What do you think about Chomsky /his/?
He's Harrison Ford.
>>325481
Pretty good ideas and insight into linguistics though tends to be far too abstract sometimes.
Still much better and far easier to understand than this guy though.
>>325481
Sounds pretty retarded when talking about politics
Would've-failed-Econ101-tier
Discredited linguist. Sanctimonious moralist popular with histrionic undergrads. Monoglot.
I don't think much of him. Just based on my analysis of his YouTube videos, I could easily take him in a debate with no prior research
>>325481
I don't really know much about linguistics so I can't, personally, evaluate him on that, although I understand he is widely recognised as a major thinker in his field.
I massively disagree with him on some areas of Western foreign policy and agree with him on some other areas. I find the entire attitude (the West is bad mmmmkay) of people like him to be incredibly frustrating but he makes his points solidly and argues them well and he has a fundamental ideological backbone (which again I disagree with but can understand and respect) as to why he criticises the West and downplays what non-Western countries do, which is that he believes he has a fundamental personal responsibility to criticise and influence the society he is part of and has some (small) power over rather than other societies.
Does Chomsky present a system that replaces Saussure's? And aren't his views on human nature and to an extent his politics intertwined with his theory?
I think Noam offers a decent straightforward criticism of western politics though I am a foucauldian desu
>>325481
His attempts to justify the Cambodian genocide are kek worthy.
>>325481
Basically a faucet of far-left garbage driven by being a self-hating Jew.
Not nearly as bad as people make him out to be, especially in this thread where libertardians lose their shit.
But, many of his criticisms of the west are very valid and keks like to defend western governments against his comments, because they're keks and like being fucked.
A dishonest liar when talking about politics.
He's not wrong when he says that at this point Israel tends to be more trouble than it's worth and that the Right supports it for the wrong reasons.
>>325960
Maybe he just likes brutal dictators.
Why do I get the impression that most of the people who say his linguistics work is baseless aren't actually qualified to make that claim?
>>325973
More trouble? This is just a meme. Arab countries have never increased their relations with us at any point ever when we've distanced ourselves from Israel. In fact, the reaction is usually the opposite. Most of the Arab regimes simply don't give a shit about Israel except as a propaganda device to their own people.
See >>325921
>>325985
Yeah, I have no idea about his linguistics work, but I think he opens himself to this by going out of his field on everything else.
If he can make claims in my field, why shouldn't someone be allowed to bring the work that he has tenure for into a critique of him?
>>325993
No I meant Israel tends to be dicks when they're not on the defensive.
>>325993
Israel is more trouble than it's worth because helping keep the state secure has also enforced its existence as a semi-apartheid state.
He's okay. I'm curious to see how bad a syndactalist state would function, judging by how bad humans fuck everything up.
>>325985
this, i don't get the hate he gets, it comes across like reactionary children throwing a tantrum desu
>>325985
>>326039
As someone that isn't remotely qualified to discuss his linguistics work I agree.
I find a lot of people just want to what I call "kitchen sink" an argument. That is they just chuck in whatever nonsense they can dream up to try and make their case and don't worry about coherence for example....
>I disagree with Chomsky on foreign policy
>therefore he is a big fat smelly pooface who is really shit at linguistics despite being a celebrated MIT professor in the subject for decades
He believes that the only part of the language faculty that's unique to humans is recursion. Not too sure about that. He also says that language could have evolved primarily not for communication but for own internal monologue. Not too sure about that.
He also downplays the role of natural selection in language evolution. He says it's significant but people give natural selection too much credit for language evolution.
This is all from a 2002 paper though so his position might be different now.
>>325615
Of course you could, Anonymous
>>325985
It's fashionable (on 4chan and YouTube comments) to hate anyone Leftist without actually giving any reasons.
>>326039
Because that's what it is. He disagrees with them and he can explain why, so they get asspained about it. Some things are just that simple.
>>325960
I want you to provide citations for Chomsky endorsing Pol Pot. Been waiting for years and no one seems able to do it.
