Talk:Noam Chomsky

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." This sentence was invented by Noam Chomsky as an example of a sentence whose grammar is correct but for which the semantics are nonsense.

Afair he invented it to shop sentence, which grammar was correct, but probablity of appearance of every word after its precedensor was almost zero, and it had nothing to do with semantics, but with criticizing some probablity-based theories of language.

Oh boy. I had remembered it as intending to show that the function of a word was dictated by its position in a sentence. For instance, that in English, adjectives come before nouns and adverbs come after verbs.

Wasn't the "word placement dictates function" sentence composed of nonsense words to emphasize the point? The one I learned was "The gostak distims the doshes". Despite the nonsense, an English speaker is able to determine that something called a gostak is currently performing an action called "distimming" to multiple instances of some other thing called a dosh. I'm pretty sure this predates Chomsky too. --PaulDrye

I don't know. My recollection of Chomsky and syntax was that Chomsky took it a step further with some complex formula (supposedly?) showing the universal syntax of language. Yes, universal, as in all languages. Reading it I quickly got over my head, but it seemed that that was no less than his claim. Probably a question for Jan Hidders, who knows about such things. :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

You may be thinking of the Chomsky hierarchy. There's a link to it from the Noam Chomsky page. He proved mathematically that every partially decidable language has a type-0 grammar. That's pretty universal.

But, this uses a very mathematical definition of "language" and "grammar". It may not be relevant to human spoken languages. The set of valid sentences that can be spoken by a human with bounded lifespan and talking speed is just a "finite language". This can be generated by a very boring kind of type-3 grammar. That "grammar" is just a simple list of all valid sentences. That doesn't say anything about the structure of the language. -LC

Thanks. --KQ

Chomsky's linguistics ideas have resulted in the insult: "Chomsky is the Freud of linguistics". This insult derives from the notion that Chomsky and Freud both completely ignored the scientific method in creating their "theories".

I guess NPOV has changed in definition to mean "we completely ignore things". Well, that's peachy. GregLindahl

HJH: Well before qualifiying the linguistic theory of Chomsky it should be stated first. Then you might come up with other peoples views. And possibly give some evidence supporting the claim ...

I contributed what I have to contribute. I am not qualified to state the linguistic theory of Chomsky. And what evidence is required that people say that about Chomsky? The parallel is very striking, but it isn't necessary to support it in order to state that people say it. GregLindahl

So they message here is that people will delete my contributions. That makes me so so motivated to contribute to Wikipedia. That's OK, why bother mentioning that Chomsky (and Freud) have legions of detractors, that must not be very important in NPOV articles about Chomsky and Freud. GregLindahl

Now, Greg, don't get too upset. I personally regard Chomsky as a kook and a half on toast. I don't think this article should be uncritical, but I think even detractors have to work to write our criticisms in a way that will be acceptable to supporters. It's an iterative process. --Jimbo Wales

Jimbo, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to simply note that he has detractors. Since it was made too hard for me to make that simple statement, I've given up. From what I can tell, simply deleting someone's text is against Wikipedia policy, and that's what was done. Go look at the text, which is quoted above. Pretty straightforward: "Detractors say X". That doesn't mean I should have to justify X. You can iterate all you like, I don't like getting screwed. GregLindahl

It is worth noting that almost everything about Noam Chomsky's ideas are controversial, both in linguistics and politics. He has a great many detractors both in academia and the general public; he has a great number of supporters among radicals and anarchists.

I don't think that supporters of his linguistic ideas are mainly 'radicals and anarchists'. --Taw

I took that last to refer to his politics, not his linguistics. I'll reword. --Koyaanis Qatsi

KQ asked if Chomsky's linguistics ideas are considered radical by some. Yes, they are considered junk science by some, hence, the comment that "Chomsky is the Freud of linguistics". If you look around the web, it takes about 3 minutes to find critics of Chomsky. Too bad the article doesn't mention it anywhere... I attempted to add it, but someone simply removed my words. GregLindahl

Well yes, not to be difficult, Chomsky's linguistics are considered radical by some, since I am one and I consider them radical. What I meant was, regardless of what I personally think, what was the reaction among people qualified to debate the subject matter (I am not one of those people)? I'd love to hear about it; I didn't know he had faced allegations of "junk science" in his methodology; I just remember it started some "Chomskyan revolution" in linguistics. Personally I find his methodology in his political writings both sound and exhaustively documented, but I do not think wikipedia should be a collection of KQ's personal opinions, especially in areas I'm not an expert, so I didn't add that to the article. Why can't we address the controversy around his work the same as all the other controversies: present all the arguments, complete with citations of who says what? Sorry I haven't been plugged in lately; I've been swamped with schoolwork. Sorry also if we've gone over this elsewhere. --Koyaanis Qatsi

