Chomsky

If you can't see why Noam Chomsky and Fight Club are on completely different levels then I can't help you.

Hey man, do dogs have certain tendencies of behavior that differ from cats and lizards? Humans have their own predictable tendencies of behavior as well.There is such thing as human nature, you can't see the forest through the trees.

Because he is a major figure in linguistics, well respected by academia, and is a profound thinker.

>If you can't see why Noam Chomsky and Fight Club are on completely different levels then I can't help you.

>post what amounts to "ugh, I cant even"

not an argument. Chomsky is a blithering idiot old cuck whos out of date. He still thinks hes the "edgy cage shaker" for bending over backwards to shill for islam since its a brown people religion and is such a coward he runs away from fucking Sam Harris and went on a tirade about how bad the "new atheist" are because they dare go after some barbaric third worlders. Hes a typical aging liberal oikophibic douche.

He built his career on literal plagiarism of de Saussure, and the placement of his students / cult of personality along with his outspoken (read: easy, lcm trend-baiting) views have cemented his position as an idol of academia.

Nonetheless he's certainly a very adept linguist and has been one of the greatest modern builders of the field, but his 'breakthroughs' were mostly taking previous work and rebranding it, or simply describing things that had been taken for granted but never given proper attention from the discipline.

Chomskyites are utter shit though, seems like everyone wants to be a linguist now because they think it's a platform to spout their ideologies, like philosophy students but with less intellectual rigor.

Have you ever actually read anything by Chomsky?

Indeed, have you ever actually read a book?

Do you seriously expect to agree with any well respected academic on any issue? I don't agree with those views of Chomsky as well, that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve respect and some degree of admiration.

It was not "I can't even" it was honestly telling you that if you can't wrap your head around that concept, you're too far gone to get through to.

Every issue*

>have you ever read chomsky?

Have you ever had your retarded sophomore meme beliefs challenged? Stop being a passive aggressive little twink faggot and form an argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=lgTX-c8aJ4c

I'm not arguing in support of Chomsky, or even challenging what you're saying. I'm simply asking have you ever actually read any of his books?

He exposes many uncomfortable truths that amerilards don't like to hear or talk about.

My problem with him is he is like Michael Moore or Bernie sanders. Controlled opposition only slightly more left than the center-left elites that don't advocate for real change. Just the illusion of it.

He fucking destroyed Sam Harris on a fucking email exchange. You have to be shitting me if you think Ben Stiller is in any way intelligent. All he does is say "muh Islam is bad because terrorism" without thinking as to why recent Islamic terrorism may have developed. Hardly an argument.

>I'm not arguing in support of Chomsky, or even challenging what you're saying.

you clearly are and are backing out of it now after I called you out on not only that, but also your inability to articulate your actual meme prop beliefs since youre a conviction less worm.

Are you really going to try and pretend you were just simply asking me about how familiar I am with his writings when you post some pissy comment about if I have ever read a book? This only furthers my case of the type of retarded college kid who thinks he can name drop Noam Chomsky and that they are "intellectual" youre just another faggot in a sea of faggots user.

If you think Sanders is or was controlled opposition, you haven't kept up with current events or read wiki. He was hated by the establishment and sabotaged.

Not him but you could at least lie and say yes, you're embarrassing yourself right now by trying to worm out of it. inb4 you throw a barrage of insults at me

>He fucking destroyed Sam Harris on a fucking email exchange.

No he didnt. He called him a racist because he dared criticize something other than White christian middle class americans.

You didn't actually read the emails, did you?

Nobody really cares about Noam Chomsky anymore. He was hot shit like twenty years ago, not he really isn't that prominent.

>Fight the establishment!
>Oops I lost, vote for the establishment!
>Thanks for the money, goys, I'm gonna buy myself a new lake house.

>you're embarrassing yourself right now by trying to worm out of it

How am I "worming out" of it by inviting this little exchange and having to drag you into it? Does your little pea brain really only capable of throwing the exact same insult back at me when it isnt relevant? And are you also so fucking stupid that you complain about me insulting others when you are doing the exact same shit?

Do you really think this is an effective tactic? What you're doing? Like I said, embarrassing. Accuse me of samefag all you want, I don't care.

>He was hated by the establishment and sabotaged.

He was hated because he was a fucking idiot, not because he was rouge. The real reason anyone really hated him is because they knew he had NO chance of beating Trump, an actual wild card outsider.

Sanders shilled for Hillary like the good cuck he is and then lost in a debate to Ted Cruz. What a pathetic faggot.

ok cool

now post an argument.

You first.

