/lit/ - Literature

>dude how do we know pol pot is actually killing anyone lmao all those victims and refugees are cia plants lmao wake up sheeple
>okay but I didn't mean that LITERALLY

Anarcho communist filth

>>11483085
Source on him saying that?

>>11483160
Not the same guy but read this article recently

https://quillette.com/2018/07/15/devastation-and-denial-cambodia-and-the-academic-left/

>>11483066
pol-tards and contrarians

>>11483066
because most of this board hasn't studied linguistics

/lit/ is full of haters
(I'm Kayne btw)

>>11483066
Who the fuck said this board hates him. And why would you care even if they did? It would mean nothing

>>11483085
If you set up the conditions for a nation to implode then you are partly to blame when it occurs.
The irony is that the same poltards would go on and on about how the Allies blockade of Germany was one of the catalysts for implosion and subsequent political violence in WWII. (And they are partly correct...)

>>11483279
just started reading Saussure, where should i go next?

>>11483066
He is not a fucking anarcho anything. Read Bob Black's takedown of him from an anarchist perspective, calling Chomsky anything other than a technocratic socialist is a joke

Chomsky is occasionally interesting but never, ever trustworthy. Sometimes his criticism of USG is on point but you really have to check his sources yourself which is a pain in the ass. His frothing moralism also blinds him to shit that should be obvious

>>11483463
Also planning on read Saussure soon, I'm curious to know if there is some relation between Saussure linguistics and structuralism with Wittgenstein and analytic phil.

Mainly because he’s so disingenuous. He calls himself an anarchist but it would be difficult to name a single policy he favors that the DSA or even any bourgeois college liberal wouldn’t favor also.
At any rate, it would take a massive and intrusive federal gov’t to execute and sustain his proposals. Basically, a behemoth with domestic monopoly of force and cautious foreign policy.

>>11483066
I think the general consensus is that Manufacturing Consent is his only legitimate political work - everything else is repetitive screeching

In terms of linguistics don't expect many on this board to have any cognizant understanding of his contributions

>>11483514
Nothing he contributed is particularly impressive.

>>11483066
I've only ever heard Noam Chomsky say one thing about linguistics (that Neanderthals absolutely 100% certain couldn't speak - something literally nobody could possibly know). And it was wrong. That's all I need to know about his ability as a linguist. Great for political commentary. Terrible for linguistics.

>>11483519
Man only knows one language, and not very well

>>11483066
>globalist

>>11483552
I'm going to take this opportunity to say something that too few people remember to: Alex Jones is fat.

>>11483562
> Alex Jones is fat

>>11483066
You know why.
>>11483085
Yeah, he overstepped there, while Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was supported by the USA, Pol Pot actually did the shit people said he did.

>>11483066
He's a bore
Self-righteousness sublimated into Mrrrrrrr

>>11483066
Only /pol/tards hate him

>>11483066
I feel compelled to dislike him because I knew a few extremely cringy fans of his in hs. I suspect similar things happened to other people, but I actually agree with his politics, so I forgive the man by separating his fans from him. More conservative readers are less likely to do that

>>11483714
>Everyone who doesn't like Chomsky is /pol/!!!

>>11483733
Well to be fair, /pol/nigs DO loathe Chomsky because he talks about America's absolutely demonic foreign policy.

>>11483733

>starting a sentence with 'well to be fair'

onions discarded
especially if you're a brit

>>11483737
Yeah, /pol/ is infamous for being home to war hawk neo conservatives!

>>11483742
Wanna get rid of this post and try again?

>>11483752

>wanna

fuck sake

>>11483742
If we are being fair here, I don't see where he used 'well to be fair' in his post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

>>11483085
I’ve actually waded through “After the Cataclysm”.

Chomsky’s argument wasn’t that Pol Pot was a nice guy and the media was lying about him.

Chomsky’s argument was that the situation in Cambodia during the rise of the Khmer Rouge was extremely chaotic, and the media’s coverage of Cambodia was entirely based on a few witnesses. There weren’t a lot of outside reporters on the ground, and interviewing refugees, while an important source of information, could give one a distorted view of the situation if they were the ONLY source of information for the situation on the ground.

>>11483794
Chomsky even goes out of his way to say that the Khmer Rouge could be as bad as everyone said they were, that didn’t take away from the fact that the media was basing their reporting on very thin evidence.

