Is Chomsky worth reading? Why, or why not?

this tbqh

He has provided me with some pretty solid ideas for achieving world domination tbqh.

lmao

He's a histrionic contrarian who considers everybody who disagrees with him to be brainwashed, evil, or both. If you're a Salon-reading, slave-moralizing leftist, you'll probably drool over his descriptions of the Western political establishment while getting a big fat hard-on from the constant finger-pointing. I think there's some truth to his propaganda model, but a lot of it crosses into paranoia, especially now in the modern age of internet news and hashtag-activism. The New York Times shares more of his basic ideological principles than he'd like to admit.

I read him occasionally when I was younger and still appreciate his political writings for showing me the full extent of post-industrial state power. He makes well-reasoned arguments even if they're all based on black-and-white moral assumptions. His fanboys are some of the most sanctimonious and self-important people you will ever meet.

He's interesting to read for the western-writer-against-the-west perspective, but don't treat his writings like gospel. They are extremely biased and deliberately ignore reasonable counterarguments from the right on many geopolitical issues

He's a charlatan.
Don't even bother. Try some Burke.

don't go any further than manufacturing consent - and even the big shockers in that are outdated
>his concepts have already been absorbed by you if you have any social awareness
this tbqh

Some Burke-owski?

is Veeky Forums's opinion on chomsky worth anything?

why or why not?

I like his weird rivalry with Žižek and its worth reading Chomsky just to get background on their debates.

Also he's got interesting ideas in general.

The year is 2246... YouTube&FineBros Inc. have cloned Chomsky for his genetically ideal ASMR voice.

Chantel Mouffe (she has collaborated with Zizek)
Alain de Benoist

Definitely.
He's one of the greatest thinkers alive letting his politics aside.

youtube.com/watch?v=hdUbIlwHRkY

Are you kidding me? He's popular, so of course not.

Language Acquisition Device is a crock of shit tbqh with you laddy.

Read Syntactic Structures. Fucking great.

How do you explain language learning without it?

I guess it's all domain-general magic then, right doc?

Complete opposite.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Grammar#Criticisms

I'm actually surprised that Veeky Forums doesn't know anything about Chomsky.

The guy is right about almost everything because he doesn't veer away from the facts. The only problem is he doesn't entertain speculation and philosophizing so it can be a little dry, but he somehow remains entertaining because of his subtle irony and use of wit.

He explains why he's perceived as anti-west, his statement on violence and immorality is that generally the more powerful a state is the more crimes it will try to get away with. When he's overseas he criticizes other nations actions and policy, since he is American he spends his time criticizes us - that's all there is to it.

They agree about everything, Chomsky just doesn't care for flowery language and over intellectualizing. While I agree with Zizek on their disagreement I still like Chomsky for his stance.

I wonder where calling him a charlatan comes from? I heard how he did it to Lacan and thought it was so funny that I would from time to time repeat the same about Chomsky himself but this tendency seems to have spun out of control because he's the complete opposite.

nope, he's a dumb dork

total cuckup

Back to /pol/, kiddo.

Manufacturing Consent was good.

His critique of Pinker's "people are born with language" bullshit is good.

His denial of leftism having gone bananas with identity politics is pretty bad though, especially since it makes him a hypocrite.
>Gov and Big Business play identity politics? Bad!
>Individuals play identity politics in a rather unscientific and emotionally reactive and irrational matter? Good!

So he's a mixed bag.

but Chomsky himself has said that we shouldn't discuss certain ideas

>His critique of Pinker's "people are born with language" bullshit is good.
except his language views are the very same bullshit - people are born with grammar in their brains, sure m8

Citation?

Actually:
>Pinker believes "grammar types" are genetic
>Chomsky believes "pitch and emotional cue" are genetic
Not the same thing, and they have both criticized each other numerous times over this.

Link? You seem confused.

Honestly, outside of Syntactic Structures, he's pretty terrible (not to mention predictable). If you really want to get his opinions just watch his old debates with William F. Buckley Jr.

youtube.com/watch?v=piGbuSTckr8

youtube.com/watch?v=y9rUXFiohiI

Go back to /tv/, moron.

