy is a master of saying the same thing a dozen different ways, or taking something and using language to change its meaning completely. Its a talent, but hardly a useful one in reality.

Uh...do you know anything about linguistics? Studying the mechanics of semantics is not the same thing as the study of rhetoric or semantic rhetorics, as you seem to be implying. He studies the theory and mechanics of language when he's not moonlighting as a political guru (or whatever you want to call it). Linguistics is far, far closer to psychology and philosophy than it is rhetoric.

What is your crusade against Chomsky for, anyway?

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't know why I bother getting into this. I did it earlier this week with Cowperson as well. Like I said, I haven't read any of his books and I've only seen him on TV. Frankly, I don't agree with him on a lot of points, on a few I do. His argumentative style is a little botheresome to me as well -- he is constantly on the offensive and he's clever enough to have a veritable library of facts at his disposal. How he interprets all those facts is what the real problem (for some people) is, I guess. It seems you don't think he knows anything about the situation though, so you'll probably dispute that he knows any facts.

Did i say ANYTHING different?? He writes KNOWING he will appeal to the youth of the world...whats the problem with admitting that? And it STILL doesnt make him some sort of political genius. Sorry.

I did say something different. I said he appeals to academics and students. I don't know what percentage of "youth" goes to university, but it's not all that high. How many of them read Chomsky? Not half of them, I guarantee you that. Your point seems to be that he is writing to influence the youth of the world and make money doing so. I would have no problem admitting that, if it were remotely true. It's obviously not. Hilary Duff and Ludacris are influencing the youth of the world, and an 80 year old professor writing and lecturing cryptically on politics and linguism is not about to steal their audience..

Nope i haven't. Never said I did either. So assume whatever you want. Ive seen him on television as well..and yes have read some of his stuff. WHat the hell is your point?

Granted, you never did say you had read all his work, but you did say "the guy hasn't got a political theory in his entire repetoire of writings". That's a pretty bold statement from somebody who has seen him on TV and read some webpages. It's like me saying "Stephen King never writes about scary things in his books. I've never read his books but I saw him on TV". I'm obviously not in the position to say such a thing, am I?

[Cowperson]

Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia and Sudan, he has never admitted he was wrong.

That about sums things up.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

On a sidenote, I wonder if Flame of Liberty thinks Chomsky is Libertarian?

Cowperson

[transplant99]

What is your crusade against Chomsky for, anyway?

What crusade?

Simply, and correctly, saying he matters not in the grand scheme of things.

Many here love to quote him as a source of proof that mainstream media isn't telling us the truth and their are hidden agendas all over the place. (Just one example). All i say is that the guy is a way left whacko, much like the right wing nutbars the leftists love to pound on.

Both are equally biased and oblivious to some realities.

[transplant99]

It seems you don't think he knows anything about the situation though, so you'll probably dispute that he knows any facts.

He knows a TON of stuff...no doubt. My problem is that he doesn't tell it ALL though and leaves out parts that show his clear and utter disdain for the facts. IE...he is a spin master. Have I said otherwise?

I did say something different. I said he appeals to academics and students. I don't know what percentage of "youth" goes to university, but it's not all that high.

Wow. I guess we have a definate differance of opinion on what constitutes youth. I aint talkin 15 year olds here Rouge.

Your point seems to be that he is writing to influence the youth of the world and make money doing so. I would have no problem admitting that, if it were remotely true. It's obviously not.

OK then. Please feel free to tell me why he has. Is it written so it WONT be purchased and consumed?

Hilary Duff and Ludacris are influencing the youth of the world, and an 80 year old professor writing and lecturing cryptically on politics and linguism is not about to steal their audience..

Wow. I guess you really don't understand what i mean when i say youth. 25 is still young to me. Are you suggesting most academics and university students are older than this on average?

That's a pretty bold statement from somebody who has seen him on TV and read some webpages.

Is it? And i have read more than "some webpages". But nice assumption. If he has a consistent political theory...im all ears.

"It aint USA so its better".....doesnt count.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 2 2004, 07:29 PM

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/...03/chomsky.htm

On a sidenote, I wonder if Flame of Liberty thinks Chomsky is Libertarian?

Cowperson

Well golly gee, some legitimate criticism. He's even read the books that he's critiquing.

I gotta admit, he had me at "hello". Well maybe not, but he had me (sort of)until he said roughly "well, the US could have won the Viet Nam War but instead they left" which I guess could be true but it's kind of a strange thing to say. And later he says "Chomsky presents himself as a christ-like figure" which was also kind of weird. Oh yeah and he also seems to still buy the theory that "they hate the US for no good reason they just hate them and to even suggest that the US has done something that would make them hate the US is just absurd". That's kinda dumb I think.

Other than that, it was a good article. Made me think, which, as we all know, is quite hard to do.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 09:13 PM

He knows a TON of stuff...no doubt. My problem is that he doesn't tell it ALL though and leaves out parts that show his clear and utter disdain for the facts. IE...he is a spin master. Have I said otherwise?

Wow. I guess we have a definate differance of opinion on what constitutes youth. I aint talkin 15 year olds here Rouge.

OK then. Please feel free to tell me why he has. Is it written so it WONT be purchased and consumed?

Wow. I guess you really don't understand what i mean when i say youth. 25 is still young to me. Are you suggesting most academics and university students are older than this on average?

Is it? And i have read more than "some webpages". But nice assumption. If he has a consistent political theory...im all ears.

