Sunday, February 21, 2016

relevant misleaders who "matter"

Gnome Chomp-Ski isn't a tiny person in some European fable who eats skis.

Rather, he's one of the leading misleaders of the "left," a group of people who like to know nothing themselves and rely nearly exclusively on Appeals to Authority.  And the "authority" to whom they appeal most often --more often than appealing to Karl Marx, it must be said-- is Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky!  He ______________!

Chomsky!  He said ______________!

Chomsky!  Semiotics!  I don't understand semiotics so Chomsky MUST BE a genius!

Chomsky!  Linguistics!  I don't even know what "linguistics" is, is it a kind of pasta?  Anyway, if Chomsky is a professor and scholar in that field, he MUST BE a genius!




If his name were John Smith and he was a Protestant, Roman Catholic or Mormon by faith and social group belonging status, he would NOT "matter" nor be thought a genius.




If the best argument you have for the "important" status of Chomsky, for the proof that Chomsky "matters," is that the CIA investigated Chomsky:  please remind yourself that puts a lot of people in the GENIUS WHO MATTERS AND IS VITALLY IMPORTANT category, many of whom you probably dismiss out of hand for their reactionary and/or corporate status.

If it takes you thousands of words to show why Chomsky MATTERS AND IS VITALLY IMPORTANT, perhaps you should show us what he's done that hasn't been done by others before him or contemporaneous with him.

You may want to show why helping America's foremost weapons research facility (MIT) makes him completely not "corporate".

Also, it may behoove you to tell us why, whenever the Gnome begins gnawing at skis, he tells only 65-75% of the truth on any given sociopolitical matter, and withholds that 25-35% of the picture which may cause people to doubt Chomsky's own veracity, integrity, sincerity, or sanity.

Perhaps it could help resolve the question of authenticity if you explain why Chomsky apologizes always for technological means of warfare, torture, psychological manipulation and espionage, while saying all technology is inherently good, but sometimes is undone by nefarious people.

When you've finished, you may anoint yourself as the Pope of Chomskyism, and don the phallic cap and grab hold of the sceptre before ascending to the throne of the Righteousest Religion on Earth:  Chomskyism!

--Harold Caidagh, always wary of people who make gods of mere men.


H.M. Lohmann said...

Why does Chomsky always apologize for Israel and Zionism and, whenever the issue of Palestinians comes up, seem to shift into complete dunderhead mode and lose all connection to the GENIUS WHO MATTERS kinds of arguments and rhetoric he musters in favor of Israel and Zionism?

Why does Chomsky want everyone to accept things as they are, but wring hands over how powerless each of us is in the face of whatever might strike us as inequitable or inhumane?

Why does he always equivocate?

And does he even possess emotions? He seems to me far more like Data on ST:TNG, blah-blah-blah-ing everyone with facticity. Statistics! Facts! No context!

Paul Behrer said...

What Hy said.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Hy strikes a good analogy to Trekkies, who live in a world of science fiction and believe utterly in the power of science and technology to fix problems that are not susceptible to either science or technological gadgetry.

Willful blindness to the motives and values of others (NB: one's ideological or sociopolitical adversaries, usually) can't be fixed with science or a technogadget or a wondrous new Rx from Glaxo-SmithKline.

Selfishness driving a passive-aggressive method of interaction isn't really an indicator that the source material (Chomsky, as the Authority to which the argument or action appeals) is anywhere near the genius category, nor the "important" or "matters" qualifier.

Who cares what Chomsky says? Things aren't true because he says them; they are true because they are factually verifiable. This observation holds no matter which person you may choose as your Authority.

Despite the claims, wishes and hopes of his legion of lost-eyes supporters, the man is neither omniscient nor infallible, and he should be subjected to harsh scrutiny because of the immense deference given his pronouncements.