I've never seen Noam Chomsky lose a debate. No matter

>>8643724
Wrong board.
>>>/pol/

What is that above the lamp in that pic? A horseshoe crab?

File: stiller__120124013033[1].jpg (3MB, 2048x3072px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x3072px

>>8643724
:^)

why can't we have tv shows like this anymore?

>>8643939
because the intelligent men have learned it is pointless to care so much about what you cannot control

I have an opinion on Syria. But it's not going to change anything

>>8643943
what's your opinion on syria?

>>8643724
You haven't seen Chomsky debate Dershowitz, I presume? Chomsky's idealistic rhetoric and dubious sources get cut to shreds.

Dershowitz is clearly frustrated by his nonsense, and spergs out a little, so I can see how it would look like a Chomsky victory on a cursory glance though.

>>8643724
>Dat IBM Selectric

Oh early 1960s industrial design, how I miss thee.

>>8643724
>Jeff Buckley

>>8644026
See this is how you write bait, just the right amount of subtlety.

>>8644046
You got me :/

>>8643966
The Western intervention up to this point has only exacerbated the atrocities committed by the Assad regime.

If we (the Western powers) try to intervene more, even if we are capable at overthrowing the repressive regime by backing Syrian rebels, then we are only incubating a more destabilized Middle East. Any democratic government put into power by Western countries in regions that are as unstable as the Middle East is will only lead 1) the inevitable fall of that government to idealogical rebels or 2) that government becoming repressive in itself as it struggles to maintain control.

When the West helped overthrow the governments of Chile, Nicaragua, Greece, and pretty much any other US-back revolutionary government, the new government either quickly lost power or committed various atrocities in itself (Pinochet is a good example of this).

The only way to bring stability to a country such as Syria is to do our best to support democracy through the populous and the people of power within that country without intervening. They have to come to their own revolutions. When we support someone in a war like that, we give them a strength that cannot usually be matched by the other side (there are examples to this, Vietnam being an obvious one). But when the government comes into power, any outside forces that guided them into that position leave. And they struggle to keep power because the nationalistic sections understandably turn resent them for having been influenced by the West.

>>8643755
Yes. He received it as a gift from Fidel Castro.

File: Foucault.jpg (156KB, 740x464px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 740x464px

>>8644186
>>8643724
Leave Noem to me

>>8644115
>Pinochet is a good example of this
But he didn't commit any atrocities, his regime was extremely stable, and his economy was the envy of all of Latin America

(Note: killing a couple thousand leftists is not an atrocity)

>>8644212
/pol/ this is an over 16 board, may I recommend /v/ instead?

>>8644179
be serious

>>8644212
>kek

>>8644115
>atrocities committed by the Assad regime
What evidence is there of this? It seems these "atrocities" Assad is accused of, is always being perpetuated by the radical Sunni's.

>various atrocities in itself (Pinochet is a good example of this).
t. leftypol

>>8645459
>t. leftypol
No, t. someone who has read about history beyond what superficial nonsense he has picked up from casually browsing /pol/, not even the same guy.

He's right about what he's saying, if you look at any instance of US-backed coup in the history of the modern world, it was always followed by massive violence, repression ad most notably the impoverishment of the middle class.

Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Russia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, the list goes on.

Even beyond a stark military intervention in foreign nations, the IMF has done the exact same thing by forcing foreign nations which were on the brink of economic collapse to adopt an economic system which really only benefits the global market and not so much the country in itself like it happened in post-communist Russia and China.

Clearly communism hasn't worked in either nation, but that's a different debate.

The death toll in Indonesia alone greatly exceeds any atrocities you could (by any stretch of fantasy or whatever) attribute to the Assad regime, the Saddam regime or both combined.

>>8645486
>No, t. someone who has read about history beyond what superficial nonsense he has picked up from casually browsing /pol/, not even the same guy.

It's alright. You don't have to pretend like you're not from there. We are all friends here ;^)

In all seriousness though, I agree with much of what you are saying.

>>8645497
/pol/ is non-interventionist btw.

>>8643724
>Just look at the debate between him and Jeff Buckley.
Yeah, but Buckley's cover of "Hallelujah" is better

>>8645497
I don't browse /pol/ though.

