Dear Sublation Magazine Readers,

Thank-you for supporting us by reading and sharing our articles. To help us keep all of our content free, please consider supporting us with a donation.

The Premature Death of Noam Chomsky in Digital Discourse


Recently the digital landscape has been awash with premature obituaries for Noam Chomsky — published one moment, retracted the next — revealing a collective fixation on the theoretical “end of an era.” This morbid preoccupation reflects a fascination that defies rationality and decency.

Social media vultures, driven by an insatiable urge to publish these anticipatory obituaries, seem detached from the reality of Chomsky’s continued existence. Their eagerness to disseminate false news about his death reveals a perverse excitement disconnected from the factual reality of his life.

It appears that Chomsky merely needs to exist to fulfil the macabre desires of these social media users, who eagerly await the opportunity to announce his demise. In this digital age, the ritual of speculating on Chomsky’s mortality has taken on a life of its own, becoming a macabre dance of engagement.

These premature declarations, treated as reality, stir global emotions and fuel the compulsive cycles of social media. They provide the very content that sustains the platforms’ perpetual hunger for interaction, with users eagerly reacting to each ripple of news.

Traditionally, legacy media capitalised on death as a commercial commodity, crafting sensational tales to captivate audiences. However, on social platforms, this eagerness transcends mere profit motives; it becomes a visceral pleasure that challenges societal norms and fractures the illusion of a unified humanity.

Calls for respect and shared human experience are increasingly drowned out by fragmented, personalised reactions that dominate the digital landscape. Social media obituaries, detached from facts, heighten sublime excitations among people worldwide, providing content that fuels the repetitive compulsive engagement ecosystem.

Yet, engaging in the premature speculation of Chomsky’s death isn’t just about adhering to community norms of platform engagement; it’s a participation in societal transgression.

Those who partake in these acts align themselves with the unwritten rules of the digital realm, marking their “insider status.” Shortly after the false news of his death circulates, the “inside insider” promptly corrects it, having contacted a family member.

Meanwhile “outside insiders,” stay updated on unfolding events, and contribute to the authentication of the news that lends authority to their voice on the social medium, much like those familiar with Chomsky.

“Attending his lecture was somewhat akin to going to a rock concert for me. I didn’t expect to enjoy it as much as I did; my main goal was to be able to brag about having been there. It was the experience itself that I was seeking,” one account recalls.

Conversely, those who rigidly adhere to explicit standards of certitude about his work and life — exercising caution and social restraint — risk remaining perpetual outsiders, unable to penetrate the inner circles of digital discourse. Thus, speculation about Chomsky’s life drives social media engagement.

The dynamics surrounding Chomsky’s anticipated demise underscore this tension. Explicit rules of discourse and decency coexist with an undercurrent of morbid fascination — anticipation, sensationalism, and the thrill of boundary-pushing — that ultimately binds the online community together.

At the core of this spectacle is the influence of societal norms, channelling a portion of collective energy into a repetitive cycle of anticipation. This ensures a constant stream of content consumption, feeding the endless demand for digital engagement. However, the underlying driving force remains largely unchecked, always pursuing more intense sensations and pushing the limits of societal acceptability.

Thus, participants in the social media ecosystem willingly become instruments, responding to the potentiality of Chomsky’s death to satisfy the platform’s insatiable appetite for engagement. In this digital age, the death of an author intertwines with an unyielding quest for interpretations that defy conventional boundaries, perpetuating the cycle of digital discourse.