Why is it cool to hate Noam Chomsky?

>>1948996
It's always cool to be a contrarian on 4chan. Saying you hate X automatically makes you superior to X and whoever agrees with them. So obviously, the more widely agreed on X, the better it is to hate them.

>>1948996
Because he has been destroyed by pretty much every one. How new are you?

>>1948996
His theory wasn't able to survive the critisism on it and can be seen as disproved. He just acts quite immature on critisism what makes also hated as a person.

>>1948996

Conservatives hate his liberalism and academic pissing contests to arcane to go into.

>>1949027
>>1949075

B. F. Skinner, please go.

>>1948996
I think he's great in that he will publicly debate anyone, except that one evolutionary psychologist who isn't Pinker.
He is, though, a bit annoying in that he just evades points raised, or tries to tell people quite often that they "just don't understand." I rather like how he debates, but I know that he dodges a lot of points.
As a scholar, what >>1949089 said sort of hits the point. He has a general pro-liberal thought to things, while still being anti-Israel.

>>1948996
4chan is nothing but hipsters hisptering hipsters (note that hipster culture became mainstream). They are contrarian to be cool. If the majority shits on hollywood, 4chan will say how cool hollywood is. When Bush was president I remember 4chan was very left leaning. Which I predict with Trump as president its going to swing that way again.

>>1949089
So much to acting immature towards criticism.

>>1948996
Because he's a self-flagellating retard. Turns out the West is actually not responsible for the tenants of Islam.

Is chomsky even human?
I've read about random people emailing him once and then again 10+ years later, and chomsky mentioning the previous exchange.
This is what his assistant said about it:
>I could see from his work that his memory was a force of nature, and one day I dared to ask him about it. He told me he has what he calls "buffers," or little drawers in his brain that he opens to retrieve conversations and correspondence from as long as 50 years ago. He told me he thought for a long time that everyone had this ability.

>>1948996
>getting blown the fuck in an argument
>starts aggressively sighing

>>1949027
>>1949646
When?

>>1949594
I would have a way better use of that ability.

>>1948996
Because he talks of things he doesn't really understand more often than he actually talks of things he does understand. He's basically a Dawkins who actually contributed to his field of research.

>>1949594
>send memesky a message
>he just says he isn't interested and doesn't respond properly
thanks
I don't mind him, he has some decent points though

>>1949704
What did you write?

>>1949707
asked what he meant about stirner being a foundation for laisses-faire capitalism/libertarianism

>>1949719
Too bad, seems like a good question.

>>1948996
Reactionaries are very easily triggered

>>1949719
Did he actually say that? Also remember, if you're a Stirnerist, but not a prole, you could be pro laisses-faire since the property spook benefits you.

>>1949877
If you take it that way you could argue Stirner inspired basically every ideology where at least one person gains something.

>>1949594
Was it autism?

>>1949883
That's why I'm asking what was actually said. I'm wondering if he was referring to Stirner's Machiavellian tendencies.

>>1949594
sounds made up desu

>>1949155
>Which I predict with Trump as president its going to swing that way again.
nah, because the political-media establishment is still left-liberal

>>1949906
Are you saying the media establishment during Bush was right-conservative?

The real reason it won't change is because 4chan is infested with ex-reddit alt-right refugees that came during the exponential population growth of 4chan. There simply aren't a lot of oldfags anymore. Immigrants ruined 4chan.

>>1949928
To be fair 4chan is probably going to die soon so we won't get a chance to see.

>>1949901
Well, in the videos of his discussions he seems to have every source and historical fact supporting his point memorized, even when the discussion drifts to unrelated subjects.

>>1949594
I'm gonna need a source on that

>>1949027
Only his linguistic theories

>>1950199
http://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Its-Like-to-Be-Noam/234667/

File: 1441678556375.gif (856KB, 175x200px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 175x200px

He's an ideologue, and like with most ideologues you can tell what he's going to say before he says it - Once you have read 1-2 of his books of course.

>>1949877
Something along those lines, it was very vague, hence why I sent him a question wondering what exactly he meant.

Stirner is definitely compatible with laisses-faire capitalism, though you'd have to be in a certain position to support it.

>>1948996
did you his speaking voice?

>>1949594
Cool

>>1950453
That's a shame, and maybe a bit unfair to Stirner, but given Stirner is pretty much amoral, I can see why Chomsky would not be sympathetic to him. It probably comes from the view point amoralism leads to bad things happening to moral people, which is the same conclusion as Stirner, Stirner just says everyone should be amoral and rights are spooks anyways.

>>1949594
Another one:
>On one occasion I gave him a 500-page book to read on the war in Laos at about 10 at night, and met him the next morning at breakfast prior to our visit to political officer Jim Murphy at the U.S. Embassy. During the interview the issue of the number of North Vietnamese troops in Laos came up. The Embassy claimed that 50,000 had invaded Laos, when the evidence clearly showed there were no more than a few thousand. I almost fell off my chair when Noam quoted a footnote making that point, several hundred pages in, from the book I had given him the night before. I had heard the term “photographic memory” before. But I had never seen it so much in action, or put to such good use.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/when_chomsky_wept/

File: Capture.png (39KB, 367x127px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 367x127px

>>1950506
Last one.

