Chomsky

[Anonymous No.20095532]

>literally 93
he's gonna be gone soon, any thoughts on him? does he deserve the title of one of the greatest intellectuals of our time?

[Anonymous No.20095540]

>>20095532
He should have remained in linguistics.

[Anonymous No.20095553]

Good. Once he's dead, he will finally be a good socialist.

I'm sad that omicron is so weak, we need a strong variant with the same transmission rate.

[Anonymous No.20095561]

>>20095532
I think hes gone retarded and senile
>You HAVE to take the vaccine that big corporations are making billions from
>big corporations and the government (which I hate) did a study saying that they are safe
>.t a Communist lol

[Anonymous No.20095585]

>>20095553
He's not a socialist, period .

[Anonymous No.20095587]

>>20095532
my lib detectors going off

[Anonymous No.20095601]

>>20095585
Read >>20095561 so if you're in the camp that believe he's an anarchist...
It's like seeing those screencaps of r/anarchism about vaccination. I guess that's a category that accurately depicts him. Yes, he is reddit and he will be a good redditor once he's dead too just like those redditors who went to Ukraine.

[Anonymous No.20095621]

>>20095561
Then why have Cuba, China, and Vietnam vaccinated their populations with their own vaccines? Are they cooperating with globohomo too?

[Anonymous No.20095627]

>>20095532
Chomsky is probably one of the only platformed intellectuals to assert to the general public that maybe governments don't need to be a binary of ideas. He's right when he says it's well and truly embarrassing how the bar has lowered so far.

[Anonymous No.20095635]

>>20095621
>Vietnam
Wrong.
They still use pfizer, moderna and the other stuff. They just include sinovax and sinopharm as their options. It's the case for most SEA countries too. Outside of the southeast, only India rejected Pfizer.

[Anonymous No.20095671]

>>20095540
Which makes me ask: is his work on linguistics worthwhile? I've been curious about it. I think Chomsky's political works are very hit-or-miss, but maybe he's better on his actual field.

[Anonymous No.20095672]

>>20095601
He's not an anarchist or a socialist. He's a run of the mill milquetoast democrat that's lost all of his major intellectual battles.
>Foucault
Lost
>Skinner
Lost.

Chumpksy is the midwits midwit.

[Anonymous No.20095697]

>>20095672
>skinner
>lost
His review of verbal behavior is held to be one of the most devastating and complete critiques in the history of cognitive science.
>Chomsky's review has come to be regarded as one of the foundational documents of the discipline of cognitive psychology, and even after the passage of twenty-five years it is considered the most important refutation of behaviorism. Of all his writings, it was the Skinner review which contributed most to spreading his reputation beyond the small circle of professional linguists.
>Chomsky's 1959 review, amongst his other work of the period, is generally thought to have been influential in the decline of behaviorism's influence within linguistics, philosophy and cognitive science.[32][33]
His review was a paradigm shifting moment that was so embarrassing for Skinner that like a decade elapsed before he published a response.

[Favorite of each type thread No.20095741]

>>20095532

I think his ''lesser of 2 evil'' schtick did great damage to his reputation.

I don't care which side you're on, it just seems meek to give credence to the status quo.

[Anonymous No.20095773]

>>20095532
I hope he dies painfully.

[Anonymous No.20095791]

>>20095741
I wholeheartedly agree. I had always seen him as an unflinching proponent of not taking half-hearted measures. If the system does not serve you, why participate in it? Why hinge upon binaries as if it's not a part of the great hegemony? Asking people to vote third party might have even held greater momentum than this "Blue No Matter Who" libshit.

[Anonymous No.20095807]

>>20095671
I haven’t read his books, but his Linguistic theory is very influential in many social sciences. I would take a look if you are interested.

[Anonymous No.20095810]

>>20095532

Wish he would've croaked while Trump was in office.

[Anonymous No.20095814]

>>20095532
Read Manufacturing Consent. His decline into senility had been sad to watch, but his stuff during his prime was really quite good.

[Anonymous No.20095821]

I still own a huge body of his work because I was into radical politics when I was younger but the bloom has really fallen off them.

They are written well enough, and he gives them some scholarly veneer with citations, but they would get middling grades at a high quality pol sci program and wouldn't represent good graduate, let alone political work. He does way, way too much of assuming people's intent based on how he views their self interests and personal motivations.

In most cases, he doesn't even bother to do anything like a side study of open source, declassified, or leaked documents to make his case. Supposition is good enough.

After all, when you've decided on the point you want to make first first, and are just looking for supporting evidence, it's easy just to project immoral causes on to your perceived adversaries.

