/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16566738]

How badly did Noam Chomsky lose this debate to Foucault?

[Anonymous No.16566760]

As badly as he lost this one
https://mobile.twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/1315658316924817408

[Anonymous No.16566790]

>>16566760
He didn't win the debate with focoult tho

[Anonymous No.16566965]

>>16566760
heres the podcast without the paywall

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeeO80tGElM

[Anonymous No.16566982]

>>16566760
>announcing oneself to have won
I don't even agree with Chomsky but the person he was arguing with is a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.16567005]

>>16566982
>get famous for doing a retarded pseudo intellectual podcast
>bash an old fart who's literally on your side
the left is a joke now

[Anonymous No.16567029]

>>16567005
The biggest enemy of the left is the left itself, pic related.

[Anonymous No.16567054]

>>16567005
> your side
> "mmmmmm vote for Biden"
> literally on your side

Ah I see you are an retard

[Anonymous No.16567071]

>>16566760
he pretty much dismantled those two but why does Noam "Vote Biden" Chomsky still claim to be an anarchist?

[Anonymous No.16567095]

>>16566738
Did he lose? I haven't seen the full debate but the parts I have seen made it seem like Chomsky had a somewhat more reasonable position. Foucault's problem has always been that he produces no tenable philosophy for social organization because he idolizes a bizarre psychological primitivism that's impossible to maintain.

[Anonymous No.16567120]

briahna joy gray ghetto gaggers

[Anonymous No.16567137]

>>16566965
cutie

[Anonymous No.16567151]

>>16567054
Yes

[Anonymous No.16567164]

>>16566738

I've said this many times on /lit/, and I'll say it again. It was a 1-1 draw, although Foucault got the more impressive goal in the second half when he correctly said "one does not make war because it is just, one makes war in order to win" and then Chomsky is all emotional and like Nuh Uh. Chomsky however dominated the first half by correctly explicating a tenable conception of human nature while Foucault sat there and didn't say much except to incorrectly cavil But What About Marxism Huh Did You Ever Think Of That.

[Anonymous No.16567172]

>>16567095

Chomsky is right in the first half, where they discuss the notion of human nature. Yes, there really is such a thing as human nature, howevever qualified, and yes it really is a useful category for accurately apprehending the world.

It's in the second half, which is about a different subject, politics/war, that Chomsky goes flaccid and Foucault springs to life. Naturally the conversation revolves around the then-ongoing Vietnam as a case study, and a student even calls Chomsky out for being in a war machine (MIT) but Chomsky wriggles out of with I'm Le Fifth Column Man.

[Anonymous No.16567182]

>>16567054
>implying chappie trappie + audience aren't also mercenaries for the democratic national committee
>believing anybody is truly on your side

[Anonymous No.16567884]

>>16567071
because he cares more about achieving things than circle jerking to ideological purity

[Anonymous No.16567964]

>>16567071
You would know the answer to that if you actually listened to it

[Anonymous No.16567982]

>>16567172
You can always tell the kike

[Anonymous No.16567991]

>>16566760
>that tweet
What a faggot

[Anonymous No.16568003]

>>16567054
You certainly should vote Biden because they'll at least do something productive. Leftists are a bunch of stubborn faggoty children you pout when they don't get their way.

[Anonymous No.16568013]

>>16567071
He's for democracy first, he sees anarchism as a means to democracy. He concludes Trump is the opposite of democracy while Biden, to him, at least has pretensions to it.

[Anonymous No.16568026]

>>16567884
>chompsky
>achieving anything except lining his own wallet
foucault unironically did more for achieving the left's goals in a day than chompsky has in his whole life. i say this as someone who isn't a lefty.

[Anonymous No.16568073]

>>16567071
When you've been politically active for a long time eventually you realize that if you actually want to see the realization of your ideal society, or something approaching it, you need to be tactical. The all-or-nothing ideological purists always lose. I've had email exchanges with him about your very question and he's always said that you have to choose the better of the two candidates, even if the choice is terrible, and then with a large coalition of like-minded activists continually put pressure on him to move his politics in the ideal direction. He thinks elections are far less important than actual civic engagement.

[Anonymous No.16568900]

>>16567029
This. Read Sam Moss, Camatte, Monsieur Dupont, and the insurrectionists

[Anonymous No.16568976]

>>16567029
bakunin is arguing against absolute power, not the inherent badness of the left you fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.16568992]

>>16568976
Try reading sometime

[Anonymous No.16569283]

i have to agree with chomsky on this one.

