Why Noam Chomsky...

[Brienne the Beauty]

Next year, I will likely publish an article criticizing the regs that govern my job, yet I will continue to apply them and continue to work at my job. Is that hypocritical?

Not unless the conclusion of the article is that morally your job is untenable and should be abolished. Chomsky is not asking for reform (as I suspect your article will), but a complete dismantling of the existing system.

However, when you publish an article, you are making yourself a public figure, in a way that chattering about politics in the off-topic forum of a fantasy novel fansite does not.

[Guest Raidne]

Falagar - I'd ask him to talk about the 30+ year propaganda campaign against Noam Chomsky. If we've shown anything here, it's that he probably wouldn't find it to be in bad taste. ;) And I think you might get some publicity out of it. All the same stuff he talked about in Manufacturing Consent has been used against him. The fact that he's used in a movie on Anti-Semites is shocking.

[Guest Raidne]

Brienne, is that your opinion of how it should be or your reading of NY Times v. Sullivan?

[Guest Raidne]

Also, I would be arguing that benefits are unfairly denied while continuing to deny those benefits, just like Noam is arguing that capitalism is unethical while participating in capitalism. There is no difference beyond the scale, which doesn't constitute a valid and/or meaningful distinction for the analogy I'm making.

[Ixodes]

Ix, FYI you cannot do that and vest matching funds. I'd take a 50% hit.

And I know what investment plan I have - gov'ts L40 higher risk, more stocks, etc, just not the particular picks, which likely change often.

Understood -- I would imagine that in most situations rolling over a 401k would be a poor financial choice. But the point is you can pull out and invest how you choose but it would come at a cost. Do your ethos mean more than the 50% hit? Only the person involved can make that call.*

*IMO, only an idiot would pull out of a well managed 401k because of concerns about some of the investments. As Snoop has informed me "we all know money doesn't grow on trees." In all it's kind of a silly argument against Chomsky but there is some validity, I guess. Like people who preach about carbon footprint but don't bother to change their lifestyle at home (AC set to 66, no fluorescent bulbs, etc).

[Guest Raidne]

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that, IMO, Solo has pretty much taken that argument down point by point and was damn persuasive and no one has responded.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Scott - it's a fascinating question that probably deserves it's own thread. :)

FLOW, this is no attempt to cherry pick on my part - other people have contended that these are the best two anti-Chomsky arguments, so they are at the forefront of my mind.

All I can remember from you is an supported claim that Chomsky makes provocative statements for an uncertain purpose and then uses his pubs to deny the POVs he verbally alluded to.

But it's not just that. It's that -- and Dershowitz pointed to this as well -- he assumes highly controversial facts but states them as if they are widely accepted, without even attempting proof or argument on them. It's the equivalent of a lawyer making a fiery closing argument with a bunch of facts not in evidence. When you combine that approach with the provocative substantive points he implies, it creates a gigantic, unsupported mess that takes far more work to deconstruct than it does to make. His approach borders on fraud to me.

I thought I did acknowledge that when I said he does provoke controversy and Godwin everything, I just wasn't persuaded that I should care, as, you know, someone who also likes to deliberately provoke controversy and would charge for it if I could! Wouldn't you? If I've mischaracterized your arguments or forgotten things, apologies and just let me know.

Well, if you agree with the substance of his philosophy, you're probably not going to care about that. But for anyone who doesn't, or even anyone who is agnostic on it, its just a mess. And that's why -- going back to the initial question you posed on this thread -- he's someone who is generally devalued in this country.

