>Oh I heard about this Chomsky guy on /lit/
>They say he's a savage leftist intellectual
>I like to challenge my own views, let's watch it!
...
>beginning credits roll
>"Noam Chomsky is widely regarded as the most influential intellectual of our time."
>Wew, lad. Oh well, let's keep watching.
...
>reddit tier muh inequality 1 puhcent, evil corporations in their racis corporation buildings slave philosophy
Did I miss something? Probably would be best to read some of his work, but I don't think I'm interested now.
>>8147187
he holds weight only as a linguist. don't take him seriously off of his field
I thought he was more known for his linguistics work.
Wow you're really dumb
>>8147193
Hes more known for his political commentary. Nobody cares about linguistics.
yeah his fans are typically fucking idiots
he's the poster boy for sophistry
>>8147195
Fuck off, Noam.
>>8147198
His work on syntax made great impact some 50 years ago that changed the course of academic linguistics, but he is still a linguist.
iirc, he is working on Minimalist Program, or something like that.
his comments on politics have no value, just like anybody else's, unless you agree with the guy's views
>>8147199
I do.
>>8147205
Would you say his contribution to linguistics was positive? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not well read on the subject.
>>8147187
he's smart and has a lot of knowledge, but got fooled somewhere along the way and i wouldn't even necessarily call him a troll - more like he's just a misguided contrarian. but since he holds views many others WANT to hold, and because of his intelligence (he's a particularly good debater), he has many fans. i haven't seen the movie, but i'll say that he's getting old now, so the things that were impressive about him are fading quickly and his contrarianism is more glaring.
I heard he battled Zizek once. Would be interesting to watch.
>>8147187
>used to love Chomsky
>the realised hoiw disingenuous he is when he comes to quotes
>he will literally quote the first part of a quote, but ignore the latter part because it outrtoght contradicts him
>>8147187
>>reddit tier muh inequality 1 puhcent, evil corporations in their racis corporation buildings slave philosophy
If that's all you got from him then I feel sorry for you
What did you even watch which talked about "muh slaves"? Thts the first I've ever heard him talk.about it.
>>8147198
He has an interesting perspective on American imperialism, he's been talking about this shit even in Vietnam days.
>>8147208
I wouldn't say it is positive or negative. Linguistics is very diverse, Chomsky has no impact whatsoever on historical linguistics for example. Although, Chomsky is definitely an important figure in formal language and cognitive linguistics. He is one of the main figures who is responsible for "cognitive revolution" against behaviourism in different fields. Plus, today's academic linguistics which is almost completely synchronic (against historical linguistics) is almost completely influenced by him.
>>8147234
I watched the entire film. Nothing particularly deep, new or interesting. He thinks unions are good for the people, but vaguely blames banks for all financial woes. Typical victim "class" pandering.
One of my least favorite parts was when he was describing how mean it was that corporations are "people" cuz muh 14th amendment, but the hard working illegal immigrants aren't and it's really not fair. It's all so dishonest.
>>8147246
He's a card carrying anarcho-syndicalist. Of course he thinks unions are good.
>>8147229
>he will literally quote the first part of a quote, but ignore the latter part because it outrtoght contradicts him
I seriously hope you don't mean "necessary illusions" or something like that.
>>8147249
Yeah, that's a sure sign of delusion. Take a trip to St. Louis. Banks didn't destroy the city. It was once a rich manufacturing haven and tourist town, that is until all the corporations left town. Now it basically looks like fucking Hiroshima 1946, but hey at least the unions control all industries and force Union dues, right Noam?
>>8147259
> Le "Unions did it" meme
I've seen this argument so many times now. It's bullshit tho. Unionisation just becomes more prominent as things don't go so good and the big guys start to step more on the little guys.
>>8147271
Call it a meme if you want but you don't understand what it's like to be forced into a union. They are private entities that make millions in profit while donating countless worker dollars to cronie political causes.
Union crews are expensive, whiney, lawsuit-happy. Also they are generally unskilled when compared to non-Union city workers because they "specialize" in advanced jobs like "shoveler" or "bus driver"... as if these jobs couldn't be learned by any random person off the street in 5 minutes.
You don't understand unions until you work with them and can compare them to regular companies.
>>8147218
Pistol or swords?
>>8147295
>Also they are generally unskilled when compared to non-Union city workers
I don't know everything about your unions across the pond but I do know they require a high level of skill for welds. And often there's education requirements as well: New York electricians for example don't have to train under a master electrician for is it 10 years? If they do a masters in EE as part of their training.
What's stopping you employing non union anyway?
>>8147187
>Probably would be best to read some of his work
Manufacturing Consent is his greatest work.
