/lit/ - Literature

/lit/ leans somewhat more to the left than the rest of the stormfaggery that is the rest of 4chan.

i like him because universal grammar is fascinating

Understanding Power is a top-tier book that everyone should read at least once.

He is disliked by many here for different reasons than the rest of 4chan

>>3367341
Care to explain? I assume it has more to do with his work in linguistics than politics.

>>3367345

His work in linguistics has inspired a decades-long setback in the US, to be sure. But his politics, though pretty informed, are usually less than rigorous and his approach is often polemic as fuck. He can't really into philosophy or sociology.

As a thinker he is bancrupt; he defended Pol Pot and still hones the same old course of supporting every gang of cannibals as long as they are brown. The people who adore him on facebook are potheads shouting slogans they don't understand whenever they're not busy with an orgy.

>>3367368

You're mostly right. Why do you have to be such a fucking idiot?

Linguistics Good
Politics Bad

I think this is the /lit/ consensus.

>>3367373
I just like rustling your jimmies, intellectual habitus.

>>3367376

>/lit/ consensus

Good one. Worth a chuckle.

Linguistics Outdated
Politics Half Right

>>3367390

>rustling your jimmies

An attempted continuation of said?

Irony died in the 90s, pal.

>>3367394

>Linguistics Outdated
>Politics Half Right

Enlightening

>>3367395
>Irony died in the 90s, pal.
*in the 390s BCE.

He's an "anarchist" that supports the welfare state because he thinks government tyranny is necessary to prevent "corporate tyranny" aka businesses offering you a service for a cheap price.

>>3367395
Irony in the arts is a vicious circle out of which we have yet to escape

>>3367413

I know it's still early in the day, but that was the dumbest thing I've read since I woke up. This may hold true for the rest of the day.

>>3367418
I agree, Chomsky is pretty dumb.

As an Israeli I don't like the fact that he supports the eradication of Israel, the home of the Jewish people and sides with terrorists.

>>3367415

It's not something you escape, and that's not what I meant.

>>3367427
As a Heidegerrian Jew, I support the terrorists.

>>3367446
What does Heidegger have to do with your support for child killers?

>>3367427
Your country is a cesspit now.

>>3367464
It would be great if 20% of our population weren't Arabs that whine about oppression while their living standards keep on rising.

>>3367456
I bet that middle girl grew up to be a babe. She's got some facial aesthetics.

>>3367456
>what does Heidegger have to do with Jews

Oh, nothing...forget I mentioned it.

>>3367464
Funny coming from a presumed American who wallows in hedonistic filth.

Long live Israel, long live the Jewish people!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjfFpFW9OdA

>>3367471
Who are you voting for this election?

>>3367500
>implying ideological wankery is any better than hedonistic filth

pft

>>3367413
>implying our airwaves and public roads aren't riddled with corporate propaganda
>implying large corporations don't use underhanded monopolizing practices to screw over small businesses and other competition
>implying many health insurance agencies aren't greedy motherfuckers who will bleed the poor of their money until they get sick, then look for any excuse to abandon them to die
>implying corporate lobbies don't buy their way into almost every legislative issue with little to no regard for the welfare and the will of the people
Corporate tyranny's already here, comrade.

>>3367510
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_(Israel)

>>3367500
>presumed American
What an utter fucking retard you are.

I dislike his ideas about a Language Module, but he's an incredibly nice person that has consistently bent over backwards (at least in his Ling work) to make himself accessible to those that are curious. He's a good speaker, and he's been in the field for so long that sometimes I find his opinion insightful.

Just last week, I was reading one of his old "transcribed interview books", and he was talking about the psychological reality of the phoneme, in response to Sapir's work on the topic. He rightly pointed out that the concept of what makes something psychologically real should be under question. If Sapir can find a regular phonological rule that applies across the board to a given language, is it proof of phonemes? If it isn't, why to we instead turn to external evidence of speaker impressions (in this case, the silent-but-articulated codas in either Sarcee or Blackfoot, I don't remember).

That was tangential, but as an academic I think you really couldn't ask for anything more and I'l be sad when he dies. I'm completely theoretically opposed to him/any GIMF (being an Exemplar Theorist primarily), and the whole syntax thing and the MP was a nightmare for my undergrad.

I think he gets unfair treatment from ignorant people that want to seem smart and say "LLOLOLL HOW DOES UG EXPLAIN X, Y, G" when they have a blatant misunderstanding of what UG or the language module actually look like.

>Heideggerian Jews
As for Heideggerian Jews there's one I know - Hannah Arendt. She didn't support any terrorists but she did defend certain a nazi academic while laying the blame (along with insults in her personal letters) on the Galitsian Ghetto jews.
There's little room for terrorism in the moral philosophy of a German burgher twit from Koenigsberg, though.

>>3367540
>voting for literal Fascists

>>3367510
it is a sockpuppet. and it's inane

>so irrelevant

Why do America presidents have to pledge allegiance to Israel before they can be elected?

>>3367335

I hate Chomsky with a white-hot passion for ruining linguistics, setting back the science for 60 or more years.

I hope he dies and goes to hell.

(Couldn't care less about his political ideologies, though; he sounds reasonable enough, though I haven't paid any attention to his political ramblings.)

>>3367718
>linguistics
>science

>>3367731
>implying it isn't

i know little about his linguistics. Concerning his politics, i would say it's great of him that he brings out some leftist ideas, but it annoys me that he's an anarchist that bashes the soviet union with every chance he gets while applauding chavez

>>3367746
The Soviet Union was Fascist.

>>3367752

"lol"

>>3367756
>nationalism
>state capitalism
>personality cult
>imperialism
>not fascist

>>3367760
anarchist pls go

I think Chomsky is a brave tireless individual who has done a lot of valuable academic work, even if I disagree with him about some things.

>>3367760

yes god forbid we actually examine the successes and failures of Actually Existing Socialism instead of brushing it off for more useless trot navel-gazing

>>3367773
Nothing I have posted has anything to do with anarchism.

