Noam Chomsky

He's a giant in linguistics but I think that is political views are largely incorrect.
Just to clarify: I'm not a trumptard.

For all the people saying he's incorrect - why?

What was the Cambodian genocide?

I can't bring myself to believe western imperialism was wrong/immoral. I dont think I'm capable giving human life in and of itself the value to see it that way.

> he’s wrong because l can’t believe what he says
wow

Let me guess: you’re American

I think he's a fine political analyst (worth reading even if you disagree), but I just have irreconcilable moral differences with his perspective.

I've never read him but I'm going to pretend to like him to fit in.

Watch/listen to 'Is the Tall Man Happy?' It's just a meandering conversation where he talks a lot about human linguistic and creative capacities, it's awesome. As for his politics, I rather liked Requiem for the American Dream (also a documentary), Manufacturing Consent is his most famous book I guess which is about corporate media. He is worth checking out even if you end up disagreeing with him. The dude just has a huge love for humanity which rubs off

No lol

Regarding linguistics l’ve understood that he basically revolutionized the field in his youth - but l haven’t really looked into it.

His political writing sometimes sounds like a broken record but is always fact-based and clear of errors. I think he gets a lot of hate because of his basic message: the US is a terror state that constantly violates international law to its own benefit.

Only read his political books. I like him but his stuff is very "wtf i hate america and israel now". What linguistics stuff of his should I check out?

How do I get into linguistics, not just Chomsky but in general? Where to start? Basic things I need to learn?

and markets destroy democracy, the public sector is necessary to push forward technology and create order. The State is just a giant prison-money machine etc etc

>""""""""""""""""""democracy"""""""""""""""""

Psued.

He's a Reddit-tier Jew.

A lot of Chomsksys works are compliations of talks, essays, and interviews, and often repeated
Who Rules the World and Hegemony or Survival would be some recent works to read
American Power and the New Mandrins, The Political Economy of Human Rights, Fateful Triangle would classical works
all of it
they don't believe in promoting democracy
they undermine it, violently
their claims are mere smoke and mirrors
>mainstream media punditry
no its not
are you, right now, at this very moment, in fact... triggered?
Why don't you read what he has written on the matter instead of repeating what you heard others say about him?
>t. edgelord
the irreconcilable moral difference of believing that imperialism is right and moral?

read lenin instead

Fuck off leftypol this is lit

He makes every excuse for the atrocities of other countries and takes no excuses for US atrocities.
This is why people hate him.

>the irreconcilable moral difference of believing that imperialism is right and moral?
No, just that western imperialism is.

Cambodian genocide denier.

One step above Joe Rogan. Decent propagandist. Terrible writer.

did chomsky molest you or something? what venomous thoughts you have about the man.

>>>>mainstream
:')

If you actually read any of it, you phony, you'd know he says the exact same things as Dr. William Luther Pierce.

You idiots make me angry. So uninformed. Parroting. Wew.

So you're totally unaware of his stance towards Trump?

why do you believe this?
Lenin is not leftypol
youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM
What excuses for other countries does he take?
He is an American citizen and therefore he is responsible for... America?
And when you apply critical analysis to the excuses for Americas attrocities you find they're denials, mitigations, or lies
Quote him
critical of him?

His contributions to linguistics are definitely laudable, though from what I understand people in the field don't care about him any longer (he's pretty much senile at this point). This political writings are pretty retard though, and have nothing of the qualities of his linguistic research. It's even worse than other pop-hacks like Zizek. Some people should just stick to their primary field.

Even your grammar here is the grammar of a pseud. Very thorough idiocy.

>why do you believe this?
Because western and (and to a lesser extent sinnic) society are the only things on earth capable of redeeming a race as vile as humanity.

>What excuses for other countries does he take?
All of them. He's hilariously disingenuous.
>He is an American citizen and therefore he is responsible for... America?
No, he just has an obsessive hatred of the USA and can't admit it.
>And when you apply critical analysis to the excuses for Americas attrocities you find they're denials, mitigations, or lies
And when you apply critical analysis to Chomsky you find denials, mitigations, or lies.

chomsky.info/19770625/

Calls witnesses of the Cambodian genocide liars, attacks and tries to disqualify every media outlet the reported it, tries to nitpick difference in accounts just like Holocaust deniers (as if it was proof that there was no genocide), and claims any horror done by the Khmer Rouge is ultimately America's fault, because as it's in Chomsky's decrepit world view, third worlders have no agency.