Everything else is handwringing for 40 years over Chile and South Vietnam.
If you are interested in this stuff from someone who was there, read confessions of an economic hitman.
>>8147229
The NYRB just savaged his most recent book because of this exact same shit. He will outright ignore points that refute his statements.
>>8147295
There is a difference between shit unions like teachers, dockworkers, and teamsters, and groups like the IBEW which its members hold above God itself.
>>8147371
In my experience, becoming a union worker requires only a trip to the union hall and payment. I haven't seen any sort of stringent education/training requirements in any industry. The unions don't always set these standards, it's often the company employing the union. It's super convoluted. However, some unions are different. I don't profess to know them all.
St. Louis is not a "right-to-work" city, so non-union workers cannot work on union crews. And seeing as how unions control literally every industry in the city from electrical to construction to broadcasting, etc... you can't get any work if you're non-Union. I guess you could just move away. That's always an option. That's pretty much what every worker and business has been doing one by one for the past 40 years.
>>8147404
Agreed. Not all unions are the same. Some are far more worthless, unnatural, violent and dangerous than others.
>>8147229
Can you elaborate or provide a link?
Sounds interesting
>>8147187
He's not wrong about the american dream tho. Your social mobility is near 3rd world tier.
>>8147409
>>8147295
>work for EMS Union
>expensive
>shitty communication with members
>reps were slimeballs
>saw no benefit, neither did the other 300 people in my company
>voted them out
6 months later
>health insurance cut by 50%, price increased by 100%
>half of staff fired
>mandatory work hours increased by 4 across board
>>8147420
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/09/a-case-against-america/
this is the article mentioned above, its criticism is pretty tepid but you see what anon is talking about.
>>8147422
The demographics for blacks and poor whites in the south skew the situation as always
t. blue collar workers son in the north who is doing fine
>>8147422
"dude the American dream is dead man *hits blunt*" has got to be the most juvenile 'woke' statement to ever exist
>>8147432
Which means your social mobility is shit.
>>8147398
>confessions of an economic hitman
Wasn't that a con?
>>8147437
America is not a monolith like other countries. My states schools are paid for with local taxes, so depending on where you live you can get a 10/10 education with 25% Ivy placement or a 1/10 where teachers spend all their time corralling heroin addicts children based purely on property taxesor a -10/10 if you live in a black area. Don't assume.
>>8147425
Sounds like you worked for a shit company, man. Good luck getting a new gig. Hopefully you have marketable skills.
>>8147458
That shit was 10 years ago, it has convinced me of the value of unions in private companies though.
>>8147437
Free education, healthcare, welfare, stamps, literally millions of jobs available in government/military. There are an infinite amount of safety nets. It's easy for any decent worker to move up classes if he studies and does his job over a long period of time.
>>8147468
>There are an infinite amount of safety nets.
US education everyone
>>8147465
I don't know your specific experience. For me, I get paid less in my hometown to do the same exact job I do for freelance wages in other cities. That's because everyone on my crew makes the same money, regardless of skill, difficulty of position, education, etc. They've basically killed off all true value in the city with artificial wages.
>>8147473
Not an argument.
>>8147473
Either a troll or a europoor trying to make himself feel better.
Boomers are retiring everywhere, so many jobs for anyone with a tiny bit of education. If you are talking about becoming moneyed wealth (.01%), ok I guess you are right, but that is the case everywhere.
>>8147481
> yeah like needing education before was just a trick or something for those baby boomer, they'll let me do the same job now with nothing!
The hb visa influx is no joke anon
>>8147500
True story, my mother graduated from state teaching college with a 1.6 GPA in the early 70s and got the first municipal teaching job she applied for (at 22) which she still has, making a tenured 75k a year with summers off.
The women competing for her job now have perfect GPAs and Masters degrees from Jesuit universities and big state university at like 28-30.
>>8147509
I have a similar story about my mother. Although the people that have come in actually seem retarded, I've seen some of their MS word shit and my god it's ugly as sin.
I'm a fan of Chomsky, but it wasn't a particularly good movie. He has more depth in his books and lectures.
You don't like to challenge your own views, though. It's fine, or at least overwhelmingly normal. Most people don't, and for understandable reasons. It can be a painful experience. When you entertain the possibility that maybe you were wrong, you entertain the possibility that in all those arguments you had, maybe on the internet, maybe in real life, where you were so smug and confident in yourself that you just laughed off certain viewpoints, you, after all, were the wrong one.
