Chomsky is right about literally everything

>>9255110
I wish the mods would just ban shit b8 like this.

>>9255110
Yes

>>9255110
Still leeches himself to leftist thinking. Can't be that smart.

>>9255110
Honestly if you took half the things he said and made it look like an upvoted reddit comment, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference and vice versa.

>>9255147
This.

>>9255255
>leftist thinking

When the only other real option is rightist arguments, which are mostly less convincing, you can't really fault him for it.

>>9255266
One of the dumbest posts I've read today.

>>9255110
True

>>9255110
I hate Chomsky, but that time that he absolutely BTFO Sam Harris while not even debating him justified his existence in my eyes.

>>9255110
I agree. Chomky is just such a solid thinker that most people who try to fight against him have no idea h9ow to go about it. I've hear so many times, from so many people, that Chomsky is a hack and that they could easily show him up, but when it comes down to it their actual arguments against him are typically rashly constructed bullcrap based merely in their fundamental opposition to his worldview.

>>9255266
haha this is how I felt when I read through Chomsky

He was wrong about the Khmer Rouge.

And UG.

>>9255282
This.

>>9255110
I'm a huge fan too.

>>9255319
>Wrong about UG
No.

>>9255110
That's like, just, your opinion man.

>88 years old
>Still going strong
How the fuck does he do it?

no

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA

>>9255544
based chromsky

>>9255544
it's called working from a totalising doctrine f a m

>>9255544
In interviews he says he doesn't really have hobbies, all his time is spent reading or writing.

>>9255544
non-physical job and lots of THINKING and I mean lots of active thinking that keeps your mind a fresh every day and I mean a fuck ton of this sort of activity.

>>9255282
Source?

>>9255266
Exactly this. He's the proro-redditor.

Why dont you sucks his dick then, you homosexual faggot¿?

>the state is bad and should be taken down
>the state should ban guns

10/10 left-libertarian here

>>9255867
Nerd

>>9255266
That can be said about anything and you'd always be half right and half wrong about it.

>>9255110
what are your majors ?

Everyone I've ever met who doesn't respect Chomsky was a brainlet.

Of course he's wrong about Lenin and guns but that's almost all he has been wrong about.

>some idiot will try to pretend he knows anything about even half of what Chomsky knows

Except the one thing he's most famous for...

>>9255852
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

Here you are.

I just looked this up and read it specifically because of the previous post. Sam is totally roasted in this, groveling and refusing to continue the exchange because he didn't like Chomsky's tone. Very entertaining read.

>>9256647
Thanks

>>9255266
What is this supposed to mean? I'm assuming the implication here is that le reddit is bad xd

>>9256647
This is brutal, holy shit. I couldn't continue after a certain point, the secondhand embarrassment on behalf of Sam was too much.

>>9256529
generative grammar btfo
neo-rationalists go home

>>9255711
>>9255738
>>9255618
i think he meant it as in, how tf is chomsky still alive

>>9257387
>reddit isn't bad

>>9257387
First of all, reddit is bad, and putting the meme face after that fact doesn't make it wrong.

He was 100% right about Linguistics

Last year's election debunked Manufacturing Consent

Chomsky unfortunately falls into that vein of reverse chauvinism so common among American social critics, where far from the USA being the source of all greatness and freedom in the world (as is constantly theorized by the buffoons writing for Fox News, CNN, the New Yorker, or the many other "real news" publications to the left and the right), the USA is in fact the source of all, or at least most, the world's evil and oppression. No longer omnibenevolent, but still the center of the universe.

In doing so, he completely fails to address the problems facing Latin America in terms of their own duties to limpiar su propia casa. He hypocritically (considering the amount of moralistic hand wringing he does in defense of human rights) defends not just Venezuela and Cuba, but also the communist party of Brazil (recently ousted for corruption, with a far worse track record towards treatment of illegal immigrants than any imperialistic western country, and until recently in charge of a stagnant economy where a staggering 50% of the economy is tied up in the public sector), and tries to excuse the narcotrafficing problems of SA by blaming them on "Western Consumers" (even most SA leftists wouldn't give los gringos that much credit) who are in fact imperialistic hypocrites because westerners consume cigarettes and alcohol (as though SA doesn't have its own booming alcohol and tobacco industries). Although the charges of racism behind the persecution of the coca plant is entirely justified, it's not the racism of policy makers in the United States, but the tragically ignored prejudices of Latinos themselves which is vastly more responsible for the persecution of this noble plant and harmless industry.

