Noam Chomsky is the most academic-y of idiot academics. Maybe it would silence him and maybe it wouldn't, but I'd still like to knock the teeth out of his skull.

I'd like to break all his Chompskers.

Never understood why people worship him. Tried reading his linguist stuff once, thought it was okay.

Actually, Ppen, as a linguist he is rather good. His problem is the same that many academics suffer from which is when he ventures outside his field he becomes something of an idiot.

Take our hostess here as an example of what one should do. Amy isn't an expert in many of the areas she writes about; but, what she does is call on the real experts, gets their opinions and writes about a subject. Taking something complex and putting it into language the rest of us will understand, and perhaps, find interesting.

Chomsky, on the other hand and like so many other idiots, assumes since he is an expert in one field that he is also an expert in anything that he wants to pontificate about. As a result, he often (quite often actually) ends up saying some rather stupid stuff.

Therefore, surprisingly, this is one quote that I agree with him on.

There are days I love all you people.

Nobody believes in free expression for people they despise. Nobody.

> Nobody believes in free expression
> for people they despise. Nobody.

Well...

The human soul is a dark thing. That's true...

But listen, once you get enough humility to recognize that the Earth could at any time (and one day certainly will) rock on through the heavens without your guidance, then you're free to let stupid people say whatever they want.

Television comes to mind. There are now probably 500 television pundits who I'd think are odious, but I don't want to censor them…

…Because when I don't think about them, they cease to exist. It's like that for a LOT of ugly figures in public life. Their admirers are deluded... What are you and I supposed to do about it?

Let's pick a name out of the air: Bill O'Reilly. Dorkmondo Gigantis, right? Irritanté La Supremavera.

But could you ever imagine losing an argument with him, or with someone who takes him seriously? So why worry about them until that argument happens? Go ahead... Let them choke on their own stupidities, and give your attention to something better.

Amy does that with comments. The First Amendment does it with spirits.

There used to be a political talk show in Australia called "Enough Rope," where they'd let assholes just follow their hearts. Brilliant title, brilliant.

Nobody believes in free expression for people they despise. Nobody. - doombuggy

I do, makes it easier to know how to ignore

Freedom of speech is wonderful - it encourages the sociopaths, bigots, and idiots to identify themselves.

But listen, once you get enough humility to recognize that the Earth could at any time (and one day certainly will) rock on through the heavens without your guidance, then you're free to let stupid people say whatever they want.

I don't worry too much about the stupid in this context. I'm more worried about the smart who use their talent and effort to lead the masses into the bowels of Hell.

"Never understood why people worship him."

Chomsky's work on grammar disproved behaviorism as applied to people, and helped create the field of cognitive psychology. We should neither give creedence to his crackpot political views nor disregard the importance of his work.

Dude... This is what I was getting at.

> I don't worry too much about the
> stupid in this context.

In which context do you worry about 'em?

> I'm more worried about the smart who
> use their talent and effort

If someone is not-smart, aren't you presuming they're stupid?

> to lead the masses into the bowels
> of Hell.

So... We know "the masses" aren't smart, because they're being "lead" by "talent and effort": Are "the masses" therefore "the stupid"?

I want you introduce me someone who's a "mass." And you can't be cute about it, you have to describe them that way as we shake hands. (And NOT get your face punched by them.) Do you seriously know anyone like that?

You're eager to tell the stupid which smart people are to be trusted... (The Messianic imagery of leading people to "the bowels of Hell" is kind of a clue to your mood as you chew on these things.) But no one will ever look to you for that kind of guidance.

The Little People aren't waiting for your approval. They're forming their opinions without you, and you shouldn't let your daydreams give you the feeling they shouldn't. You, and I, and all the other individuals, can lead plenty busy lives by working to be sure our own beliefs cohere to the facts... There isn't time to condescend to rubes in the sway of snake-oil salesmen.

Crid, I was riffing off your introduction of the "stupid" theme. You first in the explication of psychometrics.

Smarts (here) is a proxy for leadership. Our leaders take the masses down many foolish roads: bomb Iraq; import 3rd world peasants; communist social policy; Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.

Your and my internal dialog might cohere to the facts, but agents of the hierarchy come around and fill me in otherwise.

Has Chomsky every put that maxim into effect? Has he ever, for example, risked his own safety and reputation defending the rights of neo-Nazis to hold a rally in Skokie, Illinois?

