/lit/ - Literature

>>6610812
>Anyone got a chart?
why is /lit/ filled with retards

>>6610836
You sure are a cynical little shit, you should find another shtick that one sees as much use as your piss jars in the closet.

>>6610812
Top notch con man
I'm a big fan

>>6610812
>Anyone got a chart?
is this /mu/?

start with syntactic structures and then stop, it's the only thing he wrote worth reading, beside maybe his book on propaganda. the rest of it is
>muh imperialism

heres a free link

http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/lees-rev.pdf

>>6610812
Manufacturing Consent and Understanding Power are two go-to Chomsky works

>>6611096
Care to explain?

>>6611133
oops wrong link here ya go
http://jpkc.whut.edu.cn/yyxdl/uploadfiles/mzxd/Syntactic_Structures.pdf

>>6611144
He Writes books and gives lectures highly critical of the military - while making millions off his work for the military

His 'best work', Manufacturing Consent, calls corporate marketing propaganda and decries it. Then and now he makes millions as a consultant helping corporations create better marketing

He promotes higher taxes on the rich, but pays no taxes on his millions because he uses shelters and trusts

The 'tenured professor who promotes anarchy' is just funny

>all part of the public record, well proven, and admitted publicly by Chomsky

I admire his boldness

>>6611172
Citations?

>>6611178
The best is probably the book Do As I Say (Not a As I Do); well-footnoted and acknowledged by Chomsky as accurate.

>>6610812
i wrote a paper on 'culture of terrorism' in prep, i thought it was pretty good but then again i was in my anarchist-crust-punk phase

>>6610812
>What do you think about Chomsky aside from the Harris thing?

>implying Chomsky has any relevance aside from his 10 seconds of fame - a footnote to the greatest philosopher of all time

You're best listening to his album speeches at first. That's a good introduction.

>>6611252
What does Chomsky have to do with Aristotle?

In all seriousness now OP, this article is quite good; Chomsky is quite polemic by nature and I think you need some balance to read him without getting frustrated -at least for an agnostic like myself. I could see someone finding him charismatic if they already agree with all he says.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/

>>6611266
>implying Aristotle wasn't almost always wrong
>Ayn Rand also said Aristotle was the greatest philosopher of all time too, and you know what her work is like.

he's a dummy

>>6611282
>rand was messed up but even a blind squirrel can find a nut

>>6611282
The joke
----------->
Your empty skull

>>6611301
oh the irony

>>6611266
>>6611282
>>6611301
>>6611324
Half convinced this is a samefag

Babby's first ideologue.

>>6611201
>The best is probably the book Do As I Say (Not a As I Do); well-footnoted and acknowledged by Chomsky as accurate.

But the charge itself is silly. It's not Chomsky's fault the Pentagon funds MIT. It's not like he interviewed for a job working for the military as Noam Chomsky Inc., the way his critics want to make out.

>>6610812

You should google the interview Bachem Macuno did with him. Very enlightening.

why's it so hard for you guys to determine who is full of shit and who is not full of shit
i mean look at him

>>6610812
If you're interested in his linguistic work you should read his "The Minimalist Program" from 1995; that's the most recent revolution in chomskyan linguistics. There are a lot of detractors to the research program, so you should also look at "The Structure of Unscientific Revolutions," and article by three vociferous critics.

>>6611384
But he has also purposefully plied for mikitary grants, joined groups on military projects, etc.
He has actively sought work for the DoD and corporations for millions.
So -you're incorrect

>>6610812
harris BTFOd him

>>6611384
>It's not Chomsky's fault the Pentagon funds MIT.

Great defense. "The military is evil but I'll working for an institution they fund because, you know, I'm clinically allergic to any place that isn't the MIT."

If really he didn't want any contact with them he'd simply resign, it's not like he can't afford it right now.

Can we all at least agree that he's got an amazing smug smile?

>>6613598
Young chomsky was so fucking qt.

>>6611141

Was going to say the same.

>>6613546
>>6613587

I don't really know how much of what is said against him is true. But even if it's ALL true, I don't think it amounts to the kind of hypocrisy his critics would like to imagine. He's not critical of the military; he's critical of US policy. Do you have any evidence that he sets the policy he opposes? Because that would be hypocrisy.

