/lit/ - Literature

I've seen this before. It's like they're on completely separate planes. I hesitate to even call this a debate.

I think Foucault has a better point on human nature, but Chomsky's stance on revolutions and ideal society makes more ethical sense to me.

Well, as an American I have to say it was Chomsky who won.

>>4742325
This.

All they're really doing is talking past each other though.

They talk at cross-purposes until the end, and then neither of them wins or loses because their opinions have no ethical common ground. Foucault's way more engaging than Chomsky throughout, though.

>>4742315
nothing happens in this debate

>>4742337
yeah foucault is the sexiest philosopher amirite

Whoever won, We lost.

>>4742331
As s non-retarded American I have to say it was Foucault who won.

>>4742360
Actually the proletariat is the only winning class in history. It wins because it loses itself.

No one.
>>4742372
>non-retarded American
Oxymoron.

>>4742375
>implying we're proletarian

>>4742400
I know I am.

Seeing as Foucault died of ass-fisting AIDS and Chomsky is still alive and writing, I'd say Chomsky.

/pol/ was here

>>4742412
Chomsky gave two lectures at my uni in February and I missed it (I didn't even know about it). One was on linguistics and one on education. Did I miss anything good?

>>4742400
It's cool. I know you're just a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. Here. You can borrow my Mercedes until you get back on your feet.

>>4742421
You missed everything good.

CHOMSKY
?bald
?appears as cartoon
?antarctic syndic

FOUCAULT
?member of extreme A.I.D.S
?dead
?powerful grasping gestures

>>4742440
CHOMSKY
?crosses legs in feminine manner
?smirks at mention of Spinoza
?consumes the orange juice

Chomsky always won, he shit all over everything that faggot ever had to say.

>>4742451
Go to bed, Chomsky.

>>4742440

>beans are the next big thing
>I'd hesitate to category them comprehensively
>they will feed the world
>there are many sorts of beans

That's about how it went.

>>4742315

Chomsky duh...

The analytical American representing the new, v. The bourgeoisie Frenchman representing the old. It wasn't even a fair competition.

>>4742315

The host looks fucking terrible. Dutch people are always stupid.

foucault was talking on a different fucking level. people only think chomsky won because he's their level

How am I supposed to know when the better man is speaking French?

someone sum this up for me

i liked foucault's hand gestures and chomsky's glasses so its a tie imo

>>4744656

pretty much this

>>4742331
Well, as an Amerifat I have to say that the debate was bilingual and I don't feel like spending an hour switching between listening and reading subtitles, so I closed the window and the format won.

>dat orange juice
>dat young chomsky

I don't see how a new grid hides old information or represses it. Won't a new grid always gives a larger view compared to before?

>>4744706
This is how the Dutch wish you to react.

>>4744733
>Won't a new grid always gives a larger view compared to before?
Don't Elephants always get bigger?

>>4744656

You're right Foucault was talking on a different level. A first year liberal arts level.

<- This guy won.
Just look at his face, that is the face of a winner.

Why does Foucault hate the bourgeois? What's wrong with a bourgeois society?

>>4744783
he would later go on to become christopher hitchens, fyi

>>4742315
Man Foucault sweeps the floor with archaic-ass Chomsky.

>>4744787
It's built on phoniness and forced mannerisms.
At least the ancient Greek noble/trash class divide was based on the essence of humanity itself.

>>4742489
this, so much

also ... it reminds me a bit of the book / letter exchange of freud and einstein in which they discuss war, and why it exists. two intellectuals who don't really know fuck all about the issue at hand waxing philosophically.

what basis, what justification is there for these people to talk to us about ideals and morality and peace. they didn't do nuffin that really had an impact on the world, on the real world, on the people that live in it. philosophy is verbal chess for the intellectual middle class.

so yeah, both won, i guess, since the talk probably furthered both their reputation and intellectual street cred.

>>4744787

It created him.

This is an answer to both questions.

>>4744815
>essence
In a discussion typifying Foucault's ideas.

lol @ all the questions questioning chomsky's authenticity with MIT and him being proletariat.

in the 70´s the pilosohpers were a kind of rockstars?. it´s fucking weird...
well, chomsky is naive.
foucault have a way more agressive analysis of the human nature... a debate what chomsky never understand or never wanto to enter...
it´s like chomsky only focus in the ideal way and the process to make it, foucault question that ideal ends and chomsky keep talking about nothing...


>>4744783
he´s the winner, no doubt.

>>4744886
your english sucks

>>4742318
This is the only correct answer.
Chomsky: Language is innate!
Foucault: There are certain power structures within language use!
What the fuck? Not even the same topic.

>>4744904
You perceive them not to be the same topic, because you've not read French structuralism. Althusser is that way.

