Why is he such a stupid old faggot?

>>9747491
his politics are horrible, but reading some of these philosophy of mind dudes recently genuinely makes me wish more academics were like him. plus his debate with foucault is awesome

That's a loaded question

>>9747491
Interested question.

Saged and reported.

>>9747516
Answer the question

>>9747503
his academic/linguistic work is intimately linked to his politics..... you can't really separate them.

the foucault debate was terrible and they both agreed it was terrible as they had virtually nothing in common and couldn't even agree on terms of reference.

it was not even a debate.

File: 9eb9e2491cb609c307c3d368fff5e445.jpg (122KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1024x768px

>be me
>refresh /lit/
>this is the top post

fuck's sake

>>9747523
may have been terrible for them, its interesting to watch for sure. of course you can separate them, dude; unless you think it's obvious pol pot was a good dude because certain structures of language are innate? you dont need to take either whole-hog

File: il_340x270.1206873360_l80v[2].jpg (39KB, 340x270px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 340x270px

>>9747530
chomsky's "anarcho-syndicalist" disposition comes from his understanding of human-nature which is infused with his work in linguistics (universal grammar etc).

You can't cherry pick. His academic work is intimately tied in with his political work.

you either agree with his political stance, his work in linguistics and philosophy of mind or you disagree with it all.

or you can just be incoherent and naive.


>I'm right-wing but view man as naturally social, creative producers.

doesn't sound right does it?

>>9747491
Because you're confused and don't understand the world as well as he does.

>>9747564
It's true, like you say, that his fundamental positions on things like universals and human nature directly inform his political philosophy, and hence policy positions. However, your assumption that his political positions arise necessarily from these fundamental positions is misguided. I'm really interested in his philosophy of mind stuff, but largely because he is a problematizer who never jumped on the bandwagon of neodarwinian dogmatics. He brings a fresh skepticism to the frenzied circlejerks of brain science and AI. I hardly think that an appreciation of his mysterianism necessitates a fantastical anarcho-syndicalism.

>>9747520
If you think that question deserves answering, then you must kill yourself.

>>9747491
Wow, Chomsky btfo!
epic
*brofist*

>>9747491
His argument for innateness and the concept of generative grammar (essentially a two-dimensional computation) was one of the single most profound insights of the 20th century.

He is frighteningly well-read, and possesses one of the most pragmatic and exhaustive intellects I have ever seen. Truly an academic role model in that sense.

However his head is up his ass sometimes, whether its about language or politics. He becomes pretty ideologically tunnel-visioned and disparages and even disowns those who disagree with him.

But the man basically reinvented phil. of mind, of language, and linguistics, had profound implications on computer science, not to mention basically founding cognitive science. He pretty irrefutably rebutted Foucault and radical postmodernism. He will be remembered as one of the most influential minds of all time.

>>9747491
Chomsky a qt

>>9747491
made me laugh
yup he's pretty faggoty
him, alan watts and the hitch are my go-to's these days

>>9747491
He's ten times as smart as anyone who ever posted on this site.

File: firingline.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

Who was in the wrong here?

>>9747491
haha

>>9747491
Because he's basically a communist in "haha I'm just criticizing your ideas don't worry about mine" clothes. The type of cunt rope was invented for.

>>9750286
you really can't tell?

berkley

File: LOSSOFLIFE.gif (230KB, 889x945px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 889x945px

>>9750286
>I AM TALKING ABOUT BLOWING UP A TROOP TRAIN

>>9747511
>>9747516
>>9747525
>>9747757
>>9748139
>>9748261
>>9749322
>>9749684
>>9749812
holy shit I knew /lit/ is a cuck board but I didn't know /leftypol/ was astroturfing /lit/ this hard
seriously, fuck off to /leftypol/, chomsky shills

>>9750418
>hurr I don't like Chomsky because he is somehow vaguely connected with the left and the left = muh sjw boogeymen so I will hate him for no clearly defined reason

>>9750418
>wow stop liking people who disagree with me you leftist shills! Also, SJWs get offended too easily

File: 1479073539349.png (1MB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x1136px

>>9750418
LIT BTFO!!
#MEMEWAR
you just got meme'd snowflakes.
epic.

>>9748067
You should probably read Chomsky.

I don't know much about him apart from his political position. I think his Anarcho syndicalism is flawed because he is leaving out human nature. Humans naturally form hirearchies simply just by different levels of competence. Anarcho Capitalism is much more sound on a philosophical level because it includes all the flawes and incentives that humans have.

he suffered from "i know everything" syndrome

>>9747491
people became oddly religious in their image of a president.

they can't understand that it is basically a position where you hire the right people to do shit for you.

