/lit/ - Literature

>>18230205
>the general consensus
Amongst whom?

Your friends are dogmatic right wing ideologues who are categorically opposed to anything that appears tangentially in conflict with their narrow and shallow worldview.

>>18230229
The media, things I've seen online

>>18230205
Chomsky never says anything of substance. That's why he sounds reasonable.

This is a literature board.

>>18230243
Chomsky is an author with over 100 books.

You're not missing anything, he's been smeared by ideologues on 4chan. Take the Noampill.

>>18230205
>yet the general consensus seems to be that he is a hack/contrarian
You're on a website filled with fascists and anti-Semites. The leftists who don't like Chomsky are the extremists who hate him for telling people to vote for Biden. As Chomsky has repeatedly tried to explain to them, he's not thrilled about Biden but rather he understands that elections aren't nearly as important as activism so you should just elect the lesser evil and then organize to push your country in the direction you want it to move.

Chomsky is a great man

>>18230205
He once said trump is worse than Hitler
He also said the Cambodian genocide never happened
He probably did some good things but overall he is just a bad person

>>18230205
He's a fake truth teller. He sounds reasonable because he starts from normie/ lefty frame, and then says "reasonable things" from that frame. The problem is the axioms from which he proceeds are all bullshit.
If all you want is a somewhat more intelligent and rational version of the New York Times worldview then have at it.

>>18230241
>the media hates Chomsky
Gee I wonder why... from what I've seen his analyses seem popular among pretty much everyone left or right wing.

>>18230536
The media doesn't give a shit about Chomsky

Nobody gets in trouble for having a Chomsky book or watching a Chomsky lecture

Repeating Chomsky's opinions will not cause you to be fired or ostracized in most cases

That's how you know he doesn't have a worthwhile thing to say and is a fake dissident.

>>18230205
Linguistics, ontologic nature of the memory matrix

>>18230236
Chompy denies the Cambodian genocide. The guy's a meme.

>>18230236
>randomly seethes about Right Wingers

This is what no pussy does to a MF.

Oof.

All right wing politics are sugared shit sandwiches, (you) me and i'll give you the smoke

>>18230242
this, at least from his interviews. I haven't read his work

>>18230813
I'm not even a fan but he doesn't and never did

>>18230545
Saying that pro-colonial or racialist views shouldn't be censored will absolutely lead you to ostracization

>>18230406
yeah that's the ONLY reason leftists hate him, not because voting for trump would be literally worse than voting for hitler, right? what a dumb fuck liberal cunt

How do you even lose a debate against Chomsky? Literally just bring up khmer rouge everytime he says anything

>>18230257
And yet you didn't name any of them. You just vaguely mentioned 'interviews,' which are not books.

>>18230205
His linguistics work is solid. Anything outside that field ranges from questinable to dogshit.

>>18231463
Careful now. If you say that you might make Chomsky angry. And you don't want to make Chomsky angry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw

>>18231463
Harris is a fraud.

>>18230536
You haven't seen enough. Chomsky is an enlightenment drone. He earnestly believes in democracy and that problems are caused by the media and corporations manipulating people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. This is the part most people agree with. He also believes that when people become woke to this manipulation they will choose globohomo communism because of course that's the most natural thing people will do right? That's the part where his simplistic understanding of politics goes off the rails and more knowledgeable people stop taking him seriously.

>>18231704
Shit take. Chompy has never advocated globo-homo communism, he's been nothing but critical of communism in general.

>>18230205
Noam is based, he's been on the medias ass for years, the reason they don't deflagrate him is because they fear the Streisand effect. The reason they shat on Trump so much is because they wanted people to disagree with him. They wanted the conspiracies, the rise in right-wing populism, the distrust and uncertainty. The instruments of control are powerful and intelligent. It doesn't matter at all if who we elect, they keep us at each others throats and make it seem natural.

>>18230236
yikes

>>18231734
He is critical of anti-democratic state socialism like in China and USSR. He believes in developing libertarian communism from democratic values, which globohomo communism describes nicely. What I said is correct.