Thus, the intent of the Clinton administration in the Balkans, Caterpillar vis-á-vis labor relations, etc. can all just be inferred. No need to read memoirs or do any psychological profiles, just project what a selfish person would say to justify their actions onto your description.

The biggest lapse is in his being incredibly naive in thinking that policy makers aren't themselves sometimes naive idealists who fuck up out of good intentions.

He never offers good counter factuals either. How would Chomsky have brought peace to Afghanistan or ended poverty in Mexico? Once we were in Iraq after term one of Bush II, how does he get us out and not have a huge blood letting? He doesn't like the surge, but what is he for?

We never know because it isn't serious diplomatic history, serious pol sci, or serious policy. It's the moral ramblings of someone who want to put forth a manichean good versus evil narrative with just enough complexity and nuance in it to keep the uniformed reader thinking they are getting secret knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20095839]

>>20095821

I am sure you are aware that these moralizing blind spots you are aware of are on full display in the second half of the Chomsky/Foucault debate, where they discuss the morality/legality of Vietnam and Foucault hands him his ass (the same is not true in the first half).

[Anonymous No.20095844]

>>20095672
Foucault I'll accept but "skinner, lost" has to be the dumbest takes I've seen in a while.
>>20095532
his linguistics and cognitive science stuff is interesting and good, so is manufacturing consent. He does have very silly political takes sometimes though.

[Anonymous No.20095846]

My take on him is generally that he's a guy with a lot of insight into things but not much of a planner or mobilizer. He can critique anything from policy to general trends with great clarity, but probably can't write policy. A much needed gadfly.

[Anonymous No.20095855]

>>20095671
I don't know anything about linguistics but I know the general academic consensus is most of his work has been discredited and he is just holding onto to long debunked theories in linguistics. He isn't really taken seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.20095859]

>>20095671
The ideological programme of Universal Grammar has been rejected by the fields of linguistics and neuroscience, but hangs on in sociology, history, and psychology departments (because as these disciplines are entirely based on crafting ideological narratives there is zero impetus to actually be right about anything).

[Anonymous No.20095861]

Why is a bot ginning up interest in Chomsky right now, and who is running this particular bot?

[Anonymous No.20095864]

I never understood if his dislike of the French was because he genuinely didn't understand them or he didn't like their work.

[Anonymous No.20095873]

I always envied the Jew work ethic. Chomsky's life path is a good example. What do their families do that pushes them into knowledge and work guys?

[Anonymous No.20095879]

>>20095532
He's just a giant database of anti-american factoids. His time as a great linguistic theorist has long since past and he doesn't even talk about it anymore.

[Anonymous No.20095893]

>>20095873
It’s not work ethic, it’s nepotism

[Anonymous No.20095894]

>>20095873

Jewish intellectual culture has two precursors. One, the study and reproduction of the Torah entails the Talmud and other related texts, so that by reading, writing, citing, comparing and contrasting texts, you're effectively doing the core function of academic work already by this point. Second, persecution and expropriation drove them to invest in something that cannot be taken away: education.

[Anonymous No.20095906]

>>20095532
Bosnian genocide denying git.

[Anonymous No.20095907]

>>20095873
They're charged to study the Torah pretty hard when they're young, I guess that thing sticks with you.
That and, you know "Oy, when are you going to get a job and earn your keep?"

[Anonymous No.20095912]

>>20095873
Ignoring the self-justificatory myths of the ruling class that you'll find in >>20095894? They use IQ sorting mechanisms. Studying the Torah is a proxy for IQ, the smarter you are the better at the Torah you are. But studying the Torah or some kind of Chosen People pluck is not the cause. We see the same thing in Anglo societies regarding academia, where "grades" are really just a proxy for IQ.

[Anonymous No.20095924]

>>20095861
probably some university class made their students write a 50 word "paper" about him so zoomers come here because most need to be fed opinions

[Anonymous No.20095945]

>>20095912
That's extremely naive. How can you accept this cope (iq) ? There are countless other parameters more important before some nebulous innate ability. The guy with the Torah post cited one. I believe there's some explanation in the way their mothers raise boys too.

[Anonymous No.20095956]

>>20095873
Secret Jew powers from the Zohar.

[Anonymous No.20095959]

>>20095945
Ah, silly me, how could I forget that while all of the myths justifying the rule of every other ruling class are false, slanderous lies crafted by vile tricksters, OUR ruling class is full of just and virtuous men Chosen by the creator of the universe and given an unlimited supply of the innate abilities of pluck and Diversity. Mea culpa!