>>4744930
i want to smash your fucking face in

>>4742318
i think it's because chomsky was only pretending to know french and didn't get what the fuck was going on

>>4744957
u gettin mad nigga?

>>4744957
>reacting emotionally

must be weird to be so feminized

>>4744964
yes
>>4744966
no

>>4742315
At 30mins now...
And admittedly I am a bit of foucauldian.
But I think some of things Chomsky says are right.
There needs to be some kind creativity that breaks the grid of current knowledge.

>>4744825
>this is what plebs actually believe

>>4744660
summary:
Chomsky says human nature is based on creativity
Foucault misunderstands what Chomsky means by creativity
Chomsky corrects Foucault and goes on to rep anarcho-syndicalism as the ideal political system for human nature
Foucault says any perception of human nature is inherently based on the bourgeois culture it comes from and skools Chomsky to hell
dutch dude talks for a while
Chomsky and Foucault start talking about revolution - Foucault rejects the notion of designing an ideal society for the same reasons he rejects knowledge of human nature and advocates complete destruction of bourgeois culture/people
Chomsky says it's worth living in a flawed but improved society if its achieved in an ethical way
Foucault says ethics is a bourgeois concept
Chomsky disagrees
the end

>>4744895
there is no reason to be rude

>>4745053
there's no reason to not be rude, either

stimulating glass bead game, i really enjoyed being a spectator to it

apparently the dutch host guy wanted foucault to wear a bright red wig and also paid foucault in hashish which foucault and his friends referred to as "the Chomsky hash"

>>4745085
I knew Foucault was paid in part in hash for one interview. I wondered it this was it.

>>4745051
>Chomsky disagrees
made me lol

If you think debates are designed to be won or lost, you are severely poorly educated.

>>4745102
of course they are.

>>4745102
>poorly educated
why do you guys always have to get elitist about everything
winning a debate = having more correct points or better rhetoric

>>4745106
Debates are not rap battles.
It's more to see how others are thinking and see how two different ideas can work together and "bounce" of each other.

>>4745051
I'd hate bourgeois society too if I lived in the 1950s and the only way I could get off was by taking a fist up to the elbow in the avante garde setting of a leather bar.

Keep in mind that Foucault's idea of quality time was extreme BSDM with random dudes, and Chomsky's idea of quality time was planting trees with his kids.

>>4745125
dayum.
>tfw no foucault bf

>>4745102
If you consider debate to be dialectical, then sure, you're right. Most people make the distinction between debate and dialectical methods. Perhaps you're the poorly educated one. Debates generally are about convincing people to take your stance, whereas any dialectical discussion will be a search for truth.

>>4745125
While your post is fun and all, I don't think Foucault really "hates" bourgeois society. It's merely that he's making it clear, that we are, even him with his "extreme" BSDM fetish and all product of this society and are both defined and entrapped by it.
And I think that on the end, you can break through it, but only through redefining ideas, that in turn change the way we conceive the world. And for that, you need to know the history of "war" that put the bourgeoisie in the privileged position of power.

pic related mfw while typing it

>>4742315
>who won
>debate
Pick one.

>>4745114
But that's exactly what they are, it's all about victory. Unless you are some sissified beta pushover, that is.

>>4745173
Žižek v. Chomsky when?

Chomsky needs to defend his title.
Plus the flung so much shit at each other, or at least Chomsky did, that it would be fun to see it on live TV.

>>4745173
why debate in the first place?

>Foucault waves his arms through the air, attempting to Cast a Hex on Chomsky, ensnaring him within his Episteme
>Chomsky crosses his legs, an ingenious defense against Foulcault's Freud-type attack
>Foucault's Hex has no effect
>Chomsky raises his eyebrows excitedly, attempting to Lure his opponent with Optimistic Politics
>Foucault distracts himself by miming the act of jerking off an enormous, narrow penis
>Chomsky's Lure was not very effective
>Foucault hunches his shoulders and leans forward, attempting to Intimidate his opponent by Resembling a Horrifying Bird of Prey
>Chomsky has no defense!
>Foucault's attack was super effective!

Pretty sure Foucault won this round.

>>4745185

I knew it would be weird to put a level 14 Poststructuralist up against a level 20 Linguist/Philosopher.

>>4745183
I guess in his opinion it's to prove you're right and everyone else wrong.

>>4745185
>won
>Mysteriously died of AIDS, while Chomsky still lives. It's obviously that Chomsky used some sort of long lasting jewish incantation to give Foucault the AIDS.

Kind of reminds me of pic related, just with Chomsky instead of Popper and Wittgenstein.

more importantly, who's cuter

ARE HIS AIDS BALD?