>>11483761
Fuck Saké? No thanks, I prefer to drink saké and fuck women.

>>11483809

snap

>>11483519
do you know anything about language type theory? do you know Chomsky's importance in computer science?

I don't hate him :3

>>11483085
>>11483238
not what they said you fag

>>11483992
what are you a member of the green party book club or something? good grief

>>11483809
who is the woman? asking for a friend...

>>11483066
He's hated because /lit/ is full of genuine Trump supporters and anti-Semites. I have nothing against conservatives and traditionalists but Trump is neither of those things. You have to be a special kind of idiot to support Trump.

I have immense respect for Chomsky.

>>11483748
Yes well.... you haven't been on pol and seen oldfags reminisce about the old days? When they were national socialists who hated Jews and the genetic impurity of Americans. Since the election, /pol/ has attracted a neo conservative who drops on their knees for a shill who supports israel and who favors war.

He's a genius whose politics lay to the left. Of course a board invested with /pol/ peeps would "hate" him instead of debating his ideas fairly. You can disagree with him or whatever but tough to deny his absolutely profound influence on linguistics.

He didn't deny a holocaust in Cambodia he questioned the sources at the time.

>>11484011
what specifically do you think Trump is doing wrong?

>>11484044
I'm not the guy who posted that but if you have to ask that question consider suicide.

>>11483066
>Dude like, the republicans are worst than ISIS
I guess I forgot that time the Republicans beheaded someone in the white house, or burn someone alive

>>11484042

>Of course a board invested with /pol/ peeps

you horrible mealworms won't be happy until even saying nigger is a permaban on every board.
so long as there is a single person with unsanitary views on /lit/ you will be squealing

>>11484111
Chomsky’s point is that the Republicans’ energy policy is to literally dig up and burn every last drop of oil and lump of coal before renewable energy prices hydrocarbon fuels out of the market. At this point, delaying the decarbonization of the economy will have literally thousands of years of consequences, if humanity lasts that long.

>>11484042
>He's a genius
kek
>but tough to deny his absolutely profound influence on linguistics.
Getting there first and then having every part of your theory that isn't self evident refuted doesn't seem like "profound "influence" to me
>He didn't deny a holocaust in Cambodia he questioned the sources at the time
Wonder what you'd call a right winger who did something like that during the holocaust

>>11484125
I think your right, but, for a college teacher in such position as himself, I think he should express himself in a more precise way, exaggerating a problem tends to make people ignore it or think less of it.
Another problem is the irony that his works are published through a publisher instead of freely through the internet, where he preaches leftist politics (Im genuinely curious about his justification for selling his books, so if you know it please explain me) and the fact that he teaches in a really expensive college, teaching the elite, instead of "the people".

>>11484157
I don’t think Chomsky is exaggerating the problem. If you understand the true scope of climate change, then what he says makes perfect sense.

Second, yes Chomsky taught at mit for most of his career, but his lectures on political topics, what most people know him for, are widely available online. Just YouTube “Chomsky” for a wealth of public lectures. He has also archived much of his output at his website, Chomsky.info , and it is available free of charge

>>11484099
Not an argument.

>>11483066
>>11483238
Didn't someone make a thread here the other week about his insane reading speed/retention?

>>11484198
Im somewhat burnt from the whole "Miami will be drowned in two weeks by the ocean if, you don't stop eating meat right now" kind of environmental activism, but (if taken to the extremes you point out) it will happen and action must be done, at what level and how fast, nobody knows.
Im glad he has published his lectures and some written output.
I will eventually read him and make a real opinion on him but for now, I got no more criticism against him.

>>11483999
whats wrong with the books?

>>11484040
Or...or! /pol/ isn't one person and is made up of a broad slew of people who for one reason or another want to talk about destroying what they see as the current geopolitical reality, so Duginists, Nazbol, ancaps, le epic moderate libertarians, Ba'athists, Catholic traditionalists, monarchists, advocates for feudalism, fascists and yes even nordicist spergs who would be Marquis de Sade equivalents no mater what law ruled the land, including the one they claim to support. Also it could be full of people taking the piss too.