>>3367778
>implying it has ever existed

When Chomsky is spot on, he is spot-fucking-on. Video related.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8

>>3367783
i apologize if you're not an anarchist, but this type of criticism is usually leveled by anarchists and LeftComms (i assume in good faith that you are not a trotskyist).

Can anyone tell me why his linguistic views/actions are so bad? I genuinely don't know anything about that, only his politics.

>>3367796
what u got against anarchism, statist fag?

>>3367801
Not bad, per se. Just severely outdated at this point in time.

>>3367806

Nothing against anarchism really. Just anarchists, who are usually either assholes or just unfortunately have their heads up their assholes.

Malatesta is too popular amongst them. Gustav Landauer is not popular enough.

I have never actually read him.

But I like listening to his early debates, specially those where he spoke about things now known to be true like the illegal bombing of Laos and the CIA overthrowing democracy in South America and people acted like he was a crazy conspiracy theorist.

>>3367756
They were definitely fascist, bro. Especially from Stalin onward. Far-right practices masquerading beneath a thin veneer of far-left doctrine.
>Captcha: ewpoldi cravings
>eww /pol/ die

>>3367842
Since Fascism didn't have an economic consensus and after Stalin the Soviet Union became more and more liberal in the economy, this is half right.

Kruschev Lied, Socialism Died

>>3367563
I wish they were more secular, but they're the best choice at the moment.

maybe don't live in an insane settler state

>>3367876
Why not vote for Lieberman's party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yisrael_Beiteinu

>>3367884
>Economic liberalism

That's the main reason.

>>3367815
But how so?

>>3367339
>implying /lit/ isn't one of the most right-wing boards on 4chan

Why post photos of Jewish children?

Why are nationalists such idiots?

>>3367889

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balad_(political_party)

how about these dudes then

>>3367895

I fucking laughed.

>>3367760
>nationalism
indeed, korenisation in place of a great russian chauvinism. that's how we got belarusian and ukrainian and a good dozen of new turkic languages in place of the high jagatai.
>state capitalism
but there is no capital!
>personality cult
this term was first introduced in the ussr.
>imperialism
it's not an empire. the german reich sure was an empire, but the ussr? or murrica? if you mean lenin's term it isn't applicable either because there is no capital expanding lol
i'd rather come with social darwinism; it all was just an atavistic urge.
>not fascist
nope. nor was nazi germany or romania or, lol, anything. that metaphor was first used by the ussr as well and went into fashion.

>>3367897
>Arab political party

I want them out.

>>3367895
???

do you even go outside of /lit/

it's like a hitler youth picnic

>Israeli politics
pic related

>>3367731
The thing is -- it _was_ a science, a legitimate, honest-to-goodness science before Chomsky ruined it!

That's precisely the problem -- your view of linguistics is already tainted by Chomsky, who shittied it up and turned it into a joke.

And, to add insult to injury, most Americans aren't even aware that it could (and was!) be different.

(Thankfully, Chomsky is less of a sacred cow in Europe, so European linguistics is in a somewhat healthier state.)

>>3367896
Because they are Israel's future, but unfortunately Arabs are taking over thanks to the political left. Soon the the home of the Jewish people will have Shariah Law unless we breed faster and expand settlements.

>>3367930

Fuck off you Zionist piece of shit.

The sooner you backwards fucks on both sides of the aisle embrace globalism the sooner Arab and Jewish children won't be lying dead in the streets you fetishize so dearly. You are the cancer killing human society. Go fuck yourself squarely in your cherry puckered rose.

>>3367896
it's just a rather silly attempt at sock-puppetry by the /pol/fags.

>>3367930
>>3367945
and now you're talking to yourself?

>>3367945
The Jews tried to live the international life, spread across many countries, and how did that work for us? Genocide after genocide. Now we have finally established a home for the Jewish people to live in safety, only to be slowly pushed out by Arab savages who breed like dogs.

>HURR IM THE BABY MUNCHING ZOG
gb2pol, faggot.

Sometimes I feel like Israelis live in their own little worlds completely divorced from reality.

>>3367801
>Can anyone tell me why his linguistic views/actions are so bad? I genuinely don't know anything about that, only his politics.

Four main points:

1. He forced 'transformational grammar' into the academic community, making it for some reason the only alternative. Then we tried to make it work for 60 years -- and it turns out it is bunk, it just doesn't work. :(

2. His idea of 'universal grammar'. Since formal grammars don't work (see #1 above) he came up with the unscientific idea of 'universal grammar', a sort of magic, untestable, unfalsifiable entity that was supposed to make 'transformational grammar' work. This ended up making linguistics into a bizarre philosophical kind of navelgazing, when it was a legitimate science before Chomsky. :(

3. Because of 'universal grammar' empirical methods -- you know, actually testing your hypotheses in the real world, the whole point of science -- is shunned in linguistics departments.

4. To make 'universal grammar' work, Chomsky needed to take a hardline 'nativist' stance -- the idea that language (unlike all the _other_ cognitive functions of the brain) is controlled by a special _genetically determined_ machine in the brain. There is absolutely _no_ evidence for this, but academics take it on faith, axiomatically. (But see #3, they dispensed with things like 'evidence' anyways.) The problem with nativism is that it gives support and an air of legitimacy some very weird and dangerous social and political movements. (Science is not meant to be like this!)

Chomsky's influence on the scientific community is absolutely toxic and destructive. He is the American version of Lysenko. (Look it up.)

>>3367970
it's ok now, get back to /pol/.

>>3367982
What does /pol/ have to do with this conversation?

>Lysenko
what a contrieved (look it up) metaphor (look it up!). I feel like Vavilov (look it up!!) for pointing that out.

>>3368006
it was specially created for your internal conversations with the imaginary jew.

>>3368006
>thread about chomsky turns into israel thread

yes, what about /pol/?

>>3368024
There haven't really been any /pol/ posts in this thread, unless you're referring to the anti-nationalist ones? That's hardly /pol/

>>3367756
yep, most commie states during the Cold War could be described as fascist states in perpetual state of emergency (war economy, up to 25% of GDP)

communism is strictly defined by its inventors, calling USSR communist is like calling GDR or DPRK democratic

>>3368045
prescriptivist bullshit

His books are really narrow and preachy. I liked Manufacturing Consent but I'm trying to read "How The World Worlds" and it's basically just an attack and a list of American imperial actions.

