Linguist

The Turner Diaries by William Pierce

Agreed.

If genocide is a problem, I should hear you far more vocal about /pol/, right?

Or what about the fascists you must hate with equal disdain for not supporting American values? Or do you think they support American values?

...

...

If that's all it takes to be a polymath nowadays, then how far the bar has fucking sunk.

What's with the Noamshills lately?

pseud for pseuds

Chomsky pioneered the Nativist argument for early linguistic acquisition, which has been refuted by the work of many linguists since. I'll listen to him on other stuff, but not linguistics.

Dumb frog poster

It's been attempted to be discredited, though the matter is still strictly divided.

>Tfw people insist he's only worth listening to for linguistics
>Tfw he's been debunked even there

could you tldr me on the Nativist argument?

Well, he thinks Obama's pivot to Asia is all foul.

He sees it as antagonizing China (as if China, that IP thieving database breaching piece of shit) is some guiltless innocent babe.

If the US pulled out, presumably Chomsky would suggest that would stabilize the region. After all, leave Asia to the Asians.

Fuck off back to Dumblr fag

Except fascism is inherently unAmerican and America will always be a bastion against fascist resurgence (unless trump wins)

You can't have your big fat nice shiny freedums with a side of fries when you're busy bootlicking ein Führer

>citing a 30 year old meme
Kek, learn to google sometime

>freedom
>democracy
>equality
>good

I can.

Essentially, the brains of tots come genetically packaged with specialized machinery for processing and producing language. The environment and upbringing has nothing to do with it besides filling in the surface details.

Well, that does sound like a pretty weak argument

What Stirner argues is worse.

Well, that's not the argument, it's the conclusion.

The devil is in the details.

Hearing Chimsky and his acolytes talk about it, they make a persuasive case.

...

Yeah, Im not trying to refute it, but a lot of examples contradicting it sprang to mind when I read that.

>a lot of examples
Mention at least 5.

Why doesn't he talks about Venezuela anymore?

I loved his comments on the Bolivarian Revolution.

I wish we could use Chomsky's opinions as toilet paper in Venezuela...

can you explain how it has been refuted? I am not a linguist (hopefully will be tho) but as far as I can see, almost all of the humans, regardless of their 'mother tongue' start developing language at about the same time with a similar path to perfecting the use of language.

Does anyone have that pasta about Chomsky?
I didnt save it before mods deleted it

nvm found it

A Jewish anarcho-syndicalist MIT professor of linguistics and opportunistic political activist was teaching a class on Rene Descartes, known rationalist.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Descartes and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than me!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, humanitarian Harvard behavioral psychologist who had conditioned over 1000 pigeons to compete in ping pong championship tournaments and understood the necessity of reinforcement and punishment for the creation of a Walden-like utopia and fully supported all breaches of research ethics made by J.B. Watson in the name of science stood up and held up a chimpanzee.

”How many signs does this chimp use to communicate, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “None, language is innate and uniquely possessed by the human species, you stupid empiricist”.

”Wrong. It’s been 58 years since you published Syntactic Structures and plunged us into the dark age of cognitivism. If it was language was not simply a semiotic system among many and Universal Grammar, as you say, is real… then we would be speaking Hebrew now”.

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and his favorite Bill Cosby sweater. He stormed out of the room crying those anarcho-syndicalist crocodile tears, the same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they publish tracts condemning right-wing dictators and ignoring the atrocities of left-wing rulers in Peru, Angola, Pakistan, and Equatorial Guinea. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Noam Chomsky, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist anarchist professor. He wished so much that he could blame his actions on the environmental influence of the academic ivory tower, but he himself had argued against it!

The students all predictably applauded at this positive stimulus that day and accepted B. F. Skinner as their lord and savior. An eagle named Radical Translation flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and Willard van Orman Quine himself showed up and abolished all cognitive psychology departments across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay for political subversion and was forced to watch looped footage of Foucault laughing at him for all eternity.

Anyone got any actual suggestions? Serious

Do you like capitalism ( remember that doesn't mean only laissez faire)? If not what is your preferred state then?

please

what's this from?

>economics
>kek

I remember when I was 16

>The students all predictably applauded
kek

Both are shit. What does /pol/ have to do with anything? People like you and Chomsky who feel the need to constantly bring up unrelated shit in discussion are
mind numbingly retarded.

>/pol/ is awful too!
>The US kills people too!
No shit, shut up. You bring nothing to this place.

the evidence for it is extremely strong. it's called poverty of stimulus. people have attempted to show that language can be learned with domain-general learning, but they always require some Universal Grammar principles. for example, one of the cases thought to be most simple was identifying word boundaries using the drop in transitional probability of sounds at word boundaries. for decades people thought you could segment words that way, no UG required. however, a few years ago it was demonstrated that that method is inadequate, and that UG principles are required. check out the paper by charles yang if you're interested in the facts web.mit.edu/6.863/www/fall2012/readings/tics-final.pdf
there is other evidence in learning syntax, for example the fact that there are many logically possible errors in language learning that children just never make. if you're interested in that part of the argument, take a look at this paper by julie legate ling.upenn.edu/~ycharles/papers/tlr-final.pdf

Considering the best in academia haven't fully refuted it, I'd love to see what you've got for us.

To be fair he's probably correct in a soft sense where our brains have a natural propensity towards language (what he would call the Language Acquisition Device), but seeing as there are vastly different languages and grammatical structures across the world it's more likely to be a combination of nativism early on, but later Skinner's behaviourism argument (the child imitates speakers around him/her and these people positively reinforce correct utterances) and Bruner's ideas about child-directed speech and social interaction as the driving force behind acquisition. This is because hard-line nativism doesn't account for the pragmatic and contextual factors (everything from regional dialect or accent to politeness strategies and facial expression) in effective communication.

Savage

>but later Skinner's behaviourism argument (the child imitates speakers around him/her and these people positively reinforce correct utterances)
The problem there tho is:
1. Children actually respond piss poorly to this during language acquisition
2. People (mostly) don't talk to kids normally (motherese and so on) for a very long time
3. We have our own dialects but also an idea of what speaking proper like is
4. We if anything use more and more novel utterances that make sense as time goes on

And this is being nice. The last point is just the tip of the iceberg of what is so fundamentally wrong with behaviourist approaches to language. Shit don't make sense.