Don't delude yourself. It's comforting to think you have an open mind, but the part of your post where you addressed your problems with Chomsky's view was all memes. Like for instance, you spelled one percent to sound like Bernie Sanders. What point are you trying to make? That it isn't true that the wealthiest 1% of Americans own 40% of all new wealth, and and the bottom 80% own 7%? I'd be interested in your proof in this. Or is it that it doesn't matter?
It makes sense why to the bottom 80%, of which there is a 80% chance that you are a member, it matters.
It looks like you've forced your mind away from thinking about basic facts like that with memes. That's not wanting to challenge your views.
>>8147542
>That it isn't true that the wealthiest 1% of Americans own 40% of all new wealth, and and the bottom 80% own 7%?
Your statistic is common and ignores the fact that the bottom 40 percent of workers in America have negative income. It also ignores taxation of course.
>I'd be interested in your proof in this. Or is it that it doesn't matter?
I'd be interested in your alternatives to the current system. More wealth redistribution?
>Don't delude yourself
Back at you.
>reddit tier muh inequality 1 puhcent, evil corporations in their racis corporation buildings slave philosophy
>>8147187
>They say he's a savage leftist intellectual
Nobody on /lit/ has ever said that
>>8147187
who cares about chomsky
unite behind hillary
>>8147468
>be on welfare
>do job well
>get a raise
>i now make too much to qualify for welfare
>i don't make enough to recomp what i lost in welfare
>back in the hole
"YouRe just not working hard enough"
>>8148068
You aren't. Perhaps consider learning a more valuable skill.
>>8148169
> you need to buy more training
If you think that's a good attitude kindly get back to me when you get conned by some pay for skills program
>>8147187
>watches a documentary rather than reading chomsky himself
>gets reddit tier interpretation of chomsky
>complains
/lit/ ladies and gentleman
>>8147599
I didn't claim to know, I don't claim to know, and my own views on wealth inequality have very little relevance to my post.
>>8148169
not him but in my country, Sweden, over half the workforce is academically overqualified
>>8148068
You're literally bitching at the people who payed your welfare. Stop being so self-entitled
>>8147187
Didn't he lie and/or play dumb when it came to the deaths/crimes under Pol Pot or some shit?
>>8148068
If your attitude wasn't such shit you'd be doing better
top notch discourse, kek
>>8147191
His linguistic work was largely debunked due to the "discovery" of Amazonian and Pacific peoples whose languages didn't operate upon his allegedly universal norms.
He's most notable these days as an advocate and public intellectual, comparable to Cornell West or Zizek. Brilliant guy, mostly relevant due to his own self-promotion.
>>8148207
He pointed out that the media were in uproar over Cambodia while the Timoran genocide was ignored.
He also thought at the time the numbers for Cambodia might have been exaggerated this this turned out to be wrong. That's about it tho.
>>8147187
He's been the most consistently relevant
left-libertarian in American politics for the past forty years. His commentary can't really be called Reddit-tier, because it laid the framework for the kind of quasi-Marxism which emerged since Occupy Wall Street
>>8148269
>debunked
Why use that word?
>>8148305
Triggered, Noam?
>>8148346
I like how shitposters imagine others as famous people to make their waste of time seem more worthwhile
>>8148358
So who are you imagining me as? Charles Barkley?
>>8148187
1. You can learn for free. Ever hear of the library or Internet, or making friends with someone willing to teach you?
2. It's your own fault for investing your money in a useless trade, or falling for a con. Freedom means you're free to fail as well as succeed.
>>8148199
That's mostly due to saturation in that field. The standards get unnecessarily high because there are so many potential workers. Instead, focus on innovating. Bring something crazy unique and useful, not just a ton of years at school that everyone else has too.
>>8148409
>That's mostly due to saturation in that field.
it's virtually every field
>The standards get unnecessarily high because there are so many potential workers.
thats my point
>Instead, focus on innovating. Bring something crazy unique and useful,
to achieve a sustainable life one must produce _crazy_ unique and useful innovations
you are _crazy_ stupid, kill yourself
>>8148446
Your career failure resentment is showing, NEET.
>>8148446
Nah, I think I'll continue to produce work that allows me to sustain myself instead.
Not literature-related. Saged and Reported.
its not just that he talks about the issues op so tritely dismisses, but in his books at least, when he talks about policy, he is not giving his opinion like some talking head pundit, he cites and references everything. So and so said this, agreed to this, signed off on this. Thus he reveals how the powers that be have been screwing the lower classes in real time.
On top of this, he is modest, affable, gentle, and smarter than a whole academic wing combined. But anyone who speaks the truth will be hated and dismissed.
>>8148689
He's a notorious quote-miner though, lad.
>>8148707
It's not like he's wrong the United States, as a state, condemned the Soviet Union for massive genocide during its foundation; when the foundation of America relied on even more bodies.
