War is fucked up

Believe it or not, to Americans, these are all considered controversial and offensive statements

War is based, you just need to remove dishonorable faggy weapons such as orbital missiles, guns etc., really anything that could be operated by an obese mexican lesbian.

would we not just call that fighting?

>war
>rules

>tell me more, you old GOAT
ftfy

aren't you clever hur dur

haha don't worry user, I got you

What did you expect from people in this thread? ( )

lmao

his book on Anarchism is pretty much all about work

Yes, we live in a country where someone who has to provide evidence for all of these obvious statements is a controversial person. The very fact that people take such issue with this is proof of his points.

Wow, what an oversimplification

>mumbles incoherently
What did he mean by that?

how do his students even stay awake

there have been an abnormal amount of anti-Chomsky posts lately...Getting tired of these conservative psy-ops

the Bolivia bit made me kek

Chomsky is based af cant help but advancing multiple fields at the sand time. Oh, I changed liguistics forever? Hold my beer I’m going to shake up theory of mind real quick. His politics is his weak stuff and even that is better than 90% of political shlock now a days.

You gotta remember that a lot of philosophers were considered nuts in their times. Some dude's out there telling the truth right now, but to us he probably looks mad

...

Chomsky said that work can be so satisfying that in the right circumstances people would work for free, like in a communal system.

it's way more nuanced than that. Good job fishing for you's though

chomsy's cool but entry-level

I think he's the archetypal rabbi and he really does know what an incredibly driving force jews are in moving the western world towards the end of the Dark Age.
But they'll all get kiked off in the process.
Once Israel losses their BigGoyTM The U.S., they're dead meat.

...

He said that work when done without coercion can be enjoyable. This is just what he said.

He said as this during a time where everyone was waving around the patriot act and jerking off to the american flag and saying anything against the war in iraq could cost you your career.
>war is based
right, i have to remember i share a board with people with the mental development of a twelve year old now

...

>mfw I made the mistake of watching Manufacturing Consent
>mfw everything could be summarised in 5 minutes
>mfw I have yet to read the book

yfw Chomsky stole the phrase from Walter Lippman's Public Opinion and drew attention away from the original manufacturers of consent- government agencies- towards corporations
yfw Chomsky is an unwitting shill for the true purveyors of propaganda- academic leftism and its arms in the State department and the media

my nigga, moar

>work sucks
This is motive in almost every single book:
>Crime and Punishment
I have some debts from old whore and i hate my job.
>lord of rings tolkien
it all start from one hobbit wanting to escape broing work and some how got gold ring,
>breakfast at tiffany
I hate working i wonder if i can earn from men.

>almost everything about bukowski or hippies
Every almost single thing starts by fluorination in shitty job/life

so much faggotry in this thread
>It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.
and to all the right-wingers hootin and hollerin right now, there's nothing more despicable than cheering on violence that you are too pussy to participate in yourself.

its both you dumb fucking nigger

>Someone used the phrase before to mean something slightly different
>Haha lefties owned
It's telling that in all these Chomsky threads nobody ever engages with the ideas, at best you'll get some ad hom or mention of the time he underestimated the Khmer Rouge.
Besides, the idea that the US government, which is basically banana republic at this point in terms of corporate influence, has been falsifying all science since the 70s (not for money or anything, just because they're evil LOL) is an absolutely insane delusion.

What is the archetypal rabbi?

wow, what a great shot
like a hopper painting

>participate in yourself
Not like those guys who spent the last 70 years deploying the most advanced military hardware in the world against various east asian dirt farmers(and losing), as well as propping up puppet states for American industry. They're the real heroes.
Are you seriously naive enough to justify this senseless aggression as ennobling or just a part of the natural order? Like what the fuck is gonna happen that's so awful if we tried to limit slaughter to defensive acts?

the sun will die and the the sky will fall in on itself
the daimon of the americas is in its very soil
we are montezuma's successors
we are the plumed serpent
we are tenotchitlan

here is Chomsky's committment to politics to over truth expressed very clearly, a perspective which informs the entirety of the social sciences in the West:

Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.