It's hard to hate on the Chomp unless you either hate that he's Jewish or if you vehemently disagree with his doggedly critical attitude toward the US. There's certainly no reason to be upset with him because of his linguistic work, unless you're some kind of crazy academic who cares too much about arcana.
Like most contemporary leftist academics Chomsky has a critical attitude rather than advocating viable alternatives to the current "oppressive system" (The same system, I should add, has afforded Chomsky a very comfortable living). For this reason he's a lot less threatening than say a Marx or serious agitator for revolution (of which there is no real will for nowadays among established leftist intelligentsia anyway)

>>11483518
the concept that humans develop grammar and linguistic structure, even outside the structure of existing language, is pretty impressive to me. He tore the behavioralists a new one in those days. Might have been the beginning of his contrarian nature as figure.

>>11483066
>an integral voice against American imperialism post-WWII.
The Pax Americana is one of the greatest blessings of the modern age. Whole generations have grown up safe and secure under the umbrella of American military supremacy. Why would we want to get rid of it? Every possible alternative is much worse

>>11484707
this
>b-but muh empires are bad

>>11484707
It’s not natural for so many people to have lived in uninterrupted peace for two hundred years, and during the peak of technolgical advancement. Comfort breeds decadence and complacency, and it looks like most Americans don’t mind their government is running amok in a frenzied effort to preemptively abrogate the possibility of any break in the growth of the prosperity of the wealthy, or the Jews, or whoever you think calls the shots, because they have been sedated.

>>11484972
Sounds better than global war. If there is to be a supreme hegemon, and it's best there is to avoid war, I'd rather it was America than China or India or Russia etc.
Besides, consumer capitalism is fun

>>11483519
You're honestly a fucking idiot. He's the father of modern linguistics, you dip.

>>11483066
Only good thing he ever wrote

>>11483809
based

>>11483506
>>11483463
Study Peirce, particularly his semiotic and philsophy of representation before you continue and unintentionally swallow the boomer analytic pill.

>>11483066
People don't read they just ape the opinions of other people they assume read.

That being said he kinda sucks. He's basically just William Appleman Williams if he larped as an anarchist who knew about predicates and syntax.

>>11483463
If you want to deepen your understanding of structuralist linguistics, read Nikolai Trubetskoy's work on phonology and Kenneth Pike's book Phonemics. You could also read Leonard Bloomfield and Edward Sapir. If you read all of that you'll have a bretty gud grounding in Structural Linguistics and then you'll be ready to move on to more contemporary stuff like Optimality Theory

>>11483518
Literally retarded.

>>11483463
>Saussure
lmao don't even bother. maybe go down to the rope store lmao do that next

the piraha peoples absolutely obliterated his theories of linguistics
those wild peoples are just too simple of mind to comprehend a chomskyan recursive grammar language

>>11483552
Great pic, how's your wallet doing?

>>11484285
>Duginists, Nazbol, ancaps, le epic moderate libertarians, Ba'athists, Catholic traditionalists, monarchists, advocates for feudalism, fascists and yes even nordicist spergs

All shitty meme ideologies.

>>11484126
>Getting there first and then having every part of your theory that isn't self evident refuted doesn't seem like "profound "influence" to me
This is the most incorrect thing I've ever read

First of all, I don't really care that much about linguistics.

Secondly, he's really too ideological. It's fine that you believe capitalism is fundamentally flawed and you want to change it, but his claims that human beings can exist in a state of nature like anarcho-syndalism, where the use of violence essentially isn't controlled by any entities is ridiculously naive.

>>11484972
That’s part of the story. The other part is the enormous violence and coercion that was always latent in the system, but unleashed on 9/11. A lot of people are sedate, but a lot of people who would otherwise speak out remain silent because of the consequences.

>>11487257
If you're unfamiliar with/don't appreciate Chomsky's linguistics, then you're obviously also largely ignorant of philosophy, cognitive psychology, cognitive science, theoretical computer science, and logic. So that being said, if you don't "care for" his linguistics, then are their any academic discipline's you're interested in? Of course there are many other academic subjects besides the ones I listed, and all of the subjects above are closely related, so perhaps you do genuinely have some scholarly knowledge, albeit perhaps it sociology or chemistry or something.

>>11487338
I appreciate that he is well known and accomplished in the field, but linguistics is way too large of a field and it's really autistic for me. I took 3 courses of linguistics at university, and it seems to me that a lot of it boils down to posturing about semantics, or even a worse autism, the topic of semiotics.

>>11484995
>>11484707
Look, Pax Americana was peaceful and created a great amount of wealth, but the same can be said about a plantation.