>>8645516
I half-halfheartedly was saying you were from /leftypol/

>>8645521
Isn't that a kind of thread or general thread from /pol/?

>>8645526
What do you mean?

>>8645532
Isn't /leftypol/ still found on 4chan.org/pol/?
A place I don't visit.

File: 1446256636229.jpg (20KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x267px

William Buckley clearly won this debate. Only a cucked liberal would think otherwise.

I wish i was joking

>>8645547
??
He clearly expresses ignorance on the topic and Chomsky steamrolls him with facts that were completely new to him, how did he win if he had such limited understanding of the issue?

>>8645536
Nope, they have their own place on other chan

>>8645559

"steamrolls him with facts." Just because Chomsky states that the State Department wanted to help France keep control of Vietnam doesn't mean that Chomsky wins a point on this imaginary scoreboard in the sky in debate land.

Firing Line was a television show that explored the deeper concepts of ideas and events going on in the world. When Buckley tries to explore new subjects--such as the hypothetical idea that it would have been in the United States interest to defend French colonial rule to avoid future conflicts--all Chomsky can do is bring "muh nazis... eeeeevvil colonialism."

I grew up with Firing Line and Buckley so I've seen probably 100 episodes and the Chomsky debate was one of the worst ever aired. He constantly interrupts, changes the subject and treats the hour segment as a battle instead of an exploration of ideas.

And don't get me wrong, I respect Chomsky as a linguist--he's absolutely brilliant--but when it comes to politics he's a total fucking hack.

>>8644115
The comparison to Nicaragua shows what a retarded shithead you are.

>>8645486
>He's right about what he's saying, if you look at any instance of US-backed coup in the history of the modern world, it was always followed by massive violence, repression ad most notably the impoverishment of the middle class.
>the only form of western intervention in Syria imaginable is a CIA coup
Also which US-backed coup in Russia are we talking about here?

>>8645597
>And don't get me wrong, I respect Chomsky as a linguist--he's absolutely brilliant--but when it comes to politics he's a total fucking hack.
Hahaha, that's completely the wrong way around you spastic :^)

>>8643724
I've never seen anybody lose a debate.

>>8645647
>Chomsky's politics are great but his linguistics is stupid
Untenable position. Are you George Lakoff?

>>8645702
yes

>>8645597
I barely read any Chomsky but I always knew there was something that bothered me when I read or listened to him.
He must be the origin of the 'changing the meaning of the words' the left uses these days. Never wants to discuss the subject at hand, only wants to discuss his opinion that is hard to disagree with because he's nice and doesn't want people to die from governments like you do.

>>8645642
I think he's talking about the shock doctrine

File: 64fkmq.jpg (20KB, 250x376px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x376px

>>8645647
>>8645718

French colonialism was a good thing and the Vietnam war was just and noble. Only reason we lost is because we the American left lost the will to fight and stabbed our military in the back.

Now go retreat to your safe space.

>>8645728
Your opinions are retarded.

>>8645728
How old are you about? As you can see youngins like me and
>>8645739
won't accept your worldview. But that doesn't mean there isn't truth in it, I learned that awhile ago.

>>8645728
You are an obstacle to human progress and happiness. Your character and psyche are crippled in a way that reduces you to a medieval state of mind.

>>8644026
Is that the same Dershowitz that concocted a fraud?

>>8645559
>>8645536
You're wrong, it is also a /pol/ general

File: 1476112034398.png (67KB, 768x629px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 768x629px

>>8644115

NATO and its Sunni allies supported the revolution from day 1 and if it had not been for their support there would have never been a civil war and all that would have happened in 2011 was some protests and skirmishes and that's it.

>>8643724
>you have to admit that his articulation is unmatched in debates
why do we have to admit this?

>>8643788
lost my shit over this post

>>8644187
Chomsky came out of that much better than Foucault did. I say that as someone who doesn't much like Chomsky.

>>8643943
Lel, this is a funny coincidence. I was just talking to my dad about this, how I don't see why you should care so much about world affairs if it doesn't change anything. He was telling me about how much a part of Chomsky's book opened his eyes on US foreign policy towards the Latin America.