Wow you sure seem like a guy whose really engaged with thoughts outside your own victim complex. I'm honored to have the time and pasta of such a great intellectual as yourself

you're reading a lot into what i've said brother.
i never suggested asymmetric warfare as exemplified by US foreign policy, or any kind of warfare at all, is noble or desirable.
part of the natural order? look around you son. everything you see on this planet is part of the natural order. there is nothing in existence that is unnatural.
the only thing i can change is my self. strong opinions about history and politics are nothing but socially acceptable outlets for venting personal turmoil and private suffering. the brain is a strange thing.
>Like what the fuck is gonna happen that's so awful if we
there is no we brother. be well.

I didn't even imply I was a victim, you're projecting. If you have even a glimmer of intellectual integrity you will see what's going on in the social sciences, but you probably don't.

Your emphasis on who I am instead of what I said suggests that you treat beliefs as fashion accessories and just want to fit in with some group

>Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim
You're telling me that this whole rant is because nobody ever told you about the difference between correlation and causation?
I don't know of many serious intellectuals who would argue no such correlation exists, as for causation a number of competing models and explanations have been offered, but I'm guessing none of them made your feefees as fuzzy as the idea that you were born naturally better than most other people.
For the record low iq is pretty heavily correlated with racism as well :^)

The data actually shows that Ashkenazi Jews and East asians are superior to whites, which is what I am. This also maps very closely to the real life success of those two groups, despite both being heavily persecuted in white societies.

>commitment to politics over truth
I don't think there is a single person screeching about race and IQ that's commited to "the truth" over politics, exactly the opposite
if there was, maybe they'd listen to the actual scientists who tell them they're wrong instead of a guy on a blog who sees conspiracies even in his dog's turds

You don't want to get into this subject, because you will be forced to see the truth. About 5 years ago I was you, arguing that race differences aren't real and that it is just racists being biased.

It is impossible to learn anything about this honestly and not see what is going on. So I'm just warning you what will happen if you do any research.

For the record, 'actual scentists' do say racist things and then they are 'discredited' as scientists. And it isn't a conspiracy, it is the genuine hysteria of anti-racism dogma

what ideas? besides linuguistics and manufacturing consent, the rest of chomsky's works are long-winded op-ed pieces or transcripts of his speeches compiled by his sycophants

>Gets called out for not understanding that correlation and causation are different things
>Doubles down
Yeah we're done here, maybe check out a stats 101 book at your earliest convenience

I understand the difference, I am obviously saying that it is causation. The twin studies show that genetics outweigh environmental factors in determining IQ.

It could be a coincidence of course, but it doesn't look that way.

>WAAHHHHH DON'T CONFRONT ME WITH MY OWN COMPLICITY

you're only right insofar as it had to take somebody being that wrong about more or less everything for people to actually get to doing things correctly in response

I read most of how the world works and endured manufacturing consent.

How can Chomsky waste his 200 IQ on this?

You are probably thinking of Thomas Bouchard’s study which was launched in 1979, correct? The problem with this study is that most of his identical twins were adopted into the same kinds of middle-class families, so it was hardly surprising that they ended up with similar IQs. In the relatively few cases where twins were adopted into families of different social classes and education levels, there ended up being huge disparities in IQ – in one case a 20-point gap; in another, 29 points, or the difference between “dullness” and “superior intelligence” in the parlance of some IQ classifications. In other words, where the environments differed substantially, nurture seems to have been a far more powerful influence than nature on IQ.

LMAO

It didn't show that at all, why are you lying lol

We've talked at lenght about other shit he stood by in the past. Don't make us go through that again.

He's right though...

The crazy shit that is being said you ignore and think it is "just crazy shit".

Zizek

?

>how the world works
serously, could the title be more pretentious. and it doesn't deliver beyond the long-winded editorial style.

livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html
. The Minnesota researchers found that about 70 percent of IQ variation across the twin population was due to genetic differences among people, and 30 percent was due to environmental differences.

LOL

I’ve already explained what’s the problem with the Minnesota Twin Family Study. The twins were adopted by similar middle-class families, which is why they ended up having similar IQs. Other studies where the twins were adopted by families with larger difference in education and income between them have shown that intelligence is less determined by genetics than Bouchard’s study suggests.