"If you wanna make enemies, try to change something"

>>18231757
No, not at all, but everyone needs their copium. I see you've found yours.

>>18231770
Believe what you want. I'm just paraphrasing what Chomsky talks about himself.

>>18231779
Which has never once been accepting of global corporate rule, in fact its been more salient criticism than ever could arise from the chans. You my friend are an npc

>>18231793
You are the NPC for thinking globohomo communism = global corporate rule where I'm using the phrase to reflect his liberal values of globalization and cultural tolerance/faggotry hence "globohomo" and worker controlled economy hence "communism"

>>18230205
Chomsky will filter to you pieces of truth then draw from them the conclusion that US intel is a *right-wing* cancer. The whole picture is more nuanced. US intel is a politically pragmatic organization with the objective of enforcing US hegemony. They’ll support communists, democracies, dictatorships, whatever happens to benefit their goal of hegemony.

You can understand how his vote blue no matter who maxim follows from there. It’s the same tired schtick of, “well yes, this centrist liberal candidate isn’t the leftist we want but look at the other guy! If he gets in it’ll be like the third reich all over again!” The material result of this methodology? Bland liberalism.

>>18231869
What do you mean by "liberalism"? I feel like this word does more to confuse than clarify. By "liberals" lefties basically mean "right wingers" whereas right wingers mean the opposite. Supposing they are referring to the same group it would be better to choose a neutral name that doesn't mean opposite things to everyone. "Progressives" is a good alternative.

This is the fundamental divide on Chomsky. One side of people think we live in a right wing oppressive state. The other in a left wing oppressive state. Chomsky is part of the former. So he will look like a prophet and truth teller to people who think that the big, bad, oppressive right wing is the problem. Personally I think the idea that these "progressives" are "right wing" can only exist in the minds of communists who consider anyone less communist than themselves to be "right wing."

This is the problem with Chomsky. He is part of the voice of power, pointing out some of the foibles of power. He is not actually outside power. He supports power while pretending to be the underdog. What he wants and what power wants are not fundamentally different. He just wants a "more pure" version of what the Democrats want. Not a completely different vision.

In short, people who think Chomsky is deep are people who are fully inside the matrix. When you are inside the matrix, things like the "military industrial complex" and "corporate lobbying" look like big, glaring problems. It is akin to being a fish and thinking that rain is a big, glaring problem. You are totally unaware of the water in which you swim. The things Chomsky criticizes are ultimately trivial in the face of the actual state of affairs, which he never really criticizes.

>>18230829
>oof
take the Noam pill kid best you get out of the right-wing hole now save yourself the autism

>>18230205
He’s foundational. And like all foundational thinkers, he’s wrong. But that’s ok. Because he’s brought a rigor to the field that no one else has brought.

he is the last honest intellectual. he also probably sporting an IQ well above 200 but is way too modest to even hint at it

Don't listen to what he says most recently, he's a full never trumper which is ironic considering how we wrote about the effect of media on public perception. Just goes to prove how insidious the media is and even Chomsky can't resist their message.

Manufacturing consent and Media Control are two pretty good books. Highly recommend.

>>18232031
>"military industrial complex" and "corporate lobbying"
These are two of the biggest issues effecting the function of a government.

Liberal no longer means individual liberty as outlined by men such as Mills. We're in rampant despotism under the guise of liberal values but it's full blown socalism.

The matrix is the government, and if you want to be 'out' of the matrix you need to be out from under the government. The way the government gets over you is then the most biggest issue effecting you such as lobbying, media propaganda, etc. If the government doesn't have the power to influence the market or right laws that restrict the most basic natural rights then you are not 'in' the 'matrix'. You're in the free functioning society.

Chomskys value is talking about part of the problem, of course rarely does one individual so succinctly grasp all manifestations of evil and 'the matrix' so you need to use your own thoughts to see where people get things right and wrong, don't throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.