Then I come on here and it's the first thread on here, and I see this post, mirroring my thoughts.

>>8643943
>because the intelligent men have learned it is pointless to care so much about what you cannot control

this is the most pathetic and servile mindset I have yet encountered in all my years posting on this board

>>8646665

I bet your first language is english

>>8646719
you've got me all figured out!

>>8643724
His articulation most be damned good, he looks like a skeleton. Probably a healthy good daily dose of calcium.

>>8643943

Because Chomsky takes too long to speak and the TV people don't like that. He's said as much himself, reporting that he's been told to speak quicker and what not.

Basically it's why the people they wheel out for political discussions always happen to be the people who like they've spent the past year in hardcore media training.

UK here and it sums up the BBC.

>>8644212

Good shit post. You da man!

>>8644115
I disagree with your mild conclusion, but only because I think the problem is much deeper than that, though whatever. On your first part you are right about the harm of those intervention, but it's kind of missing the big point that having a war there, and supporting this or that group is extremely profitable for the US, EU, Israel and its close partners, and it has been done since forever, merely changing the players. That's the only reason there are interventions at all, not to save some country, no one realy wants that, so of course it doesn't work.

>>8644115
>the atrocities committed by the Assad regime.
Kek, Assad is the moderate, secularist one here.

Well, he never debated me *puffs smoke from cigarette*

>>8645486
so china hasn't benefited from adopting capitalism? interesting interpretation

>>8644187
The debate between those two cucks was just "look at my wacky theories guise!"

File: 1465175136532.png (765KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1280x720px

>>8643724
Let's see a debate where he successfully defends anarcho-syndicalism against liberal capitalism.

Also, Foucault won

>>8645486
>ou look at any instance of US-backed coup in the history of the modern world, it was always followed by massive violence, repression ad most notably the impoverishment of the middle class.
It worked for Brazil.

>>8645718
>He must be the origin of the 'changing the meaning of the words' the left uses these days. Never wants to discuss the subject at hand, only wants to discuss his opinion that is hard to disagree with because he's nice and doesn't want people to die from governments like you do.

I've seen Chomsky's debates. He argues like a Talmudic scholar, and it's infuriating.

It's easy to see why students who've never taken a logic class fall in love with the guy. He knows how to spin a yarn and avoid actual debate.

>>8647039
he's secular sure, but his forces have killed the most people by far (10 or 100 times as many as other groups) through indiscriminate barrel bombing of civilian neighborhoods among other things

also he and his stubbornness are the sole cause of the entire war and don't tell me he guarantees stability - clearly he could not do just that and the sectarianism that we see in the war is to a large degree a result of his way of running the country

>>8644115
the only way to solve it, is to hold democratic elections which will necessarily lead to moderate sunni islamists like the muslim brotherhood in power. then let them run the country and see them fail (also do not depose their government in a coup like in egypt). that way islamism will lose some of its mass appeal in the arab world and everyone will be safer and better off as a result

>>8645647
>>8645702

both is bad but his politics less so than his linguistics

>>8644045

Who else /mu/ here?

>>8647492
>he's secular sure, but his forces have killed the most people by far (10 or 100 times as many as other groups) through indiscriminate barrel bombing of civilian neighborhoods among other things
I suggest you recheck those numbers. Anyway, he's dealing with combat in several fronts and against several different enemies. It's common ISIL to deflect attacks by merging with the civilians, using children as shields, etc.

>also he and his stubbornness are the sole cause of the entire war and don't tell me he guarantees stability - clearly he could not do just that and the sectarianism that we see in the war is to a large degree a result of his way of running the country
Now, this is delusional. The country has been a melting pot since forever and Sunni ressentment has only been growing stronger after the Ba'ath coup. By any objective standards, Assad has been a decent to good leader when compared to other Arab nations and their politics. Sunni radicalism plus the neverending instability after the Arab Spring are to blame. Western involvement is to blame.

>>8647165
>Talmudic scholar
could you explain your use of this term. I've heard of Talmud, but I don't understand what the connotation of a 'Talmudic scholar' is, nor can i find anything online.