[sologdin]

idle conversation (which is what we are doing here) different from publication?

no. publication is simply the communication of the allegedly defamatory speech to a third party by any means.

you publish an article, you are making yourself a public figure

maybe, but only for the limited purpose of that article and its subject matter. limited purpose public figures either willingly hold themselves out to the public or unwillingly acquire public attention--the language is usually something like "thrust himself to the forefront of a public controversy in order to influence the outcome of the controversy," or something very similar. but that's a different inquiry than whether a statement has been published. (i think that the public figure argument comes in as an affirmative defense to the "unprivilieged" element in a defamation action.)

i doubt that noam is a general purpose public figure--he's not a public official or some other celebrity type--though if the left has a rockstar, he's it, surely.

he does provoke controversy and Godwin everything,

does he participate in internet discussions? applying the old usenet godwin rule to book-length discussions of militaristic foreign policy by certain empires strikes me as similar to applying the federal rules of evidence to same. i.e., there's a time and a place to make those applications. if we consider the rule to be a prediction about internet behavior, it is plausible enough to be true--but it doesn't identify a logical fallacy or make much of a criticism in itself. (we can add prof. strauss' argumentum ad hitlerum for the fallacy.)

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%).

and, of course, it was never intended to be true, but was a hueristic joke, wherein mr. godwin challenged those who accuse people of being nazis or hitlers to reflect more carefully on fascism and the holocaust.

regarding the strauss fallacy, though--how well might it apply to noam's writings? take the quotations that i posted, supra, specifically in rebuttal to the holocaust denier claim (incidentally, it seems to mean that the corollary to the argumentum ad hitlerum is the argument from holocaust denial--anyone know the latin for that?--which would be a version of the ad hominem fallacy):

the profit over people bit states that the US invokes self-defense for all of its wars, which is stated to be a standard invocation for state crimes, including up to the holocaust. this is both non-fallacious in strauss' sense, and likewise happens to be true as a general principle.

not seeing how the rogue states line is fallacious or godwinian--the proposition presents a history of state violence against civilian populations.

the first understanding power quotation handles mr. suharto, and compares him to mr. hitler. before we get all hot in the pants for godwin or strauss, it is good to recall that mr. suharto's alleged countercoup in 1965 led to the deaths of approximately 500K persons in indonesia over the course of several months, most of whom were politically leftwing and ethnically chinese.

the second quotation from the same text concerns a specific program for holocaust education. not seeing either objection here.

the third quotation from same uses the germans as an example of how no one is likely to take seriously their claim to self-defense during WWII, but that the only option in the US is to make the argument that US has acted in self-defense when it invades places and kills hundreds of thousands of people for no reason. perhaps this might look to be a godwinian reference--why use the germans to make the comparison to US policy, the jingo might ask? they may have a point here, as the US does not appear to have engaged in anythign like auschwitz in its specifics, but the invasions and the death toll are there.

the failed states bit seems to include mr. hitler in a generalized listing of authoritarians--and comes closest here to strauss' argumentum ad hitlerum--"well, you profess your benign intention and so did hitler, so you're gonna commit a genocide!"--which is not noam's point, but rather that everyone professes their benevolence when they launch a war, and furthermore that there is no reason to believe it (why would anyone believe it when it comes from someone who's launching an invasion?)

[Tempra]

idle conversation (which is what we are doing here) different from publication?

no. publication is simply the communication of the allegedly defamatory speech to a third party by any means.

For libel or some other legal purpose, yes, you are correct. In general, people will disagree that a MB posting is a "published" piece of work.

Am I a published author because of this response? "Look, ma, i'm published!". Errr, no.

[Guest Raidne]

Tempra, the issue is not prestige. The issues are (1) publication for libal purposes and (2) any ethical obligation to be consistent with what you post here.

I'd say it depends on the seriousness of the intent of the post, but if FLOW turned out to be a welfare queen I might feel a bit defrauded, yeah.

Although, the thought is kind of hilarious.

[Guest Raidne]

I also agree with Solo that comparisons to Hitler and the holocaust are not facially unwarranted in many cases. Particularly considering Chomsky's own personal relationship to the incident.

It could be argued, even, that accusing people who are Jewish and lived during the Holocaust of making unwarranted Holocaust references is in pretty bad taste, now that I think about it. Kind of embarrassed that I went along with that for a bit there.

[Tempra]

Tempra, the issue is not prestige. The issues are (1) publication for libal purposes and (2) any ethical obligation to be consistent with what you post here.