>>4745185
how would you even debate someone looking at you like this

>>4745213
jesus christ. he looks deranged.

>>4745217
>he's so ugly

good goyim

>>4745206
>It's obviously that Chomsky used some sort of long lasting jewish incantation to give Foucault the AIDS.
It always pisses me off when the put things like that in games. Here I am, the thesis, chugging along, and this antithesis shows up, and it's no trouble, just a few Tail Whip attacks and bite the head off it's corpse to integrate it into a synthesis, but it sprays you with a flamethrower right before the tension is resolved. Now you're just losing spirit and there's no way to stop it.
But, then, if you're playing as the antithesis, those long-term weapons are useless because you've already been integrated by the time they have any effect. It is as if the world spirit didn't want to become, or something.

The point is, with his erratic, fast movements and bald, phallic head, Foucault was probably the inspiration for xenomorphs and also I spent entirely too much time during college playing Alien Vs Predator.

>>4745147
Well he does do the very postmodern french thing where he tries to abstract away the very real class issues Chomsky's confronting. When Chomsky talks about the ethics of capitalist economies and how they affect people, and Foucault plays semantic games with the concepts, it's obvious he's more interested in winning a debate than improving lives. It's essentially cheating.

You can call it an ad hom if you want, but I think the lifestyle choices of the two men is indicative of this. One was addicted to nihilistic rectum ripping, and the other is involved in patient creativity. One of these ethoses had a future. One of them did not.

>>4745181
I don't want to see that debate unless each man is in their own soundproofed box with a microphone, and the power to the mics is being switched by a chess clock. Listening to Zizek snort and shout manically over Chomsky's gravelly ponderousness isn't my idea of a good time.

>In 1971 he was invited by the Dutch TV to comment on the movements of rebellion around the world, in the form of a one-on-one debate with Noam Chomsky, who could not comprehend the man. "I mean, I liked [Foucault] personally," Chomsky later reminisced. "It's just that I couldn't make sense of him. It's as if he was from a different species, or something.

>>4742412
if you were serious about some of /pol/'s ideas, you'd realize Foucault is a million times more "redpill"

As far as /pol/'s prerogative, Chomsky and his liberal cult are everything to avoid.

/pol/'s allergy to critical thinking is why nobody will ever take them seriously. They have the right (no pun intended...) idea (liberal progressivism is the new religion, and it sucks nut), but they attract a lot of people who are driven to that camp (rejecting liberal universalism and progressivism) for base reasons, like anti-intellectualism, uninformed racism/homophobia/etc., making it easier for normal libs to dismiss out of hand any opposition to the progressive ideal.

Foucault and many post-structuralists give tons of ammunition to conservative or neoreactionary thought (thanks to Nietzsche's influence on French thinkers in the 20th century). It's newer academic disciplines like postcolonialism and critical race theory-- which appropriated some of their conceptual tools-- that must be avoided, and puppets like Chomsky just accelerate their process of inventing oppressions and basting in their own self-produced victimization (a process Foucault, in fact, had a lot to say about-- see his bit on sexuality and repression).

tl;dr Foucault's a bro, Chomsky's a chump

>>4745286
Not everyone can be an intellectual, comrade! Someone's gotta hold the Lugers.

>>4745286
>/pol/'s allergy to critical thinking is why nobody will ever take them seriously. They have the right (no pun intended...) idea (liberal progressivism is the new religion, and it sucks nut), but they attract a lot of people who are driven to that camp (rejecting liberal universalism and progressivism) for base reasons, like anti-intellectualism, uninformed racism/homophobia/etc., making it easier for normal libs to dismiss out of hand any opposition to the progressive ideal.

Holy shit is this apt.

>>4745246
>good goyim

>>4745292
The opponents of the Left are not at the point yet where a direct confrontation will play out well for them. Maybe they will be in a few generations when the American economy is in the shitter and young whites growing up as a minority in America are repeatedly subject to casual and culturally acceptable cruelty.

>>4745266
but Foucault is right, you will still be oppressed under a non-capitalist bureaucracy. you see Chomsky as a privileged jew who spent his whole life at the most elite educational bureaucracies in the world has a good experience with bureaucracy and thinks it's quite nice, he is completely blind to how exclusionary and elitist an institution like MIT actually is, Foucault as a gay dude into kinky shit even post-gay rights gay dudes don't like to talk about knows the oppressive nature of these kind of disciplinary bureaucracies

>>4742315
Certainly it wasn't any of us.