>He's one of the greatest thinkers alive

He's the greatest. He's in the top ten cited sources and the only one alive. He has a hundred honorary doctorates.

Shills will try and tell you he sucks but that's because he obliterates the right.

Also, it's rude to claim someone else is confused because of your own personal ignorance or personal incredulity.
It's very rude.

I would say watch the documentary manufacturing consent then decide if you want to read him.

>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.
from Language and Problems of Knowledge

The book is less taxing.

Nowhere does he say that concepts should be discussed.
Therefore: You're wrong and intentionally lying.

that's not the same as saying we shouldn't discuss it, you dumb fuck

Those videos have nothing at all to do with what you just said.

His speeches are easier going

youtube.com/watch?v=49J47OU2Rd8

You are seriously confused. You are not even using the terminology correctly.

>The theory of universal grammar proposes that if human beings are brought up under normal conditions (not those of extreme sensory deprivation), then they will always develop language with a certain properties (e.g., distinguishing nouns from verbs, or distinguishing function words from lexical words). The theory proposes that there is a innate, genetically determined language facility that knows these rules, making it easier and faster for children to learn to speak than it otherwise would be.

now, that's chomsky's theory

you truly seems confused

the implication is clearly there

The videos are over 15 minutes long and your timestamp reply is less than the that time.

Secondly, yes... the entire video set is entitled, and I quote:

"Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky's theory of Linguistics & Politics (Parts 1 and 2); subtitled:
Steven Pinker reflects on his admiration and disagreements with Noam Chomsky."

He disagrees with Chomsky several times in regards to genetic learning protocols.

You didn't even attempt to watch the videos.
#infallablefact

"the implication" = bullshit

Chomsky in short:
People are predisposed to LEARNING LANGUAGE FORMS AND ABSTRACTS VIA PREPROGRAMMED PROTOCOLS

Pinker:
People are predisposed to LEARNING LANGUAGE IN IT'S ENTIRELY DUE TO PRE PROGRAMMED PROTOCOLS ACTIVATED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CUES

Not only are you uneducated, but you're thick as hell. Definitely an F student for sure.
Maybe an C student at a very poor school.

I expect Chomsky drones to be unable to read between the lines but jfc

>The videos are over 15 minutes long and your timestamp reply is less than the that time.

Bullshit - I replied 18 minutes later. And I watched both halves of the video.

>Secondly, yes... the entire video set is entitled, and I quote: "Steven Pinker on Noam Chomsky's theory of Linguistics & Politics (Parts 1 and 2); subtitled: Steven Pinker reflects on his admiration and disagreements with Noam Chomsky."

Who the fuck cares what the title is? Are you retarded?

>He disagrees with Chomsky several times in regards to genetic learning protocols.

Of course Pinker disagrees with Chomsky - on language acquisition, on evolution of language, on the primary genetic function of language, on a number of topics. The point is that their disagreements have nothing to do with:

>Pinker believes "grammar types" are genetic
>Chomsky believes "pitch and emotional cue" are genetic

Which is what you wrote. And which is utter bullshit.

>You didn't even attempt to watch the videos.

Please tell me you are trolling, and not seriously this fucking stupid.

Just stop.

Kill yourself, mongoloid.

holy shit lmao

So, you were proven wrong, and now you're trying to exit the conversation while attempting to make me look like the uneducated guy.
You got blown the fuck out because you're some kid, probably in college, arguing about a subject you've only researched sporadically online while pretending to have read anything by either of them.
Have fun with your wikipedia education.
The rest of us with real education understand how debates and counter-arguments work.

I have a degree in linguistics. Your posts are pure cringe to anyone with a clue.

Hes not deep as a philosopher, but everything he has to say politically is factual and documented. Hes just a good political historian with an anti authoritarian bent.

