We can all hate Chomsky, and should, but saying his linguistics has been discredited it absurd. This sounds like saying "Marx was so wrong that an entire field of political economy had to develop to prove all that he got wrong." (I used Marx as a common point we all have, not to argue equivalent value between the contributions) He caused a significantly large shift in thinking which caused the field to develop further than his initial thesis, sure. I think several of his claims have been shown to be "too strong" but that's very different from just being horribly wrong.

I've argued it here before, most people really misunderstand the value of the "universal grammar" argument. And I think often attribute a much stronger claim to Chomsky than he was making. It's useful to think of humans as predisposed to certain rational/logical connections between the experiences they have at a very young age. And language has that logic built in at some deep level as universal ways that concept connect. It was just a shift from linguistics as descriptive to something which could make wider predictions. Often wrong, but it's developing like any other science.

Attack Chomsky for being a pedophile and/or pedophile supporter. Attacking his linguistics only makes us seem clueless.

Also attack Chomsky because he's a chauvinist unwilling to consider contribution by non-stereotypical-academics to revolutionary theories.