>>8148713
Yeah, because the settlers intentionally brought all of those diseases with them.
Assuming you know that smallpox/etc were uch more responsible for the 'genocides' than any of the killing.
he's hated because he holds america to the same standards we hold others to.
>>8148729
its more than diseases. the american govt had a policy of systematic eradication and stealing land from the natives for the first 200 years of our history.
>>8148786
I've never understood this "but X did it 200 years ago as well" type of argument. So what? Times have changed, the people who did that shit are not even alive anymore.
>>8148810
"You're still benefiting from it tho senpai" or something...
>>8148816
Yeah, and the benefit that we gained from doing that saved the entire world in the Second Great War.
God Bless America and Roll fuckin' Tide.
>>8147187
Who are you quoting?
>>8148786
but also the numbers of our eradication don't stand close in comparison to Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or even smaller (nameless to most of us) east Asian dictators.
>>8148810
It's that it'd be hypocritical to make propaganda of the soviet union, or any genocide really, like "Remember everyone who died in the holodomor! ;_;7"
when. America is founded on slavery and genocide. We got to this point because of it, and ignoring it is pointless. America is a country that's founded on drinking blood, it always has been.
>>8148879
We also didn't commit genocide like modernity has. We wanted land; we killed for land. It doesn't matter who had the land, if we were militaristically superior, we were going to take the land. That's not genocide. And slavery? Slavery was worldwide. We just had the land to make it effective.
Stalin systematically starved out or carved out millions of his own citizens by choice. No necessity, but by inefficiency in design, trying to feed an ego's war, and pure paranoia.
To compare the two is a ridiculously leftist thing to do; that is to say, to shortsell one's own identity looking to pull others up to their standing.
>>8148907
>And slavery? Slavery was worldwide
The last first world nation to abolish slavery was us. Colonialism with liberal excuses always existed, sure.
To try and establish language on what is or is not genocide in mass death is pointless.
>>8148917
Mass death? We killed tens of thousands. Stalin killed more than one hundred times that, systematically and for no use.
Why would you even suggest that's pointless? There's a pretty big difference between our firebombing of Japan and Hitler's rounding up for 7 million innocents to gas, now isn't there?
>>8148928
We've killed more than tens of thousands. The market crash of 2008 alone allowed five million more people who could have afforded chemotherapy or cancer treatment, to die of cancer. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters. The effects of our base selfishness in ideology run a red vein through history.
>>8148269
>His linguistic work was largely debunked due to the "discovery" of Amazonian and Pacific peoples whose languages didn't operate upon his allegedly universal norms.
Source?
>>8147213
former Chomsky fan here. agree with everything you said.
>>8147401
>The NYRB just savaged his most recent book because of this exact same shit. He will outright ignore points that refute his statements.
link?
>>8148189
>implying Chomsky's books aren't reddit tier
>>8148945
So now a very, very complicated market crash is entirely our fault? Let me guess, you watching The Big Short and think you have a grasp on what happened? There were maybe six people in the know, none of whom knew what kind of bubble they created.
If we're going to include economic killings and non-treatment of the sick, than this world we've lived in has killed more than 10 billion people, which is more people than currently live on this planet, mind you.
China still starves farmers out. East Asia is still undeveloped enough to have people die of illness every fucking day bc their elite sell the masses out to slavery in factories. Russia still has a complex against us and for world power. The Middle East and all the African genocides have been fueled by weapons from Soviet-Bloc countries.
There's really not much argument to be made about the legitimacy of US vs the U.S.S.R. or China.
And don't say it was us who influenced all this--it was modernity at large.
>>8148617
>Not literature-related. Saged and Reported.
He's written many books, some of which have received considerable attention.
>>8148998
>So now a very, very complicated market crash is entirely our fault?
Who is "our". It is the fault of the people you allow to control you, yes. If you get cancer, and you're put in the same position, you have the entirety of yourself to blame if you only blame yourself pathetically, and not the other endless numbers in control.
It's your duty as an American, since your country judges others under the same regard. They do that, because they know it feels good. It's convoluted sure. But if you can't separate that from your nation in what it stands for, what does America even stand for or promise?
>Let me guess, you watching The Big Short and think you have a grasp on what happened?
No not at all.
>There were maybe six people in the know, none of whom knew what kind of bubble they created.
More than six. It was Bush policy that allowed it to happen, policy we defend viciously to this day.
>If we're going to include economic killings and non-treatment of the sick, than this world we've lived in has killed more than 10 billion people
Yes.
>China still starves farmers out.
I never denied they did. They very much did. Death is death.