Parenti is better

>>18230205
He works for the system, dumbass

>>18230957
Indeed. Chomsky just objectively analyzed the various sources available. Applying the proper scrutiny to various accounts. And at the time he found that many popular alarmist accounts were not balanced enough and didn't apply proper scrutiny to the refuge stories. Indeed he helpfully kept everyone from reacting too strongly when western propaganda was at work giving a one sided story using a few panicked refugees who didn't have the complete picture. On the other hand he acknowledged that some much more reliable resources which were much better balanced by evidence from China and the Khmer Rouge indicated some positive things were actually going on in Cambodia at the time. He was just being an objective intellectual and giving both sides of the story a chance to be heard, while lightly commenting on the evidence that supported each.

Then once more evidence came to light Chomsky was luckily there to remind us that western propaganda was still at play. It's true that there is always some violence in revolutions. We shouldn't just listen to anti-communists exaggerating numbers of the dead. Manipulating and distorting the facts. Downplaying the role of American bombings.

And ever since the true extent of the genocidal violence and incompetence of the regime came to be utterly beyond doubt. Chomsky has never hesitated in saying that although the cause of the Khmer Rouge was basically noble, a genocide did in fact take place, America caused it, American media has never properly covered America's role in causing it, and America has also been the cause of lots of other violence and suffering. And It would be fair to say that at the time the genocide was taking place Chomsky was a voice of reason who was advising everyone to take refugee accounts seriously(if with a healthy degree of objectivity, skepticism, and proper respect for other sources). Before all the facts came to light there was simply no way to know if a genocide was taking place.

In retrospect on Chomsky and Cambodia. I would say that Chomsky and all his fans can pat him and ourselves(not you because you are not a fan, just an impartial observer properly weighing the evidence) on the back for being victims. That's right, Chomsky has for years been the victim of a smear campaign for being a supposed "genocide denier" the effects of which you can see in the post of the right wing American you replied to. When in fact he has never denied or downplayed the genocide in Cambodia, or America's role in causing it.

>>18230205
communists basically our children and all they want is a kindergarten teacher to calm them down and talk softly and be a comfy gentle old person. This is what Chomsky provides, and he is intelligent enough to continue this pacifying palliative style for so long that he sounds like he is giving a sermon or a dharma talk...very relaxing stuff, total fluff
as for his professional work, he is known for over articulating the recursive language theory, and it is unclear to me why he decided to become a kind of half political figure instead of publish more and do more research.

>>18230236
> t. seething leftist

>>18230205
Just look at this Jewish millionaire's stock portfolio for everything you need to know about him.

>>18230486
Therefore we shall call him chumpsky.

>>18232172
Your entire credibility falls apart when you say that the country is being threatened by socialism under the guise of liberalism when anyone with two braincells to rub together knows that this is not the case.

Man chomsky really brings out the inner lunatic in people. I really don't get it, right wingers become actual fucking spastics over him

>>18230957
>>18233584
Yes he did. Read his own article. He basically says "they barely killed anyone and if they did kill lots of people it's America's fault."

https://chomsky.info/19770625/

>>18234409
Bro this is pretty mild criticism. Chompsky is just a goofy old man. He's not near as hated as someone like George Soros.

>>18234409
The reason why is that he pretends to be a 'hard truth teller' while leading people back to the reservation.

>>18230205
how come he works for MIT? isn´t that the brain of the americ*n military-industrial-academic complex ?

>>18235110
he addressed this question in the Chomsky-Foucault debate. he compared himself to Marx who used resources of the British Museum (financed by a colonial empire) to study political economy even though he was critical of British colonial capitalism, what a humble guy

>>18235110
ummm yes but you shouldn´t really ask that question sweatie

>>18231433
>voting for trump would be literally worse than voting for hitler
Straw man. Imagine being stuck in 2016 lmao.

>>18235110
>>18235140
The truth is that the establishment endorses Chomsky because they know he is a harmless grifter. If they were actually scared of him they'd go after him the same way they went after Ross Ulbricht, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.

>>18235110
a deeper question would be: why is MIT so interested in linguistics?