>>4742315
the winner is anyone who didn't listen

>>4745338
o no power will always concentrate somewhere, my ass is aching bawwww

>>4745344
Foucalt in a nutshell

>>4745286
/pol/ foolishly condemns vast swathes of theory that would suit their ends quite well

Continental theory isn't the enemy: it's those fledglings that attempt to smuggle its concepts in support of their agenda. Analytic philosophy (not that the distinction always has currency) is often far more amenable to liberal ideology than continental and it's sad some conservatards can't see this and instead follow libtards like Sokal

>>4742315
Chomsky has never lost a debate that I've witnessed.

>>4745344
Power isn't bad though.

>>4745351
they need to realize if they are going to "critique pure reason" or whatever and get all romantic they need to ditch autistic nerds like sokal and embrace art

>>4745352
yeah, he has unbeatable rhetorics

>>4745286
>if you were serious about some of /pol/'s ideas
Yeah. I ain't, though.

Like I said before, Chomsky's ethics involves planting trees. He wants to reduce harm, and identifies institutionalized exploitation as harm. He thinks zero-sum struggles are antithetical to human survival, and I agree.

/pol/'s a bunch of nihilistic libertarian (or fascist) twats who hate democracy and circle jerk to eliminationist fantasies.

If you really think Chomsky is "a puppet" or is "inventing opressions" you're either ignorant of his work or you're being grossly disingenuous in support of your faction. Again: ridiculous nihilism with a really cruel streak and I'm not interested.

>>4745366
thanks
I'm really not down with how /pol/ is getting all nihilistic/antisemitic/homophobic up in this thread now

>>4745366
chomsky, like all anarchists, is just hopelessly naive, he sells a dream not unlike the church

>>4745379
i don't see anything wrong with opposing judaism if we can critique christianity and islam why not?

>>4745388
there's nothing wrong with critiquing judaism as a religion, but systematic fear/hatred of jewish people isn't that

>>4745397
well let's face it the most nasty scathing critiques come from jews, who originate from outside western civilization, so when some jewish professor tells me western civilization is evil and my ancestors are scum i reserve the right to say "no u"

>>4745366


but comrade, instrumental advances leading to resource advantage are accidental (in the aristotelian sense) to the expansion of democratic franchise (http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/anarcho-tyranny/).). indeed, their primary vectors are often explicitly counter to democratic modus operandi (what is a business, department, or other instrumental organization after all, if not a fiefdom, with its lords, knights, and vassals).

>>4745397
don't you think it's reasonable to critique the place of the Jews in American society? whites aren't even has privileged as Jews are but white bashing is widely accepted as constructive critique of capitalism so why can't people say "how come such a huge portion of the top 1% are Jews despite them only being 2% of the population" strangely people will say "well because Jews are so much smarter and harder working than everyone else" ok great, so how come that same logic doesn't apply to whites?

>>4745397


i know youre using weasel words for rhetorical effect here, but in all seriousness 'systematic hatred' is simply how the more solipsistic (ie, society) are able to conceptualize threats, the hated other (those darn white shitlords are all racist and need to die, those darn niggers are all stupid and need to die, those darn kikes are all avaricious and need to die, etc). the best you can hope for is to point them in the right general direction, be less wrong (or you know, those darn solipsists are all hopeless and need to die).

>>4745416
>don't you think it's reasonable to critique the place of the Jews in American society? whites aren't even has privileged as Jews are but white bashing is widely accepted as constructive critique of capitalism so why can't people say "how come such a huge portion of the top 1% are Jews despite them only being 2% of the population" strangely people will say "well because Jews are so much smarter and harder working than everyone else" ok great, so how come that same logic doesn't apply to whites?

this post got deleted. why?

>>4745412
oh my god, this is pure ideology
*waves hands around

>>4745338
"you will be" (Foucault) vs. "you are being" (Chomsky). One is grounded in concrete observations of reality, and one is discussing future-tense hypotheticals.

Chomsky is in no way uncritical of bureaucracy or blind to the power of his own position. He's made frequent mention of how being a MIT department chair gives him privledge from which to make poltically unpopular criticisms of the status quo. Foucault was also an academic elite, but any criticism he levled were so cushioned from reality by abstraction they were nonthreatening to anyone outside academic circles. I've never read a defensive rebuttal of Foucault by a foreign minister.

I like the way you thew "jew" in there as if he gets an extra powerup for that. His reputation suffered for a long time when he was slandered as a holocaust denier. A slander he received for defending one's right to free speech. He's been a consistent antizionist his entire life. If you think he gets magical privilege points for being Jewish anyway, I've got a gilt-edged copy of the protocols to sell you.

>>4742315
No English
No listen

Seriously, how am i too take a 2 old farts talking in some moon speak for an hour seriously, and seeing how its an old vid, and the everyday life didnt change thx to this we can safely assume then came to fuck all important or original conclusion.