>East Asia is still undeveloped enough to have people die of illness every fucking day bc their elite sell the masses out to slavery in factories.
Factories to make your niece her toys, and your cousin equipment.
Countries the western world has enough to help but never will. It's my money, my power, and my toys, the world can't have any of it.
>There's really not much argument to be made about the legitimacy of US vs the U.S.S.R. or China.
There is plenty to be made, we just don't judge ourselves on our own standards.
>>8149035
My prose analysis senses are tingling. Your writing style seems very familiar.
>>8148061
You mean rapist-lover Hillary?
>>8149354
Trump was also accused of raping someone. in fact throughout his career.
>>8149405
And Hillary is friends with Trump so we can all be in agreement.
>>8147420
It was paper with a Beria quote about how the USSR wanted peace and shit, and he used this to argue the US has always been the instigater of hostility, never the Soviets or something.
However the latter part of the quote was Beria said something about how this was a front and an act of deception on behalf of Stalin, and that the Soveits were following real politic, and would happily instigate hostilities if it would allow them to reach their goals.
It was in relation to the Berlin, and the quote was used by Chomsky to argue that the Soviets would have happily pulled out of Berlin if the Americans had been more friendly.
Sometimes I think Chomsky ventures into too much shit. Like a lot of his opinions on technology, privacy, the internet are so uninformed they're obviously from reading NYtimes-tier articles.
>>8148973
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Grammar#Criticisms
>>8148207
not as much as the memes suggest
You know how Trudeau made a nuanced comment about how the word "barbaric" is somewhat offensive, when used to describe Islamists? And then got accused of condoning Islamism?
Noam Chomsky did the same shit, and it similarly blew back in his face.
>>8148879
I know I'm replying really late. But I don't see how this is the case. They're saying X government is shit for doing shitty things NOW, that has nothing to do with Y government (that no longer exist, all of them are dead etc) having done shitty things in the past.
>reddit tier muh inequality 1 puhcent, evil corporations in their racis corporation buildings slave philosophy
>implying the rich aren't evil and don't deserve to be killed
>>8147199
You're a retard, he's literally the only widely-known linguist.
>>8150625
David Crystal
Steven Pinker
>>8148207
>>8148293
Read his article Distortion at 4th hand, and consider he never really backtracked from these, or acknowledged how wrong he was:
https://chomsky.info/19770625/
I can mostly respect Chomsky's anti-imperialism, but he absolutely failed on this topic. It's horrible. I think it's absolutely fair to call what he was doing there genocide denial.
I don't think that discredits all his work, but on Cambodia, he's really awfully wrong.
>>8148269
>His linguistic work was largely debunked due to the "discovery" of Amazonian and Pacific peoples whose languages didn't operate upon his allegedly universal norms.
Scientifically, I'm in the anti-Chomsky camp, but there's still two camps, and they're both alive and healthy. The claim that Piraha do not have recursion - which you are referring to here - is a claim that is hard to verify. I personally do believe they pose a real problem for his theory, but Chomskians claim they can deal with that.
Most things in science aren't black and white. (Much unlike Chomsky's politics.)
>>8150653
John McWorther
>>8150666
He 's said he was wrong about Cambodia a few times since then.
It really comes to something tho when a criticism about what happened in the late 70's that he was largely correct about and that no one had perfect knowledge of at the time, is still being dredged up 40 years later.
>>8150670
>He 's said he was wrong about Cambodia a few times since then.
He never even acknowledged in the first place that back then, he said there was no genocide by the Khmer Rouge. And consequently, never apologized for his past denial.
>he was largely correct about
In '4th hand', he claims there is no genocide.
> and that no one had perfect knowledge of at the time
In '4th hand', he complains about how everyone else claims there is a genocide going on (which it was). So Chomsky himself said back then that everyone else claimed what we now know to be true, and he complains about other people claiming what we now know to be true.
>>8150678
>We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered.
To call that denial is really really looking for something not there.
Iirc he did say (literally in an interview) that he was sceptical of a mass execution and I think that was with him going on about Timor again. I think the thing that got him was the largely ignored killings of the Balibo 5 there (which was major thing almost like the ISIS killing of journalists now because usually journalists are kept safe and not killed). But the US press nearly totally ignored it. As in the whole Timor genocide.
>>8147193
Well, just contribution to posterity is the linguistics, and we have Siri and other language gadgets in no small part because of Chomsky's work on generative grammar.
Basically it's the idea that there's a computational skeleton to all languages, that can be mapped and understood.
I would like to think his insights would translate into politics, but politics is all so subjective and value-driven. Still, the things he says aren't wrong. The system is genuinely fucked.
