• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Chomsky on the Republican Party.

Happiness

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
11,656
Reaction score
865
Here's a real academic for you to read.

Sometimes described as "the father of modern linguistics," Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He holds a joint appointment as Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and laureate professor at the University of Arizona,[22][23] and is the author of over 100 books on topics such as linguistics, war, politics, and mass media. Ideologically, he aligns with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Recently on this forum, there has been in upsurge in threads about far right thinkers. The problem I have with most of them, is thier thinking is myopic, focused on one idea and stripped of historical context. Here is an example of a thinker who is intimately familar with history and language. Note how precise his language is and the dept of context he adds.

This interview originally appeared on the blog of the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

To help make sense of where we stand as an economy, as a country, and as human beings, Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, shares his thoughts with Lynn Stuart Parramore on the Age of Trump, foreign policy, dissent in the internet age, public education, corporate predation, who’s really messing with American elections, climate change, and more.

https://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-republican-party-most-dangerous-organization-human-history
 
Last edited:
Jeez guys come on. I blasted another user for it too. Don't just quote some other guy for your whole frickin OP. Give some actual content of your OWN to go with it.
 
This is a pretty old quote, and leading with hyperbole stripped of context doesn't exactly invite readers to take (the consensus greatest living intellectual) guy seriously. At least provide context/a meaningful amount of the quote.
 
Geez guys, the title is the same as the article (actually less polemic). I was trying not to inject my own ideas into it. Fair criticism though.
Initially I made no comment, I saw no need when Noam clearly states his ideas.
 
Geez guys, the title is the same as the article (actually less polemic). I was trying not to inject my own ideas into it. Fair criticism though.
Initially I made no comment, I saw no need when Noam clearly states his ideas.

Look, normally I agree with your posts but I'm being fair. We need to provide some of our OWN context besides just saying "hey I think what this guy thinks". You (not you specifically, but broadly speaking) have to have SOME sort of opinion or additional thoughts on top of what this person is saying.

It's like a pseudo intellectual barista who goes around quoting famous philosophers but never having any of his own insight. It's lazy and makes it sound like there's no original thoughts in the post.

I'm sure you'll understand.
 
Look, normally I agree with your posts but I'm being fair. We need to provide some of our OWN context besides just saying "hey I think what this guy thinks". You (not you specifically, but broadly speaking) have to have SOME sort of opinion or additional thoughts on top of what this person is saying.

It's like a pseudo intellectual barista who goes around quoting famous philosophers but never having any of his own insight. It's lazy and makes it sound like there's no original thoughts in the post.

I'm sure you'll understand.

I totally get it. Your criticism is fair.

I respect Chomsky and if I was to summarise or criticize him, I'd do so in a far more serious manner. I find it difficult to comment on Chomsky in a way that would fit with this forum, the depth of his arguments are, well, intimidating. Chomsky is far outside my academic expertise, I used to lecture in Eng lit, specifically focused on mythology and fantasy writing. I'd need to read for weeks to make a serious attempt to comment on Chomsky.

Basically I saw this article as something worth reading.

If you want me to recommend a book, a manga or chat about American literary modernism or the Romantics etc I could and have gone on for pages :)

Edit; my command of subject/verb agreement fails me again.
 
Last edited:
It's a good read
...
 
Last edited:
I highly recommend reading this book:

dd.gif


If you haven't read it, or something in its vein, you're sorely missing out on a lot of our history since WWII.

Cliffs: @Democracy BTFO!!!
 
I totally get it. Your criticism is fair.

I respect Chomsky and if I was to summarise or criticize him, I'd do so in a far more serious manner. I find it difficult to comment on Chomsky in a way that would fit with this forum, the depth of his arguments are, well, intimidating. Chomsky is far outside my academic expertise, I used to lecture in Eng lit, specifically focused on mythology and fantasy writing. I'd need to read for weeks to make a serious attempt to comment on Chomsky.

Basically I saw this article as something worth reading.

If you want me to recommend a book, a manga or chat about American literary modernism or the Romantics etc I could and have gone on for pages :)

Edit; my command of subject/verb agreement fails me again.

Well, it sounds like you're carving out a worthwhile thread for the future.

You can do it. Chomsky, if nothing other than brilliant, is also very accessible. He's a natural teacher, and is able to, unlike any other theoretician I have ever read, present complex material very fundamentally.


I'm not sure what "American literary modernism" is, though. As far as romanticism.....that's a big "meh" from me. Jane Eyre is the most insufferable book I've ever read. The Scarlett Letter is better as a social artifact than an actual novel. Is Turning of the Screw romanticist? It's gothic....I liked that.

I hold fast in my belief that As I Lay Dying is the greatest book I've ever read. Also Nausea by Sartre.
 
Well, it sounds like you're carving out a worthwhile thread for the future.

You can do it. Chomsky, if nothing other than brilliant, is also very accessible. He's a natural teacher, and is able to, unlike any other theoretician I have ever read, present complex material very fundamentally.


I'm not sure what "American literary modernism" is, though. As far as romanticism.....that's a big "meh" from me. Jane Eyre is the most insufferable book I've ever read. The Scarlett Letter is better as a social artifact than an actual novel. Is Turning of the Screw romanticist? It's gothic....I liked that.

I hold fast in my belief that As I Lay Dying is the greatest book I've ever read. Also Nausea by Sartre.

Being in NZ when I went through undergraduate study in Eng, authors like Pound, Williams c Williams, Greenberg, Stien etc were all bundled up into a course called American Modernist writers so the appellation is kind of stuck in my mind. For some reason I never ascertained Doctorow, Didion and even Delillo were also lumped into that couse.
More later, gotta go.

Gothic literature both predates (by hundreds of years), runs contemporaneously with romanticism and post dates romanticism, in America specifically southern gothic and new American gothic. Probably the main reason gothic gets conflated with romanticism is the famous night Percy Shelly, Byron, Mary Shelly and Poludori spent at Cologny. Tge night Byron poses his challenge to write a ghost story concerning the local castle. Mary Shelley won of course with Frankenstein, a pillar of Gothic Literature.

As I lay dying is imo Faulkners greatest work. It embodies modernism in language and conciseness. Faulkners later works are tainted by his then out if control alcoholism and become self conceited in my opinion. The Sound and the Fury is largely crap and really just an introduction to Absalom Absalom.

My mother is a fish is perhaps one of the most evocative lines in all American writing.

I hate Jane Eyre, in fact I dislike both the Bronte sisters and Jane Austin. Clever, historically important works certainly.
 
Last edited:
Look, normally I agree with your posts but I'm being fair. We need to provide some of our OWN context besides just saying "hey I think what this guy thinks". You (not you specifically, but broadly speaking) have to have SOME sort of opinion or additional thoughts on top of what this person is saying.

It's like a pseudo intellectual barista who goes around quoting famous philosophers but never having any of his own insight. It's lazy and makes it sound like there's no original thoughts in the post.

I'm sure you'll understand.
I agree with this guy.
 
I highly recommend reading this book:

dd.gif


If you haven't read it, or something in its vein, you're sorely missing out on a lot of our history since WWII.

Cliffs: @Democracy BTFO!!!
Manufacturing Consent with Herman is, imo, a wonderful place to unplug the rabbit hole

@salamander
 
Manufacturing Consent with Herman is, imo, a wonderful place to unplug the rabbit hole

@salamander

I read a fair bit of Chomsky back in the day. He was the kind of the Jordan Peterson of the left. People used to revere him quite a bit.
 
Back
Top