[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 57 KB, 1000x600, noam-chomsky-smile-ap-img-1000x600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18918872 No.18918872 [Reply] [Original]

Give a legitimate and unironic criticism of him without using any 4chan buzzwords

>> No.18918887

No matter what he's said, written or argued for over the years; no matter whether I agree or disagree with some, all or none of his positions; it all boils down to one thing for Chomsky: Vote Democrat.

>> No.18918889

>>18918872
coward. a tool for the state to tame everybody while making his listeners feel like (illusive) dissident free thinkers. the epitome of nothing is going to happen. no true critic of the state believes that voting matters in 2021.
very good at linguistics i'll give him that.

>> No.18919038

he's old and i'm gonna be sad when he dies

>> No.18919044

>>18918872
He trashed a career of some linguist, who was ultimately right and now somehow integrated the stuff he was trashing in the 1970's as something "he was always talking about". This is the general problem with him in linguistics, he writes such elliptical theories that everything can be integrated into it and he will never admit he borrowed something from other linguists

>> No.18919053

>>18918872
Subversive jew.

>> No.18919079

>>18918872
Chomsky a liberal using communism as an aesthetic. He’s an elitist academic who would be one of the first people to want to stop a worker’s revolution if it were to ever happen. He constantly demonizes the white working class. Not only that, he always supports whatever neoliberal puppet the DNC has propped up every election cycle. He almost always equates the republican candidate with figures like Hitler (or, in Trump’s case, he says the Republicans candidate is worse than figures like Hitler) and tries to convince people that they will almost certainly lead to environmental destruction and nuclear war. And whenever the republican candidate wins the presidency, neither happens. Still, he continues to do it every four years.

>> No.18919082

>>18919053
it says ''without using 4chan buzzwords'' in the op, anon

>> No.18919084

test

>> No.18919089

>>18919082
Undermining Hebrew.

>> No.18919104

>>18918872
no need to. the perfect criticism of him has already been written
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod
I'm not a linguist so I won't comment on that aspect of his work but I find it odd that he know remarkably few languages for a linguist and one of the most acclaimed at that. he's only been confirmed to have a working knowledge of English, Biblical Hebrew and some Arabic. is it unnecessary to know many languages as a theoretical linguist?

>> No.18919138

>>18918887
Coming from an old Chomsky acolyte who used to spam his face on this board. His socialist politics are too vague. He doesn't really take any hard position and has never wrote a single sentence on what the socialist society would actually look like beyond meaningless phrases like Workers councils and Collective ownership. When pressed in interviews or debates he never goes further incapable or unwilling to explain how it would work. Also he lost the debate to Christopher Hitchens of all people lol

>> No.18919152

>>18919104
He knows way more than that. I don't know where this myth came from. He did the debate with Foucault who spoke French without a translator and he got pretty advanced at times.

>> No.18919155
File: 931 KB, 2953x1969, ABN-24-08-2009-24_chomsky_chavez.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18919155

>>18918872
Simplification.
Chomsky has a simplified view of foreign policy. It's not all black and white, it's not all ''US bad'' and ''others good, or not so bad, which ends up being the same when you're forced to choose'', he will be very skeptical about any right-wing politician but will pose for pics with Hugo Chavez, the countries he supported all have turned into shit and his favorite politicians turned out to be criminals.
On other issues he's also clueless, his views no more well-informed than those of any left-wing uni professor.
Here is Chomsky talking about IQ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQm2kf5vbqs
Utterly and totally clueless, as you can see, regardless of whether you care about IQ or not. Compare that stupid video with the criticisms of Nassim Taleb, who made an actual effort to refute IQ (whether he was successful or not, I leave for the experts to decide, but Chomsky was clearly amateurish in his answer).
When I asked Chomsky by email what were his views on metaethics (ultimately, i wanted to talk gun control, because I feel as though most anti-gun people are unconscious utilitarians) all he did was answer "Well, you know, these are complicated questions, one could write an entire essay about it". Then why didn't he write it? He doesn't even have a coherent moral basis for his views, it's all a very confused version of Protestant Christian morality, not even Jewish. See also his bizarre criticisms of Hustler magazine after he inadvertently gave them an interview. This shows how much of a traditional American puritan he is. **He never really made an effort to question the moral basis of the society he grew up in, only those actions which are hypocritical when judged by that same moral basis**.
Not to mention that he doesn't really read the stuff he criticizes, at least not always, as can be seen by that shameful exchange, during a talk, in which he started to criticize Allan Bloom only to be forced to confess he hand't read the book after claiming to have read it in 15 minutes.

Still, his criticism of the US are mostly correct. However, it's his lack of criticism of the US's enemies, and his incapacity to see that things are way more complicated than they look, that makes his views distorted, which is also why in the real world the governments he supports tend to turn into shit really fast. As Zizek (and I dislike Zizek) said: it's hard to find a guy who's been more empirically wrong than Chomsky.

>> No.18919170

>>18919155
Who do you like?

>> No.18919188

alright, who's gonna post the khmer rouge debacle

>> No.18919190

>>18919079
Somewhat related- Isn't Zizek a liberal using communism as an aesthetic too, like hasn't he outright admitted this

>> No.18919222

>>18918872
Languaje is not the constitution of reality, in fact, languaje is derived from reality, and accidental, and most of the time, a colateral phenomenon.

>> No.18919246

>>18919170
I am a political skeptic, and I look at any attempt at giving political solutions to problems with deep mistrust.
I like Nassim Taleb, but I am not a Talebian, his system too can be criticized (specially the precautionary principle, which I think is rather vague, but I might be wrong, given that I am not able to read the Technical Incerto).
I'd say my sole political belief is: try to keep it local, because, statistically, the further you go the higher the chances of mistakes happening. It's only a rule of thumb, though. I think every single issue should be looked at individually, and even then it's still very hard to find an answer.
I am talking about the merely empirical side of politics here. The moral side is even weirder, and I am even more of a skeptic, although in my personal life I try to be rather stoically moral.
I went all the way from Chomskysm (I used to send him emails when I was 16, and read him a lot) to Sir Roger Scruton, flirted with Adorno and Moldbug, Zizek and Bryan Caplan, favored both Obama and Trump, and my views have changed so much in these last nine years that I simply know that whatever views I might be tempted to hold today will probably change too, and so I do not really hold any, other than that preference for localism, and a certain degree of respect towards others in my personal life.
With that being said, my personal moral sensibilities have always been, even when I was an admirer of Scruton, towards the personal freedoms of the individual, so I have nothing against drugs, guns, abortion, lgbt, racism, jokes, tattoos, promiscuity, porn etc. Even though I personally stay away from these things (except jokes and promiscuity). I am not a libertarian, though, because libertarianism is a system and I deeply mistrust systems, and it gets weaker and weaker the more you look deeply into it.

