Transcripts of emails exchanged between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky

[NZA]

i barely heard about sam about a year ago and his career is already looking like larry holmes

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Lol like you've actually ever read Chomsky outside of youtube vids and anecdotes. If you did, you wouldn't say something as ignorant as he never offers solutions.

I have actually. I have a copy of manufactured consent, given it as a gift to a friend, and seen him live in person at MIT when I was in town.

So don't try me with this shyt.

Fact is, YOU don't wanna debate the implications of his arguments outside of rooting for this view of the world in which only the actions of the USA and/or Israel are the only violators of goodwill and trust and everyone else just ends up being caught up with well-to-do aims.

Chomsky suffers from the fact that there aren't many on the left who even speak up so it makes his voice seem a lot louder than it is.

Chomsky could NEVER create policy. Thats the trick.

 

[badhat]

In all seriousness, what is so great about what Chomsky has said?

I'm a big fan of both individuals, but Chomsky's liberalism predicates too much on criticism and never solutions....like...EVER.

Sam Harris got hand held through a PhD where the only published result was getting his name tacked on to a paper, doesn't understand how ethical philosophy is supposed to work, and every interaction with Dennett has proven he has no idea what compatibilism even is.

We can see right in this interaction that Harris isn't even bothering with engaging Chomsky's real positions, just convenient fictions. Harris wants to be considered an intellectual, but nobody takes him seriously, with good cause.

 

[badhat]

If you want to critique Chomsky, that's fine, but Harris hasn't done the actual work necessary, and he devolves into whining since he's incapable of doing the actual work.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Sam Harris got hand held through a PhD where the only published result was getting his name tacked on to a paper, doesn't understand how ethical philosophy is supposed to work, and every interaction with Dennett has proven he has no idea what compatibilism even is.

We can see right in this interaction that Harris isn't even bothering with engaging Chomsky's real positions, just convenient fictions. Harris wants to be considered an intellectual, but nobody takes him seriously, with good cause.

More on his PhD? I knew it wasn't in some serious bench work, but thats interesting...

If you want to critique Chomsky, that's fine, but Harris hasn't done the actual work necessary, and he devolves into whining since he's incapable of doing the actual work.

So this again points to where I think people are too quick to blow up Chomsky without realizing what CHomsky's ENTIRE schtick is about.

Its no better than being in the Glenn Greenwald fan club.

 

[The Real]

i barely heard about sam about a year ago and his career is already looking like larry holmes

He's been around for a long time, but he was always a 2nd tier dude. He's only popular now because Hitchens died and Dawkins is getting old, but he'd been riding their wave for years.

I remember a few years ago he put out some challenge on his website and some young philosophy student destroyed him. He's always been weak.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I have actually. I have a copy of manufactured consent, given it as a gift to a friend, and seen him live in person at MIT when I was in town.

So don't try me with this shyt.

Fact is, YOU don't wanna debate the implications of his arguments outside of rooting for this view of the world in which only the actions of the USA and/or Israel are the only violators of goodwill and trust and everyone else just ends up being caught up with well-to-do aims.

That's not his view of the world. That's how I know you haven't seriously read him, or you just read him without comprehending or absorbing anything he says because you thought it made you cool or something.

He highlights human rights abuses all over the world, and criticizes the U.S. because he feels it's the largest and powerful purveyor of international conflict and discord, and because there isn't an objective or more balanced narrative with respect to that fact in U.S. media highlighting and examining this, but he doesn't ever suggest "the USA and/or Israel are the only violators of goodwill and trust and everyone else just ends up being caught up with well-to-do aims." To call that a lazy strawman would be an understatement.

Chomsky suffers from the fact that there aren't many on the left who even speak up so it makes his voice seem a lot louder than it is.

Lol@"on the left." He's a libertarian socialist. You can't lump him in with any monolithic left in this country.

Chomsky could NEVER create policy. Thats the trick.

He is against the current establishment. Pointing out that he couldn't make policy is an irrelevant criticism when you're talking about someone whose ideology is that the authority girding such policy is illegitimate.

In a different political climate with a different power system; the type of nation he advocates for, he could create policy. It would just be policy you disagree with.

He does make a lot of well-supported points and he does offer practical solutions and reforms on foreign policy, the drug war, the environment, political funding and other things, and you attempting to dismiss him because he supposedly "couldn't make policy," ignoring that said policy exists as a self-justification is flimsy.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That's not his view of the world. That's how I know you haven't seriously read him, or you just read him without comprehending or absorbing anything he says because you thought it made you cool or something.

Yeah. It is.

Its clear you're not going to be honest here just so you can move the goal posts.

He highlights human rights abuses all over the world, and criticizes the U.S. because he feels it's the largest and powerful purveyor of international conflict and discord, and because there isn't an objective or more balanced narrative with respect to that fact in U.S. media highlighting and examining this, but he doesn't ever suggest "the USA and/or Israel are the only violators of goodwill and trust and everyone else just ends up being caught up with well-to-do aims." To call that a lazy strawman would be an understatement.

I never said he was wrong. I said his criticism is limited.

And it is.

Read ANY criticism of Chomsky...if your weak stomach can handle it... and you'll see precisely what i'm talking about.

the US did a lot of this shyt when China and Russia were running around enacting in proxy wars and movements AND YET, all of his critism lies in this view of the world which is

Lol@"on the left." He's a libertarian socialist.

He's an anarchist. Don't confuse the two.

He is against the current establishment.

And for nothing in return.

Pointing out that he couldn't make policy is an irrelevant criticism when you're talking about someone whose ideology is that the authority girding such policy is illegitimate.

He couldn't make policy.