>>8645728
kek what a dumb shit

>>8644187
that debate was a draw because they really just argued past one another

>>8645728
we need to revert to a reactionary world for like two weeks, make al the /pol/tards into nobles, but them have them participate in a modern battle of agincourt where they all get brutally killed with their cosplay weapons. then we can return to normal life without having to deal with this shit.

File: noamchomsky50s.jpg (72KB, 229x300px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 229x300px

Does anyone have a picture of Noam as an adolescent/teen? Need it for my collection. I have the toddler one.

>>8643724
duh one puhcent stol eall the money, poor people are victims, weakness is good, blah blah fucking blah

literally kill yourselves faggots

>>8647569
Not the anon you're replying to, but I imagine it to refers to people taking something Chomsky said and drawing implications from it or giving their own interpretation of it in a slightly altered way, because that's the way they understood it. Then Chomsky will say, "Obvious falsification, I said no such thing." Which is true, but can be annoying, because you can draw some reasonable inferences from what he says (thinking the Cambodian Genocide controversy here), but he will reject that because they are not repeating *exactly what he said in the whole context of which it was said* and accuse them of distorting his remarks as though he is the sole reasonable arbiter of the intentions behind his words, which he reveals after the fact.

I am a Chomsky fan, have read a number of his books and agree with him on many things, but he can be extremely pedantic whenever people criticize or just disagree with what he says, and then acts like they are either stupid or an immoral liar. That said, he definitely demolishes plenty of idiots whose idea of fact-gathering is watching CNN.

>>8648308
Agree with this, this wasn't even a debate, they weren't operating under almost any of the same assumptions.

Chomsky:
>We need to try to achieve justice for everyone
Foucault:
>You can't achieve universal justice, it will just be an ideology to seize power and shift oppression and violence on to new groups

File: 0000146568.jpg (112KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x500px

>>8647525
:^)

>>8646198
It's not so cut and dried:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz%E2%80%93Finkelstein_affair

But yes.

>Chomsky is an asshole obscurantist guys, but don't be mistaken! I REALLY love his work on linguistics, even if he's TOTALLY WRONG on politics!

This is the literal cut-and-paste opinion of Chomsky from people who've never read him. Always shows its face in these ugly threads.

>>8648562
I admit, I didn't go research further after the "debate", but just that sentence with that lovely accent has drilled itself into my mind.

Incidentally, I have yet to see a Dershowitz debate where he doesn't lose very decisively.

>>8648584

This. The real red pill is realizing that Chomsky is wrong on politics AND linguistics.

Sadly when you write so many books, it's harder to dismiss you outright.

Chomsky is bretty much just a liberal who likes the CNT, his politics are only famous for getting people into anarchism and being defended by a respected academic.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/feral-faun-essays#toc21

>>8645728
"F on the Fascist Scale" - Adorno and Horkheimer

Once upon a time in a jungle, man learns how to talk words and write books and then people start gathering about him and giving him money.

Then everyone is listening to the man talk words and sell words.

But then another man realizes that this isn't fair, why does this man get all the people to give him money for words. So the other man learns how to do it and then starts attracting people the other way.

And that's noam chomsky, the other guy who says words and people listen to him and buy his words.

>>8648609
>This. The real red pill is realizing that Chomsky is wrong on politics AND linguistics.

>>8648628
>Chomsky is bretty much just a liberal who likes the CNT

I think part of the disagreement over his 'politics' is due to the fact that Leftists (correctly) criticize his relatively undeveloped anarchist theory, while the people who say his politics are good are talking about his political analyses of actual US politics. Personally I think the latter are very good and important (even if he could benefit from a more robust differentiation between subjective and systemic factors in oppressive use of power) and that's also what we should be talking about when we talk about Chomsky's politics (as opposed to his linguistics), because that seems to be what he spends his time writing and talking about (the anarchism in my experience he mostly talks about because people specifically ask him).

File: Here we go.jpg (58KB, 634x613px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 634x613px

>>8648786

>I think part of the disagreement over his 'politics' is due to the fact that Leftists (correctly) criticize his relatively undeveloped anarchist theory, while the people who say his politics are good are talking about his political analyses of actual US politics.

This is, ironically, a very Leftist perspective. Most of those who hate his politics, do so because it overwhelmingly boils down to "The West/US/Capitalism is bad, whereas anything opposed to them is good, or at least not as bad." In that sentence I have summed up most of his books.