>>8148293
>Timorian genocide
>Genocide
It was bad but it wasn't pol pot tier
>>8150684
>Chomsky is the Freud of linguistics.
overrated and wrong? yeah, sounds right ;^)
>>8150725
>Well, just contribution to posterity is the linguistics, and we have Siri and other language gadgets in no small part because of Chomsky's work on generative grammar.
Bullshit. Siri is built on statistical learning. Chomsky has always combatted statistical learning.
He's been important for theoretical linguistics, but not for applied.
>>8150716
>Iirc
Have you read 'Distortions at 4th Hand'?
I have.
He's denying the ongoing genocide.
>>8150736
>freud
>wrong
kek
>>8150753
>I have.
I literally quoted it in the comment you're replying to you bloody retard.
>>8150735
In percentage terms they're actually pretty similar. Nominally 10× as many (roughly) died in Cambodia but the population is also about 10×. About a quarter of both died.
It's also important to point out that many who were against involvement in Vietnam also did similar things, seeing Cambodia as a possible smear campaign following the war.
>>8150753
I didn't mean Siri literally, I'm saying that Comsky's ideas are computational and treat language as computation, which nature applies in us all the time.
Discussions Chomsky was heavily involved in influenced all this machine learning lingusitic crap
>>8150962
>I literally quoted it in the comment you're replying to you bloody retard.
Did you read the whole thing though? Because that's a very selective quote.
>>8150975
>I didn't mean Siri literally, I'm saying that Comsky's ideas are computational and treat language as computation, which nature applies in us all the time.
And Siri treats it as a statistical, data-based, problem. So, the opposite of that.
>Discussions Chomsky was heavily involved in influenced all this machine learning lingusitic crap
Yeah - specifically, people said, "let's do the opposite of what he's saying".
Again, he was really important for theoretical linguistics, but he's been at best neutral for applied and computational linguistics. You probably know this quote: "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of our speech recognition system goes up."
>>8150989
> quoting the conclusion/summation is selective
Quotes typically are selective lil bud :^) as far as quotes go tho that's p representative of the essay.
The question for me is have you read it? You seem to be using second hand info to judge it.
>>8150996
Okay, let me quote something.
>If, indeed, postwar Cambodia is, as he believes, similar to Nazi Germany, then his comment is perhaps just, though we may add that he has produced no evidence to support this judgement. But if postwar Cambodia is more similar to France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American war, then perhaps a rather different judgement is in order. That the latter conclusion may be more nearly correct is suggested by the analyses mentioned earlier.
Or: "Some say Khmer-run Cambodia is like Nazi Germany, some say it's more like liberated France. We believe the evidence points to Khmer-run Cambodia being more like liberated France than like Nazi Germany."
I would say that currently, and in 1977, most people who have researched this would say the evidence points towards Khmer-run Cambodia being more like Nazi Germany than like liberated France. In fact, it seems it was much, much worse; worse than France under Nazi Germany; worse even than Poland under Nazi Germany.
It was a genocide.
(Liberated France did not, in fact, conduct genocide against its own people.)
>>8147187
>Did I miss something?
No, you're still retarded.
>>8151011
>Or: "Some say Khmer-run Cambodia is like Nazi Germany, some say it's more like liberated France. We believe the evidence points to Khmer-run Cambodia being more like liberated France than like Nazi Germany."
You didn't read the article then. You have even cherry picked a quote that doesn't quite say what you want it to say either. I mean really bruh?
As far as research there wasn't much more than Ponchaud's book that seriously described anything like a genocide. The facts in the article are largely true, that staged photos were used, people leaving were generally unaware of the killings.
>Ponchaud’s book is serious and worth reading, as distinct from much of the commentary it has elicited. He gives a grisly account of of what refugees have reported to him about the barbarity of their treatment at the hands of the Khmer Rouge
I have to leave it at that I 'm afraid.
>>8151012
No you
>>8151088
>You didn't read the article then. You have even cherry picked a quote that doesn't quite say what you want it to say either. I mean really bruh?
I brought a full paragraph. You brought two sentences.
>As far as research there wasn't much more than Ponchaud's book that seriously described anything like a genocide. The facts in the article are largely true, that staged photos were used, people leaving were generally unaware of the killings.