>>18230236
have sex

>>18233584
You deserve a medal just for taking the time to write out this thinly-disguised satire.

>>18237519
Ngl I'm a brainlet and completely fell for it.

>>18230257
>>18230205
NOT LITERATURE

>>18230205
He's a kike

>>18237519
Thanks. If I wrote all that out and only got one (you) that didn't read it all and notice I was mocking Chomsky I would be extremely demoralized.

>>18231463
Harris is wrong about literally everything.

>>18230813
that's actually pretty based though, i personally don't believe in any war crimes

>>18237779
Sorry bro lol. I'm too autistic for satire.

>>18233633
Good post.

>>18235135
Really gives the lie to these people being dangerous dissidents. Do you think Harvard would let Jared Taylor work with them? No. Chomsky and Marx both made it because they were buddies with the intellectual elite.

>>18235145
Verbatim: “Definitely the worst one I can think of in history, Adolf Hitler was pretty hideous – [but] he wasn't trying to destroy organized human society on earth,”
kys

>>18230205
sometimes he says good things and sometimes he does some really dumb ass shit, especially when anyone finds evidence against his theories like that documentary about that tribe that whistled to the birds

>>18230486
It's interesting how there can never be a leftist ideologue without some level of suppression of them having denied some abstruse genocide or something. What Chomsky said isn't big enough to denounce him for all, but knowledge of this and an eventual disregard of him will set you opposed to leftist circles.

>>18230943
Nobody want it wit you

>>18233584
Keep this in a text file. You'll use it again in the future.

>>18230486
when in the world did he say that the cambodian genocide didn't happen nigga? He was just highlighting how the media deliberately turned a blind eye on indonesia.

>>18232061
>Because he’s brought a rigor to the field that no one else has brought.

This. He is one of the very few people working in the humanities who produced work that was actually rigorous and the closest to something like the scientific method you could ask for.

His views on global geopolitics aside, he is one of the greatest philosophers and humanities-thinker who has ever lived. It’s actually amazing to see such a person in flesh and blood and still breathing instead of just read about him on history books 500 years from now.

Naturally he made many mistakes, but he is an honest man and when he notices that he is wrong he acknowledges it. For example, he initially thought that the Cambodia government during the Khmer was a good thing, but he was basing his opinions on the information available to him. Once he was faced with the real thing he promptly admitted he was wrong.

His influence of fields such as linguistics and human behavior and education are all enormous. He is one of the rare scholars that one might actually say that was practicing titanic opera by putting pen to paper.

>>18230229
Those who buy and sell authoritarianism, usually because it is to their innately sadistic taste or temperament--like that of the sublime trolls Ibsen's plays are mostly about. Naturally in this glowie-operated gravity-well for attracting and monitoring the type, the angles from which such sales pitches proceed are goddamn endless, tediously predictable as the objective always is. In his roundabout geopolitical way, Chomsky is highly instructive on the subject, though I'd rather press readers onto Ibsen since that little matter of temperament is more to the point.

>>18240179
Satireman strikes again. The second paragraph is a little bit too obvious, though.

>>18240882
He really is that kind of figure and really you'd have to not have gone to university or actually read his works to think otherwise.

>>18230205
>Am I missing something?

No, there seems to be a systematic campaign on various sites to butcher his name and ignore the monumental works he's actually produced. It's really telling that most of this site only talk about his 'interviews', while they are at best a small peak into the mountain that are his works on linguistics, politics, history, science and philosophy which have utterly shaped the thought of the past century. When most discussion about him revolves around 'critiquing' out of context sound bite of the same topics over and over, while ignoring some of the most insightful and rigorous reasoning about subjects that are otherwise treated far more vaguely, it is very telling, in that it informs you they they do not want to approach his thought honestly and are in fact terrified of it, with the only tactic they can muster being the attempt to shoo you away form what they can't refute and can barely even deal with. Chomsky is an intellectual giant of a rare kind, and his enemies can only fight him by co-ordinating to act like he's an embarrassment.