One casualty is too much for him to even consider. One act of subversion or lying or deception is too great for him.

He's a demogogue that rallies against any sort of authority. He's not a policy wonk.

In a different political climate with a different power system; the type of nation he advocates for, he could create policy. It would just be policy you disagree with.

OH REALLY?

And which "power system" would that be?

Sounds REALLY totalitarian if you ask me.

he could never be satisfied. Not saying he should, but he never would.

He does make a lot of well-supported points and he does offer practical solutions and reforms on foreign policy

No he doesn't. In all of his criticisms of the US, none of it focuses on the decisions enacted as being considered as the best choices available in some cases in lieu of retrospective mud-slinging about "insight" and clarity that he claims to have held all along. This is why he sticks to debating paradigms, and not promoting policy...because he'd be exposed. Every decision has side effects and consequences.

the drug war,

These aren't fringe ideas anymore.

the environment,

same as above

political funding and other things

same as above

and you attempting to dismiss him because he supposedly "couldn't make policy," ignoring that said policy exists as a self-justification is flimsy.

He can't.

And this is the problem

Complain, challenge, and question the system all you want.

But until you promote policies, agendas, or alternatives....you'll be held to that very standard. If he wants to be known as a critic, thats fine...but he's not known for solutions (infamously might I add) and he's damn sure not known for being responsible for any sort of introduction of thought outside of his worldview in linguistics.

Mind you, I used to grow up listening to Democracy Now broadcasts EVERY DAY on the way home. I know my Chomsky. I've read his works since I was in high school and kept up with him. But he's not free from criticism and your attempts at standing as his bodyguard isn't helping any reasonable assessment of anything Chomsky has to say.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Yeah. It is.

We're done talking.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Easy to know why you’re unaware of my having written about your work. I haven’t done so. In contrast, you’ve written about my work, with crucial false accusations that you evidently have no interest in correcting. As to my “misconceptions” about you, I’m interested to see that there is no credible source.

​

 

[Serious]

I have actually. I have a copy of manufactured consent, given it as a gift to a friend, and seen him live in person at MIT when I was in town.

Ok Tom

 

[JahFocus CS]

Harris lost, but that's an insult to him. Harris at least makes a logical inquiry into morality, irregardless of how flawed it is. Napoleon just pretty much says "might makes right" over and over again.

It's been months since I engaged in any direct conversation with the WOAT. I come here in an effort to avoid pseudo-intellectualism and underdeveloped worldviews

At least @DEAD7 mixes in some legitimate argumentation and examples along with his trolling

Chomsky is an incredibly prolific author, so to cite only Maufactured Consent as evidence of your exposure to him... He is actually quite reformist since he goes around endorsing Democratic candidates for president, but he doesn't view the system as legitimate. And it isn't.

If he doesn't offer up policy prescriptions, neither did abolitionists. It's not about trying to carefully navigate the complexities of a meat grinder that churns through millions of people and rests on the exploitation of billions, all in an effort to maintain it. It's about imagining that there's something beyond that (which the people at the top hate, which is why so much effort is expended convincing people what we have is the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be ), and agitating for those people to organize themselves to establish a more just order. That's the policy prescription right there.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It's been months since I engaged in any direct conversation with the WOAT. I come here in an effort to avoid pseudo-intellectualism and underdeveloped worldviews

At least @DEAD7 mixes in some legitimate argumentation and examples along with his trolling

Chomsky is an incredibly prolific author, so to cite only Maufactured Consent as evidence of your exposure to him... He is actually quite reformist since he goes around endorsing Democratic candidates for president, but he doesn't view the system as legitimate. And it isn't.

If he doesn't offer up policy prescriptions, neither did abolitionists. It's not about trying to carefully navigate the complexities of a meat grinder that churns through millions of people and rests on the exploitation of billions, all in an effort to maintain it. It's about imagining that there's something beyond that (which the people at the top hate, which is why so much effort is expended convincing people what we have is the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be ), and agitating for those people to organize themselves to establish a more just order. That's the policy prescription right there.

Yup. Dudes like the WOATx2 would've criticized MLK, X, SNCC, and the Black Panthers because they "couldn't make policy" and "didn't offer practical solutions."

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yup. Dudes like the WOATx2 would've criticized MLK, X, SNCC, and the Black Panthers because they "couldn't make policy" and "didn't offer practical solutions."

They DID have solutions.

Chomsky's criticism is America sucks and everything is horrible.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It's been months since I engaged in any direct conversation with the WOAT. I come here in an effort to avoid pseudo-intellectualism and underdeveloped worldviews

At least @DEAD7 mixes in some legitimate argumentation and examples along with his trolling

Chomsky is an incredibly prolific author, so to cite only Maufactured Consent as evidence of your exposure to him...

I name one book and now thats the extent of my exposure? You're right. Let me go take pics of my library

He is actually quite reformist since he goes around endorsing Democratic candidates for president, but he doesn't view the system as legitimate. And it isn't.

The system isn't "legit?"

WTF does that mean?

The system IS THE SYSTEM. Whether or not its legit is defined BY THE SYSTEM. You can't just say "I disagree, therefore its illegitimate"

If he doesn't offer up policy prescriptions, neither did abolitionists. It's not about trying to carefully navigate the complexities of a meat grinder that churns through millions of people and rests on the exploitation of billions, all in an effort to maintain it. It's about imagining that there's something beyond that (which the people at the top hate, which is why so much effort is expended convincing people what we have is the best there is, the best there was, and the best there ever will be ), and agitating for those people to organize themselves to establish a more just order. That's the policy prescription right there.

What the hell is this rambling bullshyt?

Do you see a situation where Chomsky would even fight for his own life?