Why fucking everybody seems to know him only for his political books and nobody ever even mention his linguistics works?

Everyone taking a Compilers or Automata class learns about Chomsky grammars

This.

He's a faggot cuckold

t. the armchair revolutionary

Yes, you can be damn sure I'm going to 'take a swipe' at someone who supported the Khmer Rouge.

Probably because he's a showboating fag that's lectured way more about political science than he has linguistics.

This is stupid. Not because you're wrong, but because literally any government will utilize the processes and systems identified by Chomsky because government exist to control their populace. The government can be left or right, it's still a government, and all governments are guilty of the actions Chomsky identifies.

Don't forget the behaviorists.

If I refuse his political works, will you approve?

i guess chomsky's a really smart man and all that but on the whole his influence on linguistics hasn't been all that positive. generative grammar as a whole is a dead end desu

Is =/= Ought.

Not saying I like that fact, mind you, just stating that's the reality. Really everyone should be mad but not at Chomsky. Get mad at the government for being cunts.

my memory is kinda shit, sorry, how many times did Harris brag or even bring up his vast contributions to neuroscience?

honestly i just dont have time for linguistics, im a biosemiotics jebronie myself but i dont really like studying humans. I do like his political commentary and reporting, its top notch and relatively factual.

if you don't like studying humans, chomskyan linguistics should be right up your alley. it takes everything that is human, cultural or historical out of language and relishes in abstract constructs that bear no relation to reality

while i have never studied his linguistics in detail i can tell you are probably wrong.
the abstract constructs do bare a relation to reality its just all the noise is abstracted away. this is the entire basis of theoretical science, to identify general properties. The general supervenes on the particular.

"bears no relation to reality" may be a little hyperbolic but i am not talking out of my ass. i have a degree in linguistics from a hardline chomskyan university and i can tell you that despite its pretenses the generative approach is actually very unscientific. The thing with language evidence is that it isn't quite like evidence in the natural sciences - you can't pin it down as clearly and the Generativists freely ignore or "explain away" any inconvenient facts they encounter, so they can hold on to their theories about how language works in "the mind". They never specify how they think this "mind" relates to actual neuroscience and are also quite uninterested in empirical results from neurolinguistics because they say that field is "not advanced enough" to give helpful results. If you're interested in the details, i recommend you check out what Croft says about "methodological opportunism" in linguistics.

Because innate grammar is not the best theory.

>and also because his work in politics far outweighs his work in linguistics for many people, though I will admit the fact of his being a linguist greatly enriches his philisophy/historiography.

Find a more balanced comment on this whole board. I dare you.

are you trying to imply that chomsky regularly brags about his work in linguistics while talking about politics?

>supported the Khmer Rouge
when will this meme end

he supported the khmer until not-american sources confirmed the genocide. then he retracted his support and condemn the regime. he has his priorities you know.

He didn't support it at any point.

>Lump a bunch of concepts together that were invented by others
>Claim mental superiority and celebrity scientist status
At least he is better than Bill Nye.

>Journalist Andrew Anthony in the London Observer, said later that the Porter and Hildebrand's book "cravenly rehashed the Khmer Rouge's most outlandish lies to produce a picture of a kind of radical bucolic idyll."[19] Chomsky, he said, questioned "refugee testimony" believing that "their stories were exaggerations or fabrications, designed for a western media involved in a 'vast and unprecedented propaganda campaign' against the Khmer Rouge government, 'including systematic distortion of the truth.'"

More like
>produce an unhuman amount of acedemic work
>constantly talk
>never claim intellectual superiority
>gain the respect of everyone just by prolifically publishing top quality content
>treated as deserved

this is from chad meme?

I was under the impression that he understood this. And that his beef was with American exceptionalism, since we're doing it for freedom and liberty and denim and shit.

The crazy thing to me is that this is the massive majority of right wing rhetoric today: get off your fucking high horse because we all do it. He should be an idyllic figure for the trump's right. Because he issues challenges to establishment right and left wings for covering up war crimes and tyranny.

>because he issues challenges to establishment right and left wings for covering up war crimes and tyranny.

Chomsky seems like a radical centrist to me.

Yes, he was skeptic of testimonies initially. He never supported the regime.

>because government exist to control their populace
>implying

>dems are left wing

>he waited for multiple sources to come to a conculsion in the propaganda shitfest that was the cold war
Horror.