Those who weren’t winners under the post WWII order, namely the Soviet sphere and the Golbal South suffered enormously under the American imposed system.

Transitioning out of it will be dangerous. A curtain raiser for the breakdown of American global hegemony is Syria, where global and regional powers fought bitterly to hold the preponderance of power in a region. Yet despite the violence, I would argue that the right for nations and people to determine their own independent foreign policy takes precedent. It is much the same justification as for revolutions. Revolutions usually end poorly, yet who would deny a people’s right to determine how power is structured and shared ina society?

>>11483066
I think he's the goat intellectual. He really just is completely able to back up absolutely everything he says its unreal.

>>11487380
>but the same can be said about a plantation.

Except for the fact that people like Chomsky seem to be so ignorant of elementary political science that he doesn't even understand that *someone* is going to have overwhelming military and economic power, so you best hope that those who do aren't authoritarian psychos.

I mean, his extreme criticism of U.S economic and foreign policy makes it seem like it would be inconsequential to him if Nazi-Germany was the global hegemon instead.

>>11484157
This is how we all know you're a brainlet. He's not exaggerating the problem, and thats exactly his point! Its just obviously the most dangerous problem in the world.

ISIS being more "evil" has nothing to do with it. His argument was always whats more dangerous. ISIS doesn't have the power to be truly dangerous, the republican party does.

>>11486090
Try reading the rest of the book then

>>11487441
Do you know how US backed regimes behaved/still behave in the Global South? Why do you think that the Vietnamese fought to the death to resist having one imposed on them? I’m not saying not all regimes free of US influence are democratic—and we can point to regimes like Iran, China and Russia for examples—but in the Global South, the prerequisite to economic and political self determination is freedom from American meddling.

>>11487380
>Those who weren’t winners under the post WWII order, namely the Soviet sphere and the Golbal South suffered enormously under the American imposed system
Doing much better than under the alternatives.
>Yet despite the violence, I would argue that the right for nations and people to determine their own independent foreign policy takes precedent.
So you think WWI was preferable to Serbia being ruled by the Hapsburgs. It's a viewpoint.
The world is a nasty ugly place and it isn't fair, and realpolitik isn't fair. There will never be a world where we all just get along and we don't need to stomp a few heads now and again. Out of the crooked timber of humanity etc...
Chomsky is usually very naive when he makes his critiques of US foreign policy. He seems to think if the US didn't do bad thing then bad things wouldn't happen, when in truth the US does bad shit to prevent even worse. You don't want to live in a world where China has and exercises the same power the US does.

>>11487237
>This is the most incorrect thing I've ever read
That's not saying much

>>11487504
>Why do you think that the Vietnamese fought to the death to resist having one imposed on them?
I'm not sure Vietnam is the good example here. The Russians were propping up one side just as much as the Americans were the other

>>11487504
Lets just pull this apart a little.

Your ideal is probably that the global hegemon never interfere in the affairs of other states. I'm going to dismiss this ideal for being pathetically naive. So, what we are left with is how, and why the most powerful interferes in other states' affairs.

Thought experiment for you: Would you prefer it if America, hitherto with ideals of democracy and individual liberty, interferes in other nations, or would you prefer it if Russia or China did?

Even if I agreed with you about some kind of non-interventionism, just as a matter of utility, it's certainly better that the U.S has been the most powerful, than China or Russia.

>>11487556
It’s simply not true. The Soviets had little to nothing to do with Vietnam.

>>11487578
>nothing to do with Vietnam
>every single rice farmer VC recruit carried an AK-47

>>11483491
>Bob Black
Interesting. Thank you anon.

>>11487537
>in truth the US does bad shit to prevent even worse

The lack of self awareness to claim Chomsky is very naive. Truly the mind of a /pol/tard

>but muh china!
China being worse does not make the US good. Try to be a morally serious individual for longer than 2 seconds.

>>11484305
>There's certainly no reason to be upset with him because of his linguistic work,
He was SUPER unfair to Skinner, didn't get his ideas at all. He also doesn't respect field researchers enough.

Anyone else email him? I got a reply within like 5 minutes

>>11487637
>that spacing
>wahhh /pol/tard
Thanks for playing, Reddit

>>11487601
Weapons and supplies, yes.

But personnel, no.

The Vietnamese fought tooth and nail for their victory over America, and (what people often forget) fought a Chinese invasion a few years later.