Although I have to admire his admiration of Evo Morales, Noam Chomsky fails to adequately distinguish between the consumption of coca leafs, and the production and distribution of cocaine, which are apples and oranges. Anyone seriously interested in the subjects discussed in this book would do much better for themselves by skipping Chomsky and going straight to the source, by listening to translations of Morales, Chavez, Castro, Kirchner, Peron, the Pope, and the many other voices of Latino America directly.

>>9258166
While there are a lot of good points made in this book, which has a solid and impressive scholarship behind it, and much to be gained through reading it, its hard to take Chomsky seriously at points, given his glaring prejudices and almost embarrassingly naive opinions towards regimes that superficially align with his own ideology.

With the meltdown of Venezuela, the recent coup in Brazil, and the democratic election of Macri in Argentina, I feel like Chomsky must be turning over in his Ivory Tower right now. It would be interesting to read any revisions or revisitations to this book that are done in the future.

Read this book, but do it at a safe distance. Chomsky unfortunately dirties his valid and unequaled criticism of US foreign policy with enough toxic ideology and bias that some paragraphs require the reader to pinch their nose to the stink of his opinions.

>>9255110
getting pussy at 86 is soooo fucking right

>>9257520
>>9257570
You haven't explained to me why having a certain sentiment be a highly voted comment on Reddit is inherently bad.

>>9258423
reddit is inherently bad
nice ban evasion, faggot

>>9258432
>still no argument
Burden is still on you friendo

>>9255110
>influences: Martin Luther King Jr.
Wow, what an absolute meme this guy is.

>>9258433
Not an argument.

>>9255110
He should be crucified and his books should be burned by the masses TbH Famm

>>9258488
Yes it is

>>9258650
Not an argument.

>>9258661
Im not sure if you are doing this ironically or you truly believe it is a legitimate retort

>>9258689
Not an argument.

>>9258695
Not an argument.

>>9258711
Not an argument.

>>9255255
The fact that you and every dipshit hick out there debate in "isms" rather than contouring your opinions to the specificities of a given subject matter, shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9258166
>>9258179

It is kinda sad to read his instance on that topic, the naive of his ideologue leftism is blatant supporting the same errors over and over and ignoring the trail of corpses a long the way.

Then he doubles down again talking the last Brazilian government that was going the same Venezuelan path, just more dead bodies with the insane amount of violence always rising and the economy and families income going down the drain. I guess how much more of the same is necessary and if it is ever possible for them to realize something is wrong with their reasoning.

>>9255277
upvote

>>9256647
Fucking anal rape right here

>>9258721
>>9258711
>>9258695
>>9258661
>>9258650
>>9258488

This is Autism

This post is not an argument

>>9259410
not an argument

>>9257503
My grandfather is 98.

>>9258166
>Chomsky unfortunately falls into that vein of reverse chauvinism so common among American social critics, where far from the USA being the source of all greatness and freedom in the world (as is constantly theorized by the buffoons writing for Fox News, CNN, the New Yorker, or the many other "real news" publications to the left and the right), the USA is in fact the source of all, or at least most, the world's evil and oppression. No longer omnibenevolent, but still the center of the universe.
False. Chomsky mainly criticizes the US because he believes one has a moral duty to denounce the crimes of the state one lives in and has influence in and that moral critiques where one has no influence have no moral value. He has said this explicitly several times.
Read for example the interview in:
https://chomsky.info/20020214/
>"It may be fine to study the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there is no moral value to condemning them; we can’t do anything about them."
>"I am basing my remarks on what seems to me a moral truism: the moral evaluation of what we do depends on the anticipated consequences – in the cases we are discussing, human consequences. If I publish a paper here reviewing and condemning the crimes of Genghis Khan, the human consequences are approximately zero"
>"I was critical of Pakistan’s policies concerning Kashmir when speaking in Pakistan, and of India’s policies there when speaking in India. But I cannot – and no one else should – have a great deal of confidence in what I say as a concerned outsider. And there isn’t much that I can do about the very severe problems. In contrast, there is a great deal I can do about problems within the US, and about policy decisions of systems of power there."
>"Let’s take a concrete case. For intellectuals in Russia in the Communist days, condemnation of US crimes had little if any moral value; in fact, it might have had negative value, in serving to buttress the oppressive and brutal Soviet system. In contrast, when Eastern European dissidents condemned the crimes of their own states and society, it had great moral value."