>>326023
There is no apartheid in Israel. Anyone who knows anything about it or who has been there would know this. There is nothing remotely like aprartheid. Israeli Arabs, like the faggot who leads the BDS movement, go to Israeli universities, vote, participate in politics, and do whatever else they want. In the occupied territories, the "apartheid" is the Oslo agreement that the PA agreed to giving separate zones separate areas of control. In effect, it's like having a gated neighborhood here and there. Calling it apartheid is purely polemical. At the end of the day, life in the West Bank is better than almost every other Arab country on a number of levels. (Other than the "humiliation" which if that matters more than medical care, public health, defense from jihadists, press freedoms, and so on, then fine)
As for it being "more trouble than its worth" if the status of the territories offends you so much, why don't you and Chomsky have a problem with any of the hundred other regimes in the world that are worse?
The answer is, because you have a hard on for Israel because it's Jewish. This is driven by--yes--self-hating Jews like Chomsky who align with anything and everything that is anti-western and anti-American no matter how vile it is, like the Khmer Rouge. Israel is a close ally of the US, so it must be evil too.
>>326483
>rustled my payot
>>326483
I'm sure people who like Chomsky are into liberalism. Honestly, so am I. But I value my liberal principles over tribal liberalism. Just because people that are influential are for or against something has nothing to do with it for me. If you really care about things like women's rights, gay rights, income equality, healthcare and education for everyone, then you're an idiot to be reflexively antiamerican,
>>326483
>There is no apartheid in Israel.
How people even come up with this shit astonishes me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZK7D6WqzR0
>>326276
Distortions at Fourth Hand, by Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman
The Nation, June 6, 1977
>Even if the photographs had been authentic, we might ask why people should be pulling plows in Cambodia. The reason is clear, if unmentioned. The savage American assault on Cambodia did not spare the animal population. Hildebrand and Porter, in their Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, cite a Cambodian Government report of April 1976 that several hundred thousand draft animals were killed in the rural areas. The Post did not have to resort to probable fabrications to depict the facts. A hundred-word item buried in The New York Times of June 14, 1976, cites an official U.N. report that teams of “human buffaloes” pull plows in Laos in areas where the buffalo herds, along with everything else, were decimated (by the American bombing, although this goes unmentioned in the Times. Much the same is true in Vietnam. Quite possibly the U.N. or the Laotian Government could supply photographic evidence, but this would not satisfy the needs of current propaganda.
Well, it turns out that oh, no, the Cambodian regime was having people pull the carts because of ideological and penal reasons. And when you defend a regime's ugly little secrets, even going as far as to call the investigation into it full of fabrications, you're de facto endorsing the regime by defending it in the face of truth; it's not really any different from the butthurt naziboos going all holocaust denial.
>>325985
because they don't know what they're talking about. even his most vocal detractors in linguistics admit that his scientific approach to the study of language set linguistics on its way to becoming a real, formal science, and this shows if you compare modern linguistic papers with pre-chomskyan structuralist papers. we're not there yet, but even the hard sciences didn't achieve the level of rigor and prestige they have today over a single lifetime.
>>325985
Is anyone even doing that in this thread?
Everyone is just bashing him because (like pretty much every modern intellectual) he doesn't really know what he's talking about outside of his field
Like seriously people who listen to him on his foreign policy views are about as retarded as Ben Carson supporters
>>326797
How in God's name is that an endorsement of Pol Pot? You're literally wasting oxygen.
>>327739
shh, it's funny watching him spin delusions
>>327058
>Like seriously people who listen to him on his foreign policy views are about as retarded as Ben Carson supporters
Only if you're actually, clinically brain-damaged.
>>325481
Well I can say he's a complete nut on politics.
>>326483
>semi-apartheid
No one has ever said it's equivalent to apartheid SA m8.
>let me ignore that Palestinians literally live in an open-air prison archipelago
Can't do it, lad.
>>325918
How exactly does he "justify" the Cambodian genocide? To the best of my knowledge what he does is point out that the West was contributing to a similar genocide in Timor.