I'd say it depends on the seriousness of the intent of the post, but if FLOW turned out to be a welfare queen I might feel a bit defrauded, yeah.

Although, the thought is kind of hilarious.

Understand the second, not sure where the libel bit came from.

I agree that intent is what matters most. But how do you decipher intent? Generally, I figure people put more thought into published works than online postings. Most people have a degree of anonymity online, and it is readily apparent in their posts.

If you hold yourself out to believe A, regardless of the format in which you present that view, and you act in a way that is contrary to A, you are a hypocrite.

And I have to ask, Solo is a schtick, right?

[IheartTesla]

I am falsely impersonating a 17th century French aristocrat, how much time do you think I'll spend in the slammer?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

he does provoke controversy and Godwin everything,

does he participate in internet discussions? applying the old usenet godwin rule to book-length discussions of militaristic foreign policy by certain empires strikes me as similar to applying the federal rules of evidence to same. i.e., there's a time and a place to make those applications. if we consider the rule to be a prediction about internet behavior, it is plausible enough to be true--but it doesn't identify a logical fallacy or make much of a criticism in itself. (we can add prof. strauss' argumentum ad hitlerum for the fallacy.)

Yes, but to apply Internet terminology, even falsely, is a bit more "fun" or colloquial in terms of Internet discussion. I do agree with many of your below points, but I would argue that the danger of falling back to only one historical point of comparison of state-sponsored violence is that it can detract from the argument, especially in the case of WW2 where the West tends to view the war against Nazi Germany with an almost clear cut moral superiority and vilification of the opposition. As you, a Communist, would agree, there are a myriad of historical examples from which one could draw clear acts of state-sponsored violence. Why just use this one? In a broader sense, the overuse of the comparison to Nazi Germany (whether via fascism, Nazis, Hitler, etc.) tends to undermine the arguments one makes, even if the comparison is validly being applied to different contexts. That would be my hesitancy, or word of caution, with bombarding the reader with an emotionally and morally weighty point of historic reference.

[Guest Raidne]

Probably because it is the most egregious example in recent history and single-handedly changed the discourse on moral relativism, legal positivism, etc. It is arguably the most important event of the 20th century, particularly for someone like Chomsky, an early Zionist who lived in a kibbutz in Israel in 1953.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Probably because it is the most egregious example in recent history and single-handedly changed the discourse on moral relativism, legal positivism, etc. It is arguably the most important event of the 20th century, particularly for someone like Chomsky, an early Zionist who lived in a kibbutz in Israel in 1953.

Of course, and I agree. But it does not change the fact that there are a myriad of other historical reference points, even within the 20th century, that could also elucidate his contextual points with equal veracity. (It's also more than likely that he DOES draw upon these other examples, but as we only quoted those pertaining to reference of Nazi Germany in the relation to the accusation against him of being a Holocaust denier. I am perfectly willing to concede this.)

[Guest Raidne]

No, in my totally informal survey, he references the Holocaust a lot, often because he's making the point that all these third world atrocities should get the same kind of attention as, well, the holocaust.

Kind of hard to make that point otherwise....I don't think he wants to say that the West should care about Darfur as much as we cared about Cambodia?

[Shryke]

No, in my totally informal survey, he references the Holocaust a lot, often because he's making the point that all these third world atrocities should get the same kind of attention as, well, the holocaust.

Kind of hard to make that point otherwise....I don't think he wants to say that the West should care about Darfur as much as we cared about Cambodia?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we already do that.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

No, in my totally informal survey, he references the Holocaust a lot, often because he's making the point that all these third world atrocities should get the same kind of attention as, well, the holocaust.

Kind of hard to make that point otherwise....I don't think he wants to say that the West should care about Darfur as much as we cared about Cambodia?

I trust what you say, as I am woefully under read on the subject of Chomsky.

[Guest Raidne]

Maybe CH will school me on that subject when and if he comes back to the thread, since FLOW has apparently given up on the grounds that, essentially, Chomsky is too clever for him.