Greg, where does the quote "Chomsky the Freud of linguistics" come from? Google doesn't show it. --AxelBoldt

Dunno, Axel, I've hung out with a lot of people over the years. But you can look at this: http://www.lon.ac.uk/academic/philosophy/Psychology99BA.html, it's an exam in Philosophy which has questions about psychotherapy being a pseudo science, and a rather tough question about whether or not Chomsky's theory of universal grammar has any "grounds" or not. This makes it quite clear that both Freud and Chomsky get questioned. GregLindahl

And seeing your concurrent contribution about the critics... perhaps the problem is that "some" is too general? Who? Where? Why? I work in the academic field; you could as well put my opinion up and cite it as "some say".... You see? I'm not trying to be difficult, just I prefer precision when possible. Beau regards, --Koyaanis Qatsi

KQ, you are welcome to be as precise as you like. As I said, it took about 3 minutes to find numerous linguistic critics on the web. I'm aware of this through my interest in the history of science; I'd love a good article about this. What I don't like is that people deleted my words about a fairly well known argument. GregLindahl

Some academic detractors consider his "linguistic universals" theory to be pseudoscience, and call him "the Freud of linguistics".

You should provide some examples of (preferably well-known) scientists attacking TG for being pseudo-science (not merely false, that can happen to all good scientific theories) before writing this. Anyway I think that even undeleted statement exaggerates controversy around transformational grammar - It was basis of work of many linguists in 1960s and 1970s (well, I don't know what's going on in linguistics now too well), many of them no one would dare to call pseudoscientists. --Taw

Taw, as I said earlier, I don't believe that I have to do that before writing. This is extremely well known that Chomsky has critics, and it's all over the web. Pretty much ALL of the major criticisms have to do with the scientific proof of Chomsky's theories, and Chomsky's lack of interest in proving anything. If you'd like to write a nice document on this, go ahead. Just don't delete my mention of a well known situation. GregLindahl

Oh, I see that Taw did once again delete my statement. Well, I give up; I guess that Wikipedia's standards are so high that I can't meet them, even if anyone with a clue in the field would be aware of the situation. Better to excise my comment in the Freud article, too. GregLindahl

Of course Chomsky has critiques, but that's true with almost any other known scientist and any other theory. You didn't merely say that he has many critiques. You said that he is being criticized for being pseudoscientific, and that is almost the most serious accusation (probably only accusing of willfully falsifying evidence would be more serious) one could do to a scientist. So it should be much better documented than other claims. Of course if you can find some arguments from those who accuse him, please write them down. It's encyclopedia's work to present them in fair manner. Just please don't add serious baseless accusations, as this isn't fair and doesn't make article any better. --Taw

So I can't even mention that the argument exists? That isn't Wikipedia policy; you should not delete people's words for this reason. GregLindahl

This is Wikipedia policy and it's called NPOV. I'll try to give an example. Let's say that some cotributor added sentence like 'Some people accuse him of having killed his wife' to some article. Well, described person might have done it or not. Maybe some people really accuse him of having done so. But such a serious accusations has no place in an encyclopedia without some evidence, or, at minimum, a link to place where you could find it. And for a scientist killing a wife isn't any more serious than using pseudoscience ;) (sorry for some exaggeration). If you think that you don't have enough time to search for such arguments, you should write on a /Talk page that some people accuse him and that it should be noted in the article. It's likely that some Wikipedian will do the research, and if some people really do accuse the described, it will be written into article. --Taw

OK, Taw, I understand NPOV, and I disagree with you deleting my words. I'd happily bet you $10 that if you asked ANY professional linguist if anyone in the field feels Chomsky is pseudoscientific, they would say "yes". But if you find that so unbelievable, and feel so strongly about anything that YOU don't feel is sufficiently proven, then go ahead and delete my words. Hell, delete anything you want. It's an anarchy, and you're armed and dangerous. I'm not going to cooperate with someone who begins by deleting other people's words. You've appointed yourself King. Enjoy it. GregLindahl

How is his name pronounced? can someone add this? --Alan D (BTW, in "programming languages" in school, We had a textbook that proclaimed that his work on formal grammars were far more useful to computer languages, and of questionable use in natural language--tee hee!)

