Goodnight, sweet prince

Goodnight, sweet prince.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=A6dpiZWJrug
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Don't get my hopes up

is chompy finally a good communist?

fail troll is a failure

At least he can join with pol pot to present his regards

why does Veeky Forums dislike him?

He is/was a polpot boo

Anti personal liberty Commie
Wrong about Sapir-Whorf

Nothing wrong with that. Pol Pot predicted the dangers of overpopulation and attempted to bring his Asiatic nation's numbers down to 1 million.

>LARPing this hard.

Pol Pot was an authoritarian anprim

He aint dead, he just made a speech.

That being said if he was dead, while I mostly disagree with him, I generally understand where he's coming from with his opinions and he is one of the few people I'd call a modern philosopher.

Veeky Forums does not dislike him. Some /pol/fags, who've never actually read any Chomsky, dislike him on principle because of a meme they saw one time.

Lol, case in point: . It's obvious you understand neither the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, nor Chomsky's linguistic work. A commie? Anti personal liberty? Plain wrong.

While I agree that "your intent doesn't matter much to the people you kill" is true, I think it's too simplistic of a way of looking at things.

Chomsky is/was an "anarchist"

Well he's obviously not going to endorse the use of political violence.

There's two groups who dislike Chomsky. The first are the ones who don't understand his work in linguistics and assume it's bad because their interpretation of his theories are, and I'm being as polite as I can possibly be here, fucking retarded.

The others are the people who don't agree with his political views, and will disagree with him on anything, including his linguistic work, based on nothing but this.

There's also some overlap here. Many people who feel like Chomsky must be wrong about linguistics because he's a libertarian socialist, or whatever he calls himself, will of course also usually pick up the most insane interpretation of his work that has no actual connection to anything he's ever said. There are also a couple of people who will say that it's a wonder that someone who's so politically enlightened can be such a bad linguist.

This is all insane of course. Chomsky's political leanings have no bearing on his work as an academic linguist, and regardless of wether you actually agree with his theories or not, there's no denying that they have been massively important and influential to the field at large.

None of his work will be remembered

see

>why does Veeky Forums dislike him?
Dissonance.
He's very acclaimed in his own field, and rightly so, but he takes advantage of his fame to push on his political ideas, which are every bit as banal and superficial as the average political commentator.
Most people can't separate his academic work and personal opinions, so he's hated outright. Same as with most other academics who insist to talk about stuff they know comparatively nothing about.

He makes a distinct difference between state violence and vigilante violence, is all I'll say.

He's a far left loon.

>Some /pol/fags
That's just a buzzword lefties on his use when they can't defend their fucked up viewpoints and failed ideology.

No user the majority hate this marxist.

his opinion is virtually the opposite though youtube.com/watch?v=A6dpiZWJrug

also he rarely talks about the constitution, you want greenwald for that.

I like him but he kinda embarassed himself with his pointless butthurt over Zizek.

Then he is/was just a gloficated hypocrite like zizek

glorificated*

You mean glorified?

Yes man, english is not my mother language.

>everything I don't like is /pol/

Would you just quit it already?! Come up with something actually new for once.

you're a far left loon

Who cares about his linguistic work? You can still mock him for his bumfuck retarded political stances.

Too balls deep in ideology.

doesn't. not even real /pol/ does.

He's a kike.

>DUDE THE CAMBODIAN GENOCIDE NEVER HAPPENED LMAO!

Does he ACTUALLY say this?

no, it's a meme

No, he said it was justified for enviornmental and political reasons.

He is/was a polpot apologist. check by yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman

NCIDF pls go. He said it was all CIA propaganda and that the cambodians dindu nuffin. And even after he got proven wrong, he still tried to downplay it as "not that bad"

People think just because hes soft spoken and articulate and quasi faggy, this somehow absolves him, but hes a sadistic piece of shit on the same level as the average stormfag.

I suppose you're a "radical centrist", amrite?

No. I suppose youre a really boring person who adopts this contrived "edgy" political meme view to substitute for your lack of personality.

> These experts would rather base their arguments on reasoning: if something seems impossible to their personal logic, then it doesn't exist. Their only sources for evaluation are deliberately chosen official statements. Where is that critical approach which they accuse others of not having?"[17]

Yeah, genocide deniers are all the same. This reminded me of the stormfags. Chomsky's a loon.
Centrism IS a political conviction though. It's intentionally as non-radical though.