>WAAAAA! They are poor victims of circumstance there was never any war in the middle east ever until the evil americans bombed them so you cant notice any horrible things of their religion!

Im sure this shit is impressive to little bird brains, but its fucking retarded.

Not to mention most of his previous fans who were into anti-globalization movement are now cheerleaders for globalism.

The resistance to corporate capitalism now comes from the right, Chomsky means nothing nowadays.

Have you read any of Chomsky's books?

>The resistance to corporate capitalism now comes from the right

You really think Trump is resisting corporatism? Have you been paying attention at all? Just because his opponent was corporate doesn't mean he wasn't also. They're just slightly different strains who are appealing to different demographics.

I already posted my ideas that Chomsky is an idiot and is mostly just used as a prop for 20 year olds in the same way as a Fight club poster. Then all you could do is make passive aggressive insults about my intelligence because you are unable to articulate any actual counter argument.

Ah, I was right.

Not even that guy, but the topic of the emails was totally different from what you are talking about

That's not an argument, sweetheart, that's you throwing shit around, the "barrage of insults" that I previously referenced. Nobody takes that seriously. Like I said, embarrassing.

>They're just slightly different strains who are appealing to different demographics.

Is that why the entire establishment is against Trump while they were shilling non stop for clinton?

>That's not an argument

yes it is. Youre just a very stupid person and are getting angry at me because you arent able to form an actual thought. You use passive aggression to try and hide this lol

>the entire establishment is against Trump

Is that why the stock market is booming? Maybe it's some kind of false flag conspiracy.

>corporatism
REEEEEE corporatism is different from corpocracy!!!!! We do not have corporatism in America! We have corpocracy!

>but the topic of the emails was totally different from what you are talking about

No it wasnt since Noam LITERALLY talked about how 9/11 isnt that bad because middle eastern countries are bombed and they are all just victims of circumstance blah blah blah

>yes it is

That is so funny.

Your standards are hideously low.

>The "stock market" backed Trump so he could make it go up

Theres no way Chomsky fags are actually this retarded.

Who are you quoting?

Trump electors want him to resist corporatism, the fact that he won't do it will just radicalize them more.

>still hasnt given any counter argument

So far, all you have is a band wagon fallacy and playing right into the cliche of the faggy liberal college student retard. You probably have never and will never sexually satisfy a woman

Jesus are you for real right now? This has to be b8, nobody is this lacking in self-awareness right?

Between him, Trump, and Hillary he was the only one with a net positive approval rating. If anything Hillary was the only candidate that could've lost to Trump. The only reason he lost was because the democratic party had already decided that it was her turn™ back in 2011 when Hillary's right hand woman became the DNC chair.

Is he wrong?

Relatively speaking 9/11 isn't that bad. It's still bad, but there are worse things happening right now that get a smidgen of the attention.

>still no argument

Its funny because the MOMENT anyone says anything ill of meme chomsky, you shitpost your own thread into the dirt lol.

you think the "stock market" backed Trump or whatever

youtube.com/watch?v=nMJXN9l_ee8

>The only reason he lost was because the democratic party had already decided that it was her turn™

they sent out a few anti-bernie emails. If he couldnt survive that while Trump survived way worse, then he is pathetic. Just let if go you fucking goober. Hes a retard pussy and thats why retarded pussies liked him so much.

The main issue was over the bombing of that pharmaceutical factory in Sudan by Clinton, and how much intent matters in moral evaluations, but I guess that part was too complicated for you.

My thread? I thought it was your thread. In any case, you continue to impress.

>posting a 3 min video because youre butthurt at others because youre too stupid to voice your own opinion

wow, chomsky fanboys are so smart!

ummm? hello?

mmmmmmmmhhhhhhmmmmmmmm

das it mane bring it all on mmmmmmhhhhhhmmm gimme dose (you)s

>bring up that exact thing

>IT MUST BE TOO COMPLICATED FOR YOU, HUH?!

Are you retarded? And if anything, its too complicated for Chomsky since he didnt understand it at all and thought Clinton accidentally killing people in collateral damage is worse if not just as bad as terrorist intentionally killing thousands of people

All this shit aside, islam is still a shitty barbaric religion and Chomsky still shills for it because hes a typical old liberal cuck whos too much of a coward to criticize brown people because he still thinks Racism is a big thing.

>a video about chomsky vs a random comedy sketch

lol youre not only mad, but really really stupid

>its too complicated for Chomsky since he didnt understand it at all and thought Clinton accidentally killing people in collateral damage is worse if not just as bad as terrorist intentionally killing thousands of people
Not what he said, try again

>Not what he said

yes he did.

