Nah, Noam Chomsky is a bit of conundrum for them. He is not a modern liberal. His views aren't entirely compatible with modern left-wing thought. He is a staunch critic of postmodernism for one. And that area of left-wing thought is influenced by postmodernism, critical theory, and so on. He believes in the fundamental principles of the Enlightenment, for instance, where as modern leftism seems intent on tearing them down. Deconstructing them.
He's getting too old for this shit now though. Which is why he seems to have been sitting on fence of this for a few years.
Why he annoys the shit out of "leftists" like era - which, really, are closer to stalinists - is that he is mentally and culturally equipped to defend his stance within the 'marketplace of ideas' and come out winning.
#cancelculture bros can't defend shit outside of their barrage of attacks, which is why they no longer want that 'marketplace' to stay open.
Like, it's not that fucking hard to dismantle the underlying principles of ideologies of hate or discrimination. Reasonable people can be persuaded to see the truth, and unreasonable people won't listen anyway.
You don't fight hate speech by becoming unreasonable yourself.
There are some simple reasons as well. He is pretty much a free speech advocate, which older leftists tend to be. It is kind of a fundamental principle. And well, obviously the idea that the way to knowledge is through reason and the scientific method. And that the individual is sacred. That the foundational principle is 'freedom'.
Seems perfectly rational, but that I notice is what they get stuck on.
Did anyone mention on ERA he wrote the foreword for a book about Holocaust "revisionism" (to use an euphemism) ? He got roasted pretty hard for it by a French historian in what is, IMO, one of the better argument set for why Holocaust denialism shouldn't perhaps be left rampant, free speech notwithstanding.
I'm not that familiar with Chomsky actual words but I know not everyone is super thrilled by how he handled criticism about the coverage of the Khmer Rouge, for instance. There's also the old canard that he is indeed a famous academic... In linguistics. And that even there there's quite the debate over his theories.
Still gotta agree with Bismarckie that it's hilarious to see random vidyagame message board users post epic zingers about "freezepeach" as if Chomsky (or others) never confronted or debated opposing viewpoints with actual intellectuals.
I don't know. However, if anyone found that they would probably use it as further proof of how Chomsky is evil. And thats the thing: they don't understand free speech. I imagine none of them have ever heard a good argument for free speech. They haven't read Milton or Mill, or any other of the great Liberal/Enlightenment philosophers.
And the thing is, they're not particularly long books.
On Liberty is only 100 pages or so. And you can read them for free. Not only is it a good way to learn and understand the argument for free speech, it is also a good way to learn about traditional, or
dare I say it classical liberalism. And by that I guess I am talking about British Liberalism. 19th century liberalism as understood in the UK at the time. I know in the US the term has lost all meaning. It would do them good to learn what traditional Liberalism was.