>hes a sadistic piece of shit
More likely, like most western socialists, he's easily fooled by the propaganda of communistic regimes simply because he wants it to be true.

But didn't the New "People" deserve it? It's really just the American equivalent of emptying out NYC and California; no real loss.

>No, he said it was justified for enviornmental and political reasons.

That.....might actually be worse....maybe.

>too intelligent to have a political conviction

Ok petit bourgeois, eat your CIA propaganda.

Centrism is a political belief, you idiot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism
It doesn't mean "I don't have a political view on anything at all."

>If you don't subscribe to either the far-left or far-right, you don't have any actual beliefs

Veeky Forums is a zionist board

Your centrist world view is not one formed out of learning, reasoning and choosing. It's just being ass mad about people talking about politics. So you say stuff like "whatever, life is shit" or "whatever, both sides are bad" probably deep down you know it is a judgment based on partial/no knowledge of actual politics but you pretend to see "beyond", and this is very reminding of religious view of reality. I say reminding because its not the same, centrism is actually way shittier. While in religion the thing that goes beyond the struggles of people (and ultimately says they are meaningless) is a god like saving figure, in centrism the beyond is the status quo. Your message is don't worry, don't think, it's good now.

1.) I never claimed to be all-knowing or have all the answers
2.) What does this even have to do with the original argument that Chomsky is on-par with Holocaust deniers with his refusal to see the facts?

youre a child parroting memes that are retarded in the first place about topics you obviously dont even understand

show the quote.

What the fuck is your problem?

(5+5+5)/3=5
(1+4+10)/3=5

mate...

If you pretend political struggle is not left vs right you are a larping faggot with snowflake ideology (I now realized this is actually even worse than "classical centrism" since you will have less problems in supporting right wing) and you are friend of capital. I know you reading this will think you are a superior mind who can clearly see behind those stupid petty "things of the past", and this exactly because your rotten ideology prevents you from seeing the reality of class struggle, which is a material thing and not a fashion statement like your politics.

>If you pretend political struggle is not left vs right
I'm not convinced it is. in fact I think the left and right dichotomy is just a clever use of language that keeps people distracted and fight and sacrifice themselves for shit that doesn't affect them, instead of moving on with their lives and protecting their own and their own group's interest.

there are wise words in this wiki page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Not him but I just chose to not get involved and isolate myself from civilization. I live in the mountains in the middle of nowhere like my grandparents did.

Well, I think you are wrong.

I'm no fawning Chomsky fanboy. In fact I come from the linguistic side, that's what I've studied and what I work in. His theories on the "exact" mechanisms of language development are not quite canon, but still an important contribution. Really got the ball rolling, so to say.

As for his political commentary, I do find myself rolling my eyes sometimes, but he makes a lot of good points and is even right on the nose at times. I've read a half dozen books and more essays by him. That's certainly more than most of his critics, especially here.

An arachkiddie thats too old to break Starbucks windows, making lives for real leftists harder by peddling himself as one despite being an armchair establishment academic who sucks Rouge cock.

Should have stayed in linguistics.

>he doesn't know what he's talking about
>this tired old meme
>look how knowledgeable I am everybody, too deep for light fate like Chomsky, hon hon hon

The difference from your garden variety CNN shouty talking head is that he actually does know what he's talking about. If he sounds like other commentators you've heard, it's because he is the source. He's been into political theory since he was 10. He's just a bit autismo that way. I don't agree on everything, but credit is due.

>Chomsky
>Marxist
lol, see. It's statements like this that make it obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Read Chomsky and he us full of criticism for Marxism, as well as post-modernism.

For people like the guy you're replying to, "Marxism" is synonymous with "leftism," which can basically be defined as, "anything I am not, don't like or aspire to be, am politically opposed to, or feel threatened by." Hell, on a near-daily basis I see the likes of Paul Gottfried, Rod Dreher, Wendell Berry, John Lukacs, Ross Douthat and George Will being named Marxists by these folks, for no other reason than their rejection of one of the handful of radical individualist ideologies which constitute the modern "right" -- despite such rejection of classical liberalism being the defining feature of conservatism (when it was actually, you know, conservative).