>>11487665
>not even denying you're a /pol/tard

Don't you have some jewish conspiracy infographics to make or something?

And its cleaner to have this spacing to differentiate different thoughts, nothin reddit about it kiddo ;)

>>11487705
>not even denying you're a /pol/tard
Not the guy you were bitching at, redditard

>>11487656
I kinda want to but I don't even know what I would ask him that doesn't seem like a waste of his time. Was sort of thinking like what are the biggest crimes the US is still committing right now.

>>11487637
>China being worse does not make the US good.
Chomsky constantly rails on people that criticize his pet regimes on the grounds that "the US did worse" (even in the cases when, on objective metrics like death tolls, it didn't).

I too criticize the USA, like most people do. It's not a knee-jerk reflex to me or the rest of us like it seems to be to Chomsky, tho.

>>11487537
I’ll answer you more fully later, but consider my main argument: Chinese would love for the world to be their oyster and be the global hegemon, but are constrained from doing so.

First, China shares its borders with very powerful rivals: most notably Japan, Russia and India. Much of their military is dedicated to policing their near abroad. The US has no comparable rival on our borders.

Second, China sinks an enormous percentage of its military resources on watching its own internal population. It is practically occupying Tibet and East Turkestan (the so called Xinjiang autonomous region).

So the only way China can muscle its way into regions and nations traditionally dominated by America and Europe is by offering better deals than their historical overlords.

Let me give an example. Jamaica finally got its first highway. It was financed by China. Now, it’s not like the Jamaicans suddenly got the idea into their heads that a highway would be a good idea. Rather, Jamaica’s traditional overlords, the US and the UK only financed projects that complemented their economies. So financing for resorts but no financing for highways. So by giving the Jamaicans what they want, China is able to get a foothold into Jamaica.

>>11487759
I should add though that as a great power, China isn’t all hugs and kisses.

There was interesting commentary during the Trump-Kim summit that Kim was trying to mend fences with the USA because he is wary of overwhelming Chinese influence in his country. Indeed, Kim has relied on the Russians in key respects for this very reason.

>>11487656
What's the email address?

>>11483066
European here. I think he's reasonable and fairly likeable.

>>11487856
chomsky@mit.edu

>>11487712
I asked him something really general like "has your philosophical position changed at all in 50 years and if so what". Try to find a recent statement he has made and ask a question about it or something.

>>11487759
>>11487848
Based China poster. You should honestly be the one to start the China/East Asian/Geopolitics general of the sort.

>>11484125
>dude renewables
Too bad anything that isn’t nuclear or incredibly dependent on geological location is utter garbage and will remain so.

>>11484707
>The Pax Americana is one of the greatest blessings of the modern age
For who? The period between 1945 and the Nixon administration saw some real substantial increases in the standards of living for most in the heart land of industrial capitalism but that wasn't because the empire was just feeling particularly generous, all the investment by the military-welfare state was NECESSITATED to guarantee survival. The barbarians don't think they need to bribe the masses any more.

>Whole generations have grown up safe and secure under the umbrella of American military supremacy
If you haven't noticed the 9/11 destroyed the safety meme; all the support for religious fundamentalism is still paying off.

>Why would we want to get rid of it? Every possible alternative is much worse
American hegemony IS slowly collapsing, it has been for years, an alternative will emerge the question is if whoever is in control is willing to destroy everything to maintain hegemony at any cost.

>>11488020
Okay thanks

>>11488061
Nope.

The meme that we need nuclear is a lie. The only reason nuclear energy is pushed is because nuclear waste is refined and used for military purposes (e.g. nuclear weapons and fuel for nuclear-powered ships)

>>11483066
>why is he hated by this board so intensely?
Because he doesn't show the proper deference to their idols

>>11488031
Thanks, but I don’t deserve the credit. No joke, I cribbed these arguments from Chomsky

>>11487483
typical new-left and SDS tier stuff, Parenti is still better

>>11488691
Never heard of him but he sounds cool.

>>11488703
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npkeecCErQc

>>11487109
>this upset I've blasphemed your monolingual pleb god

>>11488775
Oh I meant Chomsky.

>>11488789
go fuck yourself

>>11488792
What the fuck?

>>11488801
chomsky is trash

>>11488810
Maybe he is, but I don't know that. I was just expressing interest.

>>11483573
This painting always gives me the creeps.