[Anonymous No.20095968]

>>20095697
Cognitive science definitely over over-corrected in its rejection of Skinnerian behaviorism following Chomsky's take down however in my view. Just because operant conditioning does not apply to verbal behavior does not mean it is does not apply elsewhere I predict a neobehaviorist upswing in the coming decades.
Chomsky's rebuke was partly scientific but also ideological. He was triggered by Skinner's sociopolitical theories he exposited in Beyond Freedom and Dignity even though first worlders are now living in a digital app convenience economy essentially build on it and the software industry is one giant skinner box of operant conditioning and behavioral reinforcement. Though there is an ambiguity between Chomsky's normative disagreements (this is how we should live) and his epistemological disagreements (behaviorism is factually untrue). Behaviorism is certainly true, what needs to be rejected is Skinner's "radical behaviorism" which Dan Dennet calls "greedy reductionism" --- trying to explain everything with just one idea and not diversifying one's theoretical explanatory portfolio to accomodate for true complexity

[Anonymous No.20095984]

>>20095671
I saw the Chomsky hierarchy in a mathematics class once. Even if UG is now rejected, I think his work in formalizing the logical structure behind language has had foundational importance in several fields.

[Anonymous No.20096004]

>>20095621
Chumpsky is an anarchist those places aren't
Chumpsky and reddit anarchists still supports state mandated vaccines from large corporations lmao

[Anonymous No.20096037]

>>20095959

You've also misread the earlier post >>20095894 of which I, an anti-semite, am the author. In it, I made no normative judgment (jews are cool!/jews are shit!/jews have a good/bad worth ethic) like the person I responded to, nor have I "fallen for a myth". I did not even say that "jews have high IQ", a separate debate that you can have with the other guy >>20095945 who, like you, is putting on his own airs. Rather, it is simply true that reading/writing/repeating is conducive to an intellectual culture, a distinct but related object from IQ/g/intelligence-as-such. Some cultures do more of it (whites/chinese/jews), some less (we know who).

[Anonymous No.20096085]

>>20096037
>Rather, it is simply true that reading/writing/repeating is conducive to an intellectual culture
And that is what I am contending: the Jews of Europe did not have this. It's a myth created after the fact as a justification for their current situation which was won by nepotism, not Torah study or something similarly preposterous. Just as the majority of Jewish merchants were complete failures, the majority of Jews are not scholars, nor was there even a grand scholarly tradition. Even the famed "Ashkenazi high IQ" is just the result of testing the IQs of people who have already been tested and found to have IQ's above a certain level.

[Anonymous No.20096103]

>>20096085
How is Torah study not a scholarly tradition?

[Anonymous No.20097101]

>>20095532
It rubs me the wrong way to attack a senile old man, even intellectually. Poor guy, may he have an easy passing.

[Anonymous No.20097136]

the only honest american intellectual

[Anonymous No.20097298]

>>20095821
Based

[Anonymous No.20097326]

Choosing between Chomsky and Foucault is kinda like choosing between severe burn-wounds and aids

[Anonymous No.20097530]

>>20097101
faggot

[Anonymous No.20097620]

Lmao burn in hell chomsky you dirty jew

[Anonymous No.20097625]

>da jooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooosssssssssssss

holy MEDS

[Anonymous No.20097628]

>>20097625
I'll never take your jew pills you fucking jew

[Anonymous No.20097706]

>>20095532
how do old people even survive?
>inb4 kids
i mean other than that

[Anonymous No.20098021]

>>20095532

Academics that never work in the private sector do not understand competitive drivers at all and their opinions are worthless.

He couldn't run a lemonade stand.

[Anonymous No.20098030]

>>20095532
I like Noam Chomsky a lot and I sympathize with him over most of the other fruitcakes in academia. I do not interpret his concern for the well being of our world, the environment or the many abused "third workers" and he is very consistent in his knowledge and application of the facts. He never lets anyone, especially anyone with a stake in power, get away with talking about what they're doing as if it's anything other than being murderous liars. I think he did not know how to artfully affect a broader consciousness, but, this is a better flaw than most public people have, and as an added bonus he had a conscience.

[Anonymous No.20098056]

>>20095873
family dinner is sacred. no tv or devices during dinner.
intellectual discussions are favored since a young age, even if people disagree on the topics.
father sets the example with his actions.
it's really mostly cultural, genes have little to do with it.

[Anonymous No.20098435]

>>20095532
>one of the greatest intellectuals of our time?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.20098443]

>>20095561
Don't forget
>Trump is worse than Hitler because Hitler was sincere!

[Anonymous No.20098516]

>>20095561
Over at r/chomsky they are having bloody disputes about this.

