Chomsky

A long time ago, this guy and his works used to be discussed here on occasion. Sometimes favourably, sometimes not favourably, but the discussions were always about the man and his works.

In recent years, however, as Veeky Forums and the rest of Veeky Forums has slid more to the "alt" right, he *only* ever gets dismissed. The discussion never develops further than

>He's a hack when it comes to politics. Stick to linguistics.

or

>oy vey even his linguistic theories have been BTFO. Into the oven, shlomo

I do wonder, in the current climate of "redpilled" 4channers if it's even possible to have a thread discussing the works of one of our most prolific public intellectuals and political commentators.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KoNOQ7LMR8c
youtube.com/watch?v=MFMkzElZp08
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Shills somehow know when a dangerous thread happens and shit it up

youtube.com/watch?v=KoNOQ7LMR8c

His political commentary is really top-quality trolling. He cherrypicks statements, events and facts to build his narratives and he's very good at it, at least in the sense of appealing to impressionable young student types and want-to-become intellectuals.

The world needs people like him in moderation and you probably should read his works but at the same time you should not take them too seriously.

The best way to summarize his political commentary is: If Chomsky doesn't appeal to you when you're 20, you have no heart. If you still worship him when you're 30, you have no brain.

The opinion of Chomsky has always been
>He's a hack when it comes to politics. Stick to linguistics and discreet logic.
with the usual
>he stole all his shit about linguistics and game theory and I can't prove it but there it is

Sure, there were always some faggots who liked his political commentary. I myself love what he has to say about Israel, but that's about it. But that was because Veeky Forums in specific was filled to the brim with redditors and tumblrinas like /co/, who either got tired of Veeky Forums acting the way Veeky Forums is supposed to act, or moved on to their Veeky Forums echochamber.

"Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business…the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products."

>it's an "acclaimed professor who is a cornerstone of establishment criticises the establishment" episode

He's right about everything OP
Merikas foreign policy
Government working for the rich and powerful
Probably his linguistics dayjob too I dunno lol

The automatic dismissal of Chomsky long predates the alt right bullshit of the internet
Its a product of the institutional need to filter out dissenting views, to give the general population what I call a 'mental inoculation' against any dissenting critical view: Chomsky gets mentioned and someone immediately says Cambodia denial or gatekeeper. They haven't read or heard him say anything, but they're so taken in by conspiracy theories or the mainstream media they take it for granted and parrot it.

But all of his cherrypicked facts remain facts none the less. He's much more often correct than incorrect, especially younger Chomsky on politics

youtube.com/watch?v=MFMkzElZp08

post your favorite Chomsky talks. This one is mine

My impression of Chomsky is that he's very good at being quotable but he's not so good at being substantive. He has a habit for simplifying things to an extreme degree in order to sound bold, and it ultimately subtracts from his argumentation.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is a reason Chomsky is dismissed in the field of social and political philosophy; he holds views entirely based on emotions and empty ideologies and is unable to adequately defend them. As much as you would like it to be the case that his opinions and ideas are somehow being censored, the truth of the matter is they simply aren't. This is a common defense I have noticed, in which those unable to articulate their thoughts in a cohesive and convincing argument resort to blaming some "establishment" concieved in their minds for censoring their ideas, which will then justify their beliefs on the grounds that they are acknowledged and seen as threatening or at the very least relevant.

>he holds views entirely based on emotions and empty ideologies and is unable to adequately defend them.
That we ought to hold ourselves to the standards we hold others too? How emotional and empty.

if you want your child to come out retarded give them a Chomsky book

I don't think that user, or anyone, was implying de facto authoritarian censorship of his or similar ideas. The point was erely that a social mechanism exists that shuts down the ideas in a similar fashion to what OP was hinting at. For this mechanism to be triggered all it takes is a critical mass (a certain percentage) of users who hold certain views and behave in certain (mob/swarm) ways - this isn't limited to either the left or the right by the way, contrast /pol/ chomsky threads to milo threads on certain reddit boards and you see the same mechanism.

In fact, the way in which dissenting views are "shut down" in these social situations is entirely devoid of criticism of the ideas themselves. Typically the thread is spammed, or those holding the views are dismissed as being "shills" or "bluepilled" (tackling the man and not the ball, as my father would say).

>There is a reason Chomsky is dismissed in the field of social and political philosophy
But he's not. He gets a lot of oxygen in some quarters and attacked in others. In fact, I'd say the space in which he is universally panned is directly proportional to the space in which he is uncritically worshipped. Because of this, if he wants to be on any TV talk show (even conservative ones) talking about any issue, he can. He has the name recognition and speech eloquence to go where and when he pleases, he just tends to make fewer appearances than he used to because he's old, frail and sickly now.

There is nothing wrong with what you just said, if those were the entirety of Chomsky's views. But, they're not. Just off the top of my head, he believes in an anarcho-syndicalist society, yet fails to explain how to achieve it, and falls back on "common sense" as a justification. Just one example of an ideology that has little intellectual merit and is based entirely in emotion

To be fair, I wasn't talking about authoritarian censorship either, but to make the claim that certain boards or subreddits don't allow meaningful discussion on Chomsky doesn't prove anything, due to the tendency of boards or subreddits or any forum to drift towards one predominant culture, /pol/ being the most egregious offender

And also, sorry for making so many posts, but Chomsky is little more than a political commentator and you know it. He holds political opinions, sure, but he is dismissed by academics and its absurd to claim otherwise

This is the more common attack on Chomsky I see. A post like this without ANY specifics whatsoever. Any attacks on Chomsky reduce to these kinds of mindless "criticisms"

Promoting democracy is not a view "based entirely on emotions" and every debate he has he always cites the journals and researches he quotes and backs up his arguments extensively from historical sources

>is dismissed by academics
>is a professor at MIT
"No, Chomsky, you are the academics"
And then Chomsky was a zombie

>And also, sorry for making so many posts
I forgive you.

>To be fair, I wasn't talking about authoritarian censorship either
Ah good, then we're in agreement. However what I said about social group disruption of ideas is true, and you shouldn't dismiss it as mere "sliding". It's one of the larger problems of our day. Never forget that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of liberty and essential for the intellect. If you're only ever exposed to ideas you agree with, you will never be challenged. Dialectic is the only way anyone learns anything.

I used to revere chomsky hugely but when I saw him get eviscerated by Sam harris in that email exchange it almost traumatised me. Like seeing your perceived all powerful dad getting knocked out.

>If Chomsky doesn't appeal to you when you're 20, you have no heart. If you still worship him when you're 30, you have no brain.

This kind of bullshit reasoning will never cease to piss me off. Treat his arguments on a case by case basis.

CAMBODIA DIDN'T HAPPEN
ISRAEL MADE THAT UP TO MAKE CHOMSKY (PBUH) LOOK BAD.

Free Palestine

A lot of oxygen in the students union.