Urban v's the Commentariat

[agricola]

So, just to get this straight: it's intellectual snobbery to say that most people, if they were inclined to read it, could comprehend Chomsky's work, but it's not intellectual snobbery to say that Chomsky's work is far too dense and complex for most people to understand?

I always thought even mentioning Chomsky's work was intellectual snobbery.

 

[Buckaroo]

I always thought even mentioning Chomsky's work was intellectual snobbery.

It takes discipline not to mention Chomsky.

 

[chilango]

No-one referring to him as Chumpsky anymore then?

 

[Buckaroo]

No-one referring to him as Chumpsky anymore then?

No, cos that's Cheapsky.

 

[nino_savatte]

If you think Chomsky's work is dense and complex, try Spinoza or Hegel.

 

[two sheds]

No-one referring to him as Chumpsky anymore then?

Nim Chimpsky and don't you forget it.

 

[Buckaroo]

If you think Chomsky's work is dense and complex, try Spinoza or Hegel.

It's easier when they're dead.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's easier when they're dead.

Why? Because you need a medium?

 

[newbie]

I

So, just to get this straight: it's intellectual snobbery to say that most people, if they were inclined to read it, could comprehend Chomsky's work, but it's not intellectual snobbery to say that Chomsky's work is far too dense and complex for most people to understand?

well I've reread the post you quoted and I don't think it says that, but if that's your reading then so be it.

 

[Buckaroo]

Why? Because you need a medium?

You're pissing in the shower now mate.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I

well I've reread the post you quoted and I don't think it says that, but if that's your reading then so be it.

Well the former is all I've said in this thead, and I presume I was included in this accusation of intellectual snobbery.

 

[newbie]

surely in the absence of evidence it's better to presume innocence?

 

[DaveCinzano]

yes, you made that clear but the point is a tract is not the usage newbie was using- referring to a full text.

A tract can be and very often is ‘a full text’.

 

[DotCommunist]

oh just piss off, the point is clear, you shouldn't call a whole book a tract because it isn't

 

[brogdale]

oh just piss off, the point is clear, you shouldn't call a whole book a tract because it isn't

Used to be; often inter-changeable with tome.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

oh just piss off, the point is clear, you shouldn't call a whole book a tract because it isn't

Suck it up pilgrim, you got it wrong there is nothing wrong with getting something wrong but don't keep trying to bury it

 

[DotCommunist]

i got the etymology wrong yes- I was going on an explanation I'd been told many years ago as a church kid asking 'why are these called tracts' and I admitted as much. But a tract in common usage is not a book- end of

 

[DotCommunist]

any further responses on this subject will be met with the hand because the face aint listening *nose in air*

 

[DotCommunist]

Used to be; often inter-changeable with tome.

so not now and today. I'm right and everyone else is wrong

 

[DotCommunist]

ok maybe I was wrong but in a wider sense I am still right

 

[chilango]

Just claim that you're finding all these replies proving you wrong "upsetting" and then put 'em on ignore. You win.

 

[brogdale]

so not now and today. I'm right and everyone else is wrong

I know Dotty...you do your best to lower the average Urbanite age and all that...but you should know better than argue etymology with the grey-backs

 

[DotCommunist]

Just claim that you're finding all these replies proving you wrong "upsetting" and then put 'em on ignore. You win.

you are all triggering me ffs

 

[redsquirrel]

and what? get into a dull argument about individual words and/or Palestine or Russia. No thanks. It wouldn't demonstrate anything worthwhile whether I find words, phrases, paragraphs or the whole thing unclear or not. It's not whether or not I'm stupid that's at issue here.

It would demonstrate whether you're correct in your claim that Chomsky uses long or obscure words or academic jargon.

 

[toggle]

It would demonstrate whether you're correct in your claim that Chomsky uses long or obscure words or academic jargon.

there's enough of the nanswer to that question that is subjective. a lot of how penetrable a text seems is related to how much of the background ot it someone already come across and whether ti's something they are personally interested in.

 

[redsquirrel]

there's enough of the nanswer to that question that is subjective. a lot of how penetrable a text seems is related to how much of the background ot it someone already come across and whether ti's something they are personally interested in.

But those are all different issues to the one of I'm asking, where we can be more objective - does the author use obscure words? Is there a lot of academic jargon?, etc

I fully accept that there are other ways for a text to be inaccessible, things such as:
- how much background knowledge is required/assumed by the author
- the structuring of the piece, is the reader "draw in"
- the style/tone, is it engaging
- the complexity of the ideas discussed

Some of those are pretty subjective, e.g. the style/tone of the piece. I mean some people have said they find Chomsky's work dry, personally I don't see it (to me in a lot of his work, and the linked piece is a good example, there's a sort of black humour and underlying anger that IMO makes it anything but dry) but I not going to claim people are wrong on that score. But I think anyone saying that Chomsky's political writings are inaccessible because of his vocabulary (which was newbie's original claim) is just plain wrong.

 

[newbie]

You've read a lot of his work so it's pretty plain that for you there's no inaccessibility. You have the interest (or education) to analyse and list different factors involved in comprehending text, you've made it clear that this particular point matters to you and that you've made your mind up about it.

So even if I had any interest in picking through your chosen article, which I don't, there's no way that would lead anywhere productive.

 

[BigTom]

Just claim that you're finding all these replies proving you wrong "upsetting" and then put 'em on ignore. You win.

Find a way to shoehorn in an accusation of racism, sexism, disablism or similar for double win.

Then tag all your abusers in a post and get the urban monothought clique to pile in, claiming that is in no way bullying behaviour.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm calling sam ambreen to be my counsel now

 

[two sheds]

So even if I had any interest in picking through your chosen article, which I don't, there's no way that would lead anywhere productive.

Yes, we wouldn't want to confuse the issue with facts.