What does /his/ think of Noam Chomsky?
>>969656
He's a gommie. Therefore not worth talking about.
/thread
Meme leftist.
>Chomsky
The mere muttering of that name is enough to drive any rightcuck into a fit of spastic rage.
>>969656
Great at linguistics.
>>969714
>it's a fugin gommie but i can't point out one actual thing he said which was wrong episode
>>969746
Gommunism is a spook.
>>969746
"the Khmer Rouge dindu nuffin"
granted he did go back and admit he was wrong
I know very little about him, but he seems to think global warming is gonna kill everyone here in the next five minutes.
>>969656
Watched that manufacture of consent docu yesterday, he appears to have his sources in order.
Then again the fact that American media is full of propaganda isn't really challenged anymore is it?
Brilliant leftist thinker. Hegemony or Survival is an amazing book. It really opened my eyes to how the world actually works. Admittedly, I read it and became a neoconservative statist and not an anarchist, so perhaps his writing can use a little work?
>>970043
>neoconservative
>statist
>>969656
Great Linguist and has provided a huge effort in advancement in the area.
His downside is that he sticks his dick and waves it around in other areas that does not fit his expertise. He has supported less than stellar individuals as well as regimes (Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Castro) and has left a bit of a bad mark on his political activities.
In a sense when it comes to his political philosophy that he is much a "dreamer" in the sense of that Anarcho-Syndicalist/Communist is extremely plausible. It's closest match would be Kowloon (think I spent that right) City.
He provides an interesting perspective on politics, in my opinion however his word should be taken with nothing more than a grain of salt. Reason being is that humans natural flawed nature prevents his vision of a cooperative paradise outside the scenario of "Lord of the Flies."
Regarding linguistics there is little argument to be made against him.
Regarding politics, one can certainly argue against and even despise his ideas. However, it is hard to deny that his arguments are well-reasoned and that he has a familiarity with the literature.
There are certainly experts who have a wider awareness and true engagement with politics/politicla theory, and they probably trump Chomsky (whether they agree or disagree with him).
Still, I do not think his beliefs are easy to dismiss, and he is undeniably a top-tier mind.
>>969754
>granted he did go back and admit he was wrong
Barely. His admission was more along the lines of "there was so much anti-Communist propaganda at that time that it was reasonable to question the anti-Khmer Rouge stuff"... basically, it was *their* fault he denied the atrocities and genocide, and not his own.
So he remains a dindu nuffin on that count.
>>969684
Doesn't stop a new John Green hatefrot thread being posted every few hours.
With regard to politics, he's a knee-jerk ideologue. He sets forth a buttload of arguments -- some strong, some very, very weak upon scrutiny -- for his choir, who eat it up and regurgitate it. He's really become a sacred cow.
>>969656
Basically right about everything, I really like him for triggering people so fucking hard, especially cryptoimperialists.
>>970043
>neoconservative statist
>>971044
Citations or enter le garbage.
he knows as much about things outside his field as does Neil deGrasse tyson. he just comports himself better.
still syntactic structures was a great work.
>>971184
>statist
>using a picture of a libertarian
>>969656
great, especially on natural language syntax. transformational grammar is great.
>>971020
He's also still pulled the "maybe there was a few million, maybe there was only a few thousand. Who can say?" Card.
It's fascinating watching him run through the Holocaust Denier playbook.
>>971192
It's 4:25 in the morning. I'm mostly working from memory.
Well, for one specific, see above for his defense of the Khmer Rouge.
For a more general: he has a long history of gaining traction among his fanbois by engaging in the very simpleminded practice of putting groups such as Hamas and other terrorist groups on equal moral footing with Israel, using body counts as a key indicator. Complete disregard for context -- whether an attack was deliberately launched against civilians, whether an attack was an unprovoked act of aggression... vs. whether a civilian death is the cause of collateral damage (or because of the use of human shields, using mosques/schools/hospitals as a launching pad and/or storage for Hamas weaponry), whether the attack was in retaliation, etc. Speaking of le garbage, if you doubt this, le garbage yerself. Besides, you do smell like a fanboi -- pseudointellectuals who let others do their thinking for them are a dime a dozen.
>>971450
It says a shit ton about where his sympathies lie. His concern is not so much with victimized third-world peoples (a la Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge), but rather with the naughty western powers. Completely lack of big-picture, real-world perspective.
He rekt Sam Harris, so he certainly can't be all bad.
>>971483
Sam Harris was trying waaaay too hard with someone who made it very clear that he wasn't interested in playing Harris's self-promotion. The slap-down was more of a cringe in that Harris was trying to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with someone who wanted nothing to do to him.
It had little to nothing to do with any arguments on any merits. More like a freshman asking one a "popular" senior out to the prom and getting roundly rejected. Not a whole lot to be read into that.