[Anonymous No.20098537]

>>20095532
Commie cocksucker.

[Anonymous No.20098570]

>>20095671
His work on both politics and linguistics is fantastic. The criticism I see of his work is mostly terrible and either misses the point or is actively dishonest.

[Anonymous No.20098581]

I'm glad he had to live to see the death of communism as an ideological force in the world.

[Anonymous No.20098594]

>>20095821
>They are written well enough, and he gives them some scholarly veneer with citations, but they would get middling grades at a high quality pol sci program and wouldn't represent good graduate, let alone political work. He does way, way too much of assuming people's intent based on how he views their self interests and personal motivations.
>In most cases, he doesn't even bother to do anything like a side study of open source, declassified, or leaked documents to make his case. Supposition is good enough.

This is such a bizarre kind of criticism to me. You are basically admitting that his reasoning, arguments and sources check out, but they they shouldn't be 'marked that well' because he just apparently should have relied more on documents released by the organizations and agencies he's claiming are dishonest.

[Anonymous No.20099923]

>>20095855
I never quite understand why people say this as his principles and parameters approach is still the dominant paradigm in instruction of undergraduate linguistics classes on generative grammar. The text I learned generative grammar from cites Chomsky in literally every single chapter. His most cited work ever is the 2014 version of his Aspects, and pic rel demonstrates that Chomsky's citations are only growing. It's such a baseless claim that anyone who invokes "chomsky's ideas have been discredited and are no longer en vogue in academic linguistics" discredits only themselves.
Nonetheless, Chomsky's ideas could prove to be empirically and theoretically invalid, and saying "chomsky has been debunked" would be about as insightful and informative as "aristotle has been debunked".
>>20095671
You may as well ask if Newton is worthwhile. Chomsky is one of the ten most cited intellectuals in history; that's a list which ranks him in influence among Freud, Hegel, and Aristotle. There is of course some recency bias in the volume of citations he's received and his position of comparative influence will not persist decades from now. And it is true that Noam Chomsky no longer has a stranglehold on like 4 different academic disciplines. Nonetheless he will forever be remembered as one of the 3 or 4 most penetrating and dynamic thinkers of the 20th century.
It is very uncommon to find intellectuals who completely repudiate their previous work. It is virtually unheard of to find someone who does this 3 times. The straightforward transformational program of Syntactic Structures was upended by the quasi-mysticism of Aspects of Syntactic Structures. His Lectures on Government and Binding pivoted his thought towards the principles and parameters approach (which holds that the deep structure of language consists of a number of abstract laws with different parameters which are like switches turned on or off depending on a particular language) and he ended the most innovative part of his career by introducing the minimalist program. But the independent thinkers on this board are blind to all of this because Chosmky criticized the US government.

[Anonymous No.20099929]

>>20095540
>>20095807
>>20095859
>>20095671
>>20095532

these guys are right >>20095984 >>20095540. Chomsky started his career off by deploying a generative theory of linguistics, which was one of the main reasons psych moved away from behaviourism. His work on linguistics started off the modern version of the discipline. The main question of linguistics shifted away from a structural "what is a language made up of", to a more cognitive "what is it about our mind that causes languages to do what they do?". Versions of his grammar trees are still taught today. The value of linguistic work can't be understated.

Importantly, he should also be read as a cautionary tale of being terminally polbrained. Even a guy as smart as him can fall victim to being hyped up by crowds of retards while overestimating one's ability to contribute to a field he is uneducated in.

[Anonymous No.20100003]

>>20095821
this is midwit post of the year

[Anonymous No.20100010]

>>20099929
>a field he is uneducated in
I think the first part of your post was pretty solid but Chomsky isn't doing anything intellectually controversial in his political work. All he's doing is consistently pointing out US acts of aggression against the developing world. His propaganda model of the media is so innocent, literally just "businesses want to please their customers and the customers of the mass media are corporations who also have interests in promoting american imperialism". I'm asking you because you seem to be not a retard which is exceptional in threads about Chomsky: what do you find so unobjectionable about his extracurricular career?