>2017
>Not being a muslim or at least an Islam symphathizer
Looks like we got a brainlet here, everyone

Seriously though, he literally said that. You are defending Chomsky when you dont even understand the basic concepts he is shilling.

Thanks again for proving my point about only dumb kids liking chomsky

>not being an islamic national socialist

whom'st've'ed do you think youre speaking to?

Nope. He said if you bomb a drug factory and people die because they can't get the drugs it produced that they need, you are morally responsible for those deaths because they were a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

It's okay. Eventually, with practice, you too can learn to read.

>>because youre too stupid to voice your own opinion

also this whole calling everyone idiots (and somehow thinking that's an argument) and backpedaling schtick is getting boring, I think this shit thread is already ruined beyond repair so there's not much left of value here

I hereby give you permission to throw out the last word, for posterity's sake

No, he said intention doesnt matter. haha you dont even understand your own prop beliefs

>I think this shit thread is already ruined beyond repair

yeah, because you had a shit fit and ruined it because someone challenged your beliefs :)

You are wrong. That is what Harris said he said, but Chomsky explicitly denied it. You are making a fool of yourself

>You are wrong.

No Im not. He literally said Clintons intentions in that bombing didnt matter. According to chomsky, its all the same shit because people died.

And once again, who gives a shit about this when the real topic is that chmosky is a cowardly islamshill because he doenst want to be called a "racist" because he still thinks in the 1960s

So he hated bill Clinton?

salaam alaykum, sadiq.

He said it didn't matter that his intentions were good if he could reasonably foresee that his actions would lead to those deaths. He wasn't saying intentions don't matter, but rather that Harris' argument that ONLY intentions matter is retarded.

I don't even care about Noam Chomsky, I just really hate Sam Harris and think he made a fool of himself in that exchange. I couldn't care less about the rest of this shit you're ranting about.

Yes

>The resistance to corporate capitalism now comes from the right
lol

Excellent argument, here's your reply!

>virtue signal

basement dweller desperate to appear intelligent detected

Yeah dude, don't you see how President Trump is sticking it to those globalists by cutting them nice fat tax breaks for not participating in the world market?

>And once again, who gives a shit about this when the real topic is that chmosky is a cowardly islamshill because he doenst want to be called a "racist" because he still thinks in the 1960s
Can you prove any of this in any definitive way?

>way worse

Being an outsider candidate in the outsider-loving GOP on a change year with like 9 other mouthbreathers to sponge up each other's votes? You're right, that sounds pretty tough. I would hate to have to debate such luminaries as Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson.

>Why does anyone in academia take anything this guy says seriously?

He almost single-handedly destroyed behaviorism.

Okay, so it's obvious that OP is a massive idiot incapable of forming any sort of sound premise on which to base an argument. Veeky Forums in general and especially Veeky Forums is ripe for this kind of bullshit. I'm personally tired of wading through it hoping to see a thread that's interesting and not just a lazy copy of a lazy bait post for the 100th time.

What is a better community on the internet for discussion of philosophy that doesn't take itself too seriously?

God it's like an SJW got a hold of a thesaurus and a random word generator of historical events.

No he uses hyperbolic language and thinks that America is just genocide all the way down.

youtube.com/watch?v=HCkPW3hxWns

Reddit

Chomsky is correct about a lot of things... if you prescribe to the libertarian socialist idea that states should base their foreign policy on morality and equate the actions of a country to that of an individual person.

The thing is that large states, especially superpowers like the US/USSR/EU, tend to operate based on realpolitik where they seek to find the quickest and most pragmatic way to their goal. That's where some of Chomsky's aruements and comparisons tend to fall apart, especially when he downplays Soviet/Cuban involvement in funding their own genocidal regimes.

>if you prescribe to the libertarian socialist
You really shouldn't as it is a paradox.

>hasn't read the Chomsky/Harris emails
>hasnt read Chomsky's books

are we sure this idiot user can even read?

the best way to resist corporate capitalism is to cut regulations and give them all cushy white house jobs. i think marx wrote about it.

maybe they shouldn't base their actions on morality but maybe they shouldn't base their actions on retarded "I'll finance these nun-rapists so the perfidious red doesn't get a foothold" or "I'll do a coup d'etat cause banana pickers want to be treated like human beings and support a government that commits a genocide" premises either

Really dissapointed to read his reaction to the Cambodian Genocide by the Khmer Rouge

That's assuming that they choose to ignore the flaws of said nun-rapists and dictators rather than supporting them knowing that the very nature of the regimes would work to contain the spread of revolutionary, Soviet alligned communism, which it did in all cases but one (Cuba).

He claimed that Bengal once had the most books per capita than anywhere in the world. Is this true?