>>18230205
He's definitely a hack, but/because I wouldn't call him a contrarian.
His takes are actually incredibly boring.

>>18241030
I think he's a contrarian for constantly defending scummy Communist regimes and dismissing criticism as being Western propaganda.

>>18230486
>He once said trump is worse than Hitler
>He also said the Cambodian genocide never happened
Source?
>He probably did some good things but overall he is just a bad person
Literally everyone is a bad person. Our view of what is a good person is simply if the person can follow social norms, which isn't a good indicator at all.

>donald trump is the most evil politician in human history because... he just is okay!

>more evil than every single world leader today including north korea and israel
>more evil than ghenghis khan who killed 40,000,000 and poured lead down peoples' throats
>more evil than the meme tyrants of the 20th century like h*tler and stalin

chomsky is an absolute buster for coming down with TDS and shilling for biden or "our democracy"

>>18231463
Unironically Harris is one of the few people who I think is the most honest and least dogmatic out of anyone who makes a living off of speaking about politics.

Can someone tell even one interesting advancement in linguistics he's made?

Lol Chomsky is 92 years old. I don't understand people who think he's the devil just because he was wrong on some things, or has contradicted himself. You try not saying something wrong for just one day, let alone 92 years. It's really impressive that he still speaks coherent things at his age.

>>18241291
>>He also said the Cambodian genocide never happened

>Source?

https://chomsky.info/19770625/

>>18242842
Nobody "thinks he is the devil because he was wrong on some things." Stupid post anon.

Seeing Chomsky denounce Donald Trump as worse than Hitler was pretty funny. Trump Derangement Syndrome truly is magical.

>>18230236
is this post supposed to be ironic and self-aware that it's dogmatic and closeminded or is this creature truly sincere?

>>18230241
>The media, things I've seen online
see "Manufacturing Consent"

>>18233584
>>18239478
and thus the Chomsky copypasta was born

>>18233633
>communists basically our children and all they want is a kindergarten teacher to calm them down and talk softly and be a comfy gentle old person
this is correct
t. communist who refuses to admit that Engels was right.

>>18243810
I am that poster, and if you want me to answer that question, you're going to have to eviscerate me.

>>18233633
probably got approached by the CIA to write a limited hangout

>>18230205
Chomsky used to be good, but now he's pro-establishment and is a broken record in many respects. He lost his edge so to speak.

>>18235169
>Ross Ulbricht, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange
none of them are theorists?
if a law-abiding academic disappears or is killed by the state, that's too much for most people. If a whistleblower or drug kingpin goes the public is more accepting that the state got them.

>>18230950
>he has no substance
>haven't read any of his books

His interviews have plenty of insight, you retards can't handle anything because "muh lefty boogeyman"

/lit/ is a cesspool

>>18230205
He's faux-rebellious and so it comes off as really sighworthy when he pretends he is anything but the establishment.

Same thing that happened to Christoper Hitchens, he got a seat at the table. He went from an outsider to an insider, and the independent critical thought from his youth is all but gone now.

>>18231593
>>18234610
Have you read this article fully or seen his response? He makes a good and factual case for why the deaths were exaggerated, in part due to incompetence and in part due to political motives as well.

>>18231807
He actually talks about local governments with a more direct democracy-like approach, which right wing traditionalist larpers actually could agree on (as so do I, a different poster than the one you were talking with) since it prioritizes close communities instead of globalist governments.

he's in a favour of a two state solution and trying to push since long, he's doing this because he's a jew and enabler of Israel because he knows it wont change anything

I hate sam harris so much, what a fucking pseud. I dislike chomsky but have some respect for him. Not for harris

Did someone say chomsky?

>>18247786

Was about to post this lmfao. Chomsky is controlled OP. He fucking works for MIT and gets all the press so people don't read real leftist criticism like Parenti.

>>18246313

>>18233584
the second I saw "indeed" I stopped reading and based on account of it

>>18247856
He’s just a linguist nerd, but you seethe because he dunks on Leninism.