/lit/ - Literature

Your team cant stop me, Doctor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbL5L4r4Ars
Who was in the wrong here?

not strictly a journalist but an analyst of journalism

Well, he is right.
Look at the Buckley, Perle, Dershowitz debates

Why do people try to debate Chomsky?
http://scienceandrevolution.org/blog/2017/7/3/london-review-of-books-debate-on-decoding-chomsky

>When did you realize that Marxism was the end point of philosophy?

George Yancy: When I was an undergraduate philosophy student at the University of Pittsburgh, where I was trained in the analytic tradition, it wasn’t clear to me what philosophy meant beyond the clarification of concepts. Yet I have held onto the Marxian position that philosophy can change the world. Any thoughts on the capacity of philosophy to change the world?

Noam Chomsky: I am not sure just what Marx had in mind when he wrote that “philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Did he mean that philosophy could change the world, or that philosophers should turn to the higher priority of changing the world? If the former, then he presumably meant philosophy in a broad sense of the term, including analysis of the social order and ideas about why it should be changed, and how. In that broad sense, philosophy can play a role, indeed an essential role, in changing the world, and philosophers, including in the analytic tradition, have undertaken that effort, in their philosophical work as well as in their activist lives — Bertrand Russell, to mention a prominent example.

Will anyone be able to replace Chomsky?

>>9042673
muh nigga

> how can anyone not consider this dude a genius
Its simple
I look at the facts and reality
And then I look at Harris apologetics for state power and violence

This guy B's both of them TFO

>>8684339
>not having a favourite non-fiction author

How come when people accuse Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot they dont quote him or cite the work?
Isn't that a somewhat glaring omission?

All years

>if your publicly expressed intentions are noble and high minded
>then the reality of the consequences don't matter
>lets discuss a hypothetical I have constructed to prove my argument
>rather than a real event
No Sam, no.

>He seems pretty reasonable.
>argues that its alright to commit mass murder if your intentions were good and it was unintentional
>refuses to discuss the facts and instead tries to substitute a "what if scenario" he has concocted to support his thesis

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/549g1i/how_credible_is_noam_chomsky_on_american/

OP got roasted by the facts in the last thread and now he is buttmad
Try to refute this OP, I dare you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

>>8489856
U got it down tho bruh

Is he Americas diogenes?

>In Paris if an intellectual coughs it makes the front cover of Le Monde.

What did he mean by this?

>>8482390

No.

>>7460319