>>971511
Btw, what was the context of their "debate"? It had something to do with a war, but I felt like I was missing something.
>>969746
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_China
>In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western discourse as "the loss of China" – in the US, with bitter recriminations and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The "loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had major policy consequences.[1]
There are so many wrong things about this comment. The first is "In 1949, China declared independence", which is bizarre. Independence from who? Most of China was not colonized by anyone at this point (and the parts that were didn't cease to be colonized at 1949 anyway). Then there is the "It is only possible to lose something that one owns". It's almost psychopathic, I guess Chomsky never had a friend or a true love, otherwise he would understand than you can actually lose something you don't own.
But of course, he ignores what the term actually means. It means that many anti-communists pointed out that Americans with a huge influence in the foreign policy of the United States, such as Owen Lattimore, Edgar Snow, Brooks Atkinson and Agnes Smedley were communist sympathizers, and that they falsified information to get the U.S. to cease supporting the Nationalist side (which they did, when the U.S. ordered an arms embargo against Chiang Kai-shek).
Chomsky never addresses that, because that's his modus operandi. Chomsky presents a black-and-white narrative through omission and sheer lying where his side, the commies, the peasants, etc, is always innocent and can do no wrong, and the other side, the evil capitalists, are always cartoon villains.
>>969656
Opinions of Chomsky fall along political lines in an extremely expected fashion.
It's idiotic not to at least admire his learning (his reading speed is phenomenal and his command of historical information far surpasses what typically passes for political commentary.)
People who say he's a great linguist but an idiot when it comes to politics have never read a lick his work.
It's extremely annoying that people have strong opinions on him without having read him.
>>971519
"Dear Noam, some people are saying that we disagree on things. So I'd like to enter into a dialogue with you to see if we can find some common ground about --"
"Dear Sam: WTF do you want from me, I have nothing to say to you."
And more of the same. Chomsky got hella snide.
I don't entirely blame him. Harris was basically trying to promote himself as a "public intellectual" by association with Chomsky. He should have expected that Chomsky would have considered him an enemy and would have brushed him off.
>>969656
Belongs in the trash.
more like gnome chumpsky
>>971561
>his reading speed is phenomenal
How can you know this?
>>971564
Yeah, but they mentioned some war, and some factory and an ethical dilemma. What was that?
>>971564
Norman Finkelstein has pointed out that it's something of a right of passage for people on the right to attack Chomsky.
>>971576
>Sam Harris
>right-wing
Careful now, a Redditor might attack you
>>971573
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/when_chomsky_wept/
You can also tell from his footnotes that he's highly detail oriented and, like any good scholar, always familiarizes himself with relevant work on the subjects he engages in.
>>971557
Another example of Chomsky conveniently omitting things that hurt his narrative. From the chapter about Laos in "Manufacturing Consent".
>A coalition government was established in 1958 after the only elections worthy of the name in the history of Laos. Despite extensive US efforts, they were won handily by the left. Nine of the thirteen candidates of the [communist] Pathet Lao guerrillas won seats in the national assembly, along with four candidates of the left-leaning neutralists (“fellow traveler,” as they were called by Ambassador Parsons). Thus “Communists or fellow travelers” won thirteen of the twenty-one seats contested. The largest vote went to the leader of the Pathet Lao, Prince Souphanouvong, who was elected chairman of the national assembly.
>US pressures- including, crucially, the withdrawal of aid – quickly led to the overthrow of the government in a coup by a “pro-Western neutralist” who pledged his allegiance to “the free world” and declared his intention to disband the political party of the Pathet Lao (Neo Lao Hak Sat), scrapping the agreements that had successfully established the coalition. He was overthrown in turn by the CIA favorite, the ultra-right-wing General Phoumi Nosavan. After US clients won the 1960 elections, rigged so crudely that even the most pro-US observers were appalled, civil war broke out, with the USSR and China backing a coalition extending over virtually the entire political spectrum apart from the extreme right, which was backed by the United States.
What he ignores
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnamese_invasion_of_Laos
>>969656
noam is a titanic meme pseudo-intellectual. only superficially more subtle than stephen wolfram, neil degrasse blackman or bill nye the science guy, which no one takes seriously
his contributions about formal languages to math and the sciences were tautologies at best. nothing more than symbols and definitions. he didn't do much of the interesting work.
>>971578
Right wing is not the best tag for Sam Harris. His intense secularism places him, like the late Hitchens, among those on the right who are more or less anti-non western. Since the west is currently characterized by an admixture of Christianity and post-Enlightenment secularism, it is not surprising that one can find perspectives of cultural and intellectual superiority from among both.
>>971593
You need to read more and be on the internet less.
>>970092
He did not support any of those people. Even Lenin struck him as being an elitist and opportunist.