Let us review the facts again:
- in 1977, there was a genocide going on in Cambodia
- in 1977, Chomsky complains about people claiming there is a genocide going on in Cambodia
Your defence is that while the people reporting genocide were objectively correct, they were not, in fact, reporting on the basis of true justified belief, but anti-communism or something like that? Because to me, it seems that
- in 1977, there was a genocide going on in Cambodia
- in 1977, Chomsky complains about people claiming there is a genocide going on in Cambodia
- in 1977, when, by Chomsky's own words, the media in general thought there was a genocide going on, Chomsky doubted there was a genocide going on
And when I say "doubted", I don't mean, in his own heart he was carefully hedging the evidence, a true skeptic who's waiting for the evidence. I mean, he was literally publishing articles claiming that the evidence supports there was no genocide going on:
>If, indeed, postwar Cambodia is, as he believes, similar to Nazi Germany, then his comment is perhaps just, though we may add that he has produced no evidence to support this judgement. But if postwar Cambodia is more similar to France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American war, then perhaps a rather different judgement is in order. That the latter conclusion may be more nearly correct is suggested by the analyses mentioned earlier.
And this paragraph is in fact rather representative of the article with regards to Chomsky's actual opinions on the reality of the genocide.
>>8151297
>And this paragraph is in fact rather representative of the article with regards to Chomsky's actual opinions on the reality of the genocide.
Chomsky is saying p clearly m8 that there MAY have been a genocide, and you're there going "He's a genocide denier" and that his whole train of thought is to serve some conspiracy to cover up the Cambodian genocide for some reason.
You're talking about a Jew that did the whole kibbutz thing and went on to defend a holocaust denier for freedom of speech. In 1977 he's saying "Don't jump to conclusions" and here in 2016 you're going "Do jump" blind to having the benefit of hindsight etc etc. He believes in informed free speech and highlighting certain sidelined voices. He certainly at the time wasn't alone in these opinions.
As for the other anon posting 2 sentences to one paragraph it is nearly the entirety of the first of the last two final paragraphs. So I'm inclined to agree that the CONCLUSION is more representative than A PARAGRAPH CHERRY PICKED FROM SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE:
>We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable.
The article is available online to check out btw.
>>8147193
to the general public he's known as the man who spawned "anti americanism disguised as political astuteness"
>>8148199
allahmudilla, you have more pressing concerns than an inflating job market
>anarcho-syndicalists
>>8151406
>Chomsky is saying p clearly m8 that there MAY have been a genocide
He's saying
- it is possible, but unlikely
(It is entirely possible, but very unlikely that the moon is made of green cheese.)
- the deaths so far can be attributed mostly to the US
>In 1977 he's saying "Don't jump to conclusions"
", there probably is nothing going on, and if at all, the US is to blame"
>blind to having the benefit of hindsight etc etc
Chomsky was complaining in 1977 about the people who did claim there as a genocide going on. I do have the benefit of hindsight, but the people whom Chomsky is complaining about didn't, and they still were correct.
>As for the other anon posting 2 sentences to one paragraph it is nearly the entirety of the first of the last two final paragraphs. So I'm inclined to agree that the CONCLUSION is more representative than A PARAGRAPH CHERRY PICKED FROM SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE:
Okay, so for the thing you quote:
> emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered.
As the conclusion to a truly skeptical article, without the authors actually arguing for any position, but simply, unbiasedly, discussing the evidence, this may indeed be nothing but an ignoramus. But it is not. It follows an article where Chomsky repeatedly considers it more likely that there was no Cambodian genocide - that the majority of deaths were directly attributable to the US.
Chomsky is, here, de-emphasizing, and doubting ('alleged'!) Khmer Rouge genocide, while pointing to another actor.
This is a massive failure of judgement.
It is, as I said, literally denying the ongoing genocide.
And I don't think it's damning to be wrong. In the situation at hand - Vietnam and all the anti-commie propaganda going on - it is entirely understandable to be skeptical of further anti-commie propaganda. I think if you make a wrong call, and later admit you made a wrong call, that's okay.
But Chomsky has never truly repudiated on this. He has never admitted he made a gross error of judgement.
>The article is available online to check out btw.
Yes, and I linked to it here:
>>8150666
I don't know OP, Chomsky is a pretty savage genocide apologist.
>>8147187
how can someone so smart not pluck the hairs on their fucking nose? couldnt watch because of that shit
>>8148998
>So now a very, very complicated market crash is entirely our fault?
lol kill yourself you retard. market crashes are what you get when your country runs of fake economics meant to privilege traders over real people and things.
FAKE
ECONOMICS
Get it through your head retard.
The USA is a third-world dictatorship.
>>8147422
>import an entire proletariat from mexico
>they drag the numbers down
>"dUUUrrrUiurrrd!??!? DURR!!!! Duh american dream is ded!"
Meanwhile I'm a 6'5" frycook at Wendy's making $100,000 with an 8 inch cock
>>8147437
No, it doesn't. It only means your simpleton mind is fixed.
>>8148713
Yes, totally a valid comparison.
