What are your thoughts on this guy?
GOAT
>>56790181
Looks like some Jew.
>>56790181
He is pretty based. I am more of a fan of his work on linguistics than his political writings, but he is the Einstein of our age.
>>56790181
> he is good at linguistics but doesn't understand politics
who the fuck is that guy?
The guy is literally a genius and has a comfy as fuck voice. I agree with a lot of what he says about manufacturing consent and globalisation etc.
He is dedicated to blaming America for literally everything bad in the world though.
>>56790389
Noam Chomsky
talks like a faggot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro
>foremost linguist of the 20th century
>only speaks one language
Furthermore, all his opinions belong in the trash.
He is a Socialist Libertarian.
Think about that one for a bit.
>>56790181
these are my feelings on gardengnome chomsky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk
Just another faggot liberal.
>>56790356
>greentext
why? thats totally true
and weird choice of images considering the only people who take chomsky seriously in politics are community college neckbeards
>>56790586
Actually, he's a socialist anarchist.
>>56790727
i think it's "anarcho-syndicalist"
>>56790181
Leftist vermin whose death is well overdue
>>56790727
thats wrong though...
he self identifies as a libertarian socialist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE
also
>adam smith
>thomas jefferson
>anti-capitalist
>against slave labor
lol, is this dude retarded?
>>56790854
Okay, maybe you're right.
>>56790655
its such an odd position to take and it comes up in every thread since Chomsky's linguistics work heavily influences his own politics. Even Chomsky himself finds it perplexing.
>You think I was invited here because people know me as a linguist? Okay, if that was the reason, then it was a bad mistake. But there are plenty of other linguists around, and they aren't getting invited to places like this -- so I don't really think that can be the reason. I assumed that the reason is that these are topics that I've written a lot about, and I've spoken a lot about, and I've demonstrated a lot about, and I've gone to jail about, and so on and so forth -- I assumed that's the reason. If it's not, well, then it's a bad mistake.
>If anybody thinks you should listen to me because I'm a professor at M.I.T., that's nonsense. You should decide whether something makes sense by its content, not by the letters after the name of the person who says it. And the idea that you're supposed to have special qualifications to talk about things that are common sense, that's just another scam -- it's another way to try to marginalize people, and you shouldn't fall for it.
>>56790356
>>56790343
Topkek
>>56790181
His linguistic research and writings are pretty good.
His politics on the other hand...
>>56790181
Pretentious as fuck. I liked Annie Hall and Radio Days, though.
>>56790559
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8
>>56791057
did you even listen to this?
>>56790854
This guy has no fucking clue what hes talking about.
He leads off with a historical inaccuracy and then just babbles about greed and "le evil 1%" like some occupy wallstreet kid who read the Das Kapital wiki page.
Hes a fool.
The fact that he does not have any formal education on history, politics, or economics is certainly relevant when considering the validity of his ramblings.
>>56791057
What a quibbling moron. I can't guess what the subject was, but if it was about linguistics, it isn't necessarily improper just because there are other linguists, (in which he's just being dishonestly modest, he isn't just another linguist). Maybe he's just a better public speaker or people are interested in what he has to say.
>You should decide whether something makes sense by its content, not by the letters after the name of the person who says it.
This is especially hypocritical, because he has made a career on delivering lectures based on notoriety of his name alone.
>>56791254
You clearly must be lacking some basic understanding of the education system in the west. "Formal education" means jack shit. Having a degree speaks nothing of your knowledge, and is just that, a formality.
Einstein was a high school dropout, would you claim that he is irrelevant in physics?
>>56791254
>The fact that he does not have any formal education on history, politics, or economics is certainly relevant when considering the validity of his ramblings.
Look at this sheep, this tool of the government. Look at him and laugh.
>>56791250
What am I supposed to gleam from this?
>>56791408
>Einstein was a high school dropout, would you claim that he is irrelevant in physics?
Has chomsky made any great strides in politics?
no
Hes just regurgitating a mixed bag of leftist crap, mixed with some lolbertarian memes
>>56791462
He just claimed that Thomas Jefferson was anti-capitalist (which is beyond incorrect) and was against slave labor (which goes well into the realm of retardation)
That shows a fundamental lack of understanding about americas political history
>as jeffeson was always pro-capitalism and believed in slave labor (despite criticizing the slave trade in the first draft of the DoI)
he was wrong in the first sentence
>>56791254
>Hes a fool.
its fine to think he is an idiot, my point was directed to someone who said they agreed with his work in linguistics but thought his politics were shit. You aren't going to be in agreement with his work in linguistics (which has politically related work) but at the same time think he is completely wrong about politics.