>>6613587
>Working at an institution funded by the Pentagon, but not actually producing anything that can be used for violence - and in fact committing much of one's career to speaking out against the Pentagon - is a bad thing.

Idiot

>>6613971
Hey, I'm not the one pretending to be an intellectual and still working on the payroll of an institution I pretend is bad. Chomcuck can be a shill all he wants, but being a shill and pretending to be an intellectual and still woking for the guys you supposdly oppose as an intellectual is pretty high on the bad intellectual hygiene scale. It's not about violence, it's about not being a class-A fraud. I hope Chomchom has a good rationale for this.

Or are you going to pretend that Chomsky's work at MIT did anything to mitigate the Pentagon's use of violence ? "Speaking out against the Pentagon" when you're simply getting internet points for it and not changing anything is simply bribing your way into a comfortable position. From here it just looks like he's comfy being a proeminent fraud. Not that I don't understand the appeal of it, but let's not judge a MIT professor by the standards of a sleazy 4channer.

>>6613618
>he's not critical of the military
Proven - you either haven't read him much or you're a fucking liar

>>6613971
He applied for grants; i.e. Volunteered, to make the military more combat effective in Vietnam.
He SOUGHT OUT grants and programs working for the military and corporations and made millions doing it.
All the while selling books and lectures about the problems with the military, corporations, and the rich

>>6613546
This is because the military grants money for pretty much anything to do with the middle east nowadays and don't really need results. I can get military grants for studying Arabic or Farsi without any obligations.

>>6614069
>ignoring Chomsky's grants were for combat efficiency in Vietnam while Chomsky was protesting Vietnam
>not talking about Chomsky's ongoing work on corporate marketing while he writes books calling corporate marketing vile propaganda
Typical

>>6614069
>>6614270
Also- not talking about How Chomsky has tax attorneys, tax accountants, trusts, etc. then charges thousand of dollars (plus airfare and lodging!) to tell college kids 'Capitalism is fascism'

>>6614022
>Proven - you either haven't read him much or you're a fucking liar

I haven't read that much of him, I prefer to listen to him speak. Tons of stuff available on iTunes, btw.

But I think you and others are falling for a deceptive reduction. He's not critical of the military, he is critical of the US foreign policy that uses the military for it's ends. This is a pretty crucial and readily appreciable difference. Right?

>>6614296
>Also- not talking about How Chomsky has tax attorneys, tax accountants, trusts, etc. then charges thousand of dollars (plus airfare and lodging!) to tell college kids 'Capitalism is fascism'

Is that a direct quote?

>>6614748
Paraphrase of a rather famous quote

>>6614744
Chomsky called theUS military 'One of the most evil institutions in world history'. He wrote the U.S. Army is 'a menace to all life on earth' and 'the most hideous institution on Earth'. And that's just in one book.

Try again

>>6615450
>He doesn't know what a market it

>>6615450
>Paraphrase of a rather famous quote

It's a poor paraphrasing, though. Corporate interests DO exert outsize influence over our democratic process. This doesn't really reduce to 'Capitalism is fascism,' though.

>Chomsky called theUS military 'One of the most evil institutions in world history'. He wrote the U.S. Army is 'a menace to all life on earth' and 'the most hideous institution on Earth'. And that's just in one book.

Did he say the military, or the pentagon? Which is to say, the policymakers, as I said?

>Try again

Do.

>>6611201
Hey, he posted it again!

Look, pal, that book is meaningless.

>>6615450
I don't see how calling some corporations and their actions fascistic is the same as calling capitalism fascism

>>6615679
Read it again: he is speaking of the system of Capitalism, not corporations.

>Did he say the military, or the pentagon?
Does it matter when his grant applications were sent to, reviewed by, approved by, and paid by the Pentagon?

You still are not discussing his long-time work with corporations (remember them , from your own post which this is a response to?) to make their marketing more effective while calling it propaganda.

We could branch out to his defense of the Khmer Rouge, if you like.

>>6615699
re-read from 'The system of Capitalism'.
He then describes Capitalism as a system.
He then states that it is economic fascism.
Thus, he is calling 'the system of Capitalism' fascistic.

This is /lit/, this shouldn't be difficult.

>>6615693
Sure.
But the facts that it states remain true.

