What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
146 Comments
- orangederange, on 12/03/2008, -2/+34The black and white picture with the title almost sounded like the start of an obituary... almost had a shock there.
- sryan8913, on 12/03/2008, -6/+35Chomsky deserves more credit. Too bad his political ideas are too radically honest to be recognized by most media institutions.
- Leviathan433, on 12/03/2008, -8/+36"Chomsky's theories about language have been debunked as far as I'm concerned."
As far as you are concerned? And I take you are well credentialed and studied in linguistics enough for me to give a crap about your opinion? - induren, on 12/03/2008, -3/+26Unfortunately because he is a vocal opponent of divisive and destructive policies at his home and abroad, exploring his ideas is discouraged by many.
- BarbaraRae, on 12/02/2008, -5/+28I've always admired Chomsky's open mindedness. This is a good read!
- meantime, on 12/03/2008, -8/+25He's not a socialist. He's an anarchist.
- techtock, on 12/03/2008, -9/+25READ CHOMSKY
- TommyTikal, on 12/03/2008, -4/+20Thank you so much for not citing a single argument of his or refering to any satisfactory rebuttals.
You've effectively forfeited this debate.
Oh and kudos on that 'socialist claptrap' zing...weak rhetoric further discredits you. - Stevethegreat, on 12/03/2008, -1/+14Chomsky would be remembered for many centuries for his work in linguistics. In a simple elegant move he showed that the human nature is confined by our own genetics, thus beating the cultural relativists with one hand. It's a shame that he's mostly known for his activism while in fact he dispelled one of the most dangerous myths that may had burdened humanity for much longer. His political views alienate some and make others to worship him, while -in fact- they're irrelevant to his greatness. If anything one's political views can only be confined to a century -at most- , one's scientific work -though- especially one of such importance will always matter.
Too bad people in this thread would discuss -once again- his politics which -unfortunately- are the least universal offering of the man... - lemur, on 12/03/2008, -1/+14That's the thing about Chomsky. He's perhaps the only political commentator that you can count on to tell you the absolute truth about everything, and nobody cares. People just don't take interest in having such a rational view of the world; they prefer to follow people who are less rational like themselves.
- greenfyre, on 12/03/2008, -1/+14Actually it is an old political idea http://www.detaxcanada.org/servitude.htm
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist. - captainbethany, on 12/03/2008, -1/+10Thanks for posting this! I did my senior undergrad thesis on Chomsky's ideas about innate humanity, so yeah... this is quite relevant to my interests.
- siali, on 12/03/2008, -3/+12Maybe we don't like him but we need many more like him.
- hughesj919, on 12/03/2008, -2/+11Umm...Chomsky is pretty much the reason my senior CS year sucks. I can tell you for a fact that modern computing would be nowhere it is today without him. I don't know a whole lot about his psychological/philosophical contributions, but in the area of finite automata and compilers, his methods for language and grammars were revolutionary.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8Who makes a reference to Chomsky in Good Will Hunting.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -1/+9Any who enjoys his work should definitely read this by him: http://www.chomsky.info/books/power01.htm
- TTT1, on 12/03/2008, -0/+8He didn't even "buddy up with Chavez."
Chavez read his book...he talked about it at the UN...
Now they are BBFs or something? - TPorter72, on 12/03/2008, -6/+13libertarian socialist
- dimizzz, on 12/03/2008, -0/+7you must be using some definition of proven that I wasn't previously aware of.
- greenfyre, on 12/03/2008, -1/+8Not claiming it isn't good, in fact I believe it is 100% bang on.
As I understand it the point is that they are not legitimate in and of themselves, we legitimize them by our cooperation and consent. - apackofmonkeys, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6Yes and no. Many of his theories have counter-examples, but nobody can come close to making up better theories to replace his. His theories still cover a much larger percentage of example than anybody else's.
EDIT: Also, yes, many of his earlier theories have been debunked, but most of them were debunked by Chompsky himself. - inactive, on 12/03/2008, -4/+10Salomejones, you are wrong. The connotation we get with "libertarian" tends to be a capitalist, free market worshipper. But that's only the case in the USA. In Europe and elsewhere, "libertarian" just tends to refer to people who believe in personal liberties, are antiwar, but love government sponsored programs.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+6John,
The libertarian political philosophy evolved from classical liberalism, which originated in England during the 18th century. Many of the U.S. founding fathers - Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc - modeled our form of government from this. Its core tenants focus on personal liberty and limited government, which is generally characterized as being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative".
The form of libertarianism in "Europe and elsewhere" does not coincide with this, as it is typically characterized as "socially liberal and economically liberal", as you've alluded. For this reason, libertarianism itself is beginning to split into a "left" and "right", with the economic aspect being the focus of discussion. - franklymister, on 12/03/2008, -1/+7You're misunderstanding the concept. Linguistics is not about etymology, it's about the nature of language itself. Those sentences may be easily understood as opposites to an English speaker, but taken from a linguistic standpoint, it's a fascinating thing.
You're thinking about it in the limited framework of a single language, rather than from the perspective of human language as a whole. - hippykiller, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5From the title it sounded like an obit.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -3/+8As far as you're concerned, spykerspeed? And who are you, exactly, that anyone should be listening to your concerns? We all know who Chomsky is. Pony up.