>> No.18919251

>>18918887
This. He'll talk about sweeping reform and change and a spirit of justice and then roll over and tell you to vote for Biden. I don't think he's a grifter, just an overly optimistic pragmatist.

>> No.18919261

>>18919155
what is wrong with what he said in that video?

>> No.18919271

>>18919079
Trump's actions on climate change has been absolutely damaging to climate policies worldwide, we might not see it immediately at this moment but they could actually be the catalyst for untold levels of disaster in the future.
Also he doesn't as much support as he does the lesser of two evil things with Democrats, which I think is whatever.
Also when has he demonised white people?

>> No.18919278

>>18918872
Controlled opposition.

>> No.18919295

>>18919278
Chomsky is the farthest you could get from controlled opposition, he's not on any national major media platforms, he's been a staunch opponent of US foreign policy and lastly, he doesn't shill for Democrats as some like to claim.

>> No.18919297

>>18919261
He didn't even try to refute the article, and literally said you shouldn't argue about it because it's evil.
It's so bad it's not even wrong. It's merely so lazy that it hurts.

>> No.18919312

>>18919044
>He trashed a career of some linguist, who was ultimately right
More on that?

>> No.18919315

>>18918887
He only started saying vote Democrat well into the 90s. In terms of climate change, I really don't see how he's wrong

>> No.18919319

>>18919079
>He constantly demonizes the white working class.

Give me one example. Literally just one example

>> No.18919331

>>18919295
>he's not on any national major media platforms

I don't believe in 'controlled opposition', but Chomsky is definitely a mainstream name, certainly more mainstream than Richard Wolff, Roger Scruton, Douglas Murray, Habermas, or 99% of other public intelectuals... He likes to claim he's been ''cancelled'' by the media, but it's all self-pity.

https://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/noam-chomsky

>> No.18919359

>>18919319
No.

>> No.18919398

i do applaud him for standing up to some of the woke cancel mobs

>> No.18919409

>>18919044
>>18919312
Sounds like he's talking about Daniel Everett, who studied the Piraha language and concluded that it refuted Chomsky's concept of universal grammar. Chomsky supported Everett until he came out with the refutation, at which point Chomsky threw the academic equivalent of a hissy fit. I briefly studied this case in college but that was years ago and I don't know the current consensus. Nonetheless, the persistence of Piraha in the literature tells me that Everett had a point.

>> No.18919420

i see charges of him failing to understand the dynamics of foreign policy, oversimplification and so forth. so we have an end goal of foreign policy, presumably the proliferation of state interests which we believe will enhance our own flourishing and presumably that of the global community, and we have the means though which that is accomplished. His main critique of these means with respect to US policy seem to revolve around observed failures to enhance well-being in the short term(and indeed in the long term, depending on how this is defined) through prioritization of our own interests at the expense of others, which he perceives to be rather ominous with respect to the achievement of whatever end goal we shall reach. So, the criticism of this is that it fails to account for the inherent practical political necessities of realpolitik and so forth, which necessitate short term misfortunes in service to some grand political calculation, and so on. Now, this he would respond to perhaps by casting doubt on the efficacy of such grand designs, or policy-makers intellectual capacities to accomplish such designs in the first place with respect to benevolent end goals. Nothing is easier than to obscure private interests and anterior motives behind the veneer of a benevolent and elite architectural class whom few conveniently possess intellectual access to, and to wave away the worst atrocities with vague allusions to practical political necessity and grand designs. In short, the capacity of these masters of foreign policy should be called into question considering the order in which past events have transpired, which indeed does cast doubt on both true intent and capability, and considering the inherent limitations of human intelligence to accurately model real time vast models of how such and such a maneuver will serve our political interests 10 steps down the line and so on, we ought to be extremely cautious when committing actions which we would not wish to become universal laws

>> No.18919439
File: 59 KB, 673x575, 1602728239879.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18919439

>> No.18919454

>>18919439
How does this relate to Chomsky?

>> No.18919473

>>18918872
It's pseudo scholarship when he does foreign policy reviews. He starts with a narrative and then represents facts as fitting that narrative, ignoring facts that don't fit. Sure, he will cover the work in citations, but it's not a serious analysis that takes counterfactuals and other prevailing views seriously. It's propaganda aimed at building what appears to be a solid narrative that is crafted for an already loyal audience. There is a reason he isn't taken at all seriously in IR.

For example, he claims the US intentionally bombed the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan as punishment for the USS Cole attack. His evidence? It seems coincidental and the US security apparatus is bad. No leaks support this. No memoirs from decision makers. Nor does he rely on these sources as real scholars would, nor does he cultivate sources in those communities as they would. He has a narrative and coincidence is enough.

It's actually a pretty remarkable claim to say the attack wasn't based on flawed intelligence, but was petty vengeance, and he has nothing to support it except coincidence, but this is an example of how Chomsky works. Throughout his work, coincidence and the idea of nefarious, powerful bad people crops up again and again to explain bad events. This is also why his policy proposals are amorphous and shit. Because the word is complex, and creating better processes is extremely difficult. But he is a propagandist, so it isn't difficult for him, it's just a matter of bad people being in charge, and if good people were in charge things would be good.

>> No.18919512

>>18919454
Sowell has blown him the fuck out several times, I just didn't find a picture of Sowell quick enough.

>> No.18919556

>>18919409
it makes sense Chom would do that. Universal grammar is one of like 3 of his contributions to human knowledge. It's shitty, but the man is trying to protect his legacy.
relevant captcha: SS MAD

>> No.18919891

>>18919439
damn that's a based pro-communist quote, bravo! the rich really are parasites living off the labor of the masses

>> No.18919893
File: 767 KB, 1720x610, i_remember_you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18919893

>>18919473
I remember you, wasn't this a response to something you wrote along those lines? I keep records of these things

>> No.18919918

>>18919893
Wasn't me. Also that's a shitty response that reeks of Dunning Kruger syndrome. No one is calling memoirs pillars of truth you fucking mong, they're generally useful in that people with bones to pick make their case to their peers in them through terms that they and other in the know will understand, not that they will go with the unvarnished truth, although plenty of journalists do succeed at getting fairly candid responses at that level, particularly after the fact.

