"Chomsky's comments on LotR"

[Raynor]

A nice piece of satire :)
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/23fellowship.html
One of the problems with the perspective offered by the Man-Elf coalition is that you have to try so hard to get at the truth of the conflict, at what is really going on; it's so obscured by their propaganda and relentless militarism. I mean, here we have swords being distributed to the Hobbits by Strider so they can protect themselves against these "evil creatures." Now, in this case, it's probably warranted, though the "evil creatures" are looking for the ring in their own individual self-interest. They're behaving in a purely rational way.

[Andsigil]

A nice piece of satire :)
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/23fellowship.html

I've always disliked Chomsky, so it's nice to see him satirized. He's a linguistics professor who's done nothing over the years but attempt to punch above his intellectual weight in fields about which he knows nothing.

It's no surprise that he's had such a following of twits like Hugo Chavez.

[Inziladun]

The only thing I saw missing was a swipe at the imperialistic, materialistic West for having the temerity to withhold the Ring from its rightful owner in the first place. Sauron made it! :rolleyes:

And the poor, mischaracterised Balrog!

Zinn: Once again you see a creature that's on fire being demonized in this movie: the flaming eye, the flaming Balrog. As though being on fire is this terrible affliction to have.

Chomsky: As though they can help it if they're on fire.


:D

[Raynor]

He's a linguistics professor who's done nothing over the years but attempt to punch above his intellectual weight in fields about which he knows nothing.
Well, I would love to engage in a debate with you over that, but unfortunately this is not the forum to do so :)

[skip spence]

Well, I would love to engage in a debate with you over that, but unfortunately this is not the forum to do so :)
Oh come on, that's a cheap excuse! ;)

[Morthoron]

Well, I would love to engage in a debate with you over that, but unfortunately this is not the forum to do so :)

I cordially dislike Chomsky as well. Hmmm...perhaps cordially ignore him would be more appropriate. Therefore, reading a debate between you and Inzil, although most likely highly entertaining, would go against my self-imposed interdict regarding Chomsky. ;)

[obloquy]

I've always disliked Chomsky, so it's nice to see him satirized. He's a linguistics professor who's done nothing over the years but attempt to punch above his intellectual weight in fields about which he knows nothing.

It's no surprise that he's had such a following of twits like Hugo Chavez.

So are you a hawkish, nationalistic nutjob, or have you simply not read any Chomsky?

[Raynor]

I'm preparing a thread drawing parallels between ME authoritarian systems and real world ones, where Chomsky's observations might be relevant. I would beg some patience and saving our ammunition for that, while we let people enjoy this thread for what it is, a satire one ;)

[skip spence]

I'm preparing a thread drawing parallels between ME authoritarian systems and real world ones, where Chomsky's observations might be relevant. I would beg some patience and saving our ammunition for that, while we let people enjoy this thread for what it is, a satire one ;)
Eagerly anticipating that one. I think the books needs to be pulled from the relative slumber with some heat.

Edit: Oh I see it's already up...

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

I've always disliked Chomsky, so it's nice to see him satirized. He's a linguistics professor who's done nothing over the years but attempt to punch above his intellectual weight in fields about which he knows nothing.

It's no surprise that he's had such a following of twits like Hugo Chavez.

Chomsky is considered to be one of the foremost linguistic theorists ... ever. Linguistics was where I first encountered his work - long before I ever knew about his politics.

Having a Chomsky styled critique of LOTR is quite ironic considering that both Tolkien and Chomsky have fairly awesome linguistic qualifications.

The biggest fault of Chomsky's political books is that they are naive and quite tedious. He tends to make a point and then go on making it for dozens of pages. As for his actual politics - yes, let's not go there.

[Andsigil]

Wow. I got an unsigned negative rep for my Chomsky post.

Someone wanted to leave red and a paragraph in the rep comment, but refused to sign it.

I see that even the low standard of courage required to debate on the internet (with a nom de plume, no less) is too much for some people.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Wow. I got an unsigned negative rep for my Chomsky post.

Someone wanted to leave red and a paragraph in the rep comment, but refused to sign it.

I see that even the low standard of courage required to debate on the internet (with a nom de plume, no less) is too much for some people.

I agree - that is very bad form on their part.

I've just given you a positive rep, so at least you'll come out even!

[obloquy]

Wow. I got an unsigned negative rep for my Chomsky post.

Someone wanted to leave red and a paragraph in the rep comment, but refused to sign it.

I see that even the low standard of courage required to debate on the internet (with a nom de plume, no less) is too much for some people.

hah. Nothing quite so dramatic. The comment took up the whole character allowance. Feel better knowing?

Hey, can I have a positive rep too, PrinceOfTheHalflings? My dog died. :'(

[Andsigil]

hah. Nothing quite so dramatic. The comment took up the whole character allowance. Feel better knowing?

Hey, can I have a positive rep too, PrinceOfTheHalflings? My dog died. :'(

Not really. Your disagreement with my opinion could have taken the form of a PM, or you could have just posted it. Apparently, you were so hurt or upset about my comments regarding a third party (and public figure) that you felt, umm, compelled to use the rep option. :rolleyes:

[Andsigil]

So are you a hawkish, nationalistic nutjob, or have you simply not read any Chomsky?

This post has been reported, as well. Completely unnecessary ad-hominem and very poor form.

It also proves my earlier point.

[Andsigil]

I agree - that is very bad form on their part.

I've just given you a positive rep, so at least you'll come out even!

Thanks, Prince.

[obloquy]

Not really. Your disagreement with my opinion could have taken the form of a PM, or you could have just posted it. Apparently, you were so hurt or upset about my comments regarding a third party (and public figure) that you felt, umm, compelled to use the rep option. :rolleyes:

I used the reputation feature as it is intended to be used. Besides, I had no interest in discussing why your comment was ignorant and valueless with you: your post demonstrated to me exactly how interesting a discussion with you would be.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Since the original topic (which was satirical and has been taken way too seriously!) has long left the premises in "favour" of personal comments - which should be taken to PM - I'm closing this thread. Anyone who has a worthwhile on-topic contribution to make can PM me and I might consider reopening it.

By the way, anyone who posts on the Downs can get negative reps - I have, and only because someone disagreed with me, not because I posted inappropriately. Shrug it off and don't complain publicly, please - it's not worth getting upset over such a small thing.