>He hypocritically (considering the amount of moralistic hand wringing he does in defense of human rights) defends not just Venezuela and Cuba, but also the communist party of Brazil (recently ousted for corruption, with a far worse track record towards treatment of illegal immigrants than any imperialistic western country, and until recently in charge of a stagnant economy where a staggering 50% of the economy is tied up in the public sector), and tries to excuse the narcotrafficing problems of SA by blaming them on "Western Consumers"
This is an outright lie.

>>9260155

>This is an outright lie.

No it isn't, two seconds on google and you find his support for the Venezuelan regime.

https://chomsky.info/20070518/

Where do I start with Chomsky?

>>9260261
>2007
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy

I don't take him seriously. Last year, when commenting about Brazil, he basically took the local leftist narrative about the impeachment for granted. That was so stupid to do.

Ever since then have I stopped caring about what he has to say. How am I to know if his views on Pol Pot etc. aren't equally distorted?

Also, you SHOULD NEVER be impressed by how many sources he cites. How can you know he doesn't also OMIT a lot of important ones? Are you an expert on the subject?

You should only say Chomsky is right about everything if you're an expert on all subjects he talks about. The problem is that he talks about so many things that you simply cannot be an expert in all of them. But again, how are you to tell he doesn't omit important facts? How are you to judge all of his sources?

There is a book called 'The Lies of Chomsky' or something to that effect in which the author shows hundreds and hundreds of false or misleading statements made by Chomsky. How can YOU, a lonely lay person, judge his work? You simply can't.

The only thing I can judge about Chomsky's work are his statements on Brazil last year, which are completely worthless. I'm a Brazilian Law student and the impeachment was completely correct. Brazil is better because of it. Two days ago we received the great news that, after 2 years, Brazil is finally having more people getting a job than being fired from one.

Also, Chomsky was quite positive about Chavez... He said there was ups and downs, and his overall judgement on that interview after Chavez died seemed to be somewhat positive. How could he be so naive not to know what would happen after when so many people were already warning that Venezuela was a dictatorship? So many critics, so many warnings, and Chomsky didn't seem to see the collapse that was going to come only two or three years after.

File: 2009 pic.jpg (974KB, 2953x1969px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 2953x1969px

>>9260293
Back in 2007 Chavez was already being heavily criticised.

After he died, Chomsky was still somewhat positive. He said there were ups and downs and such, but he clearly wasn't irritated by the government of Chavez.

What chomskyites will never admit is that the old MIT professor, despite his undeniable power of intellect, is still able to believe that the next guy who creates a socialist economy will actually do things right this time because, you know, socialism hasn't 'really' being tried yet, right? Wrong. It's in the very nature of socialist regimes to create a powerful and oppressive state. In free markets, corporations may also cause harm, but they also cause great good - which states usually don't - because they have to compete, and therefore they give rise to prosperity.

Chomsky was supportive of Chavez. Here in South America people criticized the Venezuelan regime ever since the beginning. The American left was always supportive of it, including during the start of the Maduro regime (BR president Lula even made a video supporting him).

I now believe Chomsky's views are second-hand. He takes them from left-wing intellectuals who live in the countries he talks about, while ignoring other views. That's why I think he supported Chavez. He basically just followed the left-wing general view here in South America and accepted it as the right opinion.

The mere fact Chomsky even thought that Chavez would create good things should be enough to make us take everything he says with a heavy grain of salt. Venezuelans are in the most disgraceful situation imaginable. Even the middle class - or what used to be the middle class - is searching for food in trashcans. And this is partly the fault of intellectuals who prefer to put their emotions about oppression and human goodness above the hard facts of competitiveness and human selfishness.

I was actually a chomskyite myself and corresponded with him. I really appreciate his honesty and work, but nowadays I believe he is very wrong in his views.

File: 1484845940089.jpg (181KB, 487x540px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 487x540px

>>9260155

>False. . .this is an outright lie.

