UMEC Forum Index UMEC
United Mining Exploration Commission: A group of friends playing JumpGate-- "a MMORPG that launched smoothly, breaks from fantasy character setting, emphasizes PvP, and is the first persistent world space simulator that nobody talks about." ~Scorch
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Noam Chomsky (as his critics see him)

Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> Flame War
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2002 6:05 am    Post subject: Noam Chomsky (as his critics see him) Reply with quote

Please note i've already concluded these critics are raving lunatics :eyespin:
    to be honest, this is sort of a devil's advocate in support of Mr.Chomsky - and probably deserves to be in Comic Relief forum, since i doubt Chomsky takes these critics seriously himself...The format will be without smartass comments by me and is simply quotes and links.

    If you've no idea who Noam Chomsky is, he's the dude who co-wrote "Manufacturing Consent" and is an "American intellectual dissident" according to any definition. (he's also incredibly long-winded and prone to going off on tangents that tend to lose people without long attention spans...and his oral style is nauseatingly disjointed; IMHO, he's fuckin brilliant)

    Ewwwww kay, anyways, let's have fun beating noam up! tally ho!
comment #1 wrote:
It is hard to believe anyone could take this tired hack (Noam Chomsky) seriously; That is work passes serious intellectual muster in this day and age. While there are some truths (in some of the historical facts which he usually does not credibly present, but rather distorts) to what Chomsky has to say, most is distortion and his own jaded Marxist/progressive socialist (i.e., fascist) agenda. Same old tired myopic leftist/progressive drivel. Of course progressives like Chomsky always deny the fascist side of their political roots. Chomsky so seriously lacks rigorous thought or analysis that he can't even get to the facts. Even (American) left-wingers (i.e., progressives, Z-Magazine, The Nation, et al) are starting to see him as hackneyed, tired, and uninspired.

For a rebuttal to/on Chomsky see:
Plenty of rebuttals to these articles that support Chomsky included here as well. But they can't defend the indefensible...Yes, Horowitz is more than a little bit pro-Bush, USA-centric, and jingoistically myopic (what did you expect). Still Horowitz is right about Chomsky's rantings and agenda, which itself hides the truth because he can not see past his out of date agenda.
Now, we merely goto Horwitz's site (the dude who's got a few pulitzer prize for contemporary journalism and his self-proclaimed civil rights theme) and check this:
The sick mind of Chomsky wrote:
The theology that Chomsky preaches is Manichean, with America as its evil principle. For Chomsky no evil however great can exceed that of America, and America is also the cause of evil in others. This is the key to the mystery of September 11: The devil made them do it. In every one of the 150 shameful demonstrations that took place on America’s campuses on September 20, these were the twin themes of those who agitated to prevent America from taking up arms in her self-defense: America is responsible for the "root causes" of this criminal attack; America has done worse to others.
For those a bit lost as to what 'manichean' means (basically, it's used as a cute reference to some christian heresy. *shrug* What better way than to call him a heretic in the fundamentalist USA, using smartass terms? ooops. got carried away there. back to slamming chomsky)

la la.. oh here's something. let's track down two people: William Bennett, a Republican former cabinet minister and the invitation and the debate transcript referred to; And, Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist...I recall Friedman calling Chomsky "a bore" (specifically saying Chomsky reduced 9/11 to a "nothing but" argument; ie. false analogy to support his "antiUS/antiIsrael" traitorous stance).
    which is kinda ironic since both are US citizens and jewish
laaa ewwwwwwwww kay, anyways, let's take another critic. this time, Alan Dershowitz (Harvard professor of law). And i found a rather nice topic here. (which is unfortunately, biased pro-chomsky; i'll go find another.) Oh well, anyways, Dershowitz calls Chomsky a holocaust denier using trick questions/rhetoric. Might as well say he eats babies. You'll find references to this here
    you'll even find a rather hilarious passage at the bottom of this page which refers to a personal reason for Dershowitz's hatred
There's another rampant right-wing nutter (ie. David Horowitz, Tom Friedman) and that is Ann Coulter.

Last edited by MajorFreak on Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
US Advisor
US Advisor

Joined: 03 Oct 2001
Posts: 374
Location: Sunny Florida

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2002 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pretty cool stuff. I really liked that one quote at the end, saying basically that if the law doesn't agree with you, quote principle: if principle doesn't support you, quote law: and if neither support you, attack your opposition's character. Very true.

Dark, but true. *sigh*
Ben 10 trebuie sa salveze din nou lumea si are nevoie de tine in jocuri cu ben 10 omniverse gratis pentru toti salvatorii planetei.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

PostPosted: Fri Jul 19, 2002 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RB general forum thread
Basically, it's me responding to a discussion on Corporate globalization or whatever...i do hope it turns into a really fun debate and not a troll bashing i usually have to undertake.
Back to top

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2002 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

During the second trial, Christie and Faurisson brought in yet another expert, prominent British denier David Irving. Between the three, a strategy was hatched-presumably under a variation of the theory that it could be established that "the truth is the best defense" wherein the thesis advanced by Arthur Butz would be "scientifically" corroborated. For this purpose, they retained the services of Fred A. Leuchter, reputedly "an engineer, skilled in the functioning of gas chambers," who, as a consultant to prison administrations across the U.S., "specialized in constructing and installing execution apparatus." Shortly, having been dispatched to Auschwitz/Birkenau and Majdanek on "site visits," Leuchter submitted a detailed report holding that it was "chemically and physically impossible for the Germans to have conducted gassings" in those camps.
Although it was quickly established in court that Leuchter lacked even the most rudimentary engineering credentials--his sole degree turned out to be a BA in history from Boston University--his "findings" had already caused something of an international media sensations
Although these were debunked almost as rapidly as their author, with the result that Zundel was convicted and sentenced to serve nine months in jail, the IHR immediately launched an intensive campaign to capitalize on the popular first impression it had achieved.
~Ward Churchill
okay, Faurisson is none other than the person whom Noam Chomsky decided to not only sign a 500 signature petition for his freedom of speech, but wrote an article about "his right to say it".

"Thankfully", it becomes clear that the petition started by Serge Thion (a "respected" media correspondent and scholar?) was signed over freedom of speech opinion for a known Holocaust revisionist, by NC, among others.
But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy
~Noam Chomsky
...Unfortunately, what i don't understand is why the hell Mr.Thion's reputation is so "respectable"? I mean, the dude's a holocaust revisionist himself fer cryin out loud. (though he does have a doctorate in sociology from the university of paris and was a journalist in cambodia, so i guess Chomsky might not have been aware of the petition's context in that sense...or perhaps he thought the context to be something far less important than censorship issues)
    What bothers me isn't Noam Chomsky's view about hatemongers and their right to express themselves, but the fact that people call NC a historical revisionist about his anti-american "facts" and go into crazed diatribes i expect from nutty neonazis.
Well, it seems clear from wasting a whole lot of time on this subject that Noam Chomsky's detractors sound crazed. One wonders why they need to disprove the historical revisionists (and anyone who supports their right to say stupid shit) so rabidly when the neonazi "experts" do more damage to neonazism than anyone i know of...whole lot of stupidity quite evident on both sides outside of court.

you can find a rather interesting view debunking the propaganda method of "proof this and that wrong" (ad infinitum) in a thread i did on trolls here.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    UMEC Forum Index -> Flame War All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Space Pilot 3K template by Jakob Persson.
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group