Citing the CIA shit makes you look double retarded because the CIA's track record at actually influencing opinion is demonstrably dog shit, and reeks of fan boy fantasy.

>> No.18919922

>>18919893
>Capping your own shitty responses
>Le reddit spacing
kys

>> No.18919948

>>18919473
>There is a reason he isn't taken at all seriously in IR
i want to know more about IR, any reccs? this was my post>>18919420

>> No.18919951

Based on his support of the lone gunman theory of the Kennedy assassination I have no choice but to conclude he is a fed and a coward. Seethe and dilate

>> No.18919955

>>18919409
Too long, didn't read. But he's a recent article written by Everett describing the conflict:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-language-is-not-everything-that-noam-chomsky-said-it-is

>> No.18920015

>>18919918
>CIA's track record at actually influencing opinion is demonstrably dog shit, and reeks of fan boy fantasy.
>What is Edward Bernays

>> No.18920043

>>18918872
Look say what you will about his foreign policy and political opinions, his theory of generative grammar revolutionized the field of syntax. The recursive phrase structure grammar that he developed was elegant and highly descriptive -- it could account for more linguistic data (i.e. spoken language) than any theory hitherto. His original phrase structure grammar has gone through multiple generations' worth of criticisms and revisions, to the point where it is no longer the simple, elegant theory it once was. But, despite lots of disagreement within the field of linguistics, it is still the starting point from which all critique begins. I believe that most of the superficial controversy from universal grammar comes from social constructivists. If we have a unique, specialized capacity in the human brain to acquire language, like the capacity to recognize slight changes in facial expressions or intonation, then this suggests that our "language instinct" is determined biologically. And for some goddamn reason, academics in the social science abhor biological explanations, as if it limits the infinite expression of the human spirit. All you retards should stop reading 4chan for opinions on Chomsky's linguistic work -- I have never seen a good post. Just read the lithograph that started it all, Syntactic Structures (1957). It's barely over 100 pages, and in it he clearly describes the motivations for developing the theory.

>> No.18920109
File: 55 KB, 450x338, i think.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18920109

>>18920043
>And for some goddamn reason, academics in the social science abhor biological explanations, as if it limits the infinite expression of the human spirit.
It absolutely does. Give me one single argument against that. Fuck biological determinism man.

>> No.18920127

>>18920015
>What is Edward Bernays
A useless overpaid hack who happened to be present on the astronomically rare occasion the CIA succeeded at something.

>> No.18920132

He's a cuck.

>> No.18920139

>>18920127
>astronomically rare occasion
is this what they call cope?

>> No.18920143

>>18920127
holy bullshittery

>> No.18920160

>>18920127
seethe

>> No.18920162

>>18920139
Who is coping off this? The CIA is inept, sorry they can't be your bogeyman.

>> No.18920164

>>18918872
He argued killing people from negligence is worse than killing then on purpose.

>> No.18920177

>>18918887
Exactly this. he gets funding from the fucking CIA for a reason. he's an operative

>> No.18920200

>>18920127
>>18920162
What's your definition of "success" for the CIA? They have their hand in many successful coups detat including Argentina 76, Bolivia 71, Chile 73, Guatemala 54, Panama 54. They have supported dictatorships for the sole reason that these were preferable to the socialists. The CIA is very good at propping up rebels and dictators, or jumping ship when the rebellion fails. My own people were subject to this from 1961-75

>> No.18920225

>>18920109
What makes you want to eat food? Were you socially conditioned to do this? Or is there some stronger driving force? How about sleep, why do you choose to do that? Because you were taught? Now that we've established the primacy of biology over culture as instrumental to our most basic drives, the question is now simply one of degrees.

>> No.18920233

>>18920162
i swear to god if you cite one of these
>declassified failed experiments
>iraq and afghanistan
>snowden
as proofs that the agency is incompetent i will personally drive over to your house and fuck your ass

>> No.18920234

>>18920164
so does he think the holomodor is worse than the holocaust?

>> No.18920250

>>18920200
All the CIA did in the 50s was get their own agents killed and keep the KGB busy, in the 70s they propped up disastrous regimes that collapsed eventually anyway, in the 80s they helped create Al-Qaeda for no good reason, and in the 90s and 00s they routinely failed to stop what they created. In between all they did was drink and scare college kids. The CIA's greatest success was tricking people into thinking they're glowy baddies.
>My own people were subject to this from 1961-75
I bet they weren't. I bet they were subjected to corruption and violence from their own, and the CIA took all the credit until it wasn't advantageous anymore.

>> No.18920251

>>18919138
When did he debate Hitchens?

>> No.18920256

>>18920233
>>18920160
>>18920143
I can only assume you're seething this hard because you're insecure glowniggers yourself. Sorry you didn't get that cool Middle East station posting and have to watch 4chan all day with the FBI counter-terror retards.

>> No.18920266

>>18920250
>I bet they weren't
You piece of shit.

>> No.18920365

>>18919155
>US bad
i dunno about "others good" but this is true

>> No.18920388

>>18920109
All of your desires and all your cognition are biological determined

>> No.18920393

>>18919439
The societies that thrive have a large and growing class of proletarians working for the parasites that have the capital.

>> No.18920415

>>18920388
keep scooping dronie

>> No.18920428

So many brainlet takes in here. In regards to what Chomsky is good at, it goes: Linguistics > Foreign Policy > Philosophy of Science > Domestic policy > Domestic Policy of other countries. The last two he's pretty crap at, his comments on the refugee crisis in Europe is trash.

>>18919155
>>18919473
Chomsky literally admits being biased against the US is part of his philosophy, simply because it's only relevant to be critical of things you're only in contact with.

That said, the US legit has the most evil foreign policy since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, so all these "waaaah be balanced please" bitching is just irrelevant.