It's cute when leftists get mad and start talking like an irate commissar

>>9260324
>Back in 2007 Chavez was already being heavily criticised.
Sure, even in the article you posted Chomsky says "There are conflicting tendencies, and the question for Venezuela is which one will prevail. There are democratizing tendencies, devolution of power, popular assemblies, communities taking control of their own budgets, workplace cooperatives and so on. All of that is building towards democracy. There are also authoritarian tendencies: centralization, charismatic figure, and so on."

>What chomskyites will never admit is that the old MIT professor, despite his undeniable power of intellect, is still able to believe that the next guy who creates a socialist economy will actually do things right this time because, you know, socialism hasn't 'really' being tried yet, right? Wrong. It's in the very nature of socialist regimes to create a powerful and oppressive state. In free markets, corporations may also cause harm, but they also cause great good - which states usually don't - because they have to compete, and therefore they give rise to prosperity.
Sorry but I don't really give a fuck about your personal opinion on socialism.

Chomsky praised the good aspects of chavez and criticized the bad ones, which evidently prevailed. This doesn't retroactively mean nationalizing oil and using the money for social programs was wrong.

>>9260334
Sure, nothing reveals military anger like saying "false".

>>9258730
/thread

>>9255869
Looks like you lost yourself, boi. Kindergarden is this way --> 9gag.com

>>9260346
Yet how was he naive enough to see the bad ones would prevail when the whole of Latin America was seeing it? Was he perchance not blinded by his own ideology?

Also, the man's overall view was clearly somewhat positive. He wasn't enthusiastic about it, but he liked it. Otherwise, why would he even take pictures with Chavez? He probably wouldn't take pictures with Obama...

It is quite clear that he had some hope in Chavez, as he had in Lula. And the very existence of this hope shows well how naive he is, and how flawed his basic views on human nature are. I certainly wouldn't be able to debate him on the subject, but, if he has made such mistakes, it's quite clear that his understanding is flawed.

Chomsky believes in utopia. This seems to be too much of a mistake for someone who's 'right about everything'.

Maybe he's right about the media (although I don't think he is nowadays, given the internet), America's evil empire and so on. However, people create an aura around him which simply doesn't exist. Much of what he says is very, very weak.

>>9260369
>not to see the bad ones would prevail

Fix'd.

I'm writing fast, sorry if there's any other mistake in my posts.

>>9260346

>Sorry but I don't really give a fuck about your personal opinion on socialism.

Is the mad little commissar having a temper tantrum? What's wrong? No dictatorship of the proletariat in 2017?

>>9260369
>when the whole of Latin America was seeing it?
But that's wrong. In the article you posted Chomsky mentions polls carried on Chavez's perception in latin america and says the opposite.

>Otherwise, why would he even take pictures with Chavez? He probably wouldn't take pictures with Obama...
>It is quite clear that he had some hope in Chavez
Following your comparison, none of the aspects Chomsky mentions as positive ("popular assemblies, communities taking control of their own budgets, workplace cooperatives") apply to Obama. So, yes, the aspects he liked made him hopeful and the aspects he disliked made him fearful of the venezuelan government, I don't see what's disconcerting to you about this. Although I agree that taking a pic with a latin american caudillo is retarded, there's no way it's not going to bite you in the ass eventually.

Chomsky is an idiot period.
He should have stuck to his languages degree.

>>9260395
I'm simply not interested in the discussion, we were arguing about chomsky's views, and that's how I write. Do you have something to contribute or are you just going to quote random sentences and post this? I mean, if saying "false" reveals anger, I'm sure everything else I write is some kind of frenzy.

>>9260426
>and that's how I write

I can already tell that you are another millenial fuck up nu male.

>>9260429
Ok m8.

File: ok hand.png (231KB, 348x740px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 348x740px

>>9255110
You're making me want to read Chomsky again.

>>9260287
Who rules the world

>>9258730
h-hey friend, c-can I save this?

>>9260506
go right on. it's yours.

>>9260506

Save it already retard.

File: download.jpg (4KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x168px

This man (Milton Friedman) is better than that left wing authoritarian asshole (Chomsky)

You're obviously trying to get a reaction from people, welcome to 4chan

FREEDOM!!!
CAPITALISM!!