There's no question about that. Formal grammars are used in theoretical computer science, not in linguistics. --AxelBoldt

well, did chomsky, who was a linguist, create the notation we use, in like 1957 for natural languages or computer languages? --alan d

Primarily for natural languages;

References to check

N. Chomsky, Three models for the description of language, IRE Trans. Info. Theory 2 (3) (1956), 113-124.

N. Chomsky, On certain formal properties of grammars, Information and Control 2 (3) (1959), 137-167. -- HJH

I am not a linguist, and I am hardly qualified to write an article on this topic, but I remember studying transformational grammars in my college linguistic class years ago, and thinking to myself, my God, this seems like such a kludge. He creates this nice formal grammar, and when he finds out that it doesn't actually describe real world languages that humans actually speak, he does a little presto magic (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain), and "transforms" the sentences to fit them into real world syntax. The whole process struck me as the linguistic version of pre-Copernican epicycles, where all sorts of magic had to be done to make the geocentric system work. Then again, I am not a linguist, so what do I know? Still, I have often wondered since then how other linguists react to his theories, since in my linguistics class it was basically just taught as a factual description of human language.

Well, I got a degree in linguistics from a department noted as being anti-Chomskyist, and although I spent as little time as possible on theory, I can state that anti-Chomskyist linguists focus specifically on Chomsky's fondness for proof-by-vigorous-handwaving. This is pretty much the same as criticism of an abandonment of empiricism and an almost sensationalist approach to theory.

In my opinion, one of the reasons that Chomsky's theories are so attractive to many is that they have much wider implications than those of his opponents. Greenberg's theory of universals carefully confines itself to description of observable phenomena (i.e. "most relative clauses are head-initial"), and thus offers almost no insight into how the mind works. Chomsky's assertions about the innate nature of language, however, are something that the cognitive-studies crowd can grab and run with, no matter whether they're verifiable or not.

Caveat: I also consider most of Chomsky's political writings to be propaganda of the Big Lie variety. In my opinion, his reasoning appears sound until you check his sources. I might agree with some of his points, but don't trust him farther than I could spit him.

-Ben

What are some of the sources for the anti-Semitism paragraphs? I am dubious on several points but not firm enough to make corrections. I believe he never denied authorizing the essay, simply told him he could do whatever he wanted with it. Also I doubt Chomsky has supporters amoung anti-Semites, considering his background. - Eean

Many neo-Nazi websites hold up Chomsky as their poster boy for how evil Jews are, and why all Jews (except Chomsky, of course!) are evil liars. You really should investigate this topic. You will be unpleasantly surprised. [[[user:RK|RK]]]

Chomsky has worked to a small degree with with anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers; see the below websites for documentation. He also has a temper: As Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz and other witnesses have seen in public, he even will physically assault people who confront him with his own words. (see Dershowitz's new article on this topc.)

Many journalists have proven that Chomsky does repeatedly work with neo-Nazi anti-Semites. Chomsky's only defense is that is of Jewish descent and therefore, he claims, he cannot be an anti-Semite. Obviously, however, that argument is ludicrous. There have historically been many Jewish anti-Semites; some self-hating Jews worked in the Nazi army during World War II, and a Ku Klux Klansman in the US committed suicide when it was discovered that he was actually a Jew. (A recent movie, "The Believer", was inspired this case.) Curiously, gentiles still accept the myth that no Jew can be an anti-Semite, but no one in the Jewish community believes it.

Here is some documentation of Chomsky's collusion with neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. http://www.frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/cohnpamph09-11-01.htm http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomskydocs.html

Is there a more unbiased source? Just taking a glance at the index of frontpagemag made its position on things like Israel pretty clear - they have reasons other then his supposed anti-semitism to dislike him. Its about as unbiased as my source, the biographical documentary and admittedly pro-Chomsky Manufactoring Consent, which is why I don't feel justified in making any corrective changes and was wanting another source. And since what we are dealing with here are differences in facts, not really opinions, the old "put everything in there" NPOV tactic can't really work, or at least not as well. So it would be easiest if there was an article somewhere without a point to prove summarizing the whole thing, though I would imagine such an article would be hard to come by.

Personally, I believe that Chomsky is not anti-Semitic, but certainly in many ways anti-Israel (though he does have good things to say about their media) and folks enjoy confusing the two. His comments are taken out of the context on his view of how the world works (one different then one commonly sees). Granted, Dershowitz's article shows Chomsky probably isn't free of this either. Certainly any ties he has with neo-Nazi groups are distribing, at least on any issues outside of freedom of speech (ironic that European neo-Nazi's are the ones often caught fighting for the latter), as this is his defense of that accusation.