The winner is the one who wont waste time watching this.

>>4745449


ill show you ideology

*whips out dick*

>>4745183
>why debate in the first place?
Why did Genghis Khan slaughter entire towns? Will to power, biatch.

>>4745344
>>4745350
It may not necessarily concentrate, but it will be in society, and not recognizing this (buying into a utopian concept like Chomsky does) is only setting yourself up for failure.
Good politics is setting different forms of coercion against one another (using government force to limit capitalism, using budgets to limit the reach of government, using scientific discovery to guide government use of force, and using religion/art/madness to baffle the entire structure). Ironically, this is what Chomsky does in real life, when he works at MIT and uses academic freedom to dick around in the radical left, and uses foreign banks to protect his kiddies trustfund.

But, then, I'm just a social democrat and that's heresy and not sexy so no one cares.

>>4745266
"The future" is just a concept utilized by the bourgeois. It must be rejected out of hand.

>tfw I actually spent a decade of my life believing that
>tfw I'm now having to bear the consequences of such nihilism

Ah well, at least I have
>tfw no AIDS

>>4745412
Don't know why you had to prefix that with "but". I'm not going to disagree with it.

>>4745446
>da world is run by da jewz
I imagine it got deleted because that utf8-butterfly mod didn't want to see a /lit/ thread explode into a flurry of debunked infographics.

>>4745455
if chomsky wasn't jewish he would have faced the fate of ward churchill a long long time ago

>>4745488
I know that feel, bro.

>>4745491
it didn't say the world was run by Jews just that Jews are the most privileged segment of the American population yet we hear no hue and cry over "Jewish privilege"

>>4745455
I think both "you will be" and "you are being" are valid and worth considering, but Foucault falls into the trap of believing improvement is a waste if we don't attain perfection - for example, in this video he opposes Chomsky's desire to attempt to create an ideal society because it would be flawed, but has nothing to suggest in its stead.

I agree with Foucault more about human nature, though.

>>4745496
No it's because he was a linguist with a formal idea which overturned centuries of grammar theory, and that gave him a degree of inviolability as a world-renowned academic.

Not everything is the Jewish conspiracy, anon.

>>4745508


only if perfection (or progress) is defined as the absolvement of power structures, hierarchy, and so on and so on.

>>4745506
Would you like to see that hue and cry?

How do you imagine it would play out?

>>4745496
actually this is an interesting example of Jewish privilege, Ward \Churchill, a minority from the most oppressed population in America makes a statement critical of the investment banks in the WTC and despite having tenure is forced out meanwhile when Chomsky, from the most privileged demographic in America, says the same kind of stuff it's all "lolz can't stop him, hes got teh tenure!", the hypocrisy is stunning

>>4745519
well, yeah - foucault's whole view appears to be "destroy all existing culture/power structures/etc and see what happens next," but I don't really think that's a practical idea or one without extremely severe negative ethical consequences.

>>4745526
Yeah, but that's okay, because ethics don't real.

>>4745513
except all of Chomsky's lefty nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with his with his area of expertise, why would anyone take any critique he makes of militarism or capitalism seriously because he published one influential paper on grammar in the 50s? Do I have to take Ben Carson's climate change denial seriously because he is a highly regarded neurosurgeon?

>>4745488
>"The future" is just a concept utilized by the bourgeois. It must be rejected out of hand.

Funny enough it's the Catholic outlook as well. Neitschze said Christianity was a slave religion. I wonder if he would have thought the same of critical theory.

>>4745522
>Ward Churchill
ward churchill has been expelled from the uni he worked at for something like grossly unscientific method. he's also claimed he's a marine and a native american. he's bonkers.

>>4745536
they were happy to have him filling their affirmative action quota and so eagerly overlooked his blatant plagiarism and poor scholarship right up until he criticized investment bankers, then the shit hit the fan

>>4745526


i dont either, and thats mainly because focault himself was not completely disabused of enlightenment modes of thought vis ethics (that The Good lies in deconstructing or opposition to hierarchy as categorical imperative [which finds its ultimate expression in the koan: 'only those that judge right from wrong are wrong']), a condition that haunted many post-war continentals.

>>4745533
his area of expertise is linguistics and philosophy
did you watch the debate? his views on linguistics deeply inform his political views, it's all interconnected

>>4745545
so, umm, who would you say is the dominant class that has hegemony right now? any...ideas?

>>4745546
dude, his bullshit on the chomsky grammar has no bearing on that debate whatsoever, and besides that paper only still stands because he's old and everybody likes him for being a voice of leftism in a capitalist world, once he croaks it won't last twenty years

>>4745545
shouldn't Foucault realize that morality in power is nor more effective or realistic than morality in sex?