Harris didn't get BTFO'd as badly as a lot of /lit/ thinks. Chomsky was mostly just being defensive and completely dodging the spirit of the discussion Harris wanted to have, instead focusing on nit picking errors in Harris's reading of him.

>>6615865
>Read it again: he is speaking of the system of Capitalism, not corporations.

He is speaking about the deleterious effects of corporate influence on democracy. Which is pretty well established. He may describe himself as a libertarian socialist, but this doesn't mean he has to give away all his possessions. He lives in a capitalist society.

>Does it matter when his grant applications were sent to, reviewed by, approved by, and paid by the Pentagon?
>You still are not discussing his long-time work with corporations (remember them , from your own post which this is a response to?) to make their marketing more effective while calling it propaganda.

Yes. There is no real hypocrisy in working for the military and being critical of military policy. Lots of soldiers do it. It's the same with corporations. It would be worse to feel as he does and not say anything for the love of a paycheck.

>We could branch out to his defense of the Khmer Rouge, if you like.

After you.

>>6615880
>Harris didn't get BTFO'd as badly as a lot of /lit/ thinks. Chomsky was mostly just being defensive and completely dodging the spirit of the discussion Harris wanted to have, instead focusing on nit picking errors in Harris's reading of him.

Harris got a 'Property of Chomsky' tattoo on his ass, no doubt.

>>6615880

Why are you repeating this lie? Why is this thread happening again? Is this board about YouTube video meme snarkers, or about real writers and thinkers. Sam Harris needs cutting apart like a person of color trailed over rocks by a truck.

>>6610812
He's a great linguist but that doesn't make him qualified to be what he is marketed as.

>>6615980

Fuck off pleb, your kids' cunts are for my knife to taste.

Start with John Lyons, then move on to Andrew Radford, and then you will be able to read and understand Chomsky, but bear in mind that he's not the be all and end all of linguistics. It's not a bad idea to read the works of functionalists. Discourse analysis and computational linguistics are very interesting as well

>>6615939
>He is speaking about the deleterious effects of corporate influence on democracy
This does not jibe with the direct quote of
>"..under Capitalism we can't have Democracy..."
>Or
>"...Capitalism is not fit for the modern world..."
or
>"...Capitalism [is] a new and unanticipated system of injustice..."

and more, besides.

So your rather weird interpretation of his clear meaning is not supproted by reading his other works.

>There is no real hypocrisy in working for the military

So you think a guy that charges $12,000 to tell college kids that the Pentagon is "'One of the most evil institutions in world history'; 'a menace to all life on earth'; 'the most hideous institution on Earth';
While making millions from that same group for making them more efficient in their work is fine by you because, after all, a millionaire has gotta' eat?
Remember! He was actively seeking out work for 'one of the most evil institutions in world history'!

Like I said - he's bold. And I think it is absolutely brilliant as a huckster. It takes a lot of skill to do what he does. But I think it is pretty obvious he doesn't believe what he says.

>>6615976
Sam Harris - intellectually 1 step above authors of fad diet books and mad that he's three steps below them in income.

>>6615985
Learn to talk like that from the cabbies taking you to your parents' house to do your laundry?

>>6616066
>So your rather weird interpretation of his clear meaning is not supproted by reading his other works.

My reading is sound. The fact remains that he didn't say what you ascribed to him. He's said a lot. Use quotes.

>In sin =/= with sin. I don't think you're very educated on Christianity, so I wouldn't engage with me in opposition on that topic unless you just want to learn something.

What I said is it is not really hypocrisy. He is critical of military policy. He doesn't set it.

>Like I said - he's bold. And I think it is absolutely brilliant

Agreed.

>>6615976

>>6615872
He was talking about the influence of capital on politics. Chomsky doesn't own any Congressmen. If you can find evidence of Chomsky directly funding something he's opposed to and not just making a living by doing communications research paid for by the Pentagon (the only goddam institution in his society that would even care about that kind of thing-I mean, seriously, who else do you want scientists to work for but the state?) you're going to have a hard time selling me on your major premise (Chomsky is as bad as the capitalist fascists he criticizes) and not just your minor premise (Chomsky doesn't discuss his finances when giving talks).

>>6616117
when I use quotes from his works you ask me to...
...use quotes.
At this point I think you're just trolling.