>> No.18920486

>>18919104
>is it unnecessary to know many languages as a theoretical linguist?
No, it's not necessary. Languages are systematically analysed through their documented grammar and vocabulary, while learning them all one by one for decades (i.e. memorising grammar and vocabulary that is already documented) would be horribly inefficient. Of course, linguists do tend to know many languages, but it's not a necessity.

>> No.18920511

>>18920200
The CIA didn't start any of those coups, the natives did. All the CIA could do is give them some money and some assurances the US wouldn't try to punish them.

Your people were subjected to themselves. Iran still complains about the US doing their coup when it was one fucking case officer giving out $100,000 and making phone calls that was the total sum of US involvement. The CIA likes to take credit to seem useful and the natives like to shift blame but all that shit was les on the inside.

>> No.18920530

>>18920428
>That said, the US legit has the most evil foreign policy since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, so all these "waaaah be balanced please" bitching is just irrelevant.
cope harder third worlder. or better yet: American born descendent of third worlders.

>> No.18920531

>>18920428
>That said, the US legit has the most evil foreign policy since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan

The Soviet Union was worse.

>> No.18920576

>>18920531
Domestic yes obviously, foreign policy no. You have Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, Georgia and Ukraine vs Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, Haiti, Argentina, Brazil, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, East Timor, Iraq twice, Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen and Iran. Not mentioning supporting Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Hell, does Soviet have anything matching Vietnam alone?

>> No.18920712

>>18919138
>>18920251
hitchens or harris?

>> No.18920729

http://mileswmathis.com/chom.pdf

>> No.18920741

>>18920729
>http://mileswmathis.com/chom.pdf
isn't this guy a stirnerite?

>> No.18920783

>>18918872
Foucault pushes his shit in two nil on live tv and chomsky can only moan uselessly about how he’d like language to mean things but can not prove such; and, that he thinks the working class are naughty.

Foucault doubles his milt inside Chomsky.

>> No.18920938

>>18920233
They made over 600 assassination attempts against Castro and failed.

>> No.18920962

>>18920576
I am Brazilian and the US did nothing particularly bad here, other than supporting the military regime, but it didn't establish it. In fact, the military regime was very popular, and still is. If you're comparing this to the Soviet Union, you have fallen for propaganda.
(I am not a Bolsonaro voter, nor do I care for the military. Regardless, the dictatorship was extremely mild, killed about 200 or 300 commies, which is less than the number of people who are killed every week nowadays by gang members.)

>> No.18920987

>>18919409
Where is the grammar of piranha Dan?

>> No.18921053

>>18920250
>>18920511
Shut the fuck up armchair general, you're talking straight out your fat ass. The CIA provided my people with rifles, mortars, military advisors, and tactical training. They built an airfield in the mountains of Laos. It's called Long Tieng and they flew O-1s and T-28s out of there for recon and attack ops. CIA also operated Air America from there, ferrying opium to fund the war. How did the CIA pull it off? They promised the locals (who had no realistic prospect of joining the war) military support and US immigration status. Then CIA bailed out when the war was deemed unwinnable and left the locals holding the bag. The airfield scene in 1975 was exactly like Kabul right now. Like I said, they're good at this game. Educate yourself you ignorant fuckhead. The CIA has succeeded in destabilizing numerous regions in the name of anticommunism.

>> No.18921069

>>18921053
>reasoning with people defending the CIA

>> No.18921080

>>18921069
How cute. You're so illiterate you you think I'm defending the organization that caused my peoples to be genocided by Vietcong and Pathet Lao. An hero strongly implied

>> No.18921134 [DELETED] 

>>18919409
Everett kind of seems like a retard honestly.

>> No.18921137

>>18919409
Everett kind of seems like a retard honestly. The Piraha thing comes across as his Pygmalion project.

>> No.18921152

>>18921137
Honestly, you sound like one too. Not defending him, like I said I didn't study linguistics beyond 1 class. But as it stands your little statement is completely without merit.

>> No.18921200

>>18921152
It's pretty clear that his study, theory, and personal values are all intertwined in such a way that they are all mutually compromised:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

>> No.18921224

>>18920938
lies and propaganda. they never wanted him to die.

>> No.18921235

>>18919044
isn't trashing other scientist findings, is normal in academia ?

>> No.18921327

I think his theory of universal grammar was outdated before he proposed it, and he calls Zizek a hack only because he doesn't bother to try and understand him.

>> No.18921482
File: 48 KB, 891x496, chom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18921482

89 replies, not a single valid criticism, just a variation on vague word salads, ad homs and wholesale fabrications.

chomssky remains and undefeated intellectual and moral giant, perhaps the only honest american in history.

>> No.18921485

>>18918872
He's a coward. Pure and simple.

>> No.18921493

>>18918872
About to read Manufacturing Consent, has anyone else read it?

>> No.18921494

Politically a joke.
Senile.
Created a personality cult in American linguistics that has actively damaged it as a scientific discipline.

>> No.18921501

>>18921327
Zizek is a hack and he's absolutely right on every point.

>> No.18921558

>>18921501
how so?

>> No.18921601

>>18921501
Yes he's a hack for the cameras. Well, more of a performance artist. But he's a serious scholar in his field--in his important writings. I don't think Chomsky has the time or patience to familiarize himself thoroughly enough with Hegel and Lacan to properly critique Zizek; I don't know why he bothers critiquing him at all, given his lack of expertise in the topics Zizek expounds upon.

>> No.18921776

>>18919246
Woah, this is exactly what I say about myself, down to every detail. This post is actually really uncanny.

>> No.18921799

>>18920712
Hitchens. Harris is a retard

>> No.18921800

>>18920200
nothing wrong with dictatorships, if it's for a good reason.

>> No.18921809

>>18918872
Literal gnome

>> No.18921947

>>18918872
https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/article/radical-critic-and-land-free (https://de.gegenstandpunkt.com/artikel/noam-chomsky-radikale-kritik-an-land-unbegrenzten-freiheit))

>> No.18921949

>>18920234
they didn't happen (at least not the scale we're taught)
>>18921800
this

>> No.18922130

>>18919420
>>18919948
anybody???

>> No.18922169

>>18920576
For every Latin American country you named you could also say that the soviets intervined in them through Cuba. Also you forgot African countrys

>> No.18922242

>>18922169
America was far worse to Cuba than the Soviets, infinitely so, and the Soviets didn't invade killing tens of thousands every decade. Interference is much more mild than invasion.