>>4745558
i like your style

>>4745549
The capitalist class.

This video perfectly sums up the debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA

>>4745549
capitalists, ceos, executives, etc

>>4745558
Have you heard him speak? He croaks now.

>>4745549


well isint it obvious? the modern cathedral, inheritor of the enlightenment project, a brahmin caste of academics providing cues for media priests and bureaucratic apparatchicks (who handle the actual process of governance).

>>4745558
when asked about human nature, chomsky responds to the question from a linguistic point of view, which leads him to his view of human nature, which leads into anarcho-syndicalism

>>4744763
>implying that anybody engaging past such a level isn't just hiding behind sophistry because it keeps the bills paid

Foucault's best quality is that he called bullshit where he perceived it to be. And it happened to be pretty much the entire fucking field.

>>4745522
>Ward Churchill
Just read about that. What a clusterfuck.

To be fair though though, his rhetoric was pretty damn inflammatory for an academic. You can talk about the Jew shield all you want, but I don't think Chomsky would have been invulnerable if he'd said the WTC employees got what they deserved for being "little Eichmanns".


>>4745533
>why would anyone take any critique he makes of militarism or capitalism seriously because he published one influential paper on grammar in the 50s?

>Do I have to take Ben Carson's climate change denial seriously because he is a highly regarded neurosurgeon?
No you don't have to take it seriously because he's not an academic, and is making demonstrably preposterous claims about a solid scientific discipline.

Unlike Chomsky who's making substantive analyses of political issues, with arguments that hold up well to criticism.

>"lefty nonsense"
>go-to analogy is about some climate kook
You're starting to sound like a factionalist ideologue in sheep's' clothing, anon.

>>4745496
>In a 1987 profile on Churchill, the Denver Post reported that he was drafted, went to paratrooper school, then volunteered for Vietnam, where he served a 10-month tour as Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (LRRP), one of a six-man team sent out to track down the enemy. The Post article also reported that Churchill was politically radicalized as a result of his experiences in Vietnam.

>Churchill told the Post that he had spent some time at the Chicago office of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in the late 1960s, and briefly taught members of the Weather Underground how to build bombs and fire weapons.

>In 2005, the Denver Post reported that Churchill's military records show he was trained as a film projectionist and light truck driver, but they do not reflect paratrooper school or LRRP training. The 75th Ranger Regiment Association found no record of Churchill having been a member of the unit, or a LRRP team.

This is the guy you trot out to to hold up against Chomsky and his supposed Jew privledge?

Jesus Christ, /pol/. Get your shit together.

>>4745657
so how come the Denver Post got all uptight in 2005 and not 1987?

>>4745657


on the other hand, the likes of bill ayers are not only not in jail or sentenced to death, but are infact rewarded by the cathedral with tenured positions.

>>4745665
he was the center of some controversy in 2005

>>4745688
yeah, that's funny how the black panthers are mostly all dead now except maybe bobby seale (who was just a yesman chump to huey newton anyways) but all the white kids from sds are professors

>>4745695
Ayers didn't get prosecuted because the revelations about FBI's COINTELPRO malfeasance completely fucked the government's case. Because back then I guess we cared about due processes or something.

>the SDS was a terrorist organization
Really? Seriously? I'll just assume that's a mistake and you mean the WU. Again see above.

The panthers were pretty reckless and got themselves in shootouts with rivals and random citizens. Unless you think a secret task force of gubmunt assassins was staging break ins and gang battles against 60s radicals with explicit instructions to spare teh j00s I don't know what point you want to make there.

>>4745836
>. Unless you think a secret task force of gubmunt assassins was staging break ins and gang battles against 60s radicals

wait but that's exactly what happened, it's just the cops implicitly knew not to gun down any jews...but my point wasnt even about black vs, jews, thats to controversial i was going for a more jew approved black vs. white angle, and i don't mean just the deaths in the 60s, i just mean over the years since the 60s all the white kids (it's up to you to decide who was jew or not) ended up becoming professors while the black kids all died off, sometimes by police, sometimes by random violence, sometimes by drugs....

>>4745836
the government did go after the black panthers, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
J. Edgar Hoover is like one of the worst dudes in American history I would say

>>4745848
ugh >>>/pol/ pls stop

>>4745876
wait but there isn't anything negative about jews in that, it's just standard lefty anti-white shit? surely that's welcome on /lit/?

>>4745848
>all the white kids (it's up to you to decide who was jew or not) ended up becoming professors while the black kids all died off, sometimes by police, sometimes by random violence, sometimes by drugs

Holy shit this is a miracle of mental gymnastics.