I agree, a Jew can certainly be anti-Semitic and in general the notion you can't be prejudiced againist your own group is wrong. - Eean

Neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites warmly embrace Noam Chomsky. The notorious crypto-nazi organization, CODOH, parades Chomsky as their house Jew. http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nros/nrosgobad.html

Other Nazi sites which embrace Chomsky include: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/062_jam.html

Just a note: I try to maintain NPOV in the main entry itself, but I don't worry about doing so in the "Talk" sections. If I understand correctly, we don't have to. Here's where we hash stuff out, so that the final results will be NPOV. Thus, I won't be adding my stuff straight from this section to the main encyclopaedia entry! And I am willing to have others evaluate what I added to the entry, and work on making sure it is NPOV. RK

The two websites cited above don't seem to say what the poster says they do. The first site has as many anti-Chomsky links as pro (I think, it is the devil to navigate). The second site complains, to paraphrase, that Chomsky is "too intelligent not to be one of us, but too chicken to admit it." It's obvious that the anti-Semites would love to claim Chomsky, but even they think there is something fishy about him, well, I think there's something fishy about him too, but these sites don't prove anything. Ortolan88

I agree that they don't prove he is (or isn't) anti-semitic. Rather, I am claiming that they prove anti-semites have a fondness for his works, and use them, when they can, to further their agenda. But this just couldn't be done unless Chomsky was at least extremely anti-Jewish.

Thats not true. The statement "anti-semites have a fondness for his works, and use them, when they can, to further their agenda" applies equally well to, say, Richard Wagner, but he wasn't an anti-semite. Or Friedrich Nietszche, who wasn't an anti-semite as much as a misanthrope. Never underestimate the ability of hate groups to (mis)interpret others for their own ends. -- GWO

No. It's not true at all. In fact, I suspect anti-semites like Chomsky because they're typically not astute, and mistake Chomsky's harsh views on many of Israel's actions for harsh views on Jewish people. Chomsky has equally harsh views on every country, typically regarding any act of oppression (from the Holocaust to suicide bombings to use of the death penalty) as abhorrent and dishonorable. The disregard for all government of course meshes well with his anarchism. --Koyaanis Qatsi

Though I probably agree with you regarding Chomsky and anti-semitism (as well as Chomsky and anti-semites), Chomsky certainly does not have "equally harsh views on every country". Chomsky has his favorite people to pick on (e.g. the US), and will ignore or apologize for atrocities comitted by their enemies (e.g. the Khmer Rouge). --Ben

Since neo-Nazis see him as a potential ally this speaks a lot (and not well) about his beliefs. The situation here is a lot like the "reformed" Ku Klux Klan member David Duke. He now claims to be a democratic and tolerant American citizen, and a member of the Republican party. Yet his current writings are used by anti-black racist hate-groups all over America. Why? Well, because David Duke is an anti-black racist, and other racists know a friend when they see one. The same goes for Chomsky. If Islamic terrorist groups and neo-Nazis embrace Chomsky, what does that tell us? [[RK]]

Chomsky has his favorite people to pick on (e.g. the US), and will ignore or apologize for atrocities comitted by their enemies (e.g. the Khmer Rouge).

Chomsky's position is that as an American citizen, he is personally responsible for what his government and his country do, and not at all responsible for what some flea-bitten tin-pot dictator across the world does. That's why he focuses his attention on the USA.

This doesn't imply that he supports or condones atrocities committed by enemies of the USA, which would be extremely surprising from an anarchist. As for ignoring them, well why shouldn't he? If we knew Martians commit atrocities, who would give a damn? So why are we supposed to give a damn that Khmer Rouge committed atrocities in some swamp across the world?

You are being dishonest. Chomsky has written apologetics for brutal mass murderers from dictatorships all across the world. And note that your own arguments are self-contradictory. You make the (morally repugant) claim that we have no obligation to care at all about mass murder, unless it happens in our country. Yet Chomsky himself does care about things that happen outside of America...but only when Jews are involved. Jews, and Jews alone. There is no other word for the position other than anti-Semitic. The fact that you support his position, yet try to dismiss the mass-murder of the Khemer Rouge as as unimporant to us, tells us a lot about you as a person. Do yoy share Chomsky's special hatred? There doesn't seem to be room for any other conclusion. {RK}

RKac, I'd like to know what on earth you think Chomsky's apologetics for the Khmer Rouge have to do with anti-Semitism? --Ben

RK, you dumbass. I didn't say that we had no obligation for mass murder that happens in a foreign country. I said that we had little (or no) obligation for mass murder that happens by a foreign country. (This holds even if that mass murder happens against our own country.)