Not very enlightening, just an old man being angry.

>>3367974
>He is the American version of Lysenko.
nigga pls

>>3368045
But they are democratic. All you can say is "my democracy is better than yours."

>>3368054

preachy, but useful

>>3368007
If you know anything about the state of linguistics (in America at least), then you'd realize that no, it is _not_ contrived, it is spot-on.

Sorry for insulting your intelligence, but this is an anonymous image board, in a thread about 'the Joos'. I can't rely on people here knowing about the history of science in the 20th century.

>>3368060
North Korea doesn't resemble a Democracy in any way.

>>3367906
I sincerely hope you are trolling, for your own good. You are dangerously close to going full-retard.

>>3368063
The curriculum cannot be too different from what we're learning here in Heidelberg

>>3368067

le trot face

>>3367955
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMJ4TYXDKLc

>>3368060
why would you call one-party state with 2-3 totally artificial, instrumental other parties democratic?

>>3368067
eloborate.
>>3368064
And it's not Korea either?
What is your platonic ideal of being properly Korea?

>>3368078

because democracy and parliamentary politics are not the same thing

>>3368075
You really gotta hand it to the Jews, they are propaganda masters.

>>3368084
What you are doing is giving language actual, real life manipualtive powers. Language doesn't have them. It's all in your head. You don't manipulate matter by saying words.

His linguistics are obviously a mess and he's like five decades behind the actual methods of resisting capitalism, but his arguments are really great for steamrolling conservatives. They don't even know what's happening.

>>3367974
This is an incredible ignorant viewpoint. While I don't disagree with you completely, there's some things you're totally wrong about.

1. Moderately true. However, no other alternatives haven't worked, either.

2. This is not the 70s. Chomskian syntax is now about a "Language Module", and while I personally believe its posited to keep syntacticians in tenure, it's not "magic, untestable, unfalsifiable, etc." Right now, it's generally accepted by its adherents that it's a more advanced/specific portion of the brain that can and does exist in myriad animal species, and what makes it uniquely human is language's ability to be recursive. (Recursion being absolutely testible, and not yet found in any non-human species).

3. This is the stupidest thing. What shit department are you in without any science in it? Fuck, I spend most of my life in the phonetics lab. I spent 9 hours yesterday running subjects.

Get out of the theoretical fields (syntax/phonology/historical) and into the scientific ones (phonetics/acoustics/socio/psycho/etc).

4. See point 2. Chomsky's a nativist, yes, but not everybody agrees with him. In fact, most of the literature I've read in the last 10 years, especially in acquisition studies, is about generalized learning processes, and not a modular theory at all.

You sound like a first-year undergrad with an intro class under your belt talking about things you don't understand.

I dislike chomsky. The arguments from the Minimalist Program don't sway me and don't have the explanatory adequacy I feel is necesary for a theory of language. But, as I said earlier, all other theories are shit at this to.

Show me a framework that adequately explains English Do-insertion. I would be so happy.
(non-linguists - why do we say "I like apples" but we have to put 'do' in negative constructions "I DO not like apples.")

>>3368101
If capitalism is so unsustainable and evil, why do commies try to hard to overthrow it? Won't it ruin itself?

His linguistic stuff was interesting if not widely attacked.

>>3368114

>capitalism isn't ruining itself
>2008 never happened, la la la la

Enter reality. Read more!

>>3367666
>Jewish Obama
>post ends in 666
>mySides.jpeg

>>3368125
I asked a question. Why the emphasis on forcing a revolution and violently overthrowing capitalism if it is unsustainable and will supposedly ruin itself?

>>3368114
no, it'll ruin the whole world with it

>>3368052
You fool, don't you see the consequences of your irrational stance? By empowering words without any relation to reality you give agents magical powers of controlling reality with their words:
invading other country? welp, let's just call it Making Peace™, problem solved
genociding other nation? welp, lets just call it Saving Earth for Greater Good™
lying? welp, let's just call it Truth Telling™
war? let's call it Peace™
poor? let's call it Prosperous™

if Kin Il Sung called his state Non-aggresive, Forever-prosperous Democratic Republic of Earth Loving Space Visitors would it make any of those properties indisputably true?

>>3368114
It is crumbling... Half the fucking Capitalist world is in ruins and the other half is only getting on well because they don't fucking care to give right to the working class (China etc...)

>>3368130
Who's emphasizing "forcing" a revolution?

>>3368094
Men are much more apt at manipulating matter than the mute apes. What are you trying to say?

>>3368114

people live and suffer under it everyday! it seems awfully selfish to just tell our pinoy comrades to "wait it out" in some hellish sweatshop well we chill out on 4chan and wait for capitalism to expire

>>3368086
show me democracy without parliament
country that by democratic means determines itself to become one-party state stops being democratic the very second

>>3368138
China is gaining a middle class. But it is still Socialism; it's ruled by the worker's vanguard party and not by the overlapping interests of their capitalist class.

>>3368139
see:
>>3368137

According to Plato Somalia is the only real democracy.

>>3368141
no one, it's a strawman of self-deluding idiot with a death wish

ok, maybe some cranks actually promote revolution

>>3368170
There have definitely never been any communists who have tried to force revolution. For sure.

>>3368169
yes, Somalia existed first century b.c

go to bed, idiot

>>3368154

Ouch! yikes

>>3368154
China is very clearly state capitalist, you're fucking delusional. In this case, the capitalist class is synonymous with the government.

>>3368164
Yes. Kim Il Sung may as well call his state "Holy" as does the Pope. Then it will be holy. Or martian. For now it's a democratic people's republic modeled after many other such states in eastern europe.
China is also a people's republic and the GDR used to be a democratic republic. Such cases :)

Chomsky's stuff seems best in CS fields.

>>3368174
>There have definitely never been someone with your name that promoted genocide and incest
what's your point?

>>3368184
The fact that you think that's an equivalency is quite telling of the average communist IQ.