[Anonymous No.16569294]

>>16567054
bait

[Anonymous No.16569311]

>>16568026
>if your not a literal ascetic you can't be a leftie
>if you have any actual policies in the current system beyond behead everyone you aren't a real leftie
>if you aren't a revolutionary even though it's retarded and utopian and not politically viable in any conceivable way you aren't a leftie
>if you write in a way that makes sense to 99% people you aren't a leftie

[Anonymous No.16569666]

>>16569311
>yes TankieChad.jpg

[Anonymous No.16570464]

>>16567054
>an retard

[Anonymous No.16571760]

>>16566760
Can't decide who I despise more, Chomsky or those insufferable Chapo morons. Either way, I don't think I'll be listening to this any time soon.

[Anonymous No.16571834]

>>16568003
this, last year I had bad diarrhea, and while shitting my heart out on the toilet, I regretted every second I spent watching Zizek videos on YouTube

[Anonymous No.16571842]

>>16568026
that screenshot takes a lot of effort, but 10k is low, considering how much Obongo charges

[Anonymous No.16571867]

>>16571834
wouldn't zizek see this as a compliment?

[Anonymous No.16572056]

>>16567071
chomsky has an extremely strange conception of anarchism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod

[Anonymous No.16572111]

>>16566760
Lmao, and it was a young, black lady to point that out. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.16572278]

>>16566738
Noam was raped in the face on the impossibility of epistemology and in the arse on the amorality of proletarian praxis.

[Anonymous No.16572298]

>>16567164
Re watch the first half. Chomsky own goals the impossibility of proving human nature “it’s be nice” Foucault stares “it’d be nice ;(“

[Anonymous No.16572812]

>>16566738

Chomsky should have stuck to linguistics.

[Anonymous No.16572853]

>>16567054
Reminder that Trump has picked 3 Supreme Court justices that Clinton could have picked instead and it's all the fault of people like you. Good luck getting any significant left wing wins when the ACA is stricken down as unconstitutional.
>inb4 but muh accelerationist revolution
Implying the Chaptards aren't edgy reformists who are too mentally dull to realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous No.16572977]

>>16572298

He did no such thing and I don't even care for the guy. You're one of those, I see. Please let me know the names of the humans who have survived completely deprived of oxygen for two days, since human beings are infinitely malleable and all.

[Anonymous No.16573254]

>>16566760
>https://mobile.twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/1315658316924817408
I fucking hate Twitter fags

[Anonymous No.16573259]

>>16572977
Prove that there are humans. Don’t probabilistically demonstrate. Don’t demonstrate from faulty sense data. Prove it. You’ll be lauded. It would be nice. Go read Hume until you get it.

[Anonymous No.16573273]

>>16571760
Unless you're a corporate exec, I can't imagine why you'd despise Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.16573276]

>>16572298
>the impossibility of proving human nature
I seriously wonder about people that say this. Do they think you could eg. raise a child to enjoy being tortured? Or enjoy being totally isolated?

[Anonymous No.16573310]

>>16567054
>writes a book propaganda and public consent
>tells you to vote for an establishment shill anyway
What a hack. If he had any integrity, he would at least vote third party and tell you to do the same, or blow up the Capitol in Minecraft.

[Anonymous No.16573321]

>>16573276
Note the verb go read Hume. >>16573273
Because he’s counterproductive and has set the workers movement back with imperialist adventurism (Iran) and faulty argument (Vietnam war crimes material).

He should have stuck to linguistics and joined the fucking union and organised.

[Anonymous No.16573329]

>>16573321
If you're being pedantic about the word prove then sure, and Hume wrote a fucking essay called A Treatise of Human Nature so it's hardly like he thought nothing could be said about it.

[Anonymous No.16573523]

>>16573329
Yes but Chomsky’s moralism in politics demands that human nature be specified beyond empirical and historical limits.

Contrast to Hegel, Stirner, Marx, Nietzsche and Foucault who don’t use morality but power. You don’t need proof to shoot people. That’s why the halves are linked and Chomchom loses both.

[Anonymous No.16574335]

>>16566760
idk who these people are or what they believe but as people they are complete pricks. I hope I am never under their jurisdiction

[Anonymous No.16574428]

>>16573259
You've just proven that you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.16574445]

>>16566738
They both lost the debate to reality

[Anonymous No.16574483]

>>16567884
>dude just abandon your principles
lmao

[Anonymous No.16574726]

>>16574445
Foucault is surprisingly decent in that debate.
Besides the topical arguments of the day, it was largely a debate about whether to be a moralfag, and Foucault just had the correct position (not being one).

[Anonymous No.16575026]

Neither won or lost, they spent most of it talking past each other.

[Anonymous No.16575056]

>>16566738
The debate never happened.