Kudos to YM on the interview. Chomsky is quite old and clearly his brain is not working as quickly as it once did. But it was frustrating to hear him answer questions he wanted to answer, not questions he was asked. Ironically he came across as a version 0.9 Chomsky LLM around identity politics
Thanks, it's good to take a refresher on why Chomsky is wrong.
> Thomas Jefferson believed that. Abraham Lincoln believed that.
Yes. Because it was and is true, tho that's not a categorical, absolute statement, rather a simple observation of the reality of the facts on the ground. But absolute statements are 'brittle' -- they can't bend, they can only dominate or shatter. Facts on the ground are different, they can slowly change and so they are. When you face unpleasant facts head on, you are then in a position to start correcting them.
Thank you for this. Especially, thank you for asking the question about universal grammar, in which I am very interested. The rapport between grammar/language. human nature and psychology is very interesting, but, unfortunately, he doesn't explain it here.
I was also very interested in his conversation with Foucault (which I may listen to some other time). Very insightful his statement about Foucault as profoundly amoral--I totally agree with that. In fact, you could say the same thing about most French thinkers associated with postmodernism and deconstruction. The paradox is that the appropriation of these amoral thinkers by American academia has resulted in an ideology obsessed with morality (identity politics). It is an enormous paradox, all the more so since all these French thinkers were strongly anti-identitarian.
True. But we should take these people at their word -- *everything* is the quest for power including their own philosophy. When their disciples tell whitey how horrible he is and that DEI and decolonization and reparations are needed, they aren't after justice, they are after power. Whitey's fatal weakness is that he is susceptible to this kind of manipulation.
"Universal grammar is the study of the nature of this faculty. How did it get into our minds? What's the general basis for it?"
I think this an easy question. Language developed to foment greater cooperation of the tribe for survival, and grammar developed from tribal females' insatiable need to correct men from speaking incorrectly.
"The major forms are, again, overwhelmingly, white supremacy and male supremacy. That's real, powerful identity politics. We don't notice it, because we just take it for granted. But that's not an argument. It's true. It's a deep problem."
I have read and listened to Chomsky and have canceled him from my list of qualified thinkers and commentors on social issues for his views above. It is so interesting to me that a so called expert on language and it's effect on culture and thus its ability to cause such corruption and harm to the social and economic system of a culture as been captured by a radical ideology bent on bending language for their goals. And no, there is no effing material white nor male supremacy. Chomsky is holding this as a luxury belief no doubt to feel more connected and accepted by his elite collegiate peers and to sell more books to his following. Because clearly he is bright enough to know the statistics and reality on the ground today do not support that view.
How does he reconcile the clear antisemitism that has risen within the same cohort of critical race theory indoctrinated woke activists pushing these language changes? Does he not see that there is no actual egalitarian morality driving this, but it is an economic issue> These kids, and primarily females, have been encouraged to spend tens if not hundreds of thousands on education services that are the industry where Chomsky works... at the very time that corporate consolidation and globalism, which has provided Chomsky a larger consumer audience to buy his books and increase his Wall Street holdings, has canceled thousands of economic paths that a graduating student can take to earn a good life. The theory indoctrinated woke have basically latched onto a dysfunctional and broken dream that they can compete better for the shrinking access to the economic pie by changing language and screaming through their infiltrated positions in our institution that victim groups deserve a boost to the head of the line and any attempt to retain the victim-group neutral meritocracy is in fact racist.
How does Chomsky reconcile the statistics for young men falling further behind? How does he reconcile the devastating poverty of low income whites in rural areas? How does he reconcile the situation with terrible economic outcomes in black communities where per student spending is the highest while there are many blacks in surrounding higher income neighborhoods that succeed with much higher than average socioeconomic outcomes? How does Chomsky reconcile the statistics for Asian Americans having higher socioeconomic outcomes than do whites?
Canada is in freefall with the population growing more depressed and apathetic about their country. Canada under the control of the massive government population of woke scolds under Trudeau have provided us the actual proof that the people owning these ideas are a threat to the ongoing health of the country and should be taken out of power and influence.
Frankly, we need to stop listening to people like Chomsky as his beliefs and ideas are the modern root cause of social and economic decay. He is not a qualified critical thinker on these topics... he is a leftist ideologue.