>>3368182
>democratic people's republic modeled after many other such states in eastern europe
you know nothing
stay stupid, it empowers me

>>3368183
Yeah. I've got a lot of CS friends that are still regularly referring back to his old work.

>>3368186
The fact that you don't think that's an equivalency is quite telling of the average communist IQ.

>>3368191
CFGs just flat out work for our discipline.

God I loved my concepts of programming languages class.

>>3368177
Plato invented this word; tis the worst ailment of a state. Happens after all authorities get murdered by the poor :)

>>3368170

just because its pointless for white dudes in canada/usa/etc. to try and create a revolution doesn't mean we can't support our comrades in nepal and the phillipines who are trying to do the same

Hit the nail on the head about sports:
http://youtu.be/Vz1nIHv6P6Q
If you wanna troll /sp/ then post the link above there and see their reaction

>>3368218
Why would one support anyone except themselves in their fight for power.
The only point and outcome of underprivileged's revolution is becoming the new "bourgeoisie".

If you think utopian egalitarianism is realistic you need a reality check.

>>3368190
And now you are reduced to incoherent insults :)

>>3368240

the objectivism thread is a couple pages back my guy

I hate EVERYBODY,
even OP

We should manufacture huilliotines and export them to the middle and far east. The world needs more bourgeois republics; study your historical materialism :)

>>3368195
IQ is a bourgeois concept derp

>>3368246
I know, I posted there several times:
>>3366836
>>3367904
>>3367879

why do you mention it?

I think you mistake being a realist for utopian daydreaming.

>>3368181
Sadly you do not have to be schooled in the tenets of Marxism to be allowed to reduce poverty and squalour as a businessman.
But socialism hasn't totally failed yet because their socialist activists occasionally rob this new wave of exploiter scum.

>>3368257

lel

>>3368273

>businessmen reduce poverty and squalor

Yeah, for themselves at the expense of everybody else.

>>3368290
>thinks wealth is a zero-sum game
>hasn't taken a basic econ class

>>3368290

damn, Jakarta looks so pretty and clean from this airport! ok time to fly back to england lol

>>3368290
That's what I'm saying. China should come to it's senses and take another great leap forward.

>>3368297
Because that worked great last time. How many millions died again?

Only an idiot can look at China and call it Socialist. Just because they call themselves like that, doesn't mean they are.

>>3368298

actually it worked out pretty good lol. the deathrates during the worst of the famine were equivalent to the average deathrate before the revolution

>>3368300

Is this the only thing you can say when socialisism fails?

"I-its n-not real socialism!!"

>>3368298
but at least it did feature exploitation
>>3368302
The Japanese occupation did crush capitalism a little, too.

>>3368302
Jesus fuck you're retarded. That's just flat-out wrong.

>>3368293
for all intents and purposes it's a negative sum game because of limited rescources as well as dying sun, dying unvierse

>>3368315
*didnt

>>3368306
it's not though
China isn't socialist
you're a moron for thinking otherwise

>>3368306
It doesn't fail. It is probably the most successful attempt so far since Hitler had crippled the USSR.

>>3368324
I don't think you know what socialist means. Most of EU is democratic socialist, you gonna cry now?

>>3368306
capitalists say the same thing.

>>3368332
ok you really don't know what socialist means

>>3368324
DPRK isn't a Democracy, PRC isn't Socialist, the sun ain't hot and dogs don't bark.

>>3368332
>Most of EU is democratic socialist
you seem like one of those guys who's going to tell me the US isn't capitalist

>>3367350
this

except can someone explain how he has set us back linguistically? what part of his research is so bad? i seem to remember someone describing him as VERY conservative as regards to linguistic theories

>>3368337
dogs with damaged vocal cords don't bark
suns differ in temperature, hot is a human arbitrary description
DPRK is not a democracy

>>3368327
deng xiaoping's rule is basically the best point for saying that the cultural revolution was Cool & Good and did not go nearly far enough

>>3368345
Passable too. I say it isn't capitalist because it currently is ruled by a few large corporations rather than by unpersonal capital.

>Noam Chomsky is one of the latest on the Left to fall under David Horowitz's guns. Horowitz's "The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky" appeared last fall, in two parts, in FrontPage Magazine. In a lot of ways, Chomsky deserves it. He has plenty of weaknesses and failings that Horowitz could have exploited mercilessly, had he so wished.

>For one thing, he has a tendency to play fast and loose with his sources. He often seems to be making it as hard as possible to look up his source for some assertion. In the past, I have read a paragraph in Deterring Democracy or the like, containing several statements about, say, U.S. ties to death squads in Central America. But instead of providing a separate citation for each item of fact, he footnotes the entire paragraph once, and then lists a dozen sources (or two) in the note. So unless the titles themselves provide sufficient contextual clues, it's necessary to look up all of them (several hours' work at the library) just to find out which source refers to which assertion. On top of that, many of his references are not to the primary source, but to some other work by Chomsky in which he cites the primary source. Worse yet, he sometimes cites his work like this: "See chapters three, five, and seven, in..." And if that were not bad enough, in some cases (albeit far from a majority), the original source doesn't explicitly say what Chomsky extracted as its import. It turns out that the statement footnoted in Chomsky's writing is not an actual fact from the original source, but Chomsky's characterization of the meaning of the original fact (which he doesn't actually quote). I think this last failing, in all fairness, reflects not so much intellectual dishonesty as sloppiness in distinguishing the bare facts from his reading of their significance; but it surely makes it a chore to check his work.

>>3368345

if you think the U.S. is capitalist than you are too ignorant to even warrant an explanation

> Far from the least of his shortcomings is intellectual inconsistency. He regularly comes under attack from anarchists and others on the libertarian left for his claims to be an anarchist, and the peculiarly statist nature of his "anarchism." In the past he has referred to the difference between his "goals" and "visions." His long-term vision is to abolish the state and devolve power to a federation of direct democracies. But since our society is dominated by concentrations of private power, it is necessary first of all to strengthen the power of the state to dismantle corporate power. So his immediate goal is to vastly increase federal power, under the control of "progressive" forces, to break the power of corporate tyrannies before the state can be allowed to wither away. I'm pretty sure another "anarchist" named Lenin had the same "vision" and "goals."