"It aint USA so its better".....doesnt count.

He knows a TON of stuff...no doubt. My problem is that he doesn't tell it ALL though and leaves out parts that show his clear and utter disdain for the facts. IE...he is a spin master. Have I said otherwise?

Funny thing -- it was probably more than a year ago now that Reggie Dunlop labelled Chomsky a "sophist" and after I looked it up I did sort of agree with him. Not completely mind you, but I knew where he was coming from.

I must say though, that what you have written is a somewhat contradictory paragraph. You say the man knows a ton of stuff but at the same time he has disdain for the facts? As much as we talk about him in here, the guy is still a mere mortal. That's a pretty high standard you are trying to hold him to. Do George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld not "leave out the parts" that tend to contradict their viewpoint? Why do you hold an inconsequential nerd to higher standards than you would the president of the United States?

Wow. I guess we have a definate differance of opinion on what constitutes youth. I aint talkin 15 year olds here Rouge.

Wow. I guess we do have a definite difference of opinion on what constitutes youth. To me, "youth" is made up of "youths". Children, teenagers, people under the age of 21 or 22. They don't care about what Noam Chomsky has to say, I guarantee it.

I was a student in a very liberal university in your hometown just 3 years ago and I remember wild-eyed liberals like William Jennings Bryan and Louis XXIV getting a lot more play than Noam Chomsky could have ever dreamed.

But... a friend of mine was once very enthralled with Noam Chomsky, and he read every word Noam ever wrote. He graduated with a 4.0GPA and soon after that he received letters from both Harvard and Yale to "come to our school for free, and we'll pay you, and you'll have an office " but he ignored them and instead moved to Japan for a few minutes until he was deported back to Canada before he even got out of the airport. He lives in Korea now. My point? I think it's kind of a funny story.

Wow. I guess you really don't understand what i mean when i say youth. 25 is still young to me. Are you suggesting most academics and university students are older than this on average?


25 is also young to me, but pretty much all "academics" I have come into contact with are over the age of 25. I made the very serious mistake of getting myself hired to edit a master's thesis not so long ago, and the 26 year-old writer is considered something of a prodigy.

Edit: Wow that last paragraph sounds snooty on my part. The point was that a 26 year-old academic is a "youngin".

[Five-hole]

I must say though, that what you have written is a somewhat contradictory paragraph. You say the man knows a ton of stuff but at the same time he has disdain for the facts? As much as we talk about him in here, the guy is still a mere mortal. That's a pretty high standard you are trying to hold him to. Do George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld not "leave out the parts" that tend to contradict their viewpoint? Why do you hold an inconsequential nerd to higher standards than you would the president of the United States?

Well said, and I think this again aptly demonstrates the hands-over-the-ears partisanship that's completely consumed American politics. Instead of simply being a categorizing mechanism, the political spectrum has become some sort of causal mechanism imposing itself on one's viewpoint and filtering out everything that doesn't fall into the right wavelength. Chomsky is leftist? I don't want to hear about him, he obviously has NOTHING valid to say. :wacko:

[Lurch]

Not having the time to follow up on every footnote, position, quote, etc. in the various Chomsky papers, rebuttals, Chomsky attacks, etc. I'm not sure where exactly he stands in terms of intellectual honesty. I do know he provides sufficient info for me to decide for myself whether he is accurate or not, which is something I can't say for most.

The attacks in the article are all of the "yeah, but he supported this bad group, and they are even worse than the US" variety, IMO. To me, the telling part of the article was around this quote:

Reactions to the terrorist attacks, he said, “should meet the most elementary moral standards: specifically, if an action is right for us, it is right for others; and if it is wrong for others, it is wrong for us.”

It is interesting that the author never even attempted to wade into this actual position. Personally, this sums up my position on US policy perfectly and I think it that US policy does not live up to this Golden Rule, much to its own and the world's detriment. From this standard, I thought the Afghanistan action was justified, while the Iraq action was not.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 10:34 PM

Really? Then why back Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro among others? Clearly 3 of those guys are among the most vile and brutal people we have seen in the last 50 years. Nothing "peaceful or equal" about that in any way shape or form.

Lol, you're completely out to lunch on this one. This is typical Bush style 'you're with us or you're against us'. Heaven forbid Chomsky actually point out that Vietnam wasn't God's gift to honourable armed combat. Strategies were routinely employed during that war that were beyond reprehensible. Just because he doesn't agree with the US doesn't mean that he's Saddam's best friend, that kind of logic is completely juvenile.... and expected.

Also, what about my earlier comment? You claimed your 'source' was well footnoted. There was one. Were you lying or mistaken?

[transplant99]

Lol, you're completely out to lunch on this one. This is typical Bush style 'you're with us or you're against us'. Heaven forbid Chomsky actually point out that Vietnam wasn't God's gift to honourable armed combat.

Quit making stuff up..it's hard to debate such things.

Strategies were routinely employed during that war that were beyond reprehensible.

No kidding....who said otherwise?

Just because he doesn't agree with the US doesn't mean that he's Saddam's best friend, that kind of logic is completely juvenile.... and expected.

Again...making stuff up. Where did I ever say this? More Liberal spin....juvenile and expected.

Also, what about my earlier comment? You claimed your 'source' was well footnoted. There was one. Were you lying or mistaken?

My "source"?? LOL. Its an article linked in this very thread that I was commenting on.

Yes I was "lying" that me footnoted his piece...with Chomsky's own words.

Keep reeaching....it's funny.