>>4745876
>Stop telling the truth shitlord!
>It's TRIGGERING

Kek niggers get AIDs

>>4745876
ok let me restate it in a /lit/ approved way

>>. Unless you think a secret task force of gubmunt assassins was staging break ins and gang battles against 60s radicals
>wait but that's exactly what happened, it's just the cops implicitly knew not too gun down any (white people)...(politically incorrect sentence deleted) i don't mean just the deaths in the 60s, i just mean over the years since the 60s all the white kids (edited for political correctness) ended up becoming professors while the black kids all died off, sometimes by police, sometimes by random violence, sometimes by drugs....

is that more up your alley, buddy?

I like what the convenor dude said, something about them both coming at the same problem but from different angles, like digging into a mountain on either side. But then they disagreed on that. I think its true though, they are both useful and we should learn from both.

>>4745886
actual facts are a miracle of mental gymnastics? ok

>>4745890
Well one reason I can point to is the WU alums manged to avoid gun battles with other radicals.

Another was the general level of education of one group vs the other. Sure, Huey Newton had a undergraduate degree, but I'm pretty sure almost none of the others did.

I attended a talk by Mumia supporters comrades in 97. If those people were any indication I can see why the panthers didn't land themselves professorships. They were so inarticulate as to be practically incomprehensible. It was barely in English. I'm not just talking about some idiomatic jive this white boy didn't get (I grew up in southeast DC). No, a lot of it was full-on crackhead ravings. I came away not even knowing what their side of the story was, much less convinced of any of it.

If I compare that stuff to the reasoned ideological output of the WU, and ignore everything else, Ayers et al get those professorships on merit alone. Call it the zionist conspiracy if you like. At least teh jewz can communicate their ideas.

And avoid stray bullets.

>>4742315
No one. They are both sophists.

>>4746138
er, "supporters AND comrades." Not comrades of his supporters.

>>4745890
what I was saying is that this thread is for discussing chomsky and foucault and that if you want to talk about unrelated and vaguely racist political issues /pol/ is right up your alley

>>4746157
how is it racist or off-topic it was directly related to chomsky's judaic privilege and how other 60s radicals like ward churchill did not receive the same kid gloves treatment by "the man", foucault is critique bureaucratic power but since chomsky has lived a life of bureaucratic privilege due to his heritage, his father was a famous hebrew scholar, left him completely blind to that form of oppression and privilige

>>4742315
The audience, of course.

>>4746180
>left him completely blind to that form of oppression and privilige

>goes against state of Israel
>completely marginalized in hegemonic discourse

Try again duder

>>4746202
chomsky never talked about israel in the debate so now it is you who is off-topic, chomsky wants everyone to live in a big MIT and foucault says "but that's oppressive".

>>4745286
>/pol/ is one person

A lot of /pol/ users aren't racist or anti-intellecual.

Many of us see that modern philosophy is comparable to alchemy in that it is a useless tradition at this point in time, and only seeks to abstract away from reality in order so that "reality" may fit an agenda. Post-modernism has insured philosophical ideas no longer have any clear meaning and can be changed, re-defined, and "corrected" to fit a bias of the thinker. This can be said of all philosophy, but Post-Modernism seeks to embrace this concept rather than push it back. We reject liberalism because it seeks to abstract from society and impose a false perception where there is some unknown, unmeasurable, and unseen force oppressing A B C people for X Y Z reasons. The basis of thought has gone from what works to what sounds good in the head. There is no thought of reality anymore, and statistics and empirical facts hold no weight.

/pol/, if anything, is traditionalist and individualist. Even our National Socialists have obvious gripes with the collectivist philosophy and mentally seek to recreate socialism in the confines of a family unit and unity-through-individual-interest, rather than a hive mind of people serving a master, centralized power.

Foucault appears helpful in abstraction but functions much the same as Chomsky in reality--and this distinction is all that is needed to dismiss both. Logic is a tool and they wield it well, but they break. Post-modernism can only break. It is an endless quagmire of thought with no real end.

/pol/ has its own breed of useful idiots in the vain of the ignorant, usually white, well off masses of liberalism. I suspect every group will need its lackeys from now on due to how democracy has created a military of society, so that ideas and policies can be fought over and voted on. This is not to say democracy is bad, only that the opinions of fools are now of very major importance. An interesting take-away from this is that intelligence, and not race or culture, is now a very strong indicator of political ideologue/supported policies via statistical correlation analysis.

And this is only my own quick, more than likely poorly worded thoughts. There are millions of /pol/ browsers.

>>4746202
>>4746180
I don't know who's trolling who anymore.

>>4746234
> /pol/ ain't one person!
> four-paragraph outline of the party platform

If it's not all one person why does it sound like such an echo chamber?