[Anonymous No.20100066]

>>20100010
>isn't doing anything intellectually controversial in his political work
Honestly, this statement is so silly, you've kind of exposed yourself as being subject to the Dunning-Krueger effect.
I'll try to respond point by point.
>US acts of aggression against the developing world
Your framing of the situation already reveals how deep in the rabbit hole you are. What Chomsky in his political work consistently fails to convey to his ignorant readers is that the US was not "aggression against the third world" (whatever that even means),but taking sides in various third world civil wars against Soviet-backed movements in those countries. In so doing the US aligned itself with a bunch of very and authoritarian groups over the years. You're right in the sense that that part of his work is not really controversial. But he consistently rips these actions out of their context but downplaying or even justifying whatever the Soviets were doing at the same time, denying the agency of non-US actors in these countries, and ignoring numerous examples of the US acting as a restraining influence on its authoritarian client states and pressuring them to democratize as soon as the Soviet threat dissipated.
His propaganda model is largely a series of non-sequitur complaints about how CNN doesn't give him enough airtime for him to lecture people about why American should implement the philosophy of Peter Kropotkin. Neo-Nazis can and do make very similar complaints about the media.
And if you actually read his stuff on the media it's full of insinuated equivalences between Western media and state-controlled media in totalitarian societies, but as with so much of what he says, he refuses to explicitly say whether his position is really that extreme, it's far easier to just insinuate the extreme position. That way you can get your most insane followers to buy your books, while also claiming your critics are straw-manning you.
His thoughts on economics are absolutely batty and frankly incoherent. He calls himself an anarchist, but also has said and this is a direct quote "I want to increase the power of the federal government."

[Anonymous No.20100079]

>>20100010
>>20100066
Sorry i messed up the quote, it's "I'd like to strengthen the federal government"

[Anonymous No.20100099]

>>20100066
>Neo-Nazis can and do make very similar complaints about the media.
Are you by any chance Jewish? You completely ruined your entire argument by bringing this up. Let me guess. You're a fan of Kissinger?

[Anonymous No.20100194]

>>20100099
>You completely ruined your entire argument by bringing this up. Let me guess.
Did I hurt your feelings by pointing out uncomfortable facts?

[Anonymous No.20100206]

>>20100194
So I guessed it right, you are Jewish. Sorry I hit your nerve.

[Anonymous No.20100247]

Do you think he lives in constant terror?

Knowing the eternal nothingness is literally going to strike him at any moment?

I would be frozen with fear, and incapable of concentrating on anything.

[Anonymous No.20100255]

>>20100066
explain what Victoria Nuland did in Ukraine in 2014

[Anonymous No.20100262]

>>20098594
Cherry picking facts is not a good document review. Every bit of the 1618 project is sourced. It fails as good history because it cherry picks and ignores countervailing evidence. Chomsky did this constantly.

[Anonymous No.20100270]

>>20100206
>an antisemite Chomsky fan
Why am I not surprised. Here's your last (you). Remember to take your message tomorrow sweetie. You'll feel better

[Anonymous No.20100272]

>>20100010
His political analysis was unnuanced shit. He never took the time to actually learn how the State Department or military works or get to know the players. Peak hubris.

[Anonymous No.20100273]

>>20100255
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.20100300]

>>20100066
>he consistently rips these actions out of their context but downplaying or even justifying whatever the Soviets were doing
This comes from a somewhat sensible place, though. Red scare alarmism had been abused for decades to grant the US carte blanche in overthrowing regimes, even when there was no strong communist influence. Ousting Mosaddegh in Iran is a good example, where the American anxiety over the Soviets was directly exploited by the British to undermine a democratically elected government and to seize Iranian resources.
Chomsky simply rejects that the Soviets were ever as significant a force as American foreign policy required them to be to justify its imperialistic actions abroad. Even if they were, I think he has some moral disagreements about the concept of interventionism and how it intersects with self-interest.
>and pressuring them to democratize as soon as the Soviet threat dissipated
So long as the results of those democratic elections don't swing too far left, as they often did in Latin America. There's an entire section in Manufacturing Consent about election tampering in Central America and how the media alleges the presence of some subversive communist plot should the organic result ever tend toward socialism.

[Anonymous No.20100624]

>>20095627
didn't need chomsky to say it to understand pluripartial democracies are better

[Anonymous No.20100641]

>>20100270
lol Jew.

>>20100300
CIA funded and run elections are, by definition, not organic.

[Anonymous No.20100670]

>>20100194
Saying, "Neo-Nazis can and do make a very similar complaints about the media," is one of the stupidest and most pilpul bullshit I've ever read. So if I complain about the biases, subliminal propaganda, and more of the media I am a Neo-Nazi? It means absolutely nothing. It's like me saying, "Oh, did you know Neo-Nazis also take shits? You should feel bad for using a toilet."
You are one of the most disingenuous fuckers in this world, and yes, I claim that for that single sentence alone. I would unironically kill you in Minecraft. I'm not joking either. You are not truly a sentient being and use poorly thought out rhetorical tricks for whatever parasitical behavior you engage in. I say this with absolute conviction with a shred of doubt: People like you do not deserve to live.
To everyone else: I recommend reading that sentence five times in full context of his paragraph. It makes absolutely no sense and makes you understand the vile Zionist psychology. I believe future Jews will become stupid like that man, and we will see more retarded statements like, "Neo-Nazis can and do make a very similar complaints about the media," as if it means anything.

