Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'
News that 95‑year‑old Noam Chomsky is no longer able to speak after a medical event prompts both tributes to his influence and sharp criticism of his politics. Commenters recall his accessibility, prolific output, and foundational work in linguistics and media critique, while others condemn his stances on Cambodia, Serbia, and Russia‑Ukraine as blind anti‑Americanism or genocide apologetics. The thread also revisits debates over universal grammar in light of LLMs and reflects on how intellectuals can be simultaneously groundbreaking in one field and deeply controversial in another.
Emotional reactions & personal experiences
- Many express sadness at his health decline and anticipate his death soon given age and stroke.
- Numerous commenters share stories of cold‑emailing him over decades and receiving thoughtful, rapid replies, even from outside his institutions.
- He is praised for accessibility, patience with “naive” questions, and willingness to engage with non‑elites and students.
- Some describe quasi‑parasocial attachment built from years of watching his talks and interviews.
Intellectual legacy
- Widely lauded as an “intellectual giant” in linguistics, cognitive science, and political thought.
- Manufacturing Consent and The Fateful Triangle are cited as foundational for understanding media and US foreign policy; some suggest they should be school reading.
- Others note his influence on anarchism/libertarian socialism, critiques of imperialism, and skepticism of “rules‑based order.”
Linguistics, universal grammar & AI
- Debate over whether his “innate/universal grammar” hypothesis still holds.
- Several argue humans’ extreme data‑efficiency vs. LLMs implies innate structure; others say this is unproven or outdated.
- Discussion that LLM success doesn’t refute innate grammar because they learn differently and with far more data.
- Some see transformers as having an architectural “bias” analogous to innate grammar; others say UG is hard to falsify.
Political views & support
- Admirers emphasize his consistent anti‑war, anti‑imperialist stance, critique of US elites, and “moral courage.”
- His framework—suspicion of hierarchy, focus on one’s own state’s crimes, and media filtration—resonates with many, especially those disillusioned with official histories.
Major controversies & criticisms
- Strong criticism for positions on Cambodia, Bosnia/Serbia, and later Russia/Ukraine and NATO; accusations include genocide denial/minimization and apologetics for anti‑US regimes.
- Detailed back‑and‑forth over his Cambodia writings: whether he denied genocide, was misled by bad data, later recanted, or systematically cherry‑picked and distorted sources.
- Long, heated subthreads on whether NATO expansion “caused” or contributed to Russia’s invasion, whether the war is a “NATO proxy,” and whether his framing assigns undue blame to the West and erases Ukrainian agency.
- Some argue his anti‑US focus blinds him to other imperialisms; others defend his method of prioritizing critique of one’s own state.
- Additional skepticism raised over his engagements with Epstein and his stances on Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.
Meta & regional perspectives
- Commenters from Eastern Europe note he is often disliked there for underplaying their fears of Russian domination and opposing NATO expansion they see as essential.
- A few remark that the HN thread itself was heavily downvoted, suggesting community polarization.