It strikes me as a stance of someone who dislikes his political work but isn't well read on his linguistic work but due to his esteemed status in that field decide to say its good which is odd because I would assume they would take some issue with his linguistics work that focuses on politics and would mention the relevant criticism.
is he actually a genius? There are these "geniuses" seemingly in every field of academic inquiry
He's an important figure and sits upon a sort of Rushmore of liberal/radical critics (Greenwald, Taibbi, Assange, Snowden), so I appreciate his work. But he's also very dogmatic as Jews are known to be and he's also anti-capitalist like a government criminal.
>>56791693
>the chomsky heirachy
>related to politics
no, its not.
The only similarities are his tendencies towards minimalism, which while working well in linguistics does not transfer into global politics
Also, his first work was on the evolution on hebrew.... and much like bernie sanders he lived on a kibbutz in Israel with his jew wife for a good stretch of time in between dodging drafts
I don't really like to follow jew loving cowards
>>56790181
Filthy fucking kike shill, stop asking, Mossad.
>>56791683
His merits in politics is highly irrelevant. Copernicus' work was not recognised until years after his death. As is the case for several people we today view as important contributors in the field of science, philosophy or politics.
Didn't Jefferson ban slavery in Virginia? After some quick google searches it seems that he was both against slavery, and various aspects of capitalism.
>>56792323
>Greenwald, Taibbi, Assange, Snowden
I'm not sure if conservatives could producer better idols, but that's a pathetic lineup.
>>56791683
>Has chomsky made any great strides in politics?
absolutely, he's probably the most influential critic of American empire since the 60s. All this Black lives matter shit, the anti-war movement of the 2000s, were all things he had strong influence on.
>>56792505
>and various aspects of capitalism.
This would still Chomsky's characterization as an anti-capitalist a dishonest exaggeration.
>>56792356
>I don't really like to follow jew loving cowards
It is truly amusing that people (very often americans) on this forum are willing to disregard individuals based on their religion/ethnicity.
As posted earlier in this thread: "You should decide whether something makes sense by its content"
>>56792667
still make*
welcome to 4chan. a place where fat losses of society mocking the most brilliant man alive.
he gloriously BTFO'd Sam Harris, that was pretty good. In fact, Harris is STILL butthurt about it
>>56792505
>Didn't Jefferson ban slavery in Virginia?
what? no, not at all.
He wrote in his will that his remaining slaves (only a handful by his death, although through his life he has on average 200 slaves at any given time) but he actually fought against early emancipation efforts while drafting the first national constitution with Adams
It was one of the major rifts in between the federalists and the republicans, as all of the southern colonies (including virginia) were dependent on slave labor.
You might be thinking of the fact that Lincoln later cited the introduction of the DoI as grounds for emancipation
>was also used against property voting rights and then later for womens suffrage
No, chomsky doesn't know shit apparently, Jefferson was also 100% free market capitalist
>“At the end of 1978 Cambodia was the only country in Indochina that had succeeded at all in overcoming the agricultural crisis that was left by the American destruction.”
By late 1979, UN and Red Cross officials were warning that another 2.25 million Cambodians faced death by starvation due to 'the near destruction of Cambodian society under the regime of ousted Prime Minister Pol Pot,'”
>>56792667
Well, i said after a quick google searches, that was what i discovered. If i were to dig deeper, it may very well be that i too, find out that Jefferson was an anti-capitalist.
Do you have any sort of documentation that proves Chomsky to be in the wrong?
I don't believe in his linguistic theories. I'm convinced I would think differently if I had never learned English. Sapir-Whorf is right.
Everything this man says is true.
Stop stuffing your ears with burgers and listen, you might learn something about how the rest of the world suffers thanks to US foreign policy, you inbred fat americunt fucks.
>>56792976
>https://mises.org/library/thomas-jeffersons-free-market-economics
Jefferson had a deep distrust of the banking system, but that by no means made him an anti-capitalist.
>>56792976
Read any book by Joseph Ellis, the current top revolutionary historian.
Specifically "revolutionary summer" goes into the entire may-nov of 1776 and has many first hand accounts as well as analysis of the continental congress through the formation of the DoI-constitution (first draft)-foreign policy (which remained unchanged until WW1)
This guy knows far more than chomsky on the subject
Also "founding brothers" has a fairly deep section on jefferson and his written opinions on slavery
He openly criticized the slave trade, but for economic and social reasons, not moral ones.
He never "banned" slavery or spoke of it as morally incorrect.
>>56790181
Can pwn any politician in a debate.
>>56793033
>Everything this man says is true.
The Lie: “If there had been no resistance to the Japanese attack, they might not have turned to the horrifying atrocities that did ultimately turn many Asians against them.”
The Truth: Imperial Japan’s mass murders of Asians – including the Rape of Nanking and large-scale biological warfare in China – started years before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Voice too annoying can't listen to him, same with Alex jones.
He looks pretty old.