>dont even read Kapital but read the Manifesto lol

For better or worse, he revolutionized linguistics (I know next to nothing about that field, so I'll say nothing more about it). His political thoughts are a joke, though.

Typical brainlet behaviour to get worked up about typos rather than trying to meet the argument.

>very thorough idiocy

>Because western and (and to a lesser extent sinnic) society are the only things on earth capable of redeeming a race as vile as humanity.
yes, the society that will probably commit species suicide will redeem humanity

>tries to nitpick difference in accounts just like Holocaust deniers (as if it was proof that there was no genocide)
>critical thinking means you're a nazi because some holocaust denier pretends to do the same
brilliant insight, please write more, much value

Chomskyhonks

He's definitely not a redditor. His critique of evolution was great.

I like hearing him talk. I like the sound of his voice and once he gets going there is no sweeter sound.

His books, especially Manufacturing Consent, are prolific and incredibly insightful.

Anyone who dislikes/disagrees with him needs to do more research or is a genuine sociopath (generally).

>was
Lol read more faggot

Also seek psychiatric help, at the very least attempt to be more empathetic instead of pathetic

He's right about almost everything except race. Th minute he begins acknowledging the biological superiority of the European race the better.

Chomsky supports trump ending the nafta agreement and the tpp. He just feels he needs to do more to end economic globalization. He thinks Trump is much better than the clintons, bushes and obama, reagan and basically every president since before wilson

"Check dis. I is with none other than my main man, Professor Norman Chompsky."

youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

>since before wilson

I prefer Thomas Sowell. A superior contemporary to Chomsky I believe.
His droning puts me to sleep tbqh

Ikr Wilson was fucking awful.

He specifically stated Cambodian refugees witness statements about the violence should be considered suspect because it fed into narrative s of American intervention. He worked to undermine the words of victims themselves

Woodrow Wilson started the american empire. Him and everyone after him was a mistake.

>Wilson started the American empire
Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, James k. polk, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and the guy who presided over the Spanish American war (fuck it I'm not googling) all disprove that idiotic statement.

The founding fathers believes that America was a nascent empire from the very beginning.

Chomsky preferred, and prefers, Clinton to anyone from the Republican Party.

youtube.com/watch?v=btJfkPBLULg
youtube.com/watch?v=O34JM4Xdf3g

youtube.com/watch?v=D5in5EdjhD0
He is the greatest phylosopher we have.
People dont like him because he is as nonfictional as possible and destroy there little fantasies

>this meme
Chomsky is an American. His locus of control is in America, not Russia or China or Saudi Arabia. He will point out faults on other countries in passing (he's done this with Iran and NK, even though he defends them against US policy). He, like you and I, have far more capability to fix our problems than Chinese or Russian ones. The US propaganda machine is already pointing out the flaws of US enemies; why add to that already gigantic pool of criticism?

He's also gone on record as saying domestically the US is the most free nation in the world, least racist, etc. He does not however, excuse it for its faults with what-aboutism as his critics often do.

I remember when my main source of information was conspiracy videos. Man, shit was so simple then.

Yeah, yeah. Get to the good bits already. Who are the bad guys according to Chomsky? I have a rule with pseuds and its foolproof: if they don't boil down the history of human thought and phenomenology into us vs them I know they are a false prophet.

Watching debates on YT sounds like a waste of time to me. You learn more from reading Tolstoy and Emerson.

>t. joaquín hernandez rodrigo

...

My nigga
My nigga
My MOTHAFUCKIN' nigga

...

>implying american action in vietnam and occupation/subsequent evacuation of phnom penh didn't facilitate the rise of the khmer rouge

power vacuums, dude
edwebproject.org/sideshow/history/end.html

this is how retarded Tankies are born

Chomsky is a heavyweight in International Relations. Most certainly knows what he's talking about, and a mind that has developed over a time-frame longer than most, giving him a keen sense of historicity. No idea on his thoughts about linguistics.

MORE LIKE GNOME CHUMPSKY

unironically he's one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time. lots of people misunderstand him based on a few out of context youtube clips, but read his serious work. linguistics, cognitive science, pure philosophy, politics, international relations--it's all solid af.