[Anonymous No.20100676]

>>20100670
>with a shred of doubt
without a shred of doubt*

[Anonymous No.20100679]

>>20100641

Oh, I don't know. The CIA is an ORGAN of the state. Whether of the American state, or the other country's state.

[Anonymous No.20100702]

>>20096037
both of your points are retarded. studying the Torah was hardly common and definitely not more common than studying the Bible for Christians, and the expropriation explanation is also stupid because jews would much more often be in finance than in cultural spaces

[Anonymous No.20100864]

>>20095672
>MUH DEBATEBROS
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.20101193]

>>20100670
(You) need to take your meds, sir.

[Anonymous No.20101249]

>>20100300
>So long as the results of those democratic elections don't swing too far left, as they often did in Latin America. There's an entire section in Manufacturing Consent about election tampering in Central America and how the media alleges the presence of some subversive communist plot should the organic result ever tend toward socialism.
Again, this is an incoherent statement. There were subversive communist (i.e. Soviet-backed) plots all over Latin America and the Third World. The implication that all these third world leftists the US crushed were really believers in Chomsky's super obscure, untested, totally-not-like-the-Soviet-system version of socialism is a fantasy. Ironically, the one country ever came closest to implementing his bottom-up, anti-statist version of socialism was a key American ally throughout the Cold War and beyond and also the country he hates almost as much as his own, Israel.

[Anonymous No.20101306]

>>20101249
rabbi fuck off

[Anonymous No.20101333]

>>20101306
Guess I hit a nerve, lol.

[Anonymous No.20101426]

>>20095532
Losing Chomsky will be another step towards the abyss for modern politics.

[Anonymous No.20101451]

>>20099923
I was taught in sociolinguistics that Chomsky's linguistics were old-fashioned and didn't give a clear picture about how language really worked. I emailed him about what he thought about sociolinguistics and he just told me to sift through it as best I could. He seems to have said sociolinguistics was bunk when it started, but it still persists today.

[Anonymous No.20101501]

Good riddance.

[Anonymous No.20102163]

>>20101193
Kys, gaslighting low IQ Jew. Your pilpul needs work.

[Anonymous No.20102221]

>>20095671
His life's work in that area has been deboonked.

[Anonymous No.20102225]

>>20095561
What did you expect from an employee of the United States Government?

[Anonymous No.20102406]

>>20095561
Don't forget
>There is only one party: the Business Party
>Mmmmhm vote Biden and Democrats anyway

[Anonymous No.20102683]

>>20102163
Seethe

[Anonymous No.20102732]

>>20100670
I've decided to take pity on you, Mr. Seething Nazbol. I'm going to respond to the one impotent attempt you made at forming a coherent argument, just because I don't want you to come away from this thread operating under the delusion that somehow "won" this "argument". Nothing makes me sadder than watching people wallow in the dungeons of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The fact that your teeny weeny little incel mind failed to process the point I was making does not mean I was being "disingenuous" (you and I both know that is pure projection. I know that deep down you are completely aware of the fact the points you made throughout this thread are totally irrational, incoherent, frivolous, red herring diversions from the real issues. You are somebody who violates the rules of civil, rational discourse constantly and knowingly. You do it because your irrational views bring you the emotional satisfaction that comes from being able to blame nefarious outside actors for your own personal failures, which I can only assume have been numerous. You lash out against people with accusations of doing the same as a defense mechanism to assuage your own internal guilt about being a conscious fraud.) Your analogy about Nazis taking shits is a false and misleading one, since people who are calm, fact-based, and rational in their analysis of the world do that too. But since Neo-Nazis are among the most intellectually corrupt people on the planet, if you find yourself in agreement with them, or thinking similarly to them, you ought to reexamine your own intellectual processes. Because while possible, it is intrinsically unlikely a Neo-Nazi could be right about any political issue, since thinking in a systematically irrational and dishonest manner about politics is part of the job description of being a Nazi. The fact that media's center-left propaganda effectively filters out Chomsky's far-left propaganda, and Nazi Third Way, or other types of worse propaganda is only an interesting observation if you think those ideologies have anything constructive to offer the world. I don't. I think Chomsky is a dishonest thinker. He's ultimately a political activist, not an intellectual. I think his views on economic and foreign policy, if implemented, would lead to even worse disasters than what we have now. So the fact that the media keeps his rambling bullshit away from the more gullible members of the public who get their opinions from cable news, is frankly, a good thing in my view.
Was that clear my seething little chud friend?