You exaggerate in your campaign as a negotiating tactic to meet in the middle with your true beliefs.

These are the only things that matter. Negotiating and hiring the right people. It is not a position for an idealogue.

A lot of smart people don't understand that being the president is more like running an established business, rather than creating an idea for a startup that has a chance of becoming huge.

>>9751708
wrong thread?

>>9747491
His argument for innate language acquisition in children is completely autistic.

would you guys say chomsky is the greatest linguist of the 20th century?

>>9752600
that's actually the one major thing I agree with him on. I don't see why it's such a controversial position considering that similar claims are made for a lot of other things in biology. such as the innate ability to learn new things and recall information

>>9747491
The Chomp is ok. I can't speak about his work in linguistics in any sort of informed fashion. He can be insightful when speaking on politics and globalization, but he is something of a left-wing gatekeeper so has obvious partisan blindspots.

>>9747523
The organisers of the debate paid Foucault with weed. Back in Paris, they refered to the weed as the chomsky stash

File: 4b422-20060926.gif (71KB, 479x422px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 479x422px

He decided he was a socialist when he was 15 and spent the rest of his life trying to account for that.

It's quite sad, when you think about it.

>>9750418
>/leftypol/
Why do /pol/tards think they're relevant outside their containment board?

>>9750418
Go back to your containment board, you fucking faggot

>>9752979
we are the true counterculture. Fashy Goys are the punks of ZOGworld.

>>9747491
Isn't it funny how quiet he's been about Venezuela recently? He used to say that Chavez "did incredible things to help the poor."

Shhhh. Everyone forget about that. I'm still totally credible. Shhhh.

If you ask him about it these days he'll probably grasp at straws to blame the US.

>>9747491
You can't stomp the Chomp, or you face being stepped on in turn by the weight of his hefty intellect and razor-sharp insights. Chomp for President 2018!

>>9747491
Noam "gnome" Chomsky is an establishment academic and probably a neoliberal and so on and so on.

>>9749322
>he is frighteningly well read
Lol, he really isn't

>>9753085
Chavez did do a lot to help the poor and Chomsky hasn't been silent on Venezuela but okay.

Venezuela is fucked because of their exchange rate and the fact that all their country's GDP and expenditures are reliant on oil, but this was largely true even before Chavez.

>>9752967
Ho Chi Minh and Castro did nothing fucking wrong at all.

>They should have just let foreign imperialists run over their popularly supported revolutionary governments with a military junta/rightist puppet state
Not even a tankie or an admirer of the USSR, but Ho Chi Minh and Castro were right.

>>9754033
Fucking kek, this has to be satire

>>9754038
It's not at all. If you have any understanding of the histories of Cuba and Vietnam then you'd be sympathetic to them using authoritarian measures.

Cuba was a corrupt shit hole ran by a US propped up dictator. The US reserved the right to literally invade Cuba whenever it wanted to alter its government. After Castro decided to reform the land the US government when full coup mode and it's at that point that mass arrests and crackdowns accelerated.

Vietnam was a colonized shithole tyrannically brutalized by the French and local Vietnamese landlords. Then it was brutalized by the Japanese and when the local resistance headed by Ho Chi Minh kicked them out the French returned and brutalized the country some more. Then the Amerifats refused to hold elections because they knew Ho Chi Minh would win so they established a puppet regime with no legitimacy that developed a political culture of Military Junta after Junta. The American invasion literally killed millions of Vietnamese people.

>>9754052
Pure nonsense. There is no justification whatever for their totalitarianism.
>the resulting commie gov't from which so many fled was legitimate

>>9754065
Have you literally ever read a book about either country or the history of either revolution?

>There is no justification whatever for their totalitarianism.
What a massive meme. Neither were "totalitarian." Yeah, their regimes were authoritarian, but Castro and Ho Chi Minh did not operate Stalinist regimes even at the height of their authoritarianism.

You need to understand the history of Cuba to realize why Cubans fleeing to Miami is not a thing that started with Castro. Whenever a new government was elected/political tides swayed before Castro came to power many people left to Miami. Batista's opponents fled to Miami and many funded Castro from Miami. You also have to consider that the US offered Cubans lots of social welfare benefits if they moved to the US for propaganda purposes. Castro was actually willing to provide for transport to the US and didn't want to close Cuba's borders but the US didn't want to let Cuban planes land. The phenomenon of people on rafts was not fully Castro's fault and really only got really bad in the Special Period.