He is still firm in the belief popular among socialists that the autonomy seen in capitalism is a form of authoritarianism while glossing over the limitations of and questionable justifiction for democratic systems which place the individual at odds with the collective.

>>1950506
Sounds like those crazy stories you hear about Von Neumann. I'm skeptical. Statistically speaking, that's literally non human levels of recollection. And most psychologists agree eidetic memory doesn't exist.


Soooo....

File: 3376639_300x300.jpg (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>1950851
That's because chomsky is clearly one of the asimovian robots created to defend humanity.

>>1949704
understandable, dat nigga old as hell

The entire deal where he dismissed the Cambodian Genocide as the invention of hysterical western refugees and western anti-communist partisans to discredit communism and distract from American atrocities in Vietnam should be reason enough to dismiss him. He still can't even fully admit to it and uses the "but we only knew what we knew at the time" defense and basically saying that sure it happened but America is the real monster.

>>1950208
>his linguistic theories have been destroyed
no they haven't. that's a myth that gets perpetuated in online news outlets and blogs based on misunderstandings of chomsky's proposals.

>>1951395
>no you just dont understand communist
t. every lefty ever

>>1951386
>as the invention of hysterical western refugees and western anti-communist partisans to discredit communism
False

>He still can't even fully admit to it
False

>but we only knew what we knew at the time
True

>basically saying that sure it happened but America is the real monster
False

>>1948996
He sees morality in terms of body count and has no ability to abstract.

>>1951400
his linguistic theories have nothing to do with his politics. some random blogger or journalist isn't just going to understand chomskyan linguistics without some formal education in the subject, just like they wouldn't be able to understand classical mechanics, automata theory, philosophy of science, etc without formal training. most of the people writing about the topic are completely ignorant of even the most elementary technical concepts like "syntactic constituent," yet they feel like the fact that they got an A in their freshman English class in gives them license to comment.

"There's an easy solution to the problem: simply bring here millions of peasants driven from the countryside in China...and radically reduce Browne's income...while Black mothers are placed in Manhattan high rises and granted every advantage. Then the Asian influx will raise the IQ level; and as serious inquiry demonstrates, the fertility rate of Blacks is very likely to drop while that of the children of the journalistic elite, Harvard psychology professors, and associates of the American Enterprise Institute will rapidly rise. The problem is solved." ~ Chomsky

His stuff on SJWs is pretty. But he's so blinded by his egalitarian goggles as the qoute shows, the guy sucks.

>>1951609
is he saying if black people live like the high iq rich they will stop breeding and if the high iq elite are placed in poverty they will breed like rats?

Because he lost. He bet on Clinton, and his rival the cunning homeless philosopher man of ljubljana, bet on Trump.

>>1951792
>election comes neck to neck.
ok.

>>1950492
Personally, I don't know too much about Stirner, but I do know a little about Chomsky's opinions regarding moral relativism; he quivers at the idea that there is no actual right or wrong, and the soft thinking that it occasionally inspires, in particular he's been known to criticize French philosophy for their tendencies in that regard. I can see why he would be irritated by Stirner's talk of "Spooks" and "Property".

>>1950680
>no means photographic, just profound, at least for things he found important
so literally autism then?

Chomsky is not always right, although most of the time he is, but the world is literally too stupid for him.

Everyone who hates him just personally doesn't know shit.

>>1951962
Yeah I can understand why he wouldn't like him.
I was just wondering about the supposed connection between American libertarianism and Stirner

>>1951395
>no they haven't. that's a myth that gets perpetuated in online news outlets and blogs based on misunderstandings of chomsky's proposals
>misunderstandings
Chomsky again and again adjusting UG until it became completely non-falsifiable is hardly a "misunderstanding".
It never held up in practice and more and more linguists and cognitive scientists realize that. The only one who doesn't is Chomsky and his habit of badmouthing everyone who disagrees with him makes him easy to hate.

>>1949928
>Are you saying the media establishment during Bush was right-conservative?

Uh, fucking yes? Did you not watch the news? Post 9/11 everyone was sucking Bush's dick. This was Fox News heyday. The only people on Bush was comedians and TDS, which I will remind you is a FAKE news comedy show.

>>1952662
>Chomsky again and again readjusting UG until it became unfalsifiable
>it never held up in practice and more linguists and cognitive scientists realize that
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Universal Grammar refers to the biological character of Homo sapiens that allows us to use and acquire languages, NOT to universal features shared by all languages. This is from Aspects of the Theory of Syntax published in 1965:

"Consider a claim that the grammar of every language meets certain specified formal conditions. The truth of this hypothesis would not in itself imply that any particular rule must appear in all or even in any two grammars. The property of having a grammar meeting a certain abstract condition might be called a formal linguistic universal, if shown to be a general property of natural languages."

When you say that UG has been adjusted over and over until it's become unrecognizable, you conflate UG and universals of language, just like so many non-linguists who comment on Chomsky with an at best shaky background in formal linguistics.