Kudos to YM on the interview. Chomsky is quite old and clearly his brain is not working as quickly as it once did. But it was frustrating to hear him answer questions he wanted to answer, not questions he was asked. Ironically he came across as a version 0.9 Chomsky LLM around identity politics
Thanks, it's good to take a refresher on why Chomsky is wrong.
> Thomas Jefferson believed that. Abraham Lincoln believed that.
Yes. Because it was and is true, tho that's not a categorical, absolute statement, rather a simple observation of the reality of the facts on the ground. But absolute statements are 'brittle' -- they can't bend, they can only dominate or shatter. Facts on the ground are different, they can slowly change and so they are. When you face unpleasant facts head on, you are then in a position to start correcting them.
Thank you for this. Especially, thank you for asking the question about universal grammar, in which I am very interested. The rapport between grammar/language. human nature and psychology is very interesting, but, unfortunately, he doesn't explain it here.
I was also very interested in his conversation with Foucault (which I may listen to some other time). Very insightful his statement about Foucault as profoundly amoral--I totally agree with that. In fact, you could say the same thing about most French thinkers associated with postmodernism and deconstruction. The paradox is that the appropriation of these amoral thinkers by American academia has resulted in an ideology obsessed with morality (identity politics). It is an enormous paradox, all the more so since all these French thinkers were strongly anti-identitarian.
True. But we should take these people at their word -- *everything* is the quest for power including their own philosophy. When their disciples tell whitey how horrible he is and that DEI and decolonization and reparations are needed, they aren't after justice, they are after power. Whitey's fatal weakness is that he is susceptible to this kind of manipulation.
"Universal grammar is the study of the nature of this faculty. How did it get into our minds? What's the general basis for it?"
I think this an easy question. Language developed to foment greater cooperation of the tribe for survival, and grammar developed from tribal females' insatiable need to correct men from speaking incorrectly.
"The major forms are, again, overwhelmingly, white supremacy and male supremacy. That's real, powerful identity politics. We don't notice it, because we just take it for granted. But that's not an argument. It's true. It's a deep problem."
I have read and listened to Chomsky and have canceled him from my list of qualified thinkers and commentors on social issues for his views above. It is so interesting to me that a so called expert on language and it's effect on culture and thus its ability to cause such corruption and harm to the social and economic system of a culture as been captured by a radical ideology bent on bending language for their goals. And no, there is no effing material white nor male supremacy. Chomsky is holding this as a luxury belief no doubt to feel more connected and accepted by his elite collegiate peers and to sell more books to his following. Because clearly he is bright enough to know the statistics and reality on the ground today do not support that view.
How does he reconcile the clear antisemitism that has risen within the same cohort of critical race theory indoctrinated woke activists pushing these language changes? Does he not see that there is no actual egalitarian morality driving this, but it is an economic issue> These kids, and primarily females, have been encouraged to spend tens if not hundreds of thousands on education services that are the industry where Chomsky works... at the very time that corporate consolidation and globalism, which has provided Chomsky a larger consumer audience to buy his books and increase his Wall Street holdings, has canceled thousands of economic paths that a graduating student can take to earn a good life. The theory indoctrinated woke have basically latched onto a dysfunctional and broken dream that they can compete better for the shrinking access to the economic pie by changing language and screaming through their infiltrated positions in our institution that victim groups deserve a boost to the head of the line and any attempt to retain the victim-group neutral meritocracy is in fact racist.
How does Chomsky reconcile the statistics for young men falling further behind? How does he reconcile the devastating poverty of low income whites in rural areas? How does he reconcile the situation with terrible economic outcomes in black communities where per student spending is the highest while there are many blacks in surrounding higher income neighborhoods that succeed with much higher than average socioeconomic outcomes? How does Chomsky reconcile the statistics for Asian Americans having higher socioeconomic outcomes than do whites?
Canada is in freefall with the population growing more depressed and apathetic about their country. Canada under the control of the massive government population of woke scolds under Trudeau have provided us the actual proof that the people owning these ideas are a threat to the ongoing health of the country and should be taken out of power and influence.
Frankly, we need to stop listening to people like Chomsky as his beliefs and ideas are the modern root cause of social and economic decay. He is not a qualified critical thinker on these topics... he is a leftist ideologue.