>>969656
I don't get why this thread is posted on and off on different boards? Is this an FBI poll or something?
>>971593
>only superficially more subtle than stephen wolfram, neil degrasse blackman or bill nye the science guy
If you actually think this, you're retarded. It's fine to disagree with someone, but not in an autistic fashion.
>>971595
But you agree he's neo-conservative, yes?
>>971604
It was easy to criticize Lenin in the 1970s, desu.
It's like Venezuela, a few years ago he couldn't shut up about it, now that the country collapsed he just ignores it.
>>971614
In terms of foreign policy, yes.
>>971615
Have you ever read a book by Chomsky?
>>971620
Isn't that all neo-conservatism refers to?
>>969656
No idea who he is but he's got a weird name.
>>971614
Neoconservatism is not right-wing. Neoconservatism is a Trotskyism that uses the U.S. Army instead of the Red Army for the purposes of world revolution.
>>971635
>Neoconservatism is not right-wing
>>971626
I think there are contexts I've seen "neo-conservative" refer to both Reagan style economic politics and Reagan style foreign policy.
>>971635
>Neoconservatism is not right-wing.
wat
>>971647
Ah, ok. Have the New Atheist bunch ever even delved into economics?
>>971657
Hitchens certainly did, the rest I don't believe so.
>>971647
Wasn't he neoliberal?
>>971642
I think he's talking about horseshoe theory or something. Even then, to compare neoconservatism and trotskyism is pretty spooky.
>>971662
The Horseshoe theory is only used by ancaps to feel better about themselves
>>971662
>to compare neoconservatism and trotskyism is pretty spooky
Not at all. Many neoconservative "intellectuals" were former Trotskyists, such as Irving Kristol and Nathan Glazer.
These guys were never on the right, much less on the far-right (which the horseshoe theory would imply). Their conversion to "conservatism" was much more about tactics, they wanted to enlist the support of Evangelicals and Southern Whites for their own ethnic interests, than sincere, and now that Trump is taking over the American right they are already talking of going back to the Democratic Party.
>>971659
yes, it's a case in point of the flexibility of the words neoliberal and neoconservative that Reagan is seen as quintessentially both.
>>970043
>neoconservative
>>971675
Not really, I've heard regular conservatives as well as liberals/ancoms refer to the extreme left and the extreme right as essentially the same. Ancaps are the only ones who might use the term "horseshoe" to refer to that, I suppose.
>>971465
*diamond dozen
>>969742
youre a troll, right?
>>971020
Chomsky's whole point was regarding the veracity of US media coverage of atrocities in Indochina during that period. The claims regarding the Khmer Rouge were accepted at face value, while accounts of crimes committed by US or allied forces were ignored (or outright rejected) until there was absolutely zero room left for plausible deniability. Chomsky simply notes that the sources of the latter were far more reliable and easier to substantiate than those of the former, yet the standards of journalism represented a perfect inversion. He was making a wider point about internalized propaganda that is still relevant, not denying or serving as an apologist for Khmer Rouge crimes.
>>969656
>literally everything Muslims do it the fault of white people
t. Chomsky
>>971352
Delet this
>>971557
>>971588
this. he ignores facts and events that don't support his far left narrative. some will say "well, he's just pointing out all the bad stuff the West has done that doesn't get talked about enough" and that's a fair point, but a lot of Chomsky fans (i was one in my late teens) look at his work with an uncritical eye and get a very one sided view of the world as a result.
>>972701
kinda my point. after reading his work one might get the idea that the West, the US in particular, is some sort of evil destructive entity that must be stopped by the noble people of the rest of the world.
>>972178
Let ME make a wider point, he's a jerk!
When I read his name it sounded like one of a faggot, turns out he was
His speeches to UN and nation leaders have made a great impact on social good. Everyones got their opinions and i wont condemn him for them, especially when his actions do so much good.
>>977442
>His speeches to UN and nation leaders have made a great impact on social good
>>977451
Get out of my reaction image folder.
>>969656
he has a silly name
I like him.
>>970295
this
>>975770
Fair enough, which is unfortunate because the takeaway is exactly not to only be critical in a one-sided way.
Him and Ralph Nader should fuse
Has ANYBODY seen him in the same room as Bernie Sanders? Let's do a recap:
* They're both Jewish
* They're both old
* They both look very similar
* They're both leftists that have an issue with capitalism
>>971675
dumb picture
>>979901
AND they're both cucks
>>969656
Zizek is infinitely better
thinks he knows everything
anarchist who gets a check from the government
>>981633
He's still shit
>>981653
sounds like someone still believes that there is a big other
>>981653
You're shit
>>981663
I suppose I would know what that means if Zizek produced actual comprehensible speech
![00541afae30[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jldvxPX.jpg "00541afae30[1].jpg")
>>971593
>he didn't do much of the interesting work.