> Africa
Aside from the French in Algeria, you've mainly got Powers in unison prolonging the Congo civil war, there hasn't been that much violent intervention in the post colonial times. Also it's mainly French and UK fucking with Africa, much moreso than US or Russia.

Also, predatory loan is on a completely different level to aggression (which is the supreme war crime, aside from maybe outright genocide), again, if the US weren't supreme bastards, name *anything* a country has done in their foreign policy post ww2 that's as bad as Vietnam. The only remotely equivalents would be the Soviets in Afghanistan, French in Algeria and British in India, and that's just one example.

>> No.18922249

>>18922242
>predatory loan is on a completely different level to aggression
with usura...

>> No.18922255

>>18922249
You're really comparing stifling a country economically to invading it, killing tens of thousands, leaving behind a wake of devastation?

>> No.18922261

>>18922255
loans are what funds these expeditions in the first place. always have

>> No.18922277

>>18922261
Yeah so? Doesn't mean you have to invade. The greater crime in this case are the invasions, not the loans.

>> No.18922284

>>18920783
Cheers cunce for conceding my points.

Now go do some praxis.

>> No.18922288

>>18919246
So you are morally stoic, but a ho at the same time?

What do you mean with keeping things locally? How humans should live? Or specifically keeping your views and research based on local happenings?

>> No.18922293

>>18919271
Trump's actions on climate change are essentially the same as the rest of the anglosphere

>> No.18922307

>>18921053
None of the coups you mentioned had that level of involvement you ching chong mong. Please tell me when the US was flying military planes into Chile. Oh wait, never happened.

Of course southeast Asia was different but it was the US military actively involved. Afghanistan was an Africa tier shithole before any American shower up and already at war, and it was Cambodian commies genociding for their own Chong reasons. Don't blame the West. We had the same types of wars and developed our way out. Look at China, they fixed their own shit, Japan too.

>> No.18922335

>>18922277
the loans are taken for the invasion to take place my dude, the lender knows this, they are just as guilty.

anyway invading countries and spreading ideology isn't bad at all, so long as I like the ideology.

>> No.18922351

>>18922335
>the loans are taken for the invasion to take place my dude, the lender knows this, they are just as guilty.
And there are all the loans which doesn't lead to an invasion? Anyway the US is rich enough to not have to loan to finance an invasion, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
>anyway invading countries and spreading ideology isn't bad at all, so long as I like the ideology.
Yeah Mass slaughter is very cool, sure. Thing is that often it doesn't actually spread your precious pro-murder ideology, as seen in South America (where every country besides Colombia have kicked out the US bases) and Middle East. SEA is slightly positive, but that's because China are just huge cunts to their neighbours.

>> No.18922360

>>18922293
>leaves international agreements setting relations back at least 10 years
>supported oil/gas
>hands over the EPA to Scott Pruitt, a fossil fuel shill
>rolls back about a hundred of enviromental rules and policies
On the other hand I will concede in saying that Western nations are all extraordinarily lousy in tackling climate change, more than 20+ years of essentialy ignoring the issue and political gesturing rather than action on the biggest existential issue in civilzed human history.
But as already mentioned, Trump was exceptionally awful even in comparison to neoliberals and centre-democratic politicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration

>> No.18922362

>>18922351
>Anyway the US is rich enough to not have to loan to finance an invasion, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
the u.s government literally borrows all of it's money from banks lmao
>Yeah Mass slaughter is very cool, sure.
where the fuck did I say this? i am pro warfare, but war has it's rules. i don't support america, but invading countries for your own ends is completely morally ok.

>> No.18922375

>>18922335
>anyway invading countries and spreading ideology isn't bad at all, so long as I like the ideology.
And how exactly do you think the ideology will benefit you?

>> No.18922385

All this bullshit just made realise how much of an idiot I am for envying Artfags, being a STEMChad feels pretty great right now.

>> No.18922423

>>18922362
>the u.s government literally borrows all of it's money from banks lmao
It spends literally a trillion a year on its military, if you think that's a loaned budget you'd be retarded. Also you do know that Africa borrows FROM Europe right? And that Europe hasn't invaded Africa (apart from Libya) in like a century, yeah?
> i am pro warfare, but war has it's rules. i don't support america, but invading countries for your own ends is completely morally ok.
Ok you are retarded, or you think it's the fucking 1800's and civilians are largely unaffected by war.

>> No.18922424

>>18922375
it depends on the ideology, obviously. numb nuts.
if I were leader of a socialist state you bet your ass I will be invading other countries to spread my ideology. there is nothing morally wrong with it at all.

>> No.18922436

>>18922423
>It spends literally a trillion a year on its military, if you think that's a loaned budget you'd be retarded.
that's tax dollars from american taxpayers whose money also comes from loans.
do you even know what I'm talking about? all money in circulation today comes from DEBT. read david graeber's book on the subject.
>Ok you are retarded, or you think it's the fucking 1800's and civilians are largely unaffected by war.
if the ends justify the means...

>> No.18922472

>>18922423
>Ok you are retarded, or you think it's the fucking 1800's and civilians are largely unaffected by war.
to some extent yes, actually. war today can be fought with the utmost precision. look at the civilian casualties in the gulf war and the brilliance displayed by generals such as Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.

there is absolutely no reason for warfare to have low rates of civilian casualties if that is an outright goal of the instigator.

>> No.18922694

>>18922436
>that's tax dollars from american taxpayers whose money also comes from loans.
>do you even know what I'm talking about? all money in circulation today comes from DEBT. read david graeber's book on the subject.
You Alzheimer fuck, your argument was that loans are just as bad as invasion because they lead to war, but Africa is the one TAKING the loans, Europe is the GIVING the loans.
> if the ends justify the means...
Which is a circular logic hypothetical. In the real world war means mass death, slaughter, rape, torture and the country getting wrecked. I can't imagine anything more naive than a pro-war socialist. I guess you enjoy getting cucked by the US for an eternity?

>>18922472
The reason why it's low is that the most powerful countries fought a defensive war, to expel Iraqi troops. The soon you go over into an aggressive war, like trying to expel dictatorships, is when the civilians are dying in the hundred thousands and your precious "precision" goes out the window.