>>1951562
>He sees morality in terms of body count
fuck off sam harris

>>1948996
I don't hate him, I just disagree with him a lot.

I agree with him that America should be less of a world police than it is, but I think his so-called principled anarchism is naive as hell.

>>1952799
>When you say that UG has been adjusted over and over until it's become unrecognizable
I never said that.
What I said is that UG is unscientific.

Not that I would expect a Chomskyan to acknowledge the scientific method.

>>1951405
Shut up, Noam.

He denied that a genocide happened. When proven wrong, he couldn't fully admit to being a partisan hack and instead weasels his way around it while still finding time to shit on the United States. There's no real debating it.

>>1953188
>I didn't say it has been adjusted over and over until it became unrecognizable, I said it has been adjusted over and over until it became unrecognizable as a scientific theory
I'm sorry to have misunderstood you. Your comments made it seem like you believed that the theory had been adjusted over and over until it was much different than it started. As I pointed out, that is not the case. In fact, people who report this belief frequently misunderstand the theory. They often believe that UG makes predictions about certain features that all languages MUST share, when that is simply not the case, as I explained.

It is not true that UG is an unscientific hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on the empirical observation that human beings can acquire and use languages, and non-human animals (even the most closely related species) cannot. Even when closely related species are brought up immersed in the same environment and surrounded by the same environmental input as human children, those species cannot acquire a language. This has been demonstrated empirically time and time again. The only hypothesis consistent with that observation is that there is some mental faculty unique to humans which facilitates the acquisition and use of languages. As I stated, UG refers not to language universals, but to precisely that mental faculty which allows the acquisition and use of languages. Note that the assertion that UG exists does not make any claims about its nature; that is the empirical goal of Chomskyan linguistics, to empirically determine the nature of UG. Hypotheses are stated precisely and formally in order to make clear predictions which can be easily falsified. That's how normal science works.

>>1953366
Nice try being a smartass. Again, I never called UG a theory, nor a hypothesis. Tbh I'm not even sure if you're trying to correct me again on something I never said, or if you yourself can't distinguish between them. Then again, building strawmen of the opposition has always been popular among Chomskyans. Either way it doesn't matter, here's my point.
>The Faculty of Language, 2002, Chomsky et al., pp. 1569
>"Recursion is the only uniquely human component in the faculty of language."
He goes on to describe recursion as the premise of creative language usage and thus the precursor of all human languages. That's one article out of many publications.
But guess what, linguists who actually did fieldwork instead of theorizing at home realized recursion is not an universal trait in human languages. And the only answers he came up with whenever he's confronted with data that doesn't support his premise of UG:
>just because it can't be observed, doesn't mean it's not there :^)
>my opposition faked the data to spite me
>I've been misunderstood
And that's just the most basic and simple thing he's been wrong about. Chomskyans are still regularly travelling into the Brazilian rain forest, desperately looking for proof that natives who can't even count in fact do have recursion after all.

File: 711slavojzizek.jpg (491KB, 1088x1320px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1088x1320px

Zizek says that Chomsky doesn't like him very much, even though he admires Chomsky

Is it true?

Why is it cool to like Noam Chomsky?

Because Noam Chomsky never answers a question in 15 seconds when he can drag his response out to 7 minutes.

Also his opinion of Michael Moore is acknowledgment he's a liar, but since they're on "the same side" he has no problem with him.

>>1954289
I don't think anyone likes Zizek as a person.

>>1954320
I do

>>1953510
>And that's just the most basic and simple thing he's been wrong about. Chomskyans are still regularly travelling into the Brazilian rain forest, desperately looking for proof that natives who can't even count in fact do have recursion after all.

Did Daniel Everett's claims about the Piraha ever pan out?

>>1954324
Are you a perverted obese neckbeard by any chance?

>>1954526

No.

I stay clean shaven because I enjoy the smell of shaving soap.

I personally like him, but it's easy to see why people might not. He's one of those scholars that comments on practically everything, even stuff outside of his discipline(s).

He is also pretty much a perfect example of the ivory tower intellectual while a lot of his schtick goes against that sought of stuff, so it's easy to call him a bit of a hypocrite.

>>1954289
Yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

>>1954866
How is he an ivory tower intellectual? His work outside of linguistics is clear and easy to understand to everyone, and he gets involved in popular movements and travels around the world talking to common people involved in political movements to understand and write about their political situation. In the article linked in >>1950399 his assistant says that "during my years with Noam, our door has opened to the amazing, the unexpected, the scary: students, activists, authors, at least one Sufi, political prisoners, movie directors, comedians, political hopefuls, musicians, overwhelmed fans, world-champion boxers, international leaders, Cirque du Soleil clowns, brilliant thinkers, lost souls". In the article linked in >>1950506 chomsky cries after talking to refugees about their situation.

>>1952666
God you're retarded. It wasn't because it was "right wing", it was because "patriotism" was at an all time high as was fear mongering both which sell newspapers and ad time. Get a fucking clue.
Meanwhile Murdoch ensured Netanyahu and the Saudi Royal Family got what he wanted with Saddam's removal.