Idk shit bout his linguistics though

>I'm a marine with super powers on the internet
Really, because my reading comprehension and writing scores were high enough to pay for my college 10 years ago, kid.
Your appeal to self-authority is also the cringiest thing in the universe.
Not only do you not have a degree in linguistics (which is proven by your posts because you don't even know how to write in complete sentences)
But you haven't even offered a single counter-argument, which indicates you've never set foot in a college.
Your vocabulary also indicates you have the mind of 6th grader.
So while I have an adult vocabulary and a college degree, you have what exactly?
Nothing but
>muh fake claims
Baw-hahahahaha

...

I don't care for his politics, but are any of his linguistic works worth reading?

>I'm actually surprised that Veeky Forums doesn't know anything about Chomsky.
>The guy is right about almost everything because he doesn't veer away from the facts.

I completely agree with you. He is an extremely thoroughly minded person who actively considers shit from all sides. I've found most of the criticisms against him to be a load of rubbish.

All of those are bullshit and none of them really address the core of what UG is.

Too true, I almost fell asleep once listening to his debate with Foucault

>>I don't care for his politics, but are any of his linguistic works worth reading?

It all depends if your to-do list is stacked with great books to read then it's not worth bumping any of them off the list. On the other hand, if you're stack of books is running out, it is worth it. You won't feel like you wasted your time.

Anything in particular?

>>Anything in particular?

There is also W.H.Thorpe
Animal Nature and Human Nature (1975)
Bird-Song. The biology of vocal communication and expression in birds. (1961)

Back to Chomsky, linguistics and what to read. There is some easy to read stuff that he writes about language in general terms. Then you have other writings where he breaks down syntax and grammar almost mathematically you could say. I'll give you an example from: On Certain Formal Properties of Grammars (1959).

"This paper is concerned with the effects of a sequence of increasing heavy restrictions on the class F which limit it first to Turing machines and finally to finite automata and, in the intermediate stages, to devices which have linguistic significance in that generation of a sentence automatically provides a meaningful structural description. We shall find that these restrictions are increasingly heavy in the sense that each limits more severely the set of languages that can be generated."

As his writings become more political he talks about the problems with language and the problems with English. If you get that far into Chomsky I suggest looking up Claude E. Shannon who is considered by many to be the father of mathematical cryptography. He wrote a paper "A Mathematical Theory Of Cryptography" (1945) where he points out all the redundancy in not just English but all language.

>if you talk about it you are a racist

Gee, how free thinking of him.

>destroyed by sam harris
>worth reading

we
w
la
d

But he's right. What practical consequences would you draw from the average black person being less intelligent than the average white person?

we could stop pretending that any unequal outcomes between blacks and whites is racism

you should avoid shitskins

you people are worse than Stefan Molyneux fans
as someone doing a PE degree, he isn't taken seriously
he is the definition of a sophist

if you'd read anything by him in terms of his views on propaganda in education you'd understand why he's not taught in universities

Says the dumbass studying physical education.

>as someone doing a PE degree, he isn't taken seriously
0/10

Or at least have a better handle on what is actually due to present racism and what is just due to history.

>an C

this

He obviously means political economy.
Explain why.

I know many linguists, he isn't taken serious even in this field, the professors scoffed over his theories.

because he hasn't contributed anything?
none of his thoughts are original or particularly subversive
the sort of people that think he is smart are the same people that watch Russell Brand

For an engaging overview of Chomsky's political thought, check out the documentary "Requiem For The American Dream" on Netflix.

No, you are seeing what you want to see

Here's my problem with Chomsky that I still have after reading all his political works, he doesn't define what his ideal society would like.

He can point at what he considers a problem or an injustice all day long but I have no idea what the world would like if all of his ideas were adopted in society, I can't imagine it would be better than today even if it would be "fairer".

Near term, a simple shift back to the New Deal golden era of the 1950-60s would be desirable by his lights. Less inequality, public policy less dictated by corporate interests, etc. Long term, a shift toward an up-to-date version of anarcho-syndicalism.

>Long term, a shift toward an up-to-date version of anarcho-syndicalism

I don't know what that would like today though or if it would even be possible or desirable for people who are not poor in abject poverty.

Comprehensive, thanks

Say again?