OTOH, we have a HUGE obligation for mass murders that happen because and especially 'by our own country. So for example, American citizens are responsible for the mass murder of Iraqi civilians euphemistically called "the Iraq war", as they are now currently responsible for the mass murder of Afghani civilians. This is hardly a morally repugnant position.

Chomsky cares about the atrocities perpetrated by Jews because he is a Jew. Just like he cares about the atrocities perpetrated by Americans because he is an American. That is the only possible moral position to take. Of course, this position contradicts parochialism and patriotism. Which means that only a very small number of people are principled enough to withstand the pressure of millions of immoral dumbasses who accuse them of being traitors or "morally repugnant" or "inconsistent". -- a different RK

I haven't seen any evidence that Chomsky apologized for Khmer Rouge. What I have seen is that he pointed out how much the people who were outraged at Khmer Rouge were lying their asses off. I think that until evidence is forthcoming, that passage should be stripped from the article as defamatory.

I think your dishonesty is defamatory to the rest of us. We are trying, despte certain philosophical differences, to write an encyclopaedia article based on facts. Save your dishonest apologetics, for Chomsky's own apologetics of mass-murder, for someplace else. While their meaning might be debateable, their existence isn't.

Facts bullshit. So far there's a single link to an extremely hostile writer that accuses Chomsky of apologetics. Chomsky wrote about the lies and propaganda of the "critics of Khmer Rouge". THAT is a fact, helpfully proved by the author below. If Chomsky's book about US propaganda at the time was up to his usual standards, then it is unassailable. Attacking one side in a conflict for running a propaganda campaign in no way implies that one is apologizing for the other. That too is a fact. So far, I haven't seen any *facts* that demonstrate Chomsky was an apologetic for Khmer Rouge. Only invective by one extremely hostile author (Sophal Ear) and two other people (one of them you) who have "philosophical differences" with (apparently) attacking one's own government for atrocities.

I'm not giving you any benefit of the doubt because I have no doubt in my mind for you to benefit from. Your "philosophical differences" have led you to prejudge Chomsky without any evidence. The only "evidence" that figures in your prejudgement is that Chomsky attacks the institutions you cherish even when they happen to attack the Khmer Rouge. Taken through a twisted patriotic filter of the world, that transforms into Chomsky being an apologetic for "the other side".

An "apologetic" has to morally justify, absolve or condone something. An explanation is not an apologetic. If someone constructs a detailed theory for why the Nazis killed millions of people in WWII, that is not an apologetic. If that explanation involves the Germans all being horribly abused as children by their parents, that still does not absolve or condone their actions. And if it justifies them, it certainly does not morally justify them. This distinction is essential but it's apparently too subtle for teeny tiny minds intent on a black and white world where the Nazis were evil and the Allies were good.

Likewise, even if Chomsky explained Khmer Rouge as the inevitable result of the US destruction of Cambodian society, this would still not be an apologetic. Neither is pointing out that priests being celibate inevitably leads to the sexual abuse of vulnerable boys in their power. To make it into an apologetic, you have to go the extra step of saying that it was all right for them to do that. That it absolves the Khmer Rouge (and pedophile priests) of any responsibility for their actions. Show me Chomsky doing that and I'll lay off your case. But it better not be something along the lines that "even talking about the subject is an apologetic" or that "ignoring something you can't do anything about anyways is an apologetic".

Also, the name of Chomsky's political views is anarcho-syndicalism, which he has called himself many times. Social anarchism, if it even exists, is something else. Whoever wrote that section doesn't seem to have read much about Chomsky. -- a different RK

Chomsky and Khmer Rouge:

After the Cataclysm, Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology by Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman

Not exactly an academic source, but the Amazon discussion of the book is long and interesting.

See also The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia, somebody's honors thesis including a whole chapter on Chomsky.

I just briefly looked at it and wow talk about hostility!! Sophal Ear has managed to integrate an impressive amount of insults into her arguments. I could take lessons from hir!

I really like Chomsky, because of his contributions to linguistics which have a bearing on natural language understanding and artificial intelligence. I've even met his son while I was studying at Harvard. However, I am distressed by his veering political views -- which I sharply disagree with.

