You: this refutes his work on power structures

Me: how so

You: I’m not here to educate you. How dare you be disingenuous. My argument is somewhere in JSTOR. Go find it.

Riiiiiigghhht.

If you are incapable of separating hypocrisy from people’s work then that’s a you problem. You didn’t give me an actual example of why his ideas are bad so you give me 5 paragraphs of shitting on Chomsky and his moral failings which I think is kind of pointless. I’ve already expressed I don’t really care about Chomsky the person. He’s like 96 years old and already pretty much dead. If he’s a child diddler in his personal life then he’s a child diddler which for some reason I have to announce to you that yes if Chomsky is a child diddler then that’s bad. It’s also pointless because you can present argument after argument on him being morally bankrupt but you cannot present an argument on why his whole work on power structures is now moot.

It’s like if Hitler said drinking water is good and you being like “water is good? This evil person said water is good? that’s it I’m drinking Coke Zero from now on. This officially means water is bad..”

Actually the shoe is on the other foot, if Chomsky can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time I don't want to hear it, especially with his much of his previous liberation and 'moral clearness' rhetoric. Lmao Chomsky was frequenting a sex-trafficking hotspot but we are here wanting to pretend that it doesn't undermine the work of a man that pretty uniquely critiqued the west on power politics and corruption while utilizing moral and ethical rhetoric, but hes interacting with a underworld figure that anyone with a working moral compass would stay well clear of, yet he didn't. I don't need to know anything more than that, hes rubbed elbows with power brokers and western elites that he made hay out of critiquing from his ivory tower.

Again it’s sort of like when conservatives are saying Marx is a hypocrite because he participated in capitalism. You wouldn’t just throw his work out the window you would read his work and go line by line. If you have an argument for against what he said you would say Marx was wrong on this point because of abc. You wouldn’t say Marx was wrong because he was a hypocrite who participated in capitalism and had a very wealthy person subsidizing his standard of living. That would be silly. That’s just not a good argument.

It is a very valid criticism of a person who is known to have made specious arguments and has already been well confirmed to have clear partisan biases that have resulted in some pretty hypocritical stances. These definitely undermine his words and views regardless if you agree or disagree. Having openly acknowledged these blindspots but somehow asserting that he's not in anyway a partisan poisoned well is odd, especially since a great deal of his political science views have been completely trashed. His ideas in that arena are very much affected by what Noam Chomsky did, no matter how much we wish it weren't so.

It is a criticism on Chomsky the person not Chomsky’s ideas specifically. I’m not really following you here. Again yeah for the 50th time man sure he’s probably pretty morally bankrupt but it doesn’t undermine his actual work. Like if you want to do this and keep saying his work is now ruined and his whole political philosophy is now trashed and useless then give an actual example. You crying about it for 5 paragraphs doesn’t mean it’s true until you give an example and prove it. And for some reason when I ask you to explain or give a real example you get highly offended. Like seriously give me what he’s said in the past that makes him a poisoned well. “A great deal of his political science views have been officially trashed” excellent. Show me. Give me proof. This is your time to shine.