[Anonymous No.20102757]

>>20095532
He's a bootlicker for the state now. Must be the old timers disease

[bagel !!IUmfnzC35TC No.20102770]

>>20095532
>does he deserve the title of one of the greatest intellectuals of our time?
he's not even in the top 10. boring 'anarchist' who was the main intellectual of the most pacified, liberal era of left politics (90s through mid 2010s) and has really contributed very little to politics. if all his work were to disappear i don't think it would make very much difference to the world

[bagel !!IUmfnzC35TC No.20102774]

>>20102770
>if all his work were to disappear i don't think it would make very much difference to the world
all his political work, that is. i'm sure he's very influential in linguistics and grammar and so on but that's nerd shit and i don't know anything about it

[Anonymous No.20103034]

>>20102732
Nice diary entry, tranny.

[Anonymous No.20103056]

>>20095561
>.t a Communist lol

He's never claimed he was a communist, he's claimed he was an anarchist, and as we all know, anarchism is just turbo-libshitism.

[Anonymous No.20103277]

>anarchist
How many people who call themselves that really are anarchists or even understand what it means?

[Anonymous No.20103537]

>anarchist
>blames NATO for Russian imperialism

[Anonymous No.20103740]

>>20103056
No

[Anonymous No.20103833]

>>20102732
You are a pseudointellectual garbage butthurt Jew. Let's look at this claim, which is a better analogy to your dumb one:
"Neo-nazis do and make very similar complaints about environmental devastation brought from unsustainable use of technology."
I guess we should destroy all of nature then because there were Nazis who cared about it like Savitri Devi!
You're basically arguing people should care about nothing like the purity of the oceans, the health of the planet, or whatever. People should just spend their time crying over the oppression of Jews or whatever bullshit, you oversocialized freak.
Jews like you and Ben Shapiro are manifestations of pure evil. You are the biggest pseuds not worth taking seriously. Honestly the best thing you can do for your trash people is not run your pseudointellectual mouth.

Plenty of people have issues with the biases of the media. Simply mentioning one tenuous similarity with Nazis MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. That single sentence ruined your entire rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.20103884]

>>20095532
>does he deserve the title of one of the greatest intellectuals of our time?
Yeah probably but he was threatened at some point and became a tool of the system. He was and continues to be one of the loudest most reasonable voices against government corruption, lies, and violence but if asked about 9/11 or anything else that crosses a certain line of things-you're-not-allowed-to-believe he's 100% irrational deny deny deny. He was threatened or something. There's nothing else that makes sense of his positions. Also
>unvaxed should be walled out of normal society and cut off from food
Dude lost his mind at some point

[Anonymous No.20103950]

>>20103833
>t. Internet nazi who read Industrial Society and it's Future last week

I actually agree with a lot of what Ted Kaczynski has to say but if you can't see why your rant here is retarded then I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous No.20104062]

>>20103950
I don't give a shit what a disingenuous Zionist believes in. Criticizing the biases and censorship of the media doesn't make one a Nazi just because there's an incidental similarity. Stop talking. You're stupider than even Ben Shapiro, and that's saying a lot.

[Anonymous No.20104102]

>>20103884
>but if asked about 9/11 or anything else that crosses a certain line of things-you're-not-allowed-to-believe he's 100% irrational deny deny deny. He was threatened or something. There's nothing else that makes sense of his positions.
Conspiracy theories exist outside the realm of scientific falsifiability, absolutely no one looks goodcoming out of them. Even in 9/11 there are so many levels of conspiracies and everyone has their own proof.
> Bush knew about an attack and deliberately did nothing
> Bush knew about *the* attack and deliberately did nothing
> Bush organized the attack to invade Iraq
> Israelies orgnized the attack because they're evil
> Bush and the Israelies organized the attack
> The plane did nothing, it was a controlled demolition
> There wasn't even a plane from the beginning, all footage and doctored
I don't blame him from avoiding that topic all together, it's just surplus autism. Especially when you consider from a moral perspective how trivial 9/11 is to any actual war.

[Anonymous No.20104119]

>>20095532
I don't really understand how leftists are so easily manipulated. Like he literally wrote the book on manufactured consent but now bootlicks for that same establishment. I mean he's an objectively intelligent guy and I agree with his linguistic theories, but there just must be something weak and subservient in the leftist psyche.

