I have read some amount of Chomsky and do not find these to be strawman arguments. An "us vs them" attitude pervades his writing. One common pattern is overweening assumption backed by laser-guided cherry picking of examples.

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.