He's a humanist turdhat.
>>9747564
>human nature
Fuck off

>>9754078
>You need to understand the history of Cuba to realize why Cubans fleeing to Miami is not a thing that started with Castro.
Was talking about Vietnamese refugees to the South.

Anyway, if you had actually read even the shallowest literature on the subject, you wouldn't have painted this as domestic gov't vs foreign imperialists. Minh himself was happy to use whatever foreign help was available in suppressing his countrymen, violently and otherwise.

>>9752967
People only hate Castro because of Americans. His passing was an actual tragedy and essentially means that Cuba will soon die culturally under the dirty boot of America. America tried to crush them, but they survived and even have an education system that destroys the US's. Cuba's prosperity can be linked to its bad ties with America. With Castro's passing, Cuba is now another functional colony of America and will quickly become as disgusting as Mexico.

>>9750418
hello /leftypol/

>>9747491
he's not stupid or a faggot
>>9747503
how are his politics horrible? You don't explain this at all.
>>9747523
They are not link in any way.
>>9747564
No, its not.
You cant just make things up and declare them true anyone who thinks otherwise is cherry picking
You have not explained how they are linked
Merely declaring they are isn't an explanation or proof
What does his views on neurobiology and cognitive science have to do with views on human social interaction and hierarchies of power?
>>9750286
Buckley
>ask a check
>ask a guatamalan
Total double standards
>we haven't sent troops into south america
>we didn't send 22,000 troops into the dominican republican in 1965?
>uh, well, um
doesn't even know recent events
>>9750375
he's not a communist
and thats not communism you describe
>>9750418
>people who disagree with me are wrong
welp
>>9751259
he doesn't give concrete plans for how it will be organised because he thinks people have to sort it out themselves
people will organise and participate and vote
would there be some sort of leadership positions? sure probably, a ship at sea needs a captain - and the crew will vote on the most competent and experienced among them

Anarcho Capitalism is founded on the principal that most people are lazy and slothful and destructive and need to be coerced either by force or financial deprivation to work
Not the rich though, they're not flawed, they're perfect and can be trusted with the control over society with no recourse
>>9752942
>gatekeeper
>if someone disagrees with me on one particular subject then they are part of a vast conspiracy
good to know
>>9752967
He's an anarchist
and he decided when he was 10 I think
regarding that picture, hard mode: try to cite and source him supporting them
protip: you cant
>>9754033
>>9754038
>>9754065
One can acknowledge that the Cuban revolution became authoritarian - and ask would this have happened if they weren't facing extreme violence from the USA?
Authoritarian regimes typically justify themselves with an external threat of some kind to justify their authority, well for Cuba they have quite legitimate threat with the USA and its failed invasion and multi-decade terrorist war Operation Mongoose

>>9754156
lmao

>>9754156
So we need to ask: if there was no threat would the authoritarian elements have been able to seize and maintain control?
There would be 3 likely outcomes
1) they would have to comply with the popular will of the general public
2) they would ignore the popular will and be ousted by a second revolution
3) they would ignore the popular will and attempt to enforce their authority with no external threats to sway the public and instead rely brute force which would be popularly opposed

>Authoritarian regimes typically justify themselves with an external threat of some kind to justify their authority
And if we are honest we would see this happening at home, the way restrictions on civil rights are passed and expansion of federal government surveillance are passed under the guise of fighting terrorism

>>9750418
>falseflagging as /pol/
seen a few of these today. why?

>>9754180
I've noticed it on /tv/, /g/, and /his/ as well. It's been happening for awhile now.

>>9754174
What you're saying is true, and I feel you, but the threats to Cuba and Vietnam were real and not imagined.

Vietnam was invaded several times, Cuba was invaded, the CIA really was out to assassinate Castro, and the US government assisted a wave of right wing juntas that came to power in Latin America in the panic after the Cuban Revolution.

You're also assuming that Castro wasn't popularly supported.

>>9747523
>his academic/linguistic work is intimately linked to his politics..... you can't really separate them
not really

imagine if someone said an astronomers professional work was linked to his political beliefs
howls of laughter

I read through this entire thread and realized one thing, only a handful of people here seem to understand chomsky, mostly the ones that agree or partially agree with him but even they aren't willing to go in depth and present an interesting viewpoint. I'll read a book instead of wasting my time in this shipwreck and I recommend you guys do the same. Have a nice day /lit/. Love ya.

>>9754255
>I'll read a book instead of wasting my time
>instead of wasting my time