The sad thing is not only are you contradicting yourself, but you're trying to pretend there's an actual structured ideology on your board. In truth it's all libertarians fighting with Nazis and the occasional sad moderate or socialist.

The only one thing you all -really- agree on is "lol niggers amirite" and "the jews did it again!" That's the /pol/ ideology in a nutshell.

>>4746271
when i heard /pol/ had some right wing ideology on it i went to check it out expecting some kind of bizarro anti-/lit/ but instead it was just a bunch of people ranting about trollish foxnews media shit, looked like the comments section on the new york post website, really stupid shit

>>4746281
a bizarro anti-/lit/ sounds kinda awesome

>>4746281
the only good thing i see on there right now is the "what's more degrading: porn or minimum wage labor" thread but then there's like 100 other threads about the nsa surveillance or pop movies or whatever

>>4746320
The entire board used to be more similar to that. It wasn't some utopia and an they were still stormlords or whatever but it wasn't this. Then everything after the 2012 elections (Sandy Hoax, The Uncornerable Dorner, Best Korea, Boston Bombing police scanner, government shits down) have effectively drawn in the worst posters alive.

I'm not part of this thread I just wanted to let you know.

>>4746333
yeah last time i went to /pol/ it was still on some trayvon martin shit so it was just seemed like a bunch of low brow tea party shit

>>4746234
You were specifically one of the /pol/ posters I was addressing. You've written nothing that suggests more than a freshman-level understanding of philosophy (which you condemn to uselessness) and seem to have no grasp of what "Post-Modernism" is, buying into the old "abstract obscurantist relativistic stuff" canard.

Postmodern styles in philosophical writing are first off incredibly divisive even among themselves, and second off, far less universal than you're thinking. The trend has been on the downswing for a while and reactions are mounting. Only gender studies/queer studies/postcolonialism/white studies etc are still riding that train.

Check out Nick Land. He is quite concrete, and quite far from academic philosophy. He is also a good example of the kind of un-philosophy one would need to unfuck philosophy from the liberal apparatus.

>>4746402
>incredibly divisive

Mother fucker, this isn't the drone factory. Good works create more disagreement.

>>4746271
It's hilariously obvious to someone who regularly browses /pol/, pretty much everyday, how you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>4746195
For winners, they don't look to enthused.

>>4746445
Hey look everyone, it's the one of new, feminist baiting retards who drove me here to be "anti-semitic" (whatever that means lol).

>>4746445
>didn't post an image macro blaming this on the jews
>just Hitler

I would be genuinely surprised if /pol/scum actually had any images that weren't about the Jews, Hitler, The Illuminati, Feminism, of Fat Shaming.

I swear the entire range of discourse might be best classed as fucking raging shithouse of conspiracism and moronic microsoft paint "informational images" (usually about THE JEWS).

>>4742360
Lol

>>4746448
enthused isn't a word

>>4746620
>enthused
best b trollin ngr

>>4746620
google it genius

>>4746621
whatever, you're an ignorant fuck for using it, anyways.

>>4745283
>>4745213
that is the look of a man who has met all his edges

>>4742315
What I love about this interview is they're drinking Orange Juice at this thing.

Of all the drinks, Orange Juice. It just seems so fantastic.

>>4746402
I feel like the term "postmodern" will almost always tie into the rhetoric of crackpots and not its usage in epistemology. Foucalt unfortunately personifies the crackpot, even though he did insightful, good things regarding the misrepresentation of knowledge and all that, nobody sees it or gets to it because of "muh tokens of ideology."

It is a problem with pomo in general that you have to dig through a sea of completely useless, oftentimes insane garbage to get to something that is actually applicable to something.

And even then you're left going, "Well, no shit."

>>4746655
Ok, so what does the orange juice mean?
I don't get it, why is everyone so interested in the orange juice?

>>4746689
This

The worst pimp twaddle is when the writer is just going through the motions. Discourse this. Textual power relationship that. Bloody fan fiction level.

>>4746692
Because it's orange juice!

Normally they have water or something. They decided to not go with water on this one. So their next logical choice is Orange Juice.

Doesn't it just make you giddy?

>>4746730
I still do not understand, unless the thing to understand is that everyone else on /lit/ is just high all the time and this is one of those things.

>>4746402
>Check out Nick Land

This. Fanged Noumena is the bomb.

>tfw when I had to deliver a presentation on Foucault in a history grad class
>tfw Foucault is my flavouristiest
>tfw I chose to present his epistemological works (i.e. the order of things, archeology of knowledge), instead of Discipline and Punish Pleb shit
>tfw historians at my uni are ALL hostile to any paradigm coming from social sciences
>tfw I sounded like I was on acid while everyone stared at me quietly