There's also the psychological fact that deaths of enemies civilians have always and will always be considered a triviality.

>> No.18922801

>>18922424
>if I were leader of a socialist state you bet your ass I will be invading other countries to spread my ideology
Nonsense, socialism as an ideology contradicts this idea, and indeed war won't grant you the benefits you think it does.
Like the other poster said, look what war has done to the world and realise why it's counterproductive to humanity as a whole.

>> No.18922912

>>18922694
>you Alzheimer fuck, your argument was that loan
i never even made an argument you aggressive fuck. all I said was "with usura", that was my fucking post. I never said anything else. i didn't talk about africa or whatever.
>I can't imagine anything more naive than a pro-war socialist.
that's because you're gay and decedent whereas I am virile and strong. the implication of socialism is class warfare. Why should not a good soldier be also a fighter in the class war?
>I guess you enjoy getting cucked by the US for an eternity?
USA will lose. moment usa mobilizes it will internally collapse. usa is just breand and circuses at this point. i am not sure if it will survive this century in one piece.
>The reason why it's low is that the most powerful countries fought a defensive war, to expel Iraqi troops. The soon you go over into an aggressive war, like trying to expel dictatorships
these two are exactly the same.
>There's also the psychological fact that deaths of enemies civilians have always and will always be considered a triviality.
this is only in conventional warfare where the civilian is part of the industrial base of the enemy. conventional warfare is no longer fought.
>Nonsense, socialism as an ideology contradicts this idea,
fuck no it does not.
>Like the other poster said, look what war has done to the world and realise why it's counterproductive to humanity as a whole
you are some utopian socialist. not like I. probably a social democrat too. you belong in the last century.

he who has iron has bread- blanqui

i will always support war against the policeman of the world.

>> No.18923039

>>18922912
>usa is just breand and circuses at this point. i am not sure if it will survive this century in one piece.
Pretty ironic coming from a Soviet-style socialist.

Anyway, when you're busy getting cucked by America for an eternity, feel free to look at Scandinavia coming closer to socialism than your third world commies ever did.

>i will always support war against the policeman of the world.
Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and Hungary, the three policemen of the world.

>> No.18923048

If he's so smart, why does he talk so slow?

>> No.18923093

>>18923039
i am not a soviet style socialist, i am more closer to the left wing of some italian pro war group that agitated for involvement in the first world war
>feel free to look at Scandinavia coming closer to socialism
lol. sure if crisis doesn't hit, but it will. that is by design.
>Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and Hungary,
I never said I supported war in these countries! I just said warfare is not objectively immoral and actually quite useful for political ends!

>> No.18923111

>>18923093
>i am more closer to the left wing of some italian pro war group that agitated for involvement in the first world war
lmao, I knew you were a time traveller

>>18923093
>I never said I supported war in these countries! I just said warfare is not objectively immoral and actually quite useful for political ends!
> I support war, but only in hypotheticals!

>> No.18923116

>>18921493
Yes. It's a really important and well researched book that you will hate reading because it goes into excruciating detail on absolutely everything because C and H did not want to fuck around and just write a pop "fight the power man" book based on vague allusions, they set out to make the most rock solid case demonstrating the power of media collusion they could in all their autistic glory. Nobody whatsoever, despite random claims otherwise, has been able to refute the conclusions the book gets to, and that's the real point of it.

>> No.18923141

>>18923111
if you are a socialist you must always be ready for war. defensive war against imperialists who wish to destroy you and offensive wars to liberate the proletarian of other countries.

"The law of socialism is that of the desert: a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. Socialism is a rude and bitter truth, which was born in the conflict of opposing forces and in violence. Socialism is war, and woe to those who are cowardly in war. They will be defeated."

guess who said that. :3

>> No.18923197

>>18923141
>defensive war against imperialists who wish to destroy you and offensive wars to liberate the proletarian of other countries.
Things which don't happen in reality. It's literally the same belief as "gotta bring muh democracy to the middle east", it's just rhetoric.

No one is an absolute pacifist, but if you don't understand why war actually happen in the actual real world, then you shouldn't be for it.

>> No.18923236

>>18923197
war happens for interests, always. and if the war aligns with my interests I must be pro war. that is the fact of the matter.

>> No.18923248

>>18923236
Are you part of the upper class communist nomenclatura? If not wars won't ever happen in your interest. You're just spouting circular truisms here. "If war is good then it is good".

>> No.18923254

>>18918872
Buckley BTFO that Pseud in a debate about American Foreign Policy.

>> No.18923323

>>18923248
your brain and I have different wiring.

>> No.18923754

>>18921482
glowing

>> No.18924047

>>18923254
>Buckley BTFO that Pseud
Wrong, Buckley lost that debate.

>> No.18924111

>>18922288
>So you are morally stoic, but a ho at the same time?
Reread my post.

>What do you mean with keeping things locally?
Read Nassim Taleb's Incerto.

>>18921776
I think there are more and more people arriving at those conclusions.
Political ideologies are religions for those who don't know how to be atheists, who haven't yet accepted the pang and the burden of atheism, of true atheism, namely: overall skepticism about morality and the possibilities of human knowledge. Not even Richard Dawkins has accepted this.
The process through which I became a political skeptic was very similar to the one through which I became an atheist. Start questioning every assumption made by political philosophers and you'll arrive at similar conclusions as I did.

>> No.18924335

>>18922130
I don't, i'm just learning here, but I appreciate your post

>> No.18924946

He blazed his own trail.
He parlayed the credentials of the perforated ship that was his academic career to debate the likes of William F. Buckley Jr. with anti-Vietnam conflict hot takes in 1969. We shouldn't fault the professor for not exactly being Nostradamus, but as he said then, “time changes everything .” Buckley was happy to have him. Chomsky's job at MIT gave Buckley the ability to bill “Vietnam and the Intellectuals” debates and have his Yale undergrad debate skills elevated to apex discourse.

Attention-whoring is always foremost with Chomsky, which is a double-edged prospect. His leap into the political arena distracts people from the fact that his conception of Generative Grammar was so off the mark that he had to amend and revise it so many times that its obvious it should have been aborted, but the downside of this is that it allowed a creative nonfiction stylist like Tom Wolfe to dismantle his academic theories.

