Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

...What do you mean? I haven't heard of his significance in the news, or about anything he did that sparked controversy, so why should we think something of him?

_________________

Exactly, if COLA hasn't heard of him and refuses to read the Wikipedia article, why should any of us be discussing this?

But it's true, what exactly do you want to talk about him, Yeltensic? It would be easier if you gave us your thoughts to start with.

_________________

I read it, I just don't see any significance of him in any recent news article, or have heard if he has done something to spark controversy latley. The only thing significant that he has done is create the theory of generative grammar, and helped spark the cognitive revolution. Other than that, I see no significance of him in anything recent.

_________________

i think what yeltensic is gingerly saying is a LOT of people hate his guts because he is incredibly controversial (anyone listen to Propaghandi? they're huge fans.)

i don't agree with him on everything, but i think he's pretty awesome. if nothing else because his radicalism is exciting and sort of shakes people out of complacency (even if it is to rail on him.)

his linguistics work is great, but it's the political stuff that's really fun. the wikipedia talks about his unwavering defense of free speech and his libertarian socialism and anarchist leanings.

he's a member of the IWW (wobblies) and i think that's awesome. I would've voted for Eugene Debs if i had been around when he ran for president.

he sucks. he's an apologist for genocidal, totalitarian regimes, and his political ramblings are usually unfounded and badly supported. people who hate America love him.

I'd rate him a "meh". His views on the Israel-Palestine conflict are misguided, imo, like his proposal of a one-state solution along the lines of Yugoslavia. Well, we all know what happened in Yugoslavia.

bingo.



un-bingo (awesome, coined new term!). I think that's a really narrow simple view that mostly sounds like something you overheard when the adults were talking politics but then you decided to give it a spin yourself.

I agree with Chomsky about Zionism, to a degree. I think Zionism wasn't a particularly good idea, especially in light of ummmm moving a whole ton of people into already inhabited land and saying: this is theirs now. Muslims and Jews lived in Jerusalem for a heckofa long time with few problems until european jews were placed there. meaning--a lot of the conflict in israel / palestine is the result of both parties being promised the exact same land, and the West got caught with their (our) pants down when they both wanted to cash in their respective "YOU JUST WON A FREE COUNTRY FOLLOWING THE DISMANTLING OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE" vouchers.[/code]

In order to honor the United States, one is certainly forced to be apologetic curriculum for genocidal, totalitarian regimes.

I don't see how his political "ramblings" are unfounded or badly supported. Chomsky usually makes logical statements, and backs them up soundly with tons and tons of evidence for his case.

Interestingly enough, I'm both a Propaghandi listener and a member of the Industrial Workers of the World. That's why I'm willing to defend Chomsky.

Yeah. We supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War back in the 80's.

_________________

We committed genocide. We've restricted rights all the time.

Just ask someone of Japanese or Native American descent.

_________________

U.S. <3 totalitarian regimes when they do our bidding, unfortunately. let's see: we supported the overthrow of iranian prime minister Mossadegh, because he cut off relations with the US and britian (which both deserved if i do say so). We also installed Pinochet, who overthrew the democratically elected Allende in Chile. We also installed Noriega as the military dictator of Panama and then sent in spooks when he wasn't doing our bidding any longer.

I don't really have anything to say about the whole Noam Chomsky issue, but I would like to say that I totally agree with you. I just hate it when people make blanket statements like that. It's sorta like saying "All Christians are fundies", or "all Californians are shallow and vacuous but also hot as heck with huge boobies or huge pecs or whatever and great tans and also they are rich".

One quick question about Chomsky, though. How do you pronounce his first name? Is it "NOME", "NO-um", "No-AM", or something else? Just curious.

_________________

I usually hear it said like the town of Nome, Alaska, though in the Hebrew from which it came, it's probably two syllables. Usually in Hebrew the stress is on the last syllable, though there are rules that determine certain situations where that doesn't happen (rules I'm unfamiliar with).

I don't have much to say here either, really... I haven't read anything by Chomsky, but the summaries I see I don't agree with. This goes for both his philosophy and linguistic ideas.

When I wanna read modern leftist philosophy, I go to Slavoj Žižek. That guy's an intellectual stud. I can't even tell if I agree with him or not because his writing is just so complex. But it's interesting to read.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!