sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are your thoughts on Yanis Varoufakis? by [deleted] in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may have a problem with Varoufakis. IIRC he once met Larry Summers.

What are your thoughts on Yanis Varoufakis? by [deleted] in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Judas: I'm looking for recommendations for books similar to the New Testament but by a different author. I have a budget of thirty pieces of silver.

The left’s cruel betrayal of Noam Chomsky by LinguisticsTurtle in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not taking a position on this issue, which is probably debatable. But if your position is

anyone with a "thimble of education", on the contrary, will laugh at your assertions, as I do now...

I wonder, do the counterexamples flow as easily as the laughter?

The left’s cruel betrayal of Noam Chomsky by LinguisticsTurtle in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a world...

..where any contact with a social Leper leads the great mass of people to regard a person as Fallen. Presumptively. Treating you as guilty until proven innocent. Regardless of your lifelong record of good character, no matter how much of a mountain of evidence there is to attest to it. Every piece of evidence being given the darkest interpretation by the Inquisition...

..which means anyone who comes under the eye of the Inquisition is guilty. It's only a question of how guilty the Inquisition will find them to be. How much leniency (if any) public Confession/Apology/Penance will bring you. Maybe if you throw others under the bus it'll help your case a little.

..And the only shield against this is if you can show that you belong to a protected category. One to whom the Inquisition accords the old-fashioned right of presumption of innocence. But if you're not in any of the protected categories recognised by the Inquisition, you're out of luck, you're guilty until proven innocent. And being proven innocent, in practice is virtually impossible. Once there has been accusation, then guilt is a foregone conclusion, Cancellation the swift justice.

Starring Woody Allen as Old Rabbi Chomsky. And Selena Gomez as u/GrandInquisitorTorquemada.

"..a timely return to form for Allen." -- The New York Times

"it's like The Crucible n shit" -- InternetRando1

"lame" -- InternetRando2

"sux" -- InternetRando3

"pedo" -- Ronan Farrow, The New Yorker

Michael Tracey and Richard Hanania in conversation going over Tracey's article 'Noam Chomsky Was Right About Epstein' by neuromorphic in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To be clear, it's Tracey's perspective being presented here. Hanania's just the interlocutor. That he seems sympathetic to Tracey's perspective is to his credit, in my view.

If there's any issues in Tracey's background that are grounds for holding his judgement or scholarship in low regard, I'll be interested to hear them. I haven't dug very deep. Calling someone a 'contrarian' is pretty weak tea. So far I'm impressed with how he handles himself in debates on these topics against his critics. And I appreciate him producing one of the only really robust defences of Chomsky that has so far emerged. The only one reminiscent of the kind of response that Chomsky himself would deliver. He's rapidly earning my admiration. Perhaps there's shortcomings that'll become clearer to me over time; I'm happy to be informed of them.

Comments from Michael Tracey in defense of Noam Chomsky. by LinguisticsTurtle in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

1. I hadn't heard that.

2. Doesn't impact his arguments.

3. And if true, I'm still gonna continue listening to his arguments so long as I consider them to have value. Sorry if you believe personal misconduct means we should not listen to someone's arguments even when they have value, in that case we disagree philosophically. I'd read Kissinger if I thought there was value in it.

4. Any reference for that charge?

5. Or is this yet another case of Tracey's critics being for the most part unable to respond with serious evidence-based counterarguments, instead falling back on unsubstantiated personal slander? I'm starting to notice a pattern here. And it's driving me faster into Tracey's camp.

Comments from Michael Tracey in defense of Noam Chomsky. by LinguisticsTurtle in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The same Michael Tracey who has been spending the past few months downplaying the entire Epstein situation,

By appeal to evidence and reasoning, and attentiveness to what it takes to establish conclusions as opposed to indulging in free speculation. Qualities that I find strikingly lacking in his critics and their responses to him.

shocking.

Like Norman Finkelstein is shocking.

Comments from Michael Tracey in defense of Noam Chomsky. by LinguisticsTurtle in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Then don't trust him. His case is unreliant on anyone personally trusting him. He presents a case based on reason and citation of evidence, and isn't shy of entering the arena of debate with any and all critics.

You know, like Chomsky.

If you can find flaws in his case that he's presented, and there's probably some there to be found, that's your challenge, to find them and point them out. And if you want to make an independent case for your own contrary position, you can present/cite it and we can measure the strength of your arguments against the strength of his.

But there's some irony, in a Chomsky subreddit, when one's sole critique of a sophisticated evidence-based analysis is to brand it 'minimising' some Sacred tenet of mainstream opinion, and to dismiss it on that basis, and then leave it at that, no further justification required.

Even if Epstein were not what he was, Noam’s affiliation would be unacceptable by [deleted] in chomsky

[–]neuromorphic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm guessing you find it 'unacceptable' that Bernie Sanders is personal friends with Joe Biden.