Or is this another one of those "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" moments, wherein high-minded people say grandiose things about freedom of speech, knowing that they live in a civilized society and will never actually be called upon to defend to certain death someone's right to say something?

> riffing off your introduction of the
> "stupid" theme. You first in the
> explication of psychometrics.

?

Me: People like to make "anything goes" statements, but not really.

Crid: There are stupid people saying stupid things. You have to understand that and put up with it if you expect to negotiate life in any robust way.

Me: I understand that, but what concerns me are the influential people in print and policy; what they say influences what they think; and they show up at my door saying "we are from the ruling brigades, and we are here to help you."

Crid: (rant about dumb and smart people)

Me: Well, you are the one who started using the dumb/smart motif, so carry on with that explanation. I'm concerned with what the rulers/taste makers are saying, and ruler/tm does not always equal smart.

You (this will be a direct quote, not a paraphrase):

> I'm concerned with what the
> rulers/taste makers are saying

Me (speaking to you directly, not second-hand, and offering you the shimmering, nearly-sexual thrill of my deepest clarity without condensation or abridgment):

Don't do that. Seriously. You are not bright enough to be "concerned" with that.

And you shouldn't take that personally: Nobody is that bright. And I mean No•Mother•Fucker.

Now, the locution "No•Mother•Fucker" doesn't actually appear in the text of the First Amendment, but it animates its spirit.

There is no person (let's call him a "censor") so bright, or so honest, or so decent or cute or clever, that he can know what (or who) another citizen should be listening to. The citizen has a lifetime of experiences and considerations no less instructive than those of the censor. The citizen not only has the right to apply his intuition as he sees fit when making those selections: The citizen has a duty to do so.

Now that you've been stripped of your responsibilities to censor, Doombuggy, you can nonetheless look forward to decades of enjoyment by listening to the very best sources of information and opinions you can find; the ones most honest and informative of those available; the ones which will leave you best equipped to deal with the citizen when he starts mouthing off… That alone is a lifetime of work. And it's a task you can fulfill by aiming high and listening to voices which challenge your clarity and presumptions, rather than by deliberately collecting foolish thoughts, a habit which will flatter your lesser nature.

Just for example… There are no "rulers" in the United States. There aren't even very many "taste makers." It's a free country with an intense love of commerce, so a lot of people profitably pretend they can sway public opinion... Yet when you watch them closely, you notice that they almost never try to do it. 'Opinion leaders' (Limbaugh, Dowd) are in the best (former) cases expressing a few genuine principles shared by others, or in other cases (the latter) merely echoing the chattering of impulses in similar twitchy skulls. But they're following, always.

And again, Dood, "rulers/taste makers" is like "leading the masses"… It sounds like you have supernatural devotion, or command, on your mind.

Know why I quote people in this text style so much?

> Freedom of speech is wonderful
> - it encourages the sociopaths,
> bigots, and idiots to identify
> themselves.

Because nothing is more fair (or —let's be honest— more sportingly cruel) than judging people on what they actually say. Once you call out the good things from the bad, you've given everyone what they need… The taste makers, the masses, and everyone in between.

Apparently this book can be had for one penny. That's a bargain, and it has a tremendously fun chapter on parsing the language of politicians.

Don't do that. Seriously.

Amy, Crid is trying to control me. Again. He is telling me what to think. Stop him. Stop him now.

Not telling you who to listen too, though.

And let's be honest: I'm going to mock you, no matter who it is.

Not telling you who to listen too, though.

Distinction without a difference.

We spend a lot of time convincing; cajoling; conniving; conning; confounding; and confusing. To out-argue the other guy is to shut him up.

You are preaching a kind of agnosticism here.

> Distinction without a difference.

No, this could be plainer: Don't daydream ("concern") about telling people who they should listen to. You aren't that special. And there is someone, probably nearby, who's smarter than you and absolutely certain they should take command of your information sources, as well.

The distinct, different behavior is to get your own opinions in order.

You are discounting a hierarchy of values.

But to countenance this requires me to follow your hierarchy of values.

"You might not be interested in telling other people what to do, but the Immans and Daily Kos'ers of the world are plenty interested in telling you what to do."

Oh, how DARE YOU. How FUCKING dare you.

I've never "discount[ed] a hierarchy of values" in all my life! And you're a rat bastard for saying I have!

Probably.

What the fuck are you talking about?

"Countenance"? My face is fabulous!

> the Immans and Daily Kos'ers of
> the world are plenty interested
> in telling you what to do."

Who cares? They're assholes. Don't be an asshole.