Our task, nonetheless, is to present Chomsky from the NPOV not because neutrality is the position we all must take -- far from it! we all have sides -- but because the only way to for the Wikipedia to be free AND successful is to require NPOV articles. (I'm not too good at that, but I'm learning :-)

That said, how about someone talking about Time flies like an arrow and the ambiguity inherent in that sentence? Does time metaphorically fly? Or do flies of the "time" variety like arrows? Ed Poor, Friday, May 24, 2002

Someone who calls themselves "A different RK" writes: RK, you dumbass. I didn't say that we had no obligation for mass murder that happens in a foreign country. I said that we had little (or no) obligation for mass murder that happens by a foreign country. (This holds even if that mass murder happens against our own country.)

Your insult does not prove your point. In any case, you still refuse to disagree with Chomsky's pro mass-murder position, i.e. his position in which totalitarian regimies which mass murder their own peoples are given apologetics, and only democracies are given the full brunt of his attacks. Such a position is not moral.

In fact, it is perfectly moral. One has the duty of saving one's efforts for where they can do the most good. And in an alleged democracy, one can do the most good by changing one's own government, not by going to war with some other country far away, killing millions of people in the process. But then, morality is quite beyond you; I find it infuriating that you should even use the word.

My insults prove how much contempt I have for your argument and for a person who'd accuse me of something without even reading what I'd written! "apologetics"? you don't even know the meaning of the word; even after I explained it!

So for example, American citizens are responsible for the mass murder of Iraqi civilians euphemistically called "the Iraq war", as they are now currently responsible for the mass murder of Afghani civilians. This is hardly a morally repugnant position.

No such mass murder of Iraqi civilians ever took place. Do you really have a pro-totalitarian, pro-Saddam Hussein view? You don't reprimand Saddam Hussein and his regime for mass-murdering Arab civilians in his own country and in Kuwait, but you attack America? That is irrational.

Ahhh, but it did. And it continues onward today. Civilian infrastructure was targeted, leading directly and predictably to the collapse of food and health care in that country. This had devastating consequences for the civilian population. And all of it, including the consequences, was deliberate. (In fact, the US government officials talking about the atrocities they are responsible for in Iraq are a perfect example of apologetics!) Then, the USA deliberately blackmailed Iraq, extorting petrol in exchange for humanitarian food aid, in contravention with international law!

The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, where in addition chemical plants were destroyed leading to environmental damage. I forgot where exactly, whether Iraq or Yugoslavia, but the USA even managed to destroy a couple of nuclear plants in one of its recent wars. That's Uncle Sam all right, real smart!

As for Hussein, you're much too stupid to understand such a subtle concept as that if everyone else is already decrying the evils of some dictator, one has no particular responsibility to waste one's time joining the chorus.

Chomsky cares about the atrocities perpetrated by Jews because he is a Jew.

That is an inappropriate comment. When I see people die in various wars across Europe, do I slander all Chrisitans by saying that these deaths were cuased by "atrocities perpetrated by Christians"? No, because I am not an anti-Christian bigot. Unlike Chomsky, who is not only an anti-Jewish bigots, but has been adopted by neo-Nazis across the world. If this doesn't make his views clear, nothing will.

Popular left-wing ideas and heroes have always been adopted by right-wing nutballs in a bid for legitimacy. This in no way disproves those ideas and people. As for your other point: are you a Christian? Because if you are not, the analogy you're trying to construct breaks down.

Facts bullshit. So far there's a single link to an extremely hostile writer that accuses Chomsky of apologetics...

Your language isn't helping anything. In any case, are you truly claiming that you are unaware of the many criticisms made against Chomsky on this point? How can you claim with a straight face that there is only one source against Chomsky on this issue! Look, disagreeing with the many sources criticising Chomsky for his views on this is one thing. But denying this mainstream view exists, however, is quite out of bounds. Your lack of comprehension, and anger towards Americans and possibily Jews, makes further discussion with you impossible. [[RK]]

Oh, I'll happily agree that Chomsky has many, many, MANY enemies willing and eager to smear his name and reputation. But that doesn't imply anything about whether or not he is an anti-semite or apologetic for mass murderers. You obviously haven't read anything by Chomsky and your black and white vision of the world makes me believe you're too stupid to understand any of it in any case. But let's see if I can outrage you some more.

In anarchist circles, the position that Israel should be abolished and replaced with a binational state doesn't raise any eyebrows. You're welcome to consider it anti-semitic but that would only prove you're an intellectual inbred. -- I find it fascinating to share the same initials with an intellectual opposite