You don't seem to understand the purpose of political accusations.
When someone from the right calls someone like Ross Douthat a marxist, they aren't saying Ross Douthat actually believes in historical materialism, LTV, or that sort of horseshit, what they are saying is that what he does is so milquetoast, so pandering to the left, that he might as well be a marxist.

>hurrrr people who don't know what they're talking about should shut up.
Pot, kettle, black.

A tired and grossly misrepresented episode, always brought up by ignoramus peanut gallery.

Chomsky's ideas were disproven due to research of the Piraha language. He is now irrelevant to modern linguistics.

That is exactly the point I'm making. It's nothing more than ignorant shit-flinging to make one's self feel good and to signal to the like-minded that this is the target of our inarticulate hatred, because reasons.

It's a "life as sports fandom" mentality that is unreflective, incoherent. For some it is, or began as, a game: as "political talk." But it never remains that way. As it continues to build upon itself it ossifies into a real, profound ignorance. It's the talk radio effect. Do you really think this guy actually knows fuck all about what marxism is? I doubt it.

>I don't know anything about linguistics, but I recall reading this on Breitbart.
Nah. That's not how it works.

that's the problem with mixing politics and learned discussion. politics involves rhetoric that is purposely exaggerated, ambiguous and emotional while in a learned discussion words should have a precise, or at least agreed upon, meaning. The other problem is that people without any ounce of learning, which is most of /pol/, adopt words and slogans without knowing what their actual meaning is. This is a huge problem not just on /pol/, though, but especially in America, where Marxism, Socialism, Leftism and Liberalism all mean the same thing in the right winger's mind, something else in the centrist democrat's or republican's mind and something else entirely to ideologues or academics. Sadly, I think these misunderstandings are created intentionally (by political parties i'm guessing) to prevent people from actually coming to agreement on ideas. Almost all political discussion from two opposing dies almost always gets derailed because there are two entirely different understandings of words.

>Do you really think this guy actually knows fuck all about what marxism is?
No, and it doesn't matter. The point of that sort of talk is to maintain formation.
All of that is absolutely good. No country on earth has managed to have such a deepseated opposition to marxist doctrines without being subjected to it.

>prevents you from seeing the reality of class struggle, which is a material thing and not a fashion statement like your politics.
class struggle is not objective. the material conditions might produce a class, but history has shown more times than not that classes as Marx conceived them never existed, acted according to their best interests and were social snobs striving for upward mobility.

>All of that is absolutely good.
how? Irrational hatred for Marxism is just as bad as unquestioning support for it, in my mind. It is conditioned into kid's minds from childhood to be the ultimate evil, and when you create ANY concept like that you're going to have people abuse that concept to high hell in order to shut down discussion, discredit one's enemies and identify it with any social, economic, political or cultural development you don't like. That kind of imprecision is awful for the development of independent thinking.

meant for you

>That kind of imprecision is awful for the development of independent thinking.
And now you know why such imprecision is pushed so hard by the leaders of their movements. Independent thinking doesn't generally translate into votes, contributions, and shady gold investment schemes and debt resolution scams.

>how? Irrational hatred for Marxism is just as bad as unquestioning support for it, in my mind

I don't see why, I don't care why the general population opposes something bad, I'm not under the delusion that you can ever make most people oppose bad things for proper reasons. That's the usual progressive thinking: we can just teach people to do things correctly, education works miracles and so on and so forth. No, most people don't even know why the earth is cold in winter and hot in the summer despite god knows how many years of education, if you think you can explain why very complex systems are good or bad for them you're just deluding yourself. This is incidentally is also why superstition when properly aimed is a very good thing.

>Chomsky's ideas were disproven due to research of the Piraha language
No. What Chomsky had said was that all humans were capable of recursion. He never said that all human languages must necessarily have revursion as an innate feature. So when Everett discovered that the Piraha langauge seemingly didn't have it, Chomsky's response was likely simply
>"Can they learn to speak Dutch?"
And then he went on to do whatever he did before he was so rudely interrupted.

Pffttahahahahahahaha
Are you for real?

Anyone that thinks anarchism is a viable ideology, doesn't matter their contributions elsewhere, deserves to be mocked mercilessly just like any other retard, yes.

the man's thinking is pretty much flawless, mocking him doesn't really work

Reasoning can be flawless, if the premises are shit, the result is going to be shit too.