[Anonymous No.20104291]

>>20095561
You forgot that he has always been jewish

[Anonymous No.20104312]

>>20103833
oo he mad

[Anonymous No.20104457]

>>20104062
not him, but he's pointing out how fringe activists always whine the same tune "oy vey, how the media persecute us so! Why are my views being repressed?" However, if chomsky-types or nazis ever got into power, there wouldn't even be such a thing as public criticism of media that wouldn't be met with public execution

[Anonymous No.20104498]

>>20104457
That's true. He could have phrased it better.
The mass media is a form of propaganda, but a lot of people seem to whine about it because they want to just spread their own propaganda.

[Anonymous No.20104529]

>>20104102
>can't blame him for not wanting to touch it
I guess but he's held himself up as this totally uncompromised investigative academic who's just following the facts where they lead. His position on 9/11 has been "anyone who doubt any aspect of the official narrative is insane because it's impossible that anything else was at play". If he just wanted to bow out he could just say "I don't feel I have enough information to make conclusions about that" or even "that issue is fraught, it's not something I want to spend time on". Instead his position has been explicitly "anyone who doubts any aspect of the official narrative is insane".
>Especially when you consider from a moral perspective how trivial 9/11 is to any actual war.
The number of lives lost is irrelevant. It has enormous implications for the exact kind of ideas Chomsky advances about the parasitic and abusive nature of government, and it was used to justify a decade of middle east war and domestic police state expansion which chomsky made many years of his writing career complaining about.

[Anonymous No.20104801]

>>20103833
Since I admire you for making an attempt at argument-formation despite your obvious cognitive impairments, I've decided to respond. Let's take this point by point.
>You are a pseudointellectual
Again, you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
>garbage
Quite possibly, I have many deep personal flaws totally unrelated to your incoherent rants.
>butthurt
Generally, I'm a pretty happy person
>Jew.
I'm from an Irish Catholic background, though I also fail to see why "Jew" should be an insult
>Let's look at this claim, which is a better analogy to your dumb one:
>"Neo-nazis do and make very similar complaints about environmental devastation brought from unsustainable use of technology."
>I guess we should destroy all of nature then because there were Nazis who cared about it like Savitri Devi!
>You're basically arguing people should care about nothing like the purity of the oceans, the health of the planet, or whatever. People should just spend their time crying over the oppression of Jews or whatever bullshit, you oversocialized freak.
No, not really. You seem to have forgotten that false dichotomy arguments are a fallacy. Moderate environmentalists are pretty sensible people who provide needed pushback against the excesses of industrialization. The more extreme, nature-worshipping environmentalists who, like Hitler (I don't know much Devi so I can't comment on her views) recognize no distinction between the value of human and animal life are indeed usually pretty creepy people, many of them openly fantasize about authoritarian family planning schemes and even the extinction of the human race (which I guess makes them worse than Nazis in a sense).
>Jews like you and Ben Shapiro are manifestations of pure evil.
Imagine being this butthurt over a professional twitter shitposter
>You are the biggest pseuds not worth taking seriously.
Yet you felt compelled to respond to my arguments.
>Honestly the best thing you can do for your trash people is not run your pseudointellectual mouth.
It's a matter of opinion
>Plenty of people have issues with the biases of the media.
Indeed, I am one of them. I'm basically an ancap. But I don't think CNN is the reason ancapism isn't our dominant ideology, it's because ancapism sounds fucking weird to normal people. If you'd like an example of fact-based criticism of the media I'd cite this from Bryan Caplan (of course, he's half-Jewish so feel free to avert your eyes from his arguments like an irrational baby):
https://www.econlib.org/the-sense-in-which-i-dont-trust-the-media/
If you read carefully, you'll notice he never says that but for the media, his views would be super popular, that the American media is basically like Pravda, or any of the conspiracy theories about how "muh corporations" or "muh us government" are responsible for all evil in the world.
>That single sentence ruined your entire rhetoric.
You chose to ignore the rest of my argument because you disagreed with one part? How logical

[Anonymous No.20104807]

>>20104457
This guy gets it. Though in fairness to Chomsky, he's been pretty solid on free speech issues throughout his career.

[Anonymous No.20104837]

>>20095532
a disgrace to socialist politics and a boooring demeanor

dubs and chomsky dies TONIGHT

[Anonymous No.20104840]

>>20095621
north korea tho...

[Anonymous No.20104997]

>>20104840
North Korea is immune to western illness.

[Anonymous No.20106356]

>>20095671
He's a Russian Jew Marxist. Read Hitler instead.

[Anonymous No.20106382]

>>20104801
I don't even think Dunning-Kruger is even real

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.20106391]

>chumpsky dies, legacy tarnished
>im still unvaxxed
i win. i cant stop winning.