> But a central theme in Chomsky's work is the extent to which existing corporate capitalism depends on the state as a source of subsidies and cartelizing regulations; so it stands to reason that the cure for capitalism is not to strengthen the state, but to abolish it and let the free market destroy corporate power. Engels pretty aptly summed up the difference between anarchists and state socialists over a century ago: "They say abolish the state and capital will go to the devil. We propose the reverse." By this standard, Chomsky sounds a lot closer to Engels than to Bakunin.

>But Horowitz didn't attack any of these things. He preferred to attack a straw man. Although he made repeated reference to Chomsky's statements about the role of ruling class interests in U.S. policy, Horowitz didn't answer them. He simply characterized them. His method was to quote them outside of any context, in a "can you believe he actually said this?" tone, and then to denounce them as "unAmerican." The heretical statements, judged a priori to be outrageous, need not be refuted--just denounced. In Part Two of "Sick Mind," he responded to reader complaints that he hadn't actually answered Chomsky's arguments by dissecting a carefully selected handful of assertions. But almost every reference was to a Chomsky pronouncement in one of the Barsamian collections, What Uncle Sam Really Wants. The Barsamian interviews are not where you'd go if you wanted to see Chomsky's arguments fully developed, with documentation provided.

>>3368350
well, you won't hear obama going on a diatribe against protestantism, liberalism and all the founding fathers either :)

>>3368356
craig...

>>3368293

I don't think that, but even you would admit that in some areas of resource distribution it most certainly is.

> Horowitz comes across, to me anyway, as at least as disingenuous as Chomsky. I suspect the reason he failed to answer Chomsky on grounds of fact was that he knew he couldn't. For all the cloud of obfuscation that surrounds Chomsky's use of sources, a great deal of what he says about U.S. policy in the Third World--its support of death squads and right-wing dictators, and the role of corporate interests in formulating such policies--is heavily documented and hard to refute. It's one thing to answer a general pronouncement about the iniquity of U.S. power with an equally general counter-assertion about the virtue and altruism of U.S. policy. It's another to answer documentation on ties between the Atlacatl Battalion and the School of the Americas, or on United Fruit Company activities in 1954. To argue the facts with Chomsky might well undermine his simplistic Snidely Whiplash picture of U.S. motivation; but it would also risk, to a much greater extent, exposing as hogwash a centerpiece of neoconservative ideology--the benevolence of American empire.

> Which is an inelegant segue to my next point. Horowitz's faults are, more generally, the faults of the neoconservative movement as a whole.

if you want to read the rest go here: http://www.mutualist.org/id8.html

this was written by Kevin Carson, an anarcho-mutualist

>most of europe
>democratic socialist
except not fucking at all

you could say maybe social democrat though maybe (spain, germany, nordics, etc)...which is non-revolutionary

democratic socialism wants to violently overthrow

>tfw most of murkkans never learnt what socialism is apart from cold war era propaganda

i feel for you, murrfats

>>3368371
;_;

thankfully the internet is here though, so a select few of us can finally research to our hearts content and ACTUALLY know what all these movements are and what these terms mean without them being twisted by "modern American" perceptions

>>3368371
>implying
I learned on my own though
the definition I was taught was basically "authoritarian welfare state"

>>3368370

social democracy is basically dead everywhere outside of norway, and even there who knows how long it will last

>>3368377
I'd say any democratic country with public health care and social security is social democracy

>>3368374
Earnestness on my /lit/!?

>>3368371
>>3368378
To illustrate.

>>3368306

See Chomsky's response to this, the definitions of Marxian Socialism and how in all these "socialist" states will still see the state capitalist mechanism of ontological inversion of commodities as a means of social reproduction over workers and you will understand why you are 100% wrong.

I'm serious, what you are saying has zero truth in it and there are historical reasons for why you think (incorrectly) what you do.

>>3368382
if we go by that definition then yeah you're right, but i think we need to be more rigorous than that

>>3368352
>DPRK is not a democracy
your arbitrary descission. :)
As to dogs, there are multiple archaic races that don't bark but, rather, sing. There are also multiple Koreas. South Korea, similiarily, isn't a democracy but a republic. And it's been a republic during the rule of Syngman Rhee.

>>3368377
>mfw i am planning on moving to norway
JEG VIL GÅ TIL NORGE! JAAAAA

last bastion of social democracy

>>3368382
but social democracy is WAAAYYYY more than that

>implying ingerlund is social democracy
>implying Italy is social democracy
maybe at one point, before Neo-Liberalism took over

>>3368392
poland is both republic and a democracy
your move

>>3368386
>Earnestness on my /lit/!?
y-y-yes? what do you mean by that though?

:3

>>3368408
Poland is a reczpospolita. It's distinguishing feature are terrible roads.
There are two Kingdoms, Saudi Arabia and the UK which to hold elections. Should they be called DPRUK and DPRSA?

>>3368418
i feel like im talking to a bot

Just popping in to remind you that he's a bloodthirsty monster who has publicly supported Mao (including denying both the death toll and intentions of the Great Leap Forward), the USSR (including holodomor denial), the Khmer Rouge, Castro, the Serbs during the Kosovo war, for some reason the Hutus during the Rwandan genocide, and Chavez. For some reason he pretends to dislike Stalin, no clue why.

>>3368473
damn, chavez ????? i had no idea....

>>3368444
it is a Roczpospolita
just as Libya was a People's Jamaheriya

>>3368473

Wonderful, this thread didn't have quite enough ad hominem already.

Perhaps for an encore you can claim that he is unpatriotic, too?

>>3368473
>For some reason he pretends to dislike Stalin, no clue why
Must be Stalin's article on linguistics.

>>3368351
See my (totally ignored post) here: >>3368109

The context is this... Back in the 50s/60s, psychology was gaining traction. Specifically, Skinner's psychology. Skinner published a paper about how a child learning to speak was a purely reward-based task, and Chomsky wrote a counterpiece that utterly lambasted him. Chomsky took what's called a "principles and Parametres" approach that treats syntax (how we put words together IE word order) as a computer program of sorts, the hardware set in place and the "software" (experience of our mother tongue) adapting itself to create a given language. everyone has the same hardware, but the software differs.