>>11484126
>Getting there first and then having every part of your theory that isn't self evident refuted doesn't seem like "profound "influence" to me
There are people on /lit/ right now who actually believe this.

>>11488855
Better yet, there's this one

>>11488574
Why does all of /sci/ disagree?

>>11483518
>What is hierarchy of grammar?
>What is universal grammar?

Fuck off. His contribution to the field of linguistics and computer science is invaluable.

>>11486090
What a rant. Shit writer and shit 'thinker'.

>>11483562
Is he really fat or is he big boned?

>>11488910
The field of renewable energy is developing very quickly. In a couple of years, they will be on cost parity with hydrocarbon fuels. Of course, the infrastructure and technology to generate, handle, store and distribute all of this new energy is not up and running, but with massive investment, this would all be within reach. It’s not science fiction.

>>11488953
>universal grammar
He's so full of shit lmao

>>11488953
>His contribution to the field of linguistics and computer science is invaluable.
also why do you fags always repeat these things in the same manner, it's like you're spewing buzzwords to mask the fact that your god chomsky has only ever given us easy and inevitable generalizations

>>11483066
>fights against American imperialism
Why is this a good thing you moron? Would you prefer Russian or chinese imperalism?

>>11487759
>Chinese would love for the world to be their oyster and be the global hegemon, but are constrained from doing so.
They are constrained by America.

>>11488149
>he's so used to be safe and protected he doesn't even realise how safe and protected he is.
9/11 was nothing compared to a real war.

>>11487637
>morally serious individual
Way to miss the point retard. This is realpolitik we are discussing, not a thought experiment in a university seminar. If you and Chomsky think we shouldn't engage in realpolitik them go ahead and think that. You can think that because you are protected by people who do believe in realpolitik

>>11487139
>those wild peoples are just too simple of mind to comprehend a chomskyan recursive grammar language

This does seem to be the case (as native speakers of it don't seem to be able to learn other languages, despite having kids that can learn to speak 'normally' if they learn to as children) and this is actually interesting, as they provide a case study for how people might communicate without using UG. I'd actually consider this evidence in favor of UG, as it shows a distinction between UG based languages and what happens when a community arises that doesn't express things using a language recursive grammar.

>>11483066
>>11483279
>>11483514
>>11487109
>>11488953
>>11484305
>>11487414
Chomsky's contributions to linguistics is vastly overrated and was in some ways detrimental.
http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/CreationMyths.pdf
http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W09/W09-0104.pdf
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/most-overrated-mind-20th-century-alan-perlman

His foreign policy and political criticism is also rubbish.
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

I hates the linguistics, I hates liberal kikes, I hates students

>>11483992
Hope you have a good therapist my friend. Don't do anything crazy.

>>11490122
...what?
right now, second-year undergraduate linguistics students wrap their head up because of syntax test. there's little alternative besides drawing branch. It's near calculus at this point.

>>11483463
please don't go too much into Peirce

>>11488816
Find his social critiques lacking in comparison to Lasch or Pagilia. His analysis of power-structures and wealth is standard leftism. I can't comment on his work on linguistics and intelligence since I know little about that subject. His articulation of anarcho-syndicalism is god awful asserting if man is given enough freedom and capacity he would be bookish, non-violent, cooperative, and low overhead with regards to consumption. From there he espouses that this perfected form of man would result in basically less centralized communism ie: representative communes and voluntary civic service, overall he just projects himself on every other human being. Otherwise I enjoy his critique of American foreign policy and consumerism, specifically his focus on Bernays.

>HURR DURR THE SOVIET RUSSIANS AREN'T INFLUNCING COUNTRIES OUTSIDE THEIR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UNLIKE AMERICA


>>11483085
this

>>11484305
>The same system, I should add, has afforded Chomsky a very comfortable living
the everlasting "the current system made everything you have, which means it's hypocritical to want to change it" "argument" that would make any progress the human race has made from the stone age wrong

Chomsky is a IYI with no skin in the game.

>>11488910
That's just a few nuclear engineer fags shilling.
t. /sci/

>>11489350
>DUDE SOLAR FARMS THE SIZE OF SMALL COUNTIES

>>11492046
Just use less energy fuckwad.

Can someone give me a basic gestalt on linguistic relativism vs universalism? What's the going consensus in linguistics, if there is one? The former looks like it's going to be pushed hard in primary schools in leafland, and it seems like it would be a great precursor to even more socialist indoctrination.