Intellectually Chomsky is very much a quantum cake eater. He is email pals with the communist millionaires of Chapo Trap House because as he will tell you it's his “duty as an academic” to correspond with any and all....but at the same time he will refuse to malign his own dignity with Auschwitz debate.

Generative Grammar these days has adopted the first two rules of Fight Club and Chomsky's current contribution to the world of linguistics is called the Minimalist Program. It's basically the notion that human language capacity is optimized. The lyrical portfolio of Young Thug and Billie Ellish are living proof against that idea, but fortunately there is nothing to refute. Chomsky uses the term “program” instead of “theory” lest his scholarship be decimated by a writer for Tiger Beat.

His MIT career is thanks to a favor the school granted Roman Jakobson, an actually important linguist. His most profound contribution to the American political debate was Manufacturing Consent, which was based on Edward Herman's notes. Chomsky himself admits that Herman's observations were so integral to the work that he insisted the authors not be listed alphabetically. That humility did not extend to the movie Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media naturally.

Chomsky's legacy is one of using poorly-examined clout in one field to become an unqualified expert in another. Many have followed the template. Curtis Yarvin used his ability to write code for serves to become digital Plato (Moldbug's reverence for academia as nexus of power serves as a nod to his OG's) and why Stephen Pinker's gig as a language theorist apparently qualifies him as an expert on federal sex laws when his expertise in that area is primarily through praxis. His political views are such that they are sufficiently popular for him to be sufficiently popular. This leads to amusing positions such has his advocacy for an anarchist welfare state and the “Leninists aren't really socialists” trope.

>> No.18925120

>>18922307
>Look at China, they fixed their own shit
Hilariously bad take, Winnie. What's next, No One Died at Tiananmen? Social credit improves the nation? Uyghurs don't exist? You are schizophrenic

>> No.18925188

>>18920043
>revolutionized the field of syntax

Indeed. A complete revolution as he had to return to revise it over the next 30 years, and now no one discusses it, because it's been roundly refuted.

>most of the superficial controversy comes from social constructivists

And Tom Wolfe. But you are correct, the theory was truly debunked by cognitive science and anthropology.

>And for some goddamn reason, academics in the social science abhor biological explanations

I cannot speak for social science, but linguistics certainly hasn't foregone a biological explanation just because Chomsky has been proven wrong.

The corpus based off Piaget's observations in cognitive psychology certainly doesn't preclude a biological explanation.

>> No.18925744

>>18918887
FPBP

>> No.18925848

>>18918872
He fails to generalize his rationales of behaviour to other international actors when criticizing the United States. (That doesn't make him wrong but it makes him bias...anything he says about international politics has to be qualified accordingly).

>> No.18925871

>>18925848
Anyway, that's my take after going through a contrarian edgelord phase from 14-17 and then hearing people parrot his arguments when I was in first year of university (this played a part in my switching from Humanities into STEM). Manufacturing Consent is still great though.

>> No.18926317

>>18925848
>>18925871
>that's my take after going through a contrarian edgelord phase from 14-17
literally me. I'm curious as to what extent the behaviors he criticizes are practically necessary when establishing and maintaining a hegemony, though

>> No.18926468

>>18918872
He is based

>> No.18926677

>>18926317
That's the line of thought that lead me to realize >>18925848. I haven't read anything by him in a very long time (except for stuff I had to because I took psych and did a paper on his criticism of Skinner). I've never been that interested in going back to him because, while there's insight to be derived via his opinions, he's very much a product of the Cold War era.

>> No.18926691

>>18926317
>>18926677
P.S. Check out Zbigniew Brzezinski if you want someone who is similar to him but acknowledges practicality.

>> No.18927332

>>18919439
Based Sowell wanting to massacre landlords, CEOs, investors, etc.

>> No.18927543

>>18926677
>>18926691
ty

>> No.18927980

>>18920783
Based Foucault absolutely shredding Chomsky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4

>> No.18928035

>>18927332
I fucking hate landlords. I had one in university who illegally raised our rent 25%. I had done a bunch of renovations on the unit and the original landlord died (his wife sold the place). Anyway, our unit was much nicer than the others and when the new landlord bought the place I knew she was going to do it. I ended up getting new roommates and she jacked up the rent (tricked a moron I lived with to sign a new lease without even telling me...the primary tenant) and threatened to evict when I confronted her about it. She said she'd let her nieces move in and kick us out by claiming self-occupancy. Anyway, that lasted a few months and I filled the place with the most unreliable randos I could find on craigslist before I moved out without even telling her (one of the randos had trashed their room and fucked up the painting I'd done a couple years before).

>> No.18928087

Everyone ive known who actually is a reader of his in the, smallest sense, or thinks hes cool ; always a rich kid who wants to experience grimy counter culter and acts a jack ass. Acedotal evidence aside: hes old and out of touch with culture a lot of these liberal writers are. Theyre clinging to some old shit long past. Thompson had the right idea

>> No.18928125

Jewish

>> No.18928291

>>18918889
He's not even good at linguistics lol

>> No.18928293

>>18919079
Holy fucking rekt

>> No.18928303

>>18919271
>Trump's actions on climate change has been absolutely damaging to climate policies worldwide

Who gives a shit, you wont be here to experience the worst of it. Did past generations care about you? No. They'll figure it out, or they won't. I do not give a flying fuck about climate change.

>> No.18928314

>>18919473
>US intentionally bombed the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan as punishment for the USS Cole attack.

It's even worse, it's because Clinton wanted to divert from the Lewinsky scandal. kek

>> No.18928320

>>18919473
> American officials later acknowledged "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s."[5] The attack took place a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal

Clinton, the worst president of all time

>> No.18928338

>>18920250
>in the 80s they helped create Al-Qaeda for no good reason

lol wut? paging michael moore!

>> No.18928539

>>18919271
Climate change is fake lol, how have people not realized that the inexact sciences are garbage that produce what funding agencies want them to produce? Sociology, economics, and psychology are trash. Medicine isn't looking so hot right now. "Climate scientists" are mostly sixth-rate physicists - there is no reason to assume their work isn't on par with Sociology.

>> No.18928556

>>18918872
I can't take the whole "rebellious intellectual" LARP seriously form a guy who epitomizes everything wrong with contemporary academia nowadays, who fits Kaczynski's description to such a tee, who never managed to give up the faux-underground LARP despite having a decades long university sinecure and practically never having to face serious deplatforming or censorship.