The point is, the Skinner/Chomsky fight cause a huge divide between the two disciplines, and Ling went with Chomsky and his theoretical P&P framework, while the psychologists continued to stay experiment-based.

So, Chomsky, in a way "set back" linguistics a ways by divisively splitting the study of language away from the study of mind. However, that argument has become basically irrelevant in the last 10-15 years, as syntax has (outside of, of course, the discipline itself of syntax and certain schools of historical linguistics).

Linguists don't really hate Chomsky, though admittedly there's a lot of 'theory burnout' for Chomskian syntax. The stuff Chomsky's actually concerned with at this point require basic assumptions about language that are pretty minority views outside of the US/MIT/McGill right now.

>>3368489
>US
good thing im going out of the country for my degree then

>McGill
oh..i was thinking of maybe studying linguistics there...fuck well i guess quebec is out then ;_;

>>3368489
also since you are a linguist could you answer a question about the discipline? I am thinking of doing social anthropology or linguistics as my degree, and if i did linguistics i would want to do social linguistics

is it very difficult to get into that specific field? what are the fun but still relatively lucrative bits of linguistics? hard to get a job preserving dying languages too...

>>3368489
the piece by Skinner is a book called "Verbal Behavior", and Chomsky's response is "The Case Against B.F. Skinner" for the curious.

They're both pretty interesting if you're into the history or the context at all. IT's amazing how much of the views of the soft (and hard) sciences are purely personality-based.

>>3368536
>IT's amazing how much of the views of the soft (and hard) sciences are purely personality-based.
sounds similar to Marx vs Bakunin

ill check it out definitely though

>sounds similar to Marx vs Bakunin
I'd presume Bakunin didn't have any contact to Marx. He sure met with Wagner and Herwegh, but MARX?

>>3368530
It all comes down to the school, really. Sociolinguistics is quite big on the east coast USA (Labov being the father of it all, 'natch). It's also huge in New Zealand and non-UK Europe (Ireland, iirc, is into sociophonetics). In Canada it's a little trickier, since socioling gets tied really deeply with field methods. So if you're into indigenous languages you're in heaven, but if you'd rather look at something else it's a bit harder. If you're into dying languages, come on out to UVic or UBC.

>lucrative bits of linguistics
Speech Pathology and Audiology. Those are the only lucrative bits and most "real" linguists pretend SLPs and Auds aren't real linguists anyways. It might be worth the 6-figure income straight outta university for you, though.

The other place where the money is is in computational ling. But look into getting an undergrad in CompSci and wait until your masters for Ling if you want to go that route.

Other than that, it's not really "lucrative" in traditional ways, but linguists are in demand in a lot of other sectors because of their research and/or language skills.

As for me, I'm very happy with my $40k salary as a grad student, and will be happy with my $90k salaray as a professor when I get there. The job market's crap but I'm (honestly) doing something I really love and I feel like I'm actually discovering shit when my stats work out and it feels kind of good to have your name appear in journals and citations

>>3368561
>I'd presume Bakunin didn't have any contact to Marx.
Google is your friend.

So is Skinner considered cool again, or?

>>3368515
McGill's the top school in Canada for Ling. If you can get in there, do it, because whatever else you do afterword's your resume's going to the top of the pile.
But yes, it's basically MIT-Canada Campus.

>>3368561
>no contact with Marx
HUH?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#Critique_of_Marxism

also lel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#Anti-semitism
>Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere -- commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it .... Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, closely and intimately connected with another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well -- this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation -- which speculates upon the labor of people -- will always find the means for its existence .... In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack-regime, under which the workingmen and the workingwomen, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of the drum. The privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks.

>>3368585
>But yes, it's basically MIT-Canada Campus.
>not the Harvard of Canada

>>3368567
>It's also huge in New Zealand and non-UK Europe (Ireland, iirc, is into sociophonetics).
AWESOME since those are the places i want to go to (New Zealand or Ireland or Norway/other social democrat europe)

>east coast of usa
meh, i'd like to leave the USA but i guess if i have to stay here the NE would be cool

cont.

>Speech Pathology and Audiology and Comp. Sci
but those are boring ;_;

>Other than that, it's not really "lucrative" in traditional ways, but linguists are in demand in a lot of other sectors because of their research and/or language skills.
yes exactly what i am talking about!

>As for me, I'm very happy with my $40k salary as a grad student, and will be happy with my $90k salaray as a professor when I get there.
yeah a researcher and then a professor sounds like a perfect path for me, the money is not so bit an issue (i meant lucrative in a reaserch/job opportunity sense as opposed to monetary sense)

>The job market's crap
where are you located?

> but I'm (honestly) doing something I really love and I feel like I'm actually discovering shit when my stats work out and it feels kind of good to have your name appear in journals and citations
that sounds fucking fantastic, i want to be you

>>3368585
>McGill's the top school in Canada for Ling. If you can get in there, do it, because whatever else you do afterword's your resume's going to the top of the pile.
okay if i go for canada ill try for mcgill then

>>3368561
bakunin actually wrote an introduction to the russian edition of the manifesto
he hated marx, but saw the revolutionary potential

>>3368586
>In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack-regime, under which the workingmen and the workingwomen, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of the drum. The privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks.

It's scary and depressing how spot on that was.

>>3368611
>>3368567
would studying social anthropology undergrad be okay if i wanted to do sociolinguistics at masters level? keep in mind i would study in non-UK europe in all likelihood

and how are you getting 40k as a grad student!?!?

>>3368621
;_; and noone listened

disregarding his anti-semitism (outside his critique of the rich and people with the power, i just have a problem with the religious hate aspect) he was pretty fuckin on the money

>>3368630
Yeah, you can pretty much swap "Jews" for "bankers", and you get the same truth without the religious hate.

>>3368640
exactly

>>3368640
the crooked deals and international speculation of soviet bankers isn't quite as scary as a prospect. It lacks the nose.