Since I can pick up one of his books and read for myself that he does not think civilization can survive Capitalism. I can read the direct quotes I gave you. Who should I believe about what he said, you? Or him?

>>6615539
Wrong. The "most evil institution" quote was referring to the pentagon, i.e. the policymakers. And yes, there is quite a significant difference.

>muh chumsky MIT hypocracy

I'm a certified Chomsky loremaster, and at 1:05:52 of this video a student brings up this apparent contradiction and Chomsky swiftly blows him (and that line of reasoning) the fuck out.

https://youtu.be/3wfNl2L0Gf8?t=1h5m52s

>>6616117
Cooperation with evil in the act of evil is evil.
If Chomsky believes the Pentagon is evil (which he has) and that the wars it wages are morally wrong (which he has) then assisting them in their wars (which he's done) is morally wrong.

Of course, my point is that this just proves Chomsky is a liar and a hypocrite (which he has admitted)

>>6616117
So - are you agreeing his conning the gullible is brilliant?

>>6616152
My premise us not
'Chomsky is evil'!
My point is 'Chomsky is an admitted huckster'
Pointing out a man says things he doesn't believe doesn't mean I think he's a fascist, it means I know he's dishonest.

>>6616152
>who else do you want scientists to work for but the state?
This probably needs elaboration. Chomsky's work was done during Vietnam, as you like to point out. Do you have any idea what kind of communications revolution was happening because of research being funded by the Pentagon? There really weren't computers in every phone and no one had cell phones. Satellites weren't used for everything like they are now. Communications and general signal research was kind of a niche field until recent technological innovations really made the field go in a pretty unexpected direction.
>>6615875
While the facts in the one chapter of the one source you've posted at least three times in as many threads may be true, the narrative you spin is more misleading than anything Chomsky says. >Inb4 'Hey, I ADMIRE him for making KIDS look STUPID!'
Also, the mere existence of a Goodreads review and a Wikipedia page don't really make the book seem earth-shattering. If you could provide more evidence of bad shit Chomsky has done, I'd be willing to listen, but this is basically an irrelevant point that you don't realize most leftists can easily look past not necessarily because they're idiots who don't realize Chomsky has money and worked for the government he criticizes the most, but because they don't really object to either of those things per se. Leftists don't even dislike hypocrisy. I'm not sure who you think you're going to convince by mentioning that book (which only has one chapter about Chomsky, by the way) every chance you get.

>>6616175
...and he works for the policy makers
I don't think an infantry sergeant at Ft. Bragg is approving his grant. Do you?

And all he does is deflect; in public communications he has admitted to all of this. Why?
It is all public record.
You're splitting hairs in a failed attempt to defend a con man

>>6614296
do you believe your own rhetoric?
it basically boils down to: "either you are plotting imminent insurrection or must praise all aspects of capitalism"
i think the military does bad shit but if they offered me a grant and weren't telling me what to do, why would i refuse? they'll just give our tax dollars away to someone worse, more docile, etc. use the enemy's resources to fight.

if i believed the government is fundamentally bad (and shouldn't be taking their money because UNCLEAN), why would i attempt to give them more money in taxes if the system is set up to escape this obligation? should i only let amoral assholes starve the government?

you've never worked a day in your life. you are clearly 16 years old.

>>6616186
>Chomsky is an admitted huckster
I don't think that even has a basis. Who is he scamming? Are you claiming that his books have no value at all, or that his knowledge is worthless? I don't think that making money off of your own work by selling it to people who want to read it makes someone a huckster.

>>6616191
I don't think he makes anyone -look- stupid
Are you the guy who repeats ad infinitum
>yes, I know it is all true
>yes, these are all factual
>yes, I know he's a hypocrite who probably doesn't believe half of what he says
>but he's still awesome
?
Because I don't think Chomsky is evil or even really a bad guy. But when you discuss political writing the fact that the author doesn't believe/follow the things he advocates are actually important to understanding and evaluating the work.

>>6616199
>it basically boils down to: "either you are plotting imminent insurrection or must praise all aspects of capitalism"

Don't bother, you're arguing with a fucking moron. According to him anyone who critiques the government is a hypocrite if they don't live like hunter-gathers.

>>6616169
>when I use quotes from his works you ask me to...
>...use quotes.
>At this point I think you're just trolling.