>Other studies
What studies are these?

Should be Venezuela, but still very good

That's like saying that Schumpeter 'stole' the concept of Creative Destruction from Sombart

I really dislike Chomsky. He just goes for low hanging fruit criticisms of how society sucks, yet that's all he is, a critic. His own beliefs on how society should be run are a hilarious meme. Muh Anarcho-syndicalism!

>Chomsy's cool but entry-level

Who's ascended level then? How many thinkers in history are even less wrong then him when looking at what he's done as a whole?

you dumb LARPfag
by realizing that’s fucking Noam Chomsky
here it is
iq is determined by probably 40-60% genetics which is huge and means about half of what ends up as educational attainment is inborn skill, if we include indirect genetic influence from mom and dad, who make up the environment its probably closer to 60-70% genetic influence. by 21 genetic influence is about .8 of all the expression of intelligence. you are basically a genetic machine when you’re an adult. a nigger is a nigger is a nigger
its a totalitarian society run by private interests everythig he has ever said has fallen on deaf ears. he’s allowed to say it because he can be easily contained

If user in the corner were a true litfag then he would know how to use the subjunctive case.

the absolute state of lit

>His own beliefs on how society should be run are a hilarious meme.

It's really unnerving to see his response when asked about how this society would work, he says, almost verbatim, "I don't know and there are many things that will have to be learned by trial and error", and I think this is how famines and genocides happen, some smugly critical intellectual ready to "try something through trial and error". Thank god he doesn't have an army behind him.

This pattern is even more hilarious and pronounced with eco-anarchists, who blithely talk about 99% of humans needing to die while living in cities and admitting their experience with the wild consists of short backpacking trips.

based user :3

>it all start from one hobbit wanting to escape broing work and some how got gold ring,
but Bilbo was basically aristocracy, he didn't work

the point of the study was that twins growing up in separated houses ended up with more similar IQs and socioeconomic levels than non-biological brothers growing up under the same roof with the same parents and same environmental variables

i personally don't care and i think it's retarded organizing your society around IQ unless you specifically want to produce a purity spiral of murder at some point

this is only valid if you think the world today is a smooth sailing ship run by experts and not a place where an entire continent gets austerity pushed on it because a couple of researchers made an error in Excel

This really upsets me.

He also says to get organised and involved in your community to change it

Austerity got pushed on it because the governments needed to raise cash quick. Glad Portugal and Ireland managed to balance their budgets and grow. Spain and Italy remain gridlocked and have done little. Much like in Greece, the left failed to offer a better deal than troika - they can talk about how the lenders are being unfair because it helps them get elected, but they know they can't get reelected if they don't find the cash to run government services. This is why left populist parties softened the anti-EU, anti-euro rethoric when they got big enough to win elections.

complete bullshit, you don't cut your way to prosperity
the greek left offered the troika a way to get their debts back - actually lend greece money to grow their economy instead of "lending" AKA giving them money to give to the banks and you'll get it all back
but that would have been ideologically and politically disastrous (because it would have worked) so they put the boot on their neck

He's done a lot of writing on labor. He likens wage labor to chattel slavery, but doesn't think "work sucks" as some anarchists do. He identifies the qualitative differences between the kind of work that's enriching and the kind that's soul crushing.

They could've used past loans to grow their economy - they didn't. This was either 1. imcompetency on the government's side or 2. the greek economy was already functioning at high efficiency (within what could be reasonably expected). The government just wants getting enough returns on it's investment to pay back the money it borrowed to invest.

Without deep structural reforms there is no reason to extect the state to change it's pattern of behavior - easy lending would just have created more poorly managed debt.

*just wasn't getting enough returns

lol, what do the past loans have to do with the situation that syriza had when they came into power (except the trivially obvious cause-effect connection), they couldn't step into a timetraveling phonebooth, go back before the EU accession, win elections and govern responsibly
and what did the troika do when people who were willing to do such deep structural reforms came into power - they fucked them
of course, while corrupt retards were in power everything was fine and the money flowed without problems

>and what did the troika do when people who were willing to do such deep structural reforms came into power - they fucked them
No, they bailed them out. The ones that went further in balancing the budget (Ireland and Portugal) are doing fine now.