Newsflash : If you never had your university position revoked, if you never had to censor yourself in front of the media or in front of other academics, if you are not persecuted for what you think and say, if you are not getting deplatformed and silenced left and right on 99% of platforms you're not underground, you're the definition of mainstream, a part of the problem rather than the enemy of the problem.

>> No.18928561

>>18918887
/thread.

>> No.18928715

>>18919246
very midwit

>> No.18928726

>>18921053
>The CIA has succeeded in destabilizing numerous regions in the name of anticommunism.
Well if that were actually true, the least you could do is say thank you.

>> No.18928728

>>18919155
>THE most cited scholar alive, who happens to specialize on the mind, is wrong about IQ
>I, a LessWrong-tier libertarian pseudointellectual that reads astroturfed hacks like Taleb and Moldbug, understand IQ

>> No.18928747

>>18919473
>There is a reason he isn't taken at all seriously in IR.
We both know this is because of butthurt "realists", who are the implicit focus of his foreign policy stuff, and just-so-happen to be the dominant school alongside liberalism.
You citing these "scholarly fields" that basically function as apologism for liberal ideology doesn't make you look impressive. Next you'll start talking about how socialism "isn't taken seriously" by economics, as if we give a shit.

>> No.18929120
File: 204 KB, 1024x355, professions_league_table-1024x355.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18929120

>>18918872
Just who is Noam Chomsky? He is mainly known for his systematic opposition to “imperialist” U.S. foreign policy and to “corporate power” within the United States. This includes a claim that the mass media essentially dominates public opinion (especially his book Manufacturing Consent), its elite controllers carefully tuning the message in the service of U.S. imperialist and corporate interests.

This critique of Western democracy is fine as far as it goes, although it has probably been better made elsewhere (e.g. Jacques Ellul’s classic study Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes). But Chomsky, who loves to pose as the dissident courageously fighting the ruling establishment, never quite explains why his views are so popular in academia and a significant fringe of the mainstream media. He suffers no widespread demonization comparable to what European nationalists and White advocates face.

Chomsky’s critique of media power can be easily completed and made relatively coherent if one points out that the academic, media and entertainment establishment in the United States lean massively towards the political left, as evidenced by campaign contributions

To correct Chomsky: He is not a rebel against the ruling elite. Rather, the gentle skirmishes between Chomsky and the New York Times represent debate between two different sections of the same Judeo-liberal establishment. Chomsky represents the academic wing which, mostly speaking to fellow academics and to Left-wing students, can be more radical. The New York Times represents the ruling wing, with readers among both the political class and the general public, and hence needs to present something a bit more mainstream and needs to take some account for the realities of American government.

>> No.18929157

>>18918872
I'm no anti-semite but I will say that his hatred of his host country is stereotypically "jewish" in the anti-semetic sense. He did well in America, had a full life, really, he achieved the highest hopes that someone with his constitution could conceive. Yet I've never heard one good thing come out of his mouth about America. Not that I for one second deny that America has committed evils, only that his targeted insistence in exposing these evils over and above all others is expressive of a certain neurosis. It's a shonda fur die goyim.

>> No.18929258

>>18927980
Chomsky leaked shit after this for the rest of his life, his arsehole is visibly torn open as if Foucault is a surgeon and this is the episiotomy (look it up son) of the birth of modern historical materialist idealism, and the bases of the continuous calls for praxes over theory.

Meanwhile delivery drivers were on strike, and I saw a scab today. Sadly I could not key his fucking van.

>> No.18929304
File: 75 KB, 482x427, d90.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18929304

Please God save us, please have mercy on us. I can hardly stand our horrifying reality at some points. My faith in humanity has rapidly been withering this year, and I'm so fucking tired. How is it possible to be here yet feel like we were not built for this? Something clearly went wrong. It does no good to be this aware. It's a curse. The only thing that terrifies me more than reality is the thought that I may be going crazy. I don't think I even believe in God but I will beg for mercy all the same.

>> No.18929461

>>18927980
I really don't get how anyone was destroyed here, they were having a back and forth, you might edge it to Foucault but to say that he utterly and shamelessly annihilated Chomsky seems odd to me.

>> No.18929479

>>18929304
Have you tried walking in nature on a sunny day? Life is pretty fantastic when you quit being a whiny edgy boy.

>> No.18929508
File: 1.64 MB, 720x1280, fsfesf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18929508

is there such thing as universal grammar?

*chomsky cries in english*

if i had a little green dinosaur i would name him chompsky b in my mind he looks like a neopet

>> No.18929605

>>18922307
Badly thought out post. Your reasoning is inferior.

>> No.18929627

>>18929304
Return to monke, my sweet bastard.

>> No.18929751

>>18929461
> I believe that a populist revolution will lead us to utopia
> How do you know that?
> I JUST DO OKAY!!

>> No.18929783

He supports democrats.

>> No.18929883

>>18928715
how

>> No.18929904

>>18929751
That's not what Chomsky says at all, he even says that it's not feasible to predict how a post-revolution society will look like in the begining of the debate IIRC.

>> No.18930830

>>18918872
>dude all work is slavery lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvm2jEcG68o

>> No.18930849

>>18918887
/thread

>> No.18930908

>>18930830
I have no idea what point this video is trying to make, this is the equivalent of the sophists who would just interrupt Chomsky every time he tries to make a point instead it's with annoying zoomer soundbites and obnoxious graphics.
Also the guy who made this is a Jordan Peterson loser who uses those annoying soijaks and frogs on his video thumbnails, awful!

>> No.18930938

>>18918872
he is genuinely unintelligent, universal grammar as a concept is unproven, retarded, and the phenomena it attempts to demystify is better explained by lacan, he ripped off manufacturing consent from Michael Parenti, an actually intelligent Communist thinker, his soul utility is to provide braindead "anarcho-communists" with a veneer of respectability and foundation, when in reality he is just saying the same bullshit Antifa does, but as an old man, so he seems more legit. He's a fraud, a retard, and a plague on the western left.

>> No.18931049

He thought he could come up with a theory of all human languages without even a survey of the range of human languages. In the following decades his acolytes have to keep ‘updating’ his theory to fit new languages, such that it’s no longer a simple distillation, but a mess of caveats more confusing than the raw data.