I'm not. If you had used actual quotes to begin with, I wouldn't have said anything.

>Since I can pick up one of his books and read for myself that he does not think civilization can survive Capitalism. I can read the direct quotes I gave you. Who should I believe about what he said, you? Or him?

You should believe that he has said what you read or hear him say, not what someone paraphrases.

>>6616199
What?
No, I don't think
>"either you are plotting imminent insurrection or must praise all aspects of capitalism"
I have said nothing extreme whatsoever.
I'm just pointing out that Chomsky is rather hypocritical and often dishonest. That's it.

>i think the military does bad shit but if they offered me a grant and weren't telling me what to do, why would i refuse? they'll just give our tax dollars away to someone worse, more docile, etc. use the enemy's resources to fight
Yeah, but do you make thousands of dollars telling people the Pentagon is 'one of the most evil institutions in human history'? Noam does.

>why would i attempt to give them more money in taxes if the system is set up to escape this obligation?
Do you lecture and say that rich people should pay more taxes when you are both rich and not paying taxes? No?
Noam does.

I am not calling him a creature from the pit of Hell, I am calling a conman and huckster. And I have no idea why people freak out about this. it is all public record and not that big a deal. Just - take what he says with a huge grain of salt.

>>6616177
>Cooperation with evil in the act of evil is evil.

So if you pay taxes to pay for evil acts, you are evil?

>If Chomsky believes the Pentagon is evil (which he has) and that the wars it wages are morally wrong (which he has) then assisting them in their wars (which he's done) is morally wrong.

That depends on the nature of his work. Regardless, it doesn't make him a hypocrite.

>Of course, my point is that this just proves Chomsky is a liar and a hypocrite (which he has admitted)

When did he admit this?

>>6616179
>So - are you agreeing his conning the gullible is brilliant?

I agree that he's brilliant; I don't think he's conning anybody.

>>6616205
When a televangelist with 4 mistresses, a cocaine habit, 4 mansions, 2 private jets, and a $6k Italian suit flies into a small town and asks the locals to give him money for the good and moral work his ministry does,
He's a huckster.

When a multi-millionaire with 2 mansions, tax attorneys, tax accountants, a trust fund, a contract with WalMart (an example) to help their marketing, and a contract with the DoD, charges a college $10k + travel& expenses to fly in and tell them the DoD is evil, corporations are enslaving you with marketing, rich people should pay more taxes, and please buy my new book on how property rights are bad...
he's a huckster.

>>6616209
i know. while i do wonder if he's just trolling (more likely a butthurt harrisfag), i responded more because i see this type of rhetoric quite commonly and it results in children with ideals completely flipping and becoming twenty-somethings at investment banks, constantly self-justifying and basically self-hypnotizing, repeating mantras in an attempt to forget they ever thought there was something more important than being a moneylender. the lack of a middle ground forces everyone into line

>>6616221
So you are claiming:

>>"..under Capitalism we can't have Democracy..."
>>Or
>>"...Capitalism is not fit for the modern world..."
>or
>>"...Capitalism [is] a new and unanticipated system of injustice..."

are NOT Chomsky quotes?
You suck at lying.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Capitalism+%5Bis%5D+a+new+and+unanticipated+system+of+injustice&l=1

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=under+Capitalism+we+can%27t+have+Democracy&l=1

Go away, terrible liar.

>>6616224
your claim that he is hypocritical rests on not taking the money of people you oppose

if i could say that the pentagon was evil and take their money, who is being conned? taking money does not equal love. you will learn this when you stop living with your parents.

i believe the rich should pay more, in that they should be forced to pay more; the system should change to force this. until this happens, why should i not use the system in the way it is set up?

"i love noam - he's brilliant at fooling people!" - this is not a bad rhetorical strategy as you don't have an argument here so it's better to deflect

there is no other explanation for this behaviour than you desperately wanting to tongue sam harris' asshole. it's not funny enough to be a troll

>>6616209
>According to him anyone who critiques the government is a hypocrite if they don't live like hunter-gathers
Ha!
You know, I have said over and over the same points
1) I don't care how much money Chomsky has
2) I don't care how he makes his money
3) I don't care how he spends his money
4) I don't care how much tax he pays
5) I don't think he's evil
6) I don't care if he keeps doing anything he has been doing

You just keep making shit up about what I think long after I say again and again and again exactly what I *DO* think.'