He is widely considered to be the father of modern linguistics.
His political views are fascinating, or at least they are if you're not entirely sold on American exceptionalism and you pay at least a little bit of attention to how the US conducts foreign policy.
He is one of the greatest thinkers alive and I have no doubt he'll be remembered in history: the field he helped create automatically ensures that.
Also, look at how fucking badass he looks in this picture.
I sometimes wonder if Chomsky is a retarded member of the Illuminati that went renegade or something. The basic idea behind the manufacture of consent is golden and should be considered by everybody is the modern day if you want to navigate .
Whenever he is mentioned though there is always a string of very personal attacks from people that can never back up what they're saying when you push them. They always seem to be reading from the same source of talking points. This thread is just another example It's so predictable and formulaic in structure that I'm starting to honestly get kind of suspicious about it.
>>981711
I bet he crushed so much pussy at MIT.
Hell I bet he continues to to this day.
>>981633
Here's my favorite image in all of /his/
>>981766
Why would Zizek ever keep a picture of Stalin on his wall?
>>981711
Fascinating within the limits of intellectual dishonesty. As plenty of posts already point in this thread, it's not what he points to but what he omits, either by ignorance or (more likely) trying to confirm some political dogmatism about the West. It's why when he shows appraisal for token socialist country he has to retract after mismanagement and brutality and inequality still happen. He just appears to be looking for the confirmation bias more than the information as a whole, which is why he's not quite a historian.
>>981773
>>969656
Not a fan of his politics, especially the double think and revisionism he has surrounding it, but he's pretty influential in terms of academia.
>>981795
Why would Zizek ever keep a picture of Stalin on his wall?
>>981824
Za rodinu za Stalina
![Noam-Chomsky-Quotes-1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gFXUEDf.jpg "Noam-Chomsky-Quotes-1[1].jpg")
>>981793
>political dogmatism about the West.
Really he doesn't have "dogmatism about the West" - he is more just a very harsh critic of the US specifically.
There are lots of examples you can find of him praising the West, including the United States. The US he has always approved of, for example, the simple fact that he has the free speech to be able to voice his criticisms - and he would have that right in any Western country.
He is typically less critical towards European countries, probably because he views them mostly as imperial subjects of the United States. Remember that Europeans battled and fought each other for centuries...imagine if Germany reigned over the West, achieved a hegemony - infact I'm pretty sure they tried to make that happen.
Chomky also regularly speaks highly of the fact that the US routinely declassifies government documents, which provides alot of the research that he cites.
Its a matter of interpretation then. For example, one of his biggest criticism of Bill Clinton was this attack on a pharmaceutical plant:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory
>provided 50 percent of Sudan’s medicines, and its destruction has left the country with no supplies of chloroquine, the standard treatment for malaria"
This caused tens of thousands of deaths in the later months.
There are also many more such examples he gives, carried out by anyone from Eisenhower to Obama. Obama's drone strikes in particular (90% of the casualties have been civilians) he describes as a terrorist campaign.
He argues: these types of actions would be terrorist attacks by anybody else. So is the US a terrorist state? He says yes.
Alot of such examples he cites are also noticeably within the interest of the business community.
Whatever you think of him, I would argue this: the US is not liked around many parts of the world. At least listening to what he has to say can give us ideas on the type of shit we should perhaps not do.
>>981824
Because he's a dirty commie.
>>971635
> Neoconservatism is a Trotskyism that uses the U.S. Army instead of the Red Army for the purposes of world revolution.
This is true, it originated from the new left movement of the 60's. Many of the college students of the 60's would grow up to become neoconservative ideologues.
That said, in practice it is pretty right wing.
>>981953
Well said my friend, is it true that he believes that were people able to see the extent of imperialism that they'd change their ways? If that is indeed the case I'd have to choose Ziz over him as in my opinion, most people know exactly what their consumption enables but they consume nonetheless because their purchases """absolve""" them of any real contribution to society,
I am genuinely interested and not baiting, I believe Zizek acts as the answer to Chomsky but I'd love to be proven wrong. Please forgive any errors in coherence/spelling as I've had an entire bottle of shitty wine tonight
>>981824
Avoiding the memes, it's because he believes it'll scare off anyone who isn't searching for real discourse on the topic of the left
>>971582
>salon
Yeah, fuck right off with that propaganda shit. It's like believing Fox when they attack Baraka
>>982343
> this denial
Whatever you say, anon. Whatever you say.
>>971623
Notice how you didn't even brief on what he was saying.
>>982381
What? I'm just saying what he's said
>>981824
He's a communist.
>>969656
I think *sniff* that he ish empirically wrong, and so on.
>>969656