>Khmer rouge dindu nuffin
Lol

hahahahahha

>look mum I did it agan kekbased xDDD
what premises are shit? he pretty much only uses the historical record.

>I'm not under the delusion that you can ever make most people oppose bad things for proper reasons.
My point is that this "opposition" shouldn't exist whether people know the proper reason or not. The Cold War ended years ago, yet "marxism" continues to incite hysteria and fear in people who hear the word. When that reaction continues to exist after the main proponent of Marxism collapsed, one has to wonder why (I suppose cause the cold war generation is still alive).

>That's the usual progressive thinking: we can just teach people to do things correctly, education works miracles and so on and so forth.
It's a caricature of progressive thinking and a projection of the academic status quo into the past and future. Education is not a panacea but there are better school systems than America's at the moment, that is a certain thing. Saying schools need to be improved is not the same as saying they can solve all social and intellectual issues for children.
>if you think you can explain why very complex systems are good or bad for them you're just deluding yourself.
Yes, you're a "noble lie" sort of person. Every society needs that but I don't see why Communism should receive such attention when it's such a remote threat (It has never taken control of a Western capitalist country before), when other more necessary "noble lies" can be invested in.

>My point is that this "opposition" shouldn't exist whether people know the proper reason or not. The Cold War ended years ago
So what? Better to keep the memory fresh.
>Education is not a panacea but there are better school systems than America's at the moment
This is irrelevant to my point, I'm not talking about making education better or worse, I'm talking about the impossibility of mass education to ever produce a population that knows the proper reasons to oppose and or support ideologies, ethical systems and so on.
>when other more necessary "noble lies" can be invested in.
Sure, I don't disagree with that.

>"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."

Yes, he ACTUALLY said that. Absolute madman.

>Cambodia scholar Bruce Sharp criticized Chomsky and Herman's Nation article, as well as their subsequent work After the Cataclysm (1979), saying that while Chomsky and Herman added disclaimers about knowing the truth of the matter, and about the nature of the regimes in Indochina, they nevertheless expressed a set of views by their comments and their use of various sources. For instance, Chomsky portrayed Porter and Hildebrand's book as "a carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources." Sharp, however, found that 33 out of 50 citations in one chapter of Porter and Hildebrand's book derived from the Khmer Rouge government and six from China, the Khmer Rouge's principal supporter.[8]

What he ACTUALLY said at the time was to aggresively campaign against people who were warning about the genocide including survivors. He wrote numerous petulant letters to publishers to discredit the word of actual cambodians

All he said was that we should not take victims at their word, as soon as they were talking to westerners they were compromised and politically biased against the regime. Not his fault it just happened to be true

he wrote a book about media and perception manipulation and used cambodja as an example because it was the syria/iraq of those days. people try to use this one sentence in the 70's where he used the word "alleged" regarding atrocities for which there were no evidence at the time to try to paint him as a heartless bastard when everything in his life points to the contrary.
it's nonsense and you should know it by now.

The only problem I have with him is that he somehow seems butthurt over Zizek.

As far as I understand it (correct me if wrong), his problem stems from Zizek being largely academic and useless for direct action which while true is exactly what I would use for Chomsky himself, what the hell has he ever done except stay comfy in his own ivory tower?

At least Zizek seems like someone who might actually be fun at parties.

zizek is a clown. and he rightly so doesn't take him seriously. i don't think it's animosity, it's just that he doesn't contribute with anything of interest to the discussion and chomsky doesn't pay attention to worthless junk (try to read a zizek book and you'll get what i mean with worthless junk)

"Distortions at Forth Hand" goes far further than "allegedly". He devotes considerable pages to denying the reports of genocide and to blaming all atrocities solely on the USA. It is nothing short of outright and explicit genocide denialism, and the fact that he NEVER retracted or even ameliorated a single word of it is proof enough that this was and remained his view.

Fucking hell thanks for the laugh

I'm sorry but he went far beyond media perceptions here, he targeted actual Cambodians survivors to discredit their testimony. His reasonsing was "lets be sensitve with alleged victims but we cannot take their anecdocal testimony over the facts we have", it's more an inditement of his scientific positivism than heartless nature I believe.

>being this butthurt
Anarchism is a disaster, even communism is less retarded.

show evidence

So what is the Alt-Right then? Is it a spooky boogyman like Hillary told us?