It is a fact that he is hypocritical and dishonest.

The end.

I never call for him to be punished, or stripped of his job, or even forced to change his ways.

Meh. Don't even know the guy.

But! When someone says
"Hey, what do oyu think of Chomsky's work?"
I say
"well, he probably doesn't believe it himself, because he is a proven and admitted hypocrite who is probably doing all of this for the cash so keep that in mind while reading his stuff"

That's it.

Hell, I think it is pretty ballsy to do what he does!

I *amazed* by how people freak out, like I want him harmed, or something.

Nope. Not at all. Why would I? I think most people in politics are saying a lot of things they don't actually believe.

>>6616228
>So if you pay taxes to pay for evil acts, you are evil?
I thought you vaguely claimed to know something about Christianity?
You're the terrible liar, aren't you?
Mk 12:17

>>6616236
>When a televangelist

Chomsky isn't a televangelist you silly chucklefuck. His books aren't gospel that you must accept only faith.

Chomsky is not a theorist either. Every single indictment he makes about America is backed up with copious amounts of research and FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

>>6616238
/No middle ground'?
I'm not saying 'shoot the guy'
I'm saying 'take what he says carefully because he doesn't seem to believe it himself'

>>6616255
>I LOVE JEWS THEY ARE SO GOOD AT MANIPULATING INTERNATIONAL FINANCE
>I LOVE BLACKS AND HOW THEY DON'T CARE TO LIVE IN POLITE SOCIETY
>I LOVE WHITES, THEY WERE VERY CLEVER IN SETTING UP A SYSTEM OF PRISON CAMPS FOR THE BLACKS
>I LOVE THE CHINESE, FOOTBINDING WAS BRILLIANT, IN CIVILIZED SOCIETY, WOMEN SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WALK
>I LOVE THE FRENCH, THEY HAVE SUCH A REFRESHINGLY RELAXED ATTITUDE TO BATHING

>>6616207
>But when you discuss political writing the fact that the author doesn't believe/follow the things he advocates are actually important to understanding and evaluating the work.
I don't necessarily think Chomsky disbelieves in any of the things he says. You assume that because he's wealthy and did research for the Pentagon he must not believe his own theories about injustice and power>>6616236
. This is patently false. He's opposed to the influence of money on the democratic process, not to individuals making money off of their own work.
See my point in >>6616191:
>If you could provide more evidence of bad shit Chomsky has done, I'd be willing to listen, but this is basically an irrelevant point that you don't realize most leftists can easily look past not necessarily because they're idiots who don't realize Chomsky has money and worked for the government he criticizes the most, but because they don't really object to either of those things per se. Leftists don't even dislike hypocrisy.
He doesn't think America is Satanic or anything like that. If you actually paid attention to what he says, you would know that.

>>6616236
None of the content of your post had anything to do with Chomsky until the last sentence

>>6616274
What doesn't he believe, exactly? Can you give us actual quotes from Chomsky instead of just your nonsense about loving how much of a shyster he is? You don't seem to actually understand the man's thought at all, the only quote you've presented ITT was the one about fascism, and you didn't understand that at all because you live in Liechtenstein and don't understand American politics.

>>6616252
Sam harris?
Dude, I wrote this
>>6616073
Guess what? I just think people should be leery of political writings where the author obviously doesn't believe what he is writing.

And yeah - a guy that calls the Pentagon 'one of the most evil institutions in human history' while going out of his way to work for them probably doesn't really believe that they are all that bad.

>i believe the rich should pay more, in that they should be forced to pay more; the system should change to force this. until this happens, why should i not use the system in the way it is set up?
Because that is hypocrisy.

And remember; Noam could get a tenured chair at virtually any university in the English-speaking world making a really nice six-figure+ income and could have for the last, oh, 30+ years, with his book royalties and speaking fees on top. Why go shasing after all of those extra grants, contracts, and such if he *really* thinks Capitalism is incompatible with democracy when is already has more than enough money to be in the top 205, even 10% of Americans?

I mean that's fine, more power to him. But if he REALLY believed all that stuff wouldn't $300-$400k a year be enough?