>>3368620
He wrote for the Teleskop and knew all the important Russian people in person but I doubt he knew Marx. Having exposed him as a dirty money-grubbing Jew tyrant rather prooves he didn't read or know the man.

>>3368663
>However, Bakunin also wrote of meeting Marx in 1844 that:

> As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is, incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical observations... He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right.[37]

>Bakunin found Marx's economic analysis very useful and began the job of translating Das Kapital into Russian. In turn Marx wrote of the rebels in the Dresden insurrection of 1848 that "In the Russian refugee Michael Bakunin they found a capable and cool headed leader."[38] Marx wrote to Engels of meeting Bakunin in 1864 after his escape to Siberia saying "On the whole he is one of the few people whom I find not to have retrogressed after 16 years, but to have developed further."[39]

>>3368669
they only hated each other later, with the fight in the second (?) international

>>3368630

Anarchism is only useful as a critique of authoritarian Marxism.

>>3368700

First... the second was the social-democratic one (Bernstein et al)

>>3368702
thats pretty much as how i use it, unless i am talking about dual power/counter economics or mutualism which is very much legitimate as a movement

such is life as a theoretical/idealist anarchist, but a social democrat in practice

>>3368712
maybe you are just a social democrat

>>3368719
no...an anarcho-mutualist (non-revolutionary/pacifist, pro-free market, anti-capitalist)

which in poractice basically means i am okay with social democracy while we transition to anarchism, i think anyways

>>3368712

Yeah, I'm something like that as well.
Probably I'm an old-school Social Democrat (before the SPD/Labour/French Socialism faggotry)

>>3368723
>pro-free market, anti-capitalist
uhhhhh

inevitably you all will grow up and drop the name-badging but for now, lit, endur

>>3368727
its not a contradiction, if you dont understand why maybe look up mutualism some time

basically we think in a true free market people will naturally drift away from real/legitimate/true capitalism provided that noone is being authoritarian and forcing people to do shit (crony/corporate capitalism)

>>3368724
>mfw modern day social democracies
>MY FUCKING FACE WHEN "THIRD WAY" ECONOMICS

fuck you neo-liberals, only the nordics and a few others have been spared from your faggotry

>>3368755
i honestly can't imagine a more impotent ideology than this. you are going to drift into milquetoast libertarian shit if you ain't careful

>>3368767
huh? i dont follow

read more if you dont understand, which i am thinking you dont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson

>>3368760
"spared" is a little generous. the only real social democracy left is norway and it should still be slagged for participation in imperialism, etc

>>3368767

Capitalism doesn't have copyright over the idea of modes of production interacting within a free market. Just so you are aware.

>>3368774
what about iceland? and switzerland?

and yeah true social democrats in norway are pretty pissed at their participation in afghanistan and such

>>3368778
this

>>3368370
Democratic socialism wants to violently overthrow? Achieving socialism through a democratic process is the basic tenet of it. It's in the fucking name.

this is a good article by a gay dutch twink
http://mccaine.org/2012/06/19/death-agony-of-social-democracy/

>>3368567
Compling is cool beans.

>>3368784
democratic socialism is a pretty meaningless description. but democratic could just refer to the system he wants to achieve, not their means of achieving it

>>3368803
but booooorrriiiiing

who wants to sit at a computer all day?

>>3368805
this

>>3368805
I honestly always read that it meant through the democratic process, but maybe I haven't looked into it enough.

Why are socialists so racist?

>>3368809
that would be social democracy

>>3368810
>national socialists
>actual socialists

>marxist-leninists (che)
>not retarded

try again

>>3368811
Social democracy retains the capitalist mode of production, while providing a welfare state and regulations on the market. But it allows private ownership of production.

>>3368816
yes and? it is non-violent non-insurrectionary revolution through the democratic process

>>3368818
I would say that's true, but it's not revolution, it's reform because it doesn't uproot the entire system. Socialism implies worker control of the modes of production.

>>3368818
social democracy is not revolutionary in the slightest. hell its not even socialism

>>3368823
yeah reformist, my bad

DTISC

>>3368827
Thank you.

>>3368827
see
>>3368831

>>3368831
whether its revolutionary or not doesn't change the fact that its just run-of-the-mill capitalism with cool bells and whistles attached. social democratic countries still engage in exploitation of the developing world, and the continuing presence of the capitalist class means those bells and whistles can and will be taken away when the oppurtunity arises (see: literally everything happening in europe)

>>3368838

>>3368838

>i can't think and rely on jpgs to do my arguing for me

Anything else?

I wouldn't say I hate him, exactly, but as a political commentator he's... not exactly out of his depth, but he's unwilling to embrace complexity and advance more than moralistic, "side with the victim, by which I mean anyone but the US and its allies" arguments.

As a linguist, he's obviously the Einstein of the discipline.

>>3368919
And I say this as a committed leftist.

Sorry for the wait, I was in class (we read some Pisoni papers from the 70s. Neat)
>>3368623
Each semester (my school runs 3 per year, fall, winter, and spring/summer) I get
1.0 unit GA(N)T = $8100
GRS = $2000
QEII = $3600
= $41,100/year

GA(N)T is a graduate assistantship (non-)teaching, basically my salary for being a TA or an RA. I usually do 0.5 GAT and 0.5 GANT each semester. If I end up teaching an intro course by myself this summer, that's 1.5 units.
The GRS is the graduate research scholarship, because I'm in a thesis-based program.
The QEII is the Queen Elizabeth II scholarship, based on GPA, publications, conferences, that kind of thing.

Sorry if that was TLDR

>>3369107
I forgot to add, that you can do your undergrad in anything and still enter an MA program in linguistics. It would help if you take some ling and/or language classes in your undergrad. Another thing most departments looks for is conference experience, since its kind of the bread and butter of ling (compared to, say, pure anthropology, where publications and field work are valued more highly). Though, actually, field work is a great thing too, depending on the school you're applying too.

Just prepare to have your GPA raped if you've never taken a phonology or a syntax class, and its a requirement for your MA program.