>>8648796
>whereas anything opposed to them is good, or at least not as bad.
As someone who has read an actual Chomsky book cover to cover he actually literally does not say this (it was the New Mandarins, about Vietnam).

>>8648804

Maybe not in his books. That's the inevitable conclusion we draw from his interviews/debates/etc. Here's a 2013 classic:

>On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare.

>>8648807
>That's the inevitable conclusion we draw
That sounds a bit like those people who when you criticize Trump think you're for Hillary and when you criticize Hillary think you're for Trump, i.e. a facile and faulty assumption of a strictly binary opinion-space.

>>8648807
both of those are tactics that build on terror. What's the definition of terrorism that book follows?

File: sam.jpg (104KB, 898x893px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 898x893px

>>8643724

Of course you haven't since he refuses to debate people who would destroy him.

pic related.

>>8648831

Noam does actually trash the West/America and Capitalism at any given opportunity, however. Contrarily, he took his sweet time admitting that the Khmer Rouge maybe weren't so cool after all.

>>8648842
>Noam does actually trash the West/America and Capitalism at any given opportunity, however.
Of course he does, that's not in contradiction with what I said earlier but a direct match. What I said is that people who conclude that him pointing out western hypocrisy by comparing Khmer Rouge and East Timor violence is an endorsement of the Khmer Rouge are basically mentally handicapped.
>>8648842
>Contrarily, he took his sweet time admitting that the Khmer Rouge maybe weren't so cool after all.
A nice instance of what I'm criticizing.

>>8648849

If you're telling me that Noam criticizes the West/Right as much as the Left/East, you're a fucking retard.

>>8648853
you reading comprehension is 0/10

>>8643788
Hi fellow redditor banned from /r/badphilosophy

File: 220px-Lookatthefool.jpg (13KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x220px

>>8647525

>>8648907
>pleb
jeff buckley
>pseud
tim buckley
>patrician
tim fuckley

>>8648916
>patrician
Keith Buckley :^)

>>8647525
tim buccley best buccley

>>8647524
I'd like to know what you think linguistics is if you think Chomsky's work is bad. I wouldn't be surprised if you're a psychology student who's heard this from some psych teacher. In fact, virtually everyone in linguistics accepts at least a significant part of Chomsky's research program.

>>8648609
see >>8649343

File: image.jpg (88KB, 560x577px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 560x577px

>>8643724
>implying foucault didn't destroy him

>>8643724
I've never seen a Jew loose a penny.

>>8648609
>The real red pill is realizing that Chomsky is wrong on politics AND linguistics
>the man that BTFO behaviorism by himself

His work on linguistics is pure gold and extremely influential. Stick to shitposting on /pol/, kid

>>8644026
Yeah, because arguments like "Israel should be able to expand their borders as far as needed for their security" are in any way substantial, let alone enough to win any debate. When Chomsky landed the killing blow during his opening lines, all Dershowitz could do was yell out "Chomsky is a fraud and you'll never find his sources" to which Chomsky responded by giving the exact location of the sources, and it was a closed case at that point.

>>8645521
So quarterheartedly then?

>>8643724
Young Chomsky has very charismatic mannerism. Just look at those hand gestures.

>>8649814
this

>>8650977
When did Dershowitz ever argue that? He's pro-Palestinian, you're clearly twisting his words or using them out of context.

He can't refute Chomsky's sources because he's never heard of them. He's spent his life actually making policy, and his sources include first hand conversations with the POTUS rather than cherry-picked idealistic Israeli sources that Chomsky emptily claimed were "more serious". The fact remains that if Palestine agreed to the map Dershowitz held up in the 1940's this entire conflict would have been ancient history, and intellectuals like Chomsky are responsible for advocating otherwise, and by extension the blood that has been spilt from then onward. Chomsky literally dismisses Dershowitz's source for the map because it's American, yet he goes on to cite several other American sources several other times throughout the debate??
Dershowitz doesn't present well, and loses the plot over Planet Chomsky, but his argument wins out over the deliberately deceptive one constructed by his opponent.

>>8646674
synchronicity is very important