>Equating MIT and the Pentagon that dishonestly
Kid pls, it's like you don't know anything about the way research works

>>6615880
Harris actually 'won' that 'debate'.

>>6616297
>And yeah - a guy that calls the Pentagon 'one of the most evil institutions in human history' while going out of his way to work for them probably doesn't really believe that they are all that bad
Uhhh
>Why go shasing after all of those extra grants, contracts, and such if he *really* thinks Capitalism is incompatible with democracy
Again, you're confusing Chomsky's criticisms of capital's control of American democracy with hatred of market exchanges.

>>6616297
you have no idea how a grant even works!
i am applying for a grant of around 100K right now
this money will go to run a research project
i hire interpreters, run symposia, hire RAs, fly myself and other people around (economy class) - i don't make any money

you are a moronic child - you know nothing of the world and your response is "everything is shit, everyone is covered with filth, so the only non-hypocritical response is to work for a bank and love it"

if you're not leading an insurrection right now, shut the fuck up and learn about the world

>>6616266
Well, since he is responsible for the creation of a lot of the propaganda he claims to oppose, perhaps that is correct.

Would you evaluate the veracity of this statement by Chomsky in 'Language and Politics'?

“the Sandinistas, among these Central American countries, are unique in
that the government doesn’t slaughter its population.”

>>6616285
The 'He's a huckster' part?
well, glad to see you agree.

[Or is your reading/writing that bad?]

>>6616337
>since he is responsible for the creation of a lot of the propaganda he claims to oppose
What are you talking about?

>>6616301
You DO know that he's seeks out contracts with the Pentagon and corporations, right?
You ALSO know he has been repeatedly offered jobs at other universities where they don't take DoD funding, right?
Right?

>>6616325
>"everything is shit, everyone is covered with filth, so the only non-hypocritical response is to work for a bank and love it"
WTeverlovingF are you talking about?!
FFS, I just said the guy is a hypocrite so take his politics lightly!

The
End

what the fuck is wrong with you people. Criticizing some weirdo professor != nihilism

>>6616294
It seems you missed
>>6616247
Stop being lazy and read the thread and follow the links

>>6616344
>the best way to fight a system is to delude yourself that you've done as much as possible to isolate yourself from it

>>6616340
I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying you used the word Chomsky in the sentence. My larger point was that you don't have a point and your arguments are babby-tier.
>>6616344
>You ALSO know he has been repeatedly offered jobs at other universities where they don't take DoD funding, right?
You do realize he might like MIT and appreciate all that defense do$h he uses to research stuff with all the resources available at MIT, right? You do realize that MIT is pretty much an ideal research environment, right?

>>6616343
He contracts with corporations to help them improve their marketing effectiveness. he calls corporate marketing propaganda.

>>6616356
>he contracts with corporations to help them improve their marketing effectiveness.

Citation please.

>>6616294
>you live in Liechtenstein
WTF?!
I live in Atlanta! I am up with a sick kid
Lichtenstein?!

>>6616351
You do know that the idea of capitalism and democracy being at odds with each other is basic leftism, right? What exactly are we supposed to find apalling about those quotes?

>>6616307
...you're not mentioning the DoD...

>>6616348
and i am saying that your proofs of hypocrisy are nothing of the sort
"if one is to have the state largely as it is, the system should be changed so that people like me will be forced to pay more taxes" ~= "people like me should as a personal decision, pay more taxes voluntarily"

>>6616351
I don't see what those quotes are supposed to prove other than that Chomsky is a libertarian socialist living in a capitalist society. Could you explain what you wanted to prove other than that so that I can follow your reasoning? You clearly think you're smarter than me, it shouldn't be too hard for you.

>>6616364
Why should I? You've already demonstrated that you don't know how funding works.

>>6616353
>The first step in fighting a system is to stop seeking out more ways to participate with it, especially in ways that make it more efficient

Or do you think MLK should have, I don't know, taken money from the Democratic Party to help them pass more Jim Crow laws?

>>6616354
>I am a poor reader and writer
FTFY
Chomsky is a multi-millionaire with two million dollar plus homes, etc.

>>6616362
Well, for certain values of Left, sure.