Kek, looks like he was right user

The Chomsky vs. Foucault debate is pure kino

>Jew vs. Foucault
This does not jive with my understanding of things.
Was it just a ploy to through us off? Shit.
Please explain.

>he's a Chomsky acolyte

*blocks your path*

youtube.com/watch?v=I6kbTeQo3VQ
youtube.com/watch?v=mFt621qFvDA

another reason to like him

>Neoconservatives basically believe that the US should play an aggressive role in promoting democracy around the world
Do politicians actually believe that ? A civil war is probably the least effective way to start a democracy.

they probably don't, but it's a great way to make money

This is also a dumb premise. Neolibs say the same things. I.e. clintons and Obama. FOR DEMOCRACY!!!! is literally our DEUS VULT. only a fool believes wars are about ideology and not control of economies.

exactly

I'm glad he's dead.

he thinks slaves were better off than people under capitalism because they were 'taken care of'

you mean the evacuation of south viatenam defended by pacifists and noam chomsky himself led to the rise of the khamer rouge and the genocide?
well I agree with you.

based

>What is the American carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos to wipe out the Vietcong during the American War for 2000 Alex?

should've let them finish the job
leaving too early is almost as bad as entering at all

They could've carpet bombed southeast Asia til this very day and they still wouldn't have won the war. The v.c. and their allies were dug deep into the ground. You would literally have to go from hole to hole and flood or burn them out like rats in a pig pen.

youtube.com/watch?v=GMUrPnWufOA

it is when you have tyrants who cant be removed any other way

toplel

breddy gud

>try to start with Noam Chomsky, the Dershowitz Destroyer, the Friend of Finkelstein, AKA Big Man Linguistics
>can't figure out where to start with him
>try to find a list of his published writings
>297 books
>okay
>divide these into linguistics and politics
>start indexing the political books
>exactly 97% are just rambling interviews or talks he's given that were transcribed by other people and published with catchy titles even though they rehash the same material as the last ten books, often literally the exact same material
>okay, cut those out, new category: actual books, containing actual original content
>get it down to Manufacturing Consent and like two other books
>they're mostly derivative, the documentary is actually more useful than the book
>surprised to find no real sociological or critical analysis of ideology, Chomsky can't seem to get past the journalistic level of analysis
>what the hell, isn't this guy supposed to be like the doyen of critiquing the American plutocratic mediopoly?
>find out his politics is "anarcho-syndicalist" but he has no idea what this actually means, AKA he has some vague idea of self-organizing and intermittently defends heinous mass murderers, but he also ALWAYS tells you to vote American establishment (????) and was anti-Brexit
>okay maybe his linguistic work is better
>read up on his more recent stuff, the Minimalist Program
>absolutely worthless, shallow, lacks any interdisciplinary connections
>okay well what about his big thing BTFOing the behaviorists?
>turns out their paradigm was never really dominant
>he's obviously just rehashing Kant vs. extreme Lockean sensationalists
>dig furiously to find any evidence Chomsky understands this transcendental turn, the most significant moment in modern philosophy, and its obvious mirroring of his work
>find barely any references of Chomsky to Kant, always tangential and revealing no actual understanding of Kant
>finally find Chomsky directly being asked the Kant question by someone who would clearly understand the resonance: Bryan McGee, in an old interview
>McGee poses the question
>Chomsky: "UMMM DERRRR DUHHHH I PREFER THE CAMBRIDGE NEOPLATONISTS.. THE.. THE CAMBRIDGE NEOPLATONISTS NEED TO BE STUDIED MORE. ERM... I LIKE HUME.."
>McGee: "?????"
>Chomsky has literally never fucking read Kant
>Chomsky's ONLY philosophical training is the old schoolboy rough-and-ready analytic "Locke then Hume then modern science" version of the history of philosophy, AKA, none
>he has spent almost a fucking century purporting to study the origins and essential nature of language in human cognition and he's never found an afternoon to brief himself on even rudimentary philosophy of mind
>his political philosophy has NO PRAXIS WHATSOEVER and he's 101% pro-establishment in everything
>his "theory" of elites manipulating society is on the level of an undergrad who took one sociology class

Is Noam Chomsky the best example of an intellectual fraud and establishment huckster?

Syntactic Structures