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.
Chomsky does round up a lot of criticisms and put them in one place. I'm not sure what 'ideology' you are referring to, unless you view 'reason' as an 'ideology'. But perhaps I am missing some over arching agenda Chomsky has... ?
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?
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.