Talk:Noam Chomsky

He's a linguist, right?
So this annoying article has been popping up in recent changes a lot lately, and while I frankly don't give a crap, I think someone with the needed expertise in linguistics should give a brief overview over that guy's main theories and whether any of them hold water... That would really be of service to our readers, instead of this wrangling over politics... Pizzameister (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are a sock: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Chicken_coop&diff=1614945&oldid=1614943 You couldn't keep straight which of your accounts was supposed to ask the question, and had the wrong one do it until "you" changed it to "you" asking it. You are either Arisboch, Avenger or one of their KWF pals whom you agitated to convince I am an "antisemite."---Mona- (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten to log in. Which I spelled out in the subsequent edit summary. If I had a sock, I wouldn't be so clumsy about it. And I have literally no idea what KWF is supposed to be... Pizzameister (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I shall name thee, "StickySock". CorruptUser (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to say, why I broke my word
I did restore a neutral footnote to its original form. I didn't do anything about the snark that was deleted at the same time and was probably the intended target of the undo. But the footnote was just plain silly as it was. So if I'm to be punished for this, let the judges assemble, but I want to say it straight out, that my intentions were as honorable as possible. Otherwise I haven't edited much on anything, mostly fiddled with a hobby. But this footnote irritated me, since I was the one who wrote it in the first place. Instead of undoing this change I suggest deleting it altogether. And now I have taken enough of your time, thanks for reading. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-wingnuts who dislike Chomsky + antisemitism controversies
The article mentions that there are non-wingnuts who dislike Chomsky, but doesn’t list any of them. It reads like it’s been edited several times over by a diehard Chomsky fan. I’m not an expert, but here are some common criticisms against him I’ve gathered that are only fleetingly referenced in the current article: cherrypicked or distorted citations of history; genocide denial; apologism for dictators and extremists; dubious insinuations of moral equivalency; and broad minimization of antisemitism as a topic of valid concern.

Here’s just a couple of sources offering strong criticisms of Chomsky which, at the very least, appear to be non-cranky:

https://quillette.com/2019/03/25/venezuela-and-the-half-truths-of-noam-chomsky/

https://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

Considering that the subject is such a controversial figure, I would be interested in seeing a more diverse range of viewpoints including balanced criticisms represented in this article.

173.72.104.231 (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would hardly consider the late Werner Cohn a "non-cranky" source; after all, this is a man who wrote an entire book accusing Chomsky of being in league with Holocaust deniers primarily on the basis of his barely even tenuous association with noted French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson. Cohn also zealously propagated the "anyone who criticizes the state of Israel in any way hates Israel/is anti-Semitic" trope. On his old homepage, there is even a section entitled "Jews Who Hate Israel". I smell a balance fallacy here. &mdash; Unsigned, by: WtJ85 / talk / contribs
 * Also quillette as "non-wingnut" is pure insanity. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Chomsky is a fascinating person and scholar. Anyone who has written and talked as much as he has would seem to have lived many life times. I am somewhat in awe of Chomsky. On the other hand, his past unwillingness to condemn, in a timely fashion, mass murder by the Khmer Rouge troubles me to this day. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there's been a recent edit by I would like to comment on a few things about the article. I am in agreement with the spirit of the BoN's comment though not the content of it. It is essential to note that there are many rational and intelligent figures who disagree with Chomsky (I'm aware that this is a mere footnote in the article). I hope to emulate the spirit of the BoN, when I say the following: Chomsky is at best a sophist and at worst an illusionist, who's work finds better company in Hogwarts than the serious intellectual sphere. His work has significantly impeded scientific progress through his archaic mentalism and baseless rationalism. He is a dangerous figure in that he inspires the abject reverence of whole swarms of impressionistic graduate students. This article is a slum that needs to be cleared out asap. — Leucippus 19:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Chomsky has also done a disservice to anarchism. — Oxyaena Harass  20:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A question, if you would be so kind. Could you actually be specific instead of vaguely gesturing at perceived enemies? 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding Chomsky's positions increasingly untenable
His positions and stances on Syria and Ukraine is becoming increasingly indefensible and contradictory. For all of his anti-imperialist positions and rightfully calling out US excesses, he has suddenly become a "realist" when it comes to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Also abhorrent is his promotion of journalists friendly to the Assad regime even after their chemical weapon attacks. The lead of this article simply glosses over this and seems far too forgiving of his views, and I think it should be adjusted. 98.186.201.38 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He has been increasingly disappointing as the years past, his Bosnian genocide denial was the deal breaker for me. It goes to show how willing some lefties will go to do backflips so they never have to admit justification with opposition from the US or other neoliberal nations. The only exception they will admit is probably the US opposition to the Nazi's but even then... It's not as if conceding on a few instances of US foreign policy implies acceptance of imperialism, capitalism, or even moral justification to the nation state of the US itself. At least be consistent when opposing imperialism not try to justify when other countries that are opponents to the US to do it. I don't care about the self-serving definition of imperialism Lenin uses, Chomsky doesn't even have that given he rejects Leninism as well.    - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC).
 * Name any single dictator and mass murderer who opposed the US, and most likely Chomsky did support him or still does, so this is nothing new. wrt Ukraine and Russia, he already blamed this war on the US. --Aniro (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Does he also support Mao or Pinochet? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "I don't feel that they deserve a blanket condemnation at all. There are many things to object to in any society. But take China, modern China; one also finds many things that are really quite admirable." --Aniro (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Cambodian genocide denial
This article says "Whatever responsibility he laid at the feet of the United States, he did not deny that a large atrocity had taken place in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge.", but this information isn't correct. In fact, Chomsky coauthored a book that denied Cambodian genocide and this is a well known fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman --Aniro (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Uh
Are we going to acknowledge and add that Chomsky was outed as an associate of Epstein? Rational Dude (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that bad?
 * It seems like he didn't actually made any business with him, but that's according largely to his word. Moon Sock (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, it’s really suspicious and should raise red flags as to why he was even with Epstein in the first place. Rational Dude (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)