File: chom.png (89KB, 620x300px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 620x300px

his diaries are a little fucked

>>9260529
nice b8 m8 i r8 8/8

>>9260529
...pshhh lol.

File: wojak.jpg (49KB, 626x750px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 626x750px

>>9256647
> You appear to have begun this dialogue at (or very near) the end of your patience. If we were to publish it, I would strongly urge you to edit what you have already written, removing unfriendly flourishes such as “as you know”, “the usual procedure in work intended to be serious,” “ludicrous and embarrassing,” “total refusal,” etc. I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon—believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me—but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you. I’d rather you not look like the dog who caught the car.

>>9260324
What is wrong again with Chavez?

>>9260596
>What is wrong again with Chavez?

Machismo

>>9260404
>taking a pic with a latin american caudillo

WEEEEEEW, now Chavez is a caudillo. Tell me which countries has Venezuela waged war upon again?

>>9260602
I'm serious please.

>>9260608

He didn't do anything great lad, he just profited from his oil reserves to pay off the people and as soon as the price tumbled so did his country. The economic collapse of Venezuela has nothing to do with Maduro being an ignorant tool but everything with a non diversified economy.

>>9255282

But Sam's core point about intention still stands. Chomsky has made some absurd claims about the west.

>>9260592
Fuck that's hardcore, new respect found

>>9260675
>But Sam's core point about intention still stands.

No it doesn't:

>Clinton bombed al-Shifa in reaction to the Embassy bombings, having discovered no credible evidence in the brief interim of course, and knowing full well that there would be enormous casualties. Apologists may appeal to undetectable humanitarian intentions, but the fact is that the bombing was taken in exactly the way I described in the earlier publication which dealt the question of intentions in this case, the question that you claimed falsely that I ignored: to repeat, it just didn’t matter if lots of people are killed in a poor African country, just as we don’t care if we kill ants when we walk down the street. On moral grounds, that is arguably even worse than murder, which at least recognizes that the victim is human. That is exactly the situation. And we are left with your unwillingness to address the very clear question that opened the passage you cite is, instead offering evasions that are exactly as I described. And your unwillingness to address the crucial ethical question about intentions.

>>9255544
Vile Jewish necromancy

>>9260690
To be honest I always kind of respected Harris but his views on American Foreign Policy are so deluded that I don't know if its just because he is a fucking shill or an autist

>>9260613

That is a very gentle description of him, guy was a total drug lord together with his crew and actually went Kim Jon-wu mode on his people and dissidents, abolished properties, did arbitrary price controls, reformulated constitution on his preference, etc...

The funny thing is that Chomsky actually defends coups originated from the EUA when conducted on this kind of dictatorship, just like happened in the beginning of the Chavez rise. Perhaps at that time the CIA had better information on the guy and was actually right by attempting it as the upcoming years demonstrated, according to his own opinion on valid interventions.

I wonder how he really thinks about it now and if he really question his statements. For me it sets a questioning cloud above him whenever he speaks about foreign affairs and takes the moral high ground accusing the EUA of being a terrorist state, even though he tends to lay it pretty clear I can't let to think well maybe he is full of shit and uninformed just like that other time and actually being a counter-terrorist state is a better solution and the people on the other side are actually tyrants not just some victims of the imperialism. Its a weird situation you just don't which information is valid.

But I would say he is mostly correct and evidence is on his side given the situation of the middle east interventions and how everything is worse in the world by its consequence, it would be unfair to dismiss everything he says because of a few mistakes specially when he is the only one making sense of the insane amount of lies that is spread everywhere and the guy is really old.

File: image.jpg (88KB, 618x685px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 618x685px

>>9260675
Chomsky's point was that he wrote extensively on this precise subject (intentions and foreign politics), but Harris not only didn't read them (which is fair, goven how much Chomsky has written in his lifetime) but he did not even bother to check if he has said anything on the subject or not.

He literally says that his sources for this debate were a pamphlet with some Chomsky's lecture transcriptions and (lol) a youtube video that he did not even see (Chomsky ended up actually seeing it and noted that it had nothing to do with what Harris was saying).