>>8148879
You'd be hard pressed to name a country not founded on pools of blood. This whole comparison reeks ofpseud
Look, I know almost nothing about this guy, but posting like that makes you look absolutely retarded even if what you're saying is true.
>>8151728
Please actually look up the definition of "third world country" before referencing it in conversation. Wildly incorrect usage of political terms makes you look stupid, not intelligent.
>>8151629
>and they still were correct.
I have a broken clock somewhere and you know it's actually spot on with the time twice a day.
I understand that you feel you have special knowledge of Chomsky's thought or that other people at the time had special knowledge of the very closed off Cambodia. He wasn't alone on this sort of argument (and other people were arguing what you wish Chomsky were arguing e.g. Gareth Porter). There was nothing particularly verboten about taking a harder line, Chomsky is using words like may and possibly because he wants to, not because in some weird world he can't say "there is no bloodbath" because, as I said, others were quite happy to do this. You also have to remember that not only the western world was closes off: Chomsky chased up Thai news sources as you know being familiar with the article:
>The pictures had appeared a year earlier in France, Germany and Australia, as well as in the Bangkok Post (April 19, 1976) with the caption “True or False?” In fact, an attempt by a Thai trader to sell these photos to the Bangkok Post was turned down “because the origin and authenticity of the photographs were in doubt.” The photos appeared in another Thai newspaper two days before the April 4th election. The Bangkok Post then published them, explaining in an accompanying article that “Khmer watchers” were dubious about the clothes and manner of the people depicted, and quoting “other observers” who “pointed to the possibility that the series of pictures could have been taken in Thailand with the prime objective of destroying the image of the Socialist parties” before the election.
Since we've got to that point, think as well that other countries and their media were less ready to paint Cambodia as being akin to a holocaust. Australia, as eluded to earlier itt, was concerned with Timor and the Aussies slain there. As in the paragraph above there was more of an attempt elsewhere to publish more balanced stories with regard to Cambodia too.
>>8151832
Rather than sarcastically agree, why don't you explain why you think it's not a valid comparison?
Because from where I am sitting it does seem like a valid comparison. In both cases you had some group rebelling against their leaders to establish a new state.
>>8151691
>Real people
>Real
>People
Plebs aren't real people
>>8151838
>You'd be hard pressed to name a country not founded on pools of blood.
That's the point tho. US foreign policy involves a lot of "those people are savages because they do this thing. We also did this thing but it's not only unpatriotic to ever mention it it's also just part of some grander scheme or something". So even tho you have to exploit all sorts of people to found the US, you exploit your close neighbours and even neighbours much much further afield you can't talk about it if you love America. If you must talk about it then you have to do a Franklin Roosevelt (I think that's the right pres) and get really sad about how humans destroyed the native natural ecology in the US, therefore you must make massive National Parks in Africa and kick the native tribes out. It is not enough that you made the mistakes: everyone else must learn from them.
Just a gentle reminder to everybody ITT: there is absolutely nothing wrong with exerting power over the weak.
>>8151982
THE WEAK SHOULD FEAR THE STRONG
>>8151895
Then you're sitting in an imbecile's chair
>>8152005
Not necessarily. Many strong people like to help the weak.
>>8152024
>2016
>Feeling pity, rather than merely showing it
>>8152024
That is a weakness of the strong, and the ability to garner sympathy is a strength of the weak.
>>8148269
>>8148305
>>8148973
chomskyan linguistics is still the mainstream in the field and has been for 50 years. as for the "discovery of amazonian and pacific languages," that's a reference to the language piraha which has been claimed not to have a specific kind of recursive structure, which 1) it actually does have recursive structure, and 2) even if it didn't it wouldn't "debunk" chomsky's proposals or the minimalist program. for more information on that controversy you can start by reading this actual peer-reviewed article on the topic http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000411
>>8152033
heh. you'd make a great snakeoil salesmen
>>8152033
Nice.
>>8147187
>I like to challenge my own views
>reddit tier muh inequality 1 puhcent, evil corporations in their racis corporation buildings slave philosophy
yeah it really sounds like it
and have you ever been on reddit?
>>8148269
Lol he has been revising his theories for decades. And nothing is being debunked. Go look at some of the studies by Tomasello and others who have looked at the cognitive basis of language.
>>8153209
I'll add as well that a lot of people are confusing the chomsky hierarchy with the Universal Grammar and also the transformational grammar. And to varying degrees you can find it all in computer science, partly because that's something MIT likes to do.
Not sure why he's still being called a cognitivist now either. I mean I do know, it's people who only have knowledge of little factoids about him, but even when he was a cognitivist it was a little tenuous. His link was really that he also criticised behaviourist theories.