Loans are given and taken voluntarily. Syriza doesn't have to take loans. But troika doesn't have to give loans either.

>No, they bailed them out.
they bailed their own banks out
Ireland and Portugal are exceptions, such exceptions that their success (or "success") probably doesn't have anything to do with balancing budgets and more with a myriad of other factors (Ireland's status as a tax haven and who knows what in Portugal's case)

loans being given and taken voluntarily (lol) has nothing to do with what should or shouldn't be done

austerity got pushed because the neoliberal economic model is beloved by the rich and powerful that want to cut back government services for people other than themselves

You mean governments bailed their banks out. It happened in countries outside troika's supervision too. Because they citizens would loose their savings otherwise. Are bankers to blame? Yes. And states didn't do enough to punish and prevent further crises of the sort. But the IMF, the EC and the ECB didn't buy CDOs, they didn't push subprime loans, they didn't run the hedge funds - those were all outside troika control. Non-central, for-profit banks did those things.

The success can't be directly attributed to balanced budgets it is true. Those only directly account for the health of the state, not the whole economy. Insecurity about the state does cause trust shortages in the rest of the economy, tho. If the state can't pay it's bills, government services aren't done and public workers aren't paid. Selling assets and cutting expenses is how they made enough money to pay most of those things, instead of eventually doing none of those things, and earn investor trust to fund further state intervention.

Portugal actually disagreed with troika on a few details and surprised them in a positive way, but reached and went beyond troika's goals (by achieving lower deficit targets) and this raised investor trust. People now believe Portugal is a state that can run efficiently, paying it's workers and investors on time. This translates into trust on the Portuguese economy in general.

The bit about Keynes that people forget, is that he tells you to pay your dues.

"Neoliberal" doesn't mean anything anymore. If Reagan-Thatcherism is neoliberal how come austerity's raising of taxes is neoliberal? If Pinochet was neoliberal, how come austerity's push for stronger regulation is neoliberal? The only thing that they had in common is privatizations, which were done with a completely different impetus in either case. Govs under troika didn't sell assets because "the free market will fix it" but because they needed to raise cash - it was just math.

>You mean governments bailed their banks out.
no, I mean after the crisis they lent them money which they then got back as loan repayment, while grinding the governments down with cuts to social spending (unimportant shit like healthcare, welfare, pensions)

>Selling assets and cutting expenses is how they made enough money to pay most of those things
I love this vague language of selling "assets" and cutting "expenses", when we're talking about turning public goods into private profit-driven enterprises and cutting people off from the little support they have/had, resulting in general immiseration
the economy is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around
if the bozos leading the EU had any brains in their heads instead of dollar (or euro) signs we wouldn't have ukip & brexit, golden dawn, afd, le pen, the austrian rightwingers, lega nord and m5s and various other right or far-right parties/movements being this popular and winning elections

What? You don't see how printing money and giving it away for free would make that money worthless?

Those public goods wouldn't exist if there wasn't a system of incentives that make people take functions as public workers. If you devalue currency, real wages and savings go down. To pay for public goods and workers when government revenues aren't high enough, you do deficit spending. Deficit spending is contingent on someone being interested in loaning money to the government. Troika stepped in as last-resort lenders because nobody in the world would loan money anymore or nobody would ask for less in return for those loans.

If they didn't controlled their currency, could they devalue their debt? Yes, together with wages and savings and pensions - because debt is negative money, so if you devalue debt, you devalue money. If you want to know what hyperinflation gets you look to Zimbabwe, where billionaires starve. Or Somalia, where the national currency is so worthless that people don't use it and have turned to foreign currencies and markets outside government control. You can offer a doctor 100 billion zimbabwean dollars to work for the gov, but he won't do it. Austerity is like amputation - if you got to the point you need it, you already screwed up, but if you don't do it the rot will get bigger.

Ask why M5 dropped the anti-euro schtick when they got big.