I have many books from Chomsky, and I want to throw them away because it disgusts me to have them. Then I think, why should I throw away things I spent so much on? It makes me more angry. So I have pilled them up somewhere to figure out what ti do with them and each time I walk past it I feel sad to ever passed by his work.

▲

eucyclos 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There's an interview with Dan schmachtenberger where he talks about the worst book ever written (his opinion is that it's 'the 48 laws of power'). He made the point that being consistently wrong is actually pretty impressive, and there are worthwhile lessons from watching someone getting taken seriously despite being wrong. Maybe you could revisit them with that approach.

	▲	aleph_minus_one 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> There's an interview with Dan schmachtenberger where he talks about the worst book ever written (his opinion is that it's 'the 48 laws of power'). Could it be this? > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIzRV4TxHo8
	▲	malvim 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don’t think they’re disgusted by Chomsky’s work because it’s wrong. They’re disgusted because of the recently surfaced ties with Epstein. Not sure the approach holds.

▲

rixed 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you reacting with as much intensity when you walk past any scientific work older than 20 years?

▲

IndySun 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Make sure to vet your entire circle - friends, relatives, books, movies, everything... it's going to take a while. In the meantime you'll stop learning/growing too.

Mine is as ludicrous a suggestion as it is to damn by association.

▲

f1shy 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I assume this comes from his views in politics and/or association with things like Epstein. I would say, independent of that, some works of him can be very valuable. Private life of persons and their work, are better put in totally different context, and not mixed.

▲

darubedarob 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is that a Werner von Braun quote?

▲

spwa4 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The thing is, nothing that usually changes things applies to Chomsky. What he did was most certainly not a normal thing to do in his time. Like one might say about George Washington or even further back, like Clovis. By today's standards they were morally wrong, but not by the standards of their time and they advanced morals. They made things better.

Chomsky is wrong by the standards of his time and is making things worse rather than better.

It was very much the opposite of Chomsky's ideology as well. So it additionally means he's fake. BOTH on his morals and politics/activism, from both sides (ie. both helping a paedophile, and helping/entertaining a billionnaire).

So it's (yet another) case of an important figure that supposedly stands for something, not just demonstrating he stands for nothing at all, but being a disgusting human being as well.

▲

mikojan 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> It was very much the opposite of Chomsky's ideology as well.

On the contrary. Chomsky was open about his civil-libertarian principles: If you are convicted, and you complete your court-ordered obligations, you have a clean slate.

▲

spwa4 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Tell me, did that attitude extend to helping billionnaires who are having sex with minors? Because that's what he did. Is that what this ideology stands for?

	▲	mikojan 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, of course. It is the whole point. Nobody cares about your 20 year old parking tickets.

▲

andyjohnson0 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't understand. What is it about Chomsky's work that disgusts you? Or is this a reference to his political opinions?

▲

cubefox 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Read the article above. There is a link at the top of this submission to an essay by Peter Norvig, arguing (correctly, in retrospect) that Chomsky's approach to language modelling is mistaken.

▲

andyjohnson0 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Obviously I did read the article. And I know how the hn site works.

I have a passing familiarity with the debate over Chomsky's theories of universal grammar etc. I didn't notice anything in the article that would cause disgust, and so I wondered what I was failing to understand.

	▲	cubefox 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you have read many books by Chomsky, it might make you angry that you have wasted so much time on what turned out to be a fundamentally mistaken theory.

▲

darubedarob 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

His russian imperialism support and his broad rejection of the eastern european civilian uprising against the communist project. Like many idealists he took a utopian, idealizing view and ran with it reality and real suffering caused be damned. Like many idealists he offered basically a API for sociopaths to be hijacked and used as a useful idiot against humanity. This way predictable leads to ruin and ashes as legacy and it did so for him. The epstein connection is just the cherry on top.

▲

wanderlust123 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds like bit of an over-reaction if I am being honest.

Some of his books are deeply insightful even if you decide to draw the opposite conclusion. I wouldn’t say anything would create disgust unless you had a conclusion you wanted supported before reading the book.

Regarding the Epstein thing, bizarre to bring that up when discussing his works, seems like you hate him on a personal level.

▲

kroaton 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it is fair to hate pedophiles.

	▲	wanderlust123 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Pretty massive stretch making that inference based on the data don’t you think? Or is this an underhand way to get back at someone you disagree with politically?