>>6616375
you're doing this thing that americans do where they just say whatever because "it's an argument; i'm trying to win"
i hope you're american, otherwise you must be very lonely in your own society

Well, the benadryl has kicked in, the little guy is asleep, and I will be going to bed soon.
There is a quote in this thread that this thread proves is true
>Leftists don't even dislike hypocrisy.
Obviously!

>>6616378
Huh, I guess you just don't like to give meaningful responses.

>>6616392
There is no argument going on here.
At lest, I don't think so.

The quotes from Chomsky are accurate.
The facts of his income, etc. are well-established.
I think it is obvious he is a hypocrite and a huckster.
Now, a lot of people in this thread seem to think that either doing the opposite of what you claim to believe isn't hypocritical or that they don't care, which is all fine.
And some other weirdos seem to think that my belief that Noam is a hypocrite somehow means I am a nihilist or think he's evil, or think I'm from Lichtenstein (?), etc., but I have no idea where that comes from.

Seriously - look. My posts are mainly
-He really said that
-He really did that
-no, I don't think (x)

Now, I think the
>the best way to fight a system is to delude yourself that you've done as much as possible to isolate yourself from it
Business is pretty odd; I do my very best to avoid people/groups/etc. I think are evil, but this appears to not be how others think.

Maybe that's why they like Noam's stuff, I don't know

>>6616354
Is 'an ideal research environment' worth cooperating with something you think is one of the worst evils in human history?
Would you work there if you had to work with, oh, the Khmer rouge?

>>6616419
>Is 'an ideal research environment' worth cooperating with something you think is one of the worst evils in human history?
Someone already posted a video where Chomsky addresses this. You haven't responded to that post yet.
>Would you work there if you had to work with, oh, the Khmer rouge?
Probably, if I loved my work enough. I'm an American, I know what my government does, but I'd still take its money, since money is just something g you need to survive in a capitalist society.

>>6616247
>So you are claiming:
>>>"..under Capitalism we can't have Democracy..."
>>>Or
>>>"...Capitalism is not fit for the modern world..."
>>or
>>>"...Capitalism [is] a new and unanticipated system of injustice..."
>are NOT Chomsky quotes?
>You suck at lying.

I don't know if those are quotes or not, but I wasn't disputing them. What I asked whether it was a direct quote or not was the earlier stated 'Capitalism is fascism,' and as it turns out I was right to suspect it wasn't.

Don't you think you should apologize for calling me a liar?

>>6616261
>>So if you pay taxes to pay for evil acts, you are evil?
>I thought you vaguely claimed to know something about Christianity?
>You're the terrible liar, aren't you?
>Mk 12:17

I'm just seeing how you react when your own logic traces this associative evil directly back to you.

I don't know why, but Harris gets on my nerves. His logic is more often than not fairly solid, but he's such a faggot about it.

>>6616708
Chumpsky gets on my nerves by wearing the same god damn shirt for the last 40 years.

>>6614035
>>6613971

i.e., he got all this money from the military and spent it in non-military purposes. He's been deviating the Pentagon's funds into fruitless shit so that they spend less in actual war.

>>6617141
This
>2015
>Not understanding how research funding works

>>6616708
Harris' "logic" is fairly solid to the extent that it serves his needs for publicity. He doesn't give a shit about what's true, he just pretends to.

>>6616439
Someone can't read

>>6616443
>You're responding to a post with links to the source of the quotes in it
>"I don't know if those are quotes or not"
Your earlier post says
>"If you had used actual quotes to begin with, I wouldn't have said anything."
Now you say
>"I wasn't disputing them"
You are obviously a liar

Political economy of human rights if you want to know what he actually said about Cambodia
Not the uncited claims every one makes

>>6617390
Not sure what you mean by that. That whole post seemed an apt response to your nonsense.

>>6617312
what? elaborate

>>6617420
>Your earlier post says
>>"If you had used actual quotes to begin with, I wouldn't have said anything."

And I wouldn't have. What I said something about was you saying he tells college kids 'Capitalism is fascism,' which evidently I was right to question because that is not an actual Chomsky quote.

>You are obviously a liar

You are calling me a liar when I haven't lied. Show me where you mistakenly think I have, or apologize like the adult I'm sure you would like to think you are, or reveal yourself as the only liar and hypocrite in all your charges of lies and hypocrisy in this thread.