- TommyTikal, on 12/03/2008, -4/+9I've yet to read his books on linguistics, but I loved reading 'Manufacturing Consent'. I just got 'Necessary Illusions' for my birthday and it looks great so far. I'm going to let myself finish 'The Watchmen' before I get back into a non fiction binge.
- captainbethany, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6Looks like you need to brush up on capitalization and punctuation too, "*****."
- prodigitalson, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5"Socialism sounds great on paper, but humans have shown that their 'humanity' bars it from becoming reality. "
Perhaps on a Macro scale, but the "traditional" family unit itself is as socialist as it gets. Likewise, so is the nature of a Tribal existence. - iLEZ, on 12/03/2008, -3/+8Good article, horrible panic for me at first as i thought the man had passed away.
Goddamn that will be a sad day. =/ - apackofmonkeys, on 12/03/2008, -1/+6Same here, I thought this meant he had died!
- AbsurdParadox, on 12/03/2008, -0/+5I would love to see a debate between Noam Chomsky and Stefan Molyneux (of http://www.freedomainradio.com ).
- appleseed1234, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4A modern Socrates, because back then the Greek world wasn't entirely comfortable with his perfect reasonable ideas either.
- Spoomeister, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4So, humans are what they are and that's all that they are?
You're seriously trying to discredit decades of work by a leading modern linguist with the Popeye defense? - Angostura, on 12/03/2008, -1/+5Says the the man who has contributed oh *so* much to the sum of human knowledge.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -4/+8Morons who've never read Chomsky, commenting on Chomsky.
- sodade, on 12/03/2008, -2/+6What about people that buddied up to Saddam? You know, like half of the neocon cabal.
- captainbethany, on 12/03/2008, -0/+4The reports of his death are severely exaggerated.
- MeatyMcBeef, on 12/03/2008, -1/+5I just like his name. Chomsky...sounds packmanesque.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -5/+8I don't think I could stay interested enough to read his books on linguistics but his political opinions offer an awful lot of insight into the human condition. Noam is the man.
- bringitdownnow, on 12/03/2008, -1/+4That's an argument that has resulted in a schism within the movement for hundreds of years. Violence is a means to an end in some cases (Catalonia Spain in the 30s, for instance), but anarchists, at the root, are generally fighting for an ultimate peace for everyone rather than peace for a state or a flag. Even anarchists advocating self-defense and revolution wish that things could be done peacefully, but due to repression and State-sponsored terrorism and violence, it just isn't realistic.
Innocent people are RARELY casualties to anarchist actions, and that's a common misconception amongst the general public. Organizations like the ELF and ALF, typically composed of radicals (arguably non-violent groups, despite their number 1 spot on domestic terror lists in the US) has inflicted no human casualties whatsoever, and instead caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and profit losses to their targets. - jayhawk, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3what Chomsky does is use as much fact-based evidence as he can to form his opinions. that being said, his opinions are still opinions and he doesn't always arrive at the correct conclusions. this could be because what we consider fact (e.g., gov't documents) could be doctored, for example. or it could be because the fact-based documents don't fill in all of the holes and Chomsky must speculate on the things.
i do appreciate everything Chomsky does to try and reach the truth, but i also realize that he will have his own perceptions and biases that could be clouding the things he says or writes. i would still prefer his informed opinions over many other people's. - Sunsetter, on 12/04/2008, -1/+4Noam Chomsky is not a State Socialist. I don't know why people keep saying he is, he has never made that claim. He is a Libertarian Socialist or Anarchist, if you like. Chomsky is well aware of the flaws of Marx, and State Socialism/Communism. If you actually want to know what his political/sociological stances are, read some of his books or look up a lecture of his called "Government in the Future." The audio version can be found on Google Video or YouTube.
As for the second part of your sentence, the man has been fighting for human rights since the 1960s. Again, try looking into what Dr. Chomsky has said and written about. - plhearn, on 12/03/2008, -2/+5Are you basing your opinion off the real Chavez or the evil scary demon Chavez portrayed in the US media?
- davidmesaaz, on 12/03/2008, -5/+8I could never quite understand his ideology consent. That we must willingly give our consent for corporations and governments to be legitimate. Which is plain enough but no one has ever answered how we give our consent. Is it by vote if it is, is it a 50 percent plus 1 vote? Are we supposed to wait until the entire world decides on any issue?
- g00dETH3R, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3When the truth is "too radically honest to be recognized by most media institutions." you know it's time to boycott these institutions or accept that you are willfully deceiving yourself.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -0/+3he's not dead, you know.
- g00dETH3R, on 12/03/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the link, if i could digg you up twice i would.
- inactive, on 12/03/2008, -2/+4"directly" is an interesting word. Chomsky is clever enough to avoid "directly" supporting lots of the left-wing authoritarian regimes he implicitly supports through his one-sided political critiques. Nonetheless he did write a whole book about how the media was exaggerating reports of the killing fields in Cambodia. That seems like a defense to me.
- uncleosbert, on 12/04/2008, -0/+2because he's not afraid to call ***** on your propaganda? he said the same about the government's:
"The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote the lead analysis in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power."
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html
the fact is, you guys do not take the pains to prove what you're saying and instead demonize the people who don't believe your talking points. he has never supported the narrative from the government, he just doesn't agree with you either.
http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is