Just accept it my friend, it was brutal.

pic related: a guy who shares 90% of his audience with Harris :)

>>9260529
>should we build cars that don't kill their passengers? And should we tell customers that they may die in that car?
>... b-b-but what if... W-what if to make the car safe we have to spend TRILLIONS? W-what about free m-market

Reminder that Friedman is Neutral Evil

>>9256514
He's got decent general knowledge about a lot of topics and is master of his own field, but he does make me cringe when he pretends to be an expert in something other than linguistics.

>>9262201
He is an expert in foreign politics, and there's a good chunk of his literature that has become a staple in the required readings for every undergrad and Ms student in the West.

This percieved ineptitude is linked to the fact that he has no degree in it, but a quick look at the amount of sources in virtually every single one of his books will quickly show you that his education far excedes the one of most foreign politics PhDs.

It may sound a bit cult-ish, but you're holding Noam at standards that are simply not his. It would be like discrediting Newton only because he did not have a degree in Math... who cares? Isn't what he has produced and the impact it had on academia at large (a field in which everything is held at the upmost scrutiny, a field in which everyone's job is to discredit you) a proof of his education on the subject?

>>9261225
Holy shit is Joe Rogan really that small?

File: 17202756_1013640638767735_8065317811970195624_n.jpg (94KB, 636x960px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 636x960px

>>9261232
He was moral, he said, if people wanted saftey in cars, people should buy them BUT they do not sell very well, so he was a great man!!

>>9260429
u sound like the angry one sendpai t b q h

>>9260696
its both

>>9257735
how can anyone be this retarded?

>>9258689
he's referencing steven molyneux or whatever his name is who just says "SHUT UP NOT AN ARGUMENT" to everything that contradicts his opinions

File: 1488170856168.jpg (11KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 255x255px

>>9260529

>>9261232
The fact that there is a trade off between price and safety is an unavoidable result of scarcity. People simply cannot afford cars that are infinitely safe, hence why people do not buy cars that are infinitely safe. Producers and consumers both make this same decision in balancing price and safety, the producer when the car is being built and the consumer when the car is being bought. In fact, they're the same decision since the producer makes the most profit by making the car that people want the most. If you want a car that is safe, then you need to use your own money to buy one, but the reason that you and everybody else in the world will buy a car that is not safe is because it is cheap.

>>9265707
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EYW5I96h-9w

>>9265715
kek young moore reminds me of Shaggy from scooby doo

>>9265715
Yeah I've seen the video, I'm presenting Friedman's argument (roughly)

>>9255110
Since hierarchy is empirically a product of human diversity left-libertarianism (classless stateless society) is a contradiction in terms and therefore Noam Chomsky's ideology doesn't actually exist. He's a useful idiot advocating for a de-facto Authoritarian state, just like Hoppe but with a worse human rights record.

>>9260696
Hint: It's because he's a Jew.

>>9265768
Hoppe advocates radical decentralisation which would be hell for authoritarian rulers.
"We must promote the idea of secession. Or more specifically, we must promote the idea of a world composed of tens of thousands of distinct districts, regions, and cantons, and hundred of thousands of independent free cities such as the present day oddities of Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Greatly increased opportunities for economically motivated migration would thus result, and the world would be one of small liberal governments economically integrated through free trade and an international commodity money such as gold."
A Hoppean world is demonstrably free because we can already look at modern day sovereign cities. If his ideas were supported widely we would see thousands of secession movements that would eventually hold all governments accountable to competition based on governance, because if a state were to govern inefficiently or immorally I could just move to a different state. In a Hoppean world, authoritarianism becomes impossible because free association and free dissociation would be more powerful than government force.

File: economics.gif (1004KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 480x270px

>>9260426

You come off as mad.

I've noticed that when communist's beliefs are questioned/criticized they become quite angry, because communism is closer to a religion than a political philosophy for them.

It's like how muslims react when you draw a picture of mohammed: they freak out.

File: 1437766357282.png (81KB, 800x509px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x509px

STOP TRYING TO PLUNDER FROM PEOPLE IN ORDER TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH

>>9260692
>>9261225

Fine, maybe this dispute wasn't handled well. But it's framed by Chomsky's inability to engage in a conversation.

Broadly speaking, the intent factor is left out of Chomsky's reasoning (I've not read that much, so it's possible I am wrong) but to describe the USA (and let's face it the west) as a terrorist organisation? Please.

Grow up.

>>9265853
name of anime pls