>>3368919
quod est licet Trueman non est licet random dissidents? He is an american; of course he should criticise America. That said, I don't agree with him but I have to confess that the people broadcast on VOA in my native tongue do not differ at all in depth or strategy. That's what makes them "radical". Be proud you can have a radical being a professor and getting broadcast from your own country rather than from abroad.
Here you can only afford to be "moderate" on fringe press and station or being an "intelligent conservative" in the mainstream press.

>>3368807
I would kill for that job.
I live for code.

...I'm an outlier here am I?

>>3368919
>As a linguist, he's obviously the Einstein of the discipline.
Fuck you. Just fuck you.

(Wait, what do you know about linguistics? Are you some kind of troll, deliberately trying to rustle up jimmies?)

Chomsky is a pretty cool guy eh sees the history of the 19th and 20th century for what it is and doesn't afraid of anything

>>3368838
>can't even spell gorilla warfare right.

>>3368479

moral = never trust a noam for advice

>>3369901

>>3369552
not on 4chan

GIYUS has raided this thread. Inform yourselves!
http://netherworld.wordpress.com/2006/11/12/ten-tips-for-dealing-with-giyus/

>>3369113
>I forgot to add, that you can do your undergrad in anything and still enter an MA program in linguistics.
well i would most likely be in Europe where the degree would be more specialized...would i still be able to do that route and be able to go from social anthro to linguistics at MA level?

>job
sounds great man, i really need to get my GPA up though so i can get all the nice scholarships and stuff (only like 3.25 or so right now)

> It would help if you take some ling and/or language classes in your undergrad.
will do, regardless of my final goals i am definitely going to take some linguistics classes

>do conferences and get some field work (and publish) if possible
kk

>Just prepare to have your GPA raped if you've never taken a phonology or a syntax class, and its a requirement for your MA program.
my body is ready

>>3367718
>for ruining linguistics, setting back the science for 60 or more years.
How did he do that?

At least 187 Jews and people of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize,1 accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2012, and constituting 36% of all US recipients2 during the same period.3 In the research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding world and US percentages are 27% and 39%, respectively. Among women laureates in the four research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 38% and 50%, respectively. Of organizations awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, 24% were founded principally by Jews or by people of half-Jewish descent. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.2% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)
Chemistry (33 prize winners, 20% of world total, 30% of US total)
Economics (29 prize winners, 41% of world total, 53% of US total)
Literature (13 prize winners, 12% of world total, 27% of US total)
Peace (9 prize winners, 9% of world total, 10% of US total)4
Physics (50 prize winners, 26% of world total, 37% of US total)
Physiology or Medicine (53 prize winners, 26% of world total, 39% of US total)

Can we all agree that Jews are the master race?

>>3370080
see
>>3368489

>>3370004

>inform yourselves
>wordpress

>>3370095
Some people speculate that because intelligence and Torah study were traditionally considered the ideal traits in a male, it functioned as a sort of religious eugenics.

>>3370095
>According to a study performed by Cambridge University called, "From Chance to Choice: Genetic and Justice," Ashkenazi Jews have a median IQ of 117. That’s 10 points higher than the “accepted” IQ of their biggest competition, Northeast Asia, and 20% higher than the global average
>
Not to brag or anything, but according to USA Today, “Ashkenazi Jews comprise 2.2% of the USA population, but they represent 30% of faculty at elite colleges, 21% of Ivy League students, 25% of the Turing Award winners, 23% of the wealthiest Americans, and 38% of the Oscar-winning film directors.”
>According to the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies, “Since 1950, 29% of the Oslo awards have gone to Ashkenazim, even though they represent only 0.25% of humanity. Ashkenazi achievement in this arena is 117 times greater than their population."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4098351,00.html

>>3370134
half ashkenazi/half irish reporting in

muh oppression
muh IQ

>>3370095
>>3370134

Why can't Jews into philosophy?

>>3370152
Jesus was the most influential philosopher of all time, and he was a Jew.

>>3370163

So after Jesus they stopped giving a fuck?

Seems awful telling.

>>3370167
Wittgenstein? Karl Marx? Derrida?

>>3370142
Hi-five. I am you.

>>3370152
uhhhh
wittgenstein
spinoza
husserl
popper
derrida
kripke
butler
can't be srs

>>3370179
>>3370171

>two decent philosophers in a pile of shit

Oh.

>>3370182
It can't be denied that they make up much more than 0.2%(their world population) of the field of philosophy.

if only the goys would accept their overlords without the need for trickery

>>3370187

And the Greeks? The Germans?

>>3370152

>implying jews can't into any and all branches of academia

You serious? They are some of the most endlessly gifted in that regard. Which is why a large portion of the world are less than indifferent towards them.

>>3370190
What about them? Their populations are much larger. Per capita Jews are easily the most prominent philosophers.

>>3370193

>Per capita Jews are easily the most prominent philosophers.

I'd love to see you substantiate this with some statistics.

saying jews aren't talented thinkers is like saying blacks aren't good at basketball and running

it just isn't true

>>3370196
http://www.jinfo.org/Philosophers.html

Go through the prominent philosophers since Spinoza and see for yourself if more than 0.2% of them are Jews. This isn't even taking into account religious philosophers who study the Torah.

>>3370174
brofist.jpg

>tfw celebrating hannukah and christmas while being brought up atheist

wut

>>3367427
JIDF pls go.

>>3367746
>Chavez
Chevez has been democratically elected three times in elections that international observers have praised for their transparency.

And Chomsky hasn't been a blind booster for Chavez. About a year ago, Chomsky criticized Chavez for infringing on the rights of the judiciary.

>>3370269
yeah it's easy to get elected when you're a demagogue

>>3370285
Yes, he addresses people's real concerns and aspirations not only in his rhetoric but also in his administration's policies. What a monster. Why doesn't he just cater to Washington and ignore his own people like he is supposed to?

>>3370285

if its so easy why dont you do it?

>>3370285
>elected

Wait, don't tell me that you believe those are actually legitimate elections and not just for show.

>>3370393
Please show me one report that argues that the elections in Venezuela were anything but free and fair.

>>3370287
>he addresses people's real concerns and aspirations not only in his rhetoric but also in his administration's policies

oh god my side

Even Shakespeare hated jews.