What do you find interesting about this review?
You can see the above pattern all throughout this thread, in fact. Broad assumptions that seem true enough at first, but are overwhelmingly applied in a toxic way. Meanwhile people are sick of this proselytizing attitude, only to be accused of setting up "strawmen" or "not understanding Chomsky" or something. There is something dangerous about an ideology that causes people to devalue the opinions of those who don't understand it.
But one of the characteristic features of this kind of position is that the people who live in a world of "good vs ignorance" are generally unable to self-examine, at least for that particular facet of their ideology.
They ARE strawmen arguments because they present partially related items as reasons for chomsky being wrong. If Chomsky is cherry picking, then the way to respond is to bring ALL the information to light, and show that Chomsky is misrepresenting it... Not to cherry pick something else...
I don't really understand your "Good vs Ignorance" reference, who are you referring to? and why are they unable to self-examine? which ideology are we talking about?
hah. talk about an inability to self-examine...
Are you perhaps being counter constructive by just attacking me, rather than my argument.
Feels good, but gets us no where.