Is he the greatest author/philosopher of our time?

2/10 bait

>t. feminist vegetarian numales who hate whiteness and masculinity

Face it, we won. Enjoy the next 8 years, brainwashed retards

This.

Right wing fedoras should make like Christopher Hitchens and die already.

>/Pol/tard calls other people brainwashed

Is there a single name, title or historic event he doesn't remember? Chomsky is a fucking encyclopedia.

>8 years

The orange is going to be impeached, have a heart attack, or suffer a devastating backlash in the midterms

>implying Veeky Forums is catholic
this is a tolstoyan christian anarchist board.

the sad thing is he's probably one of the last of what we'd consider "public intellectuals".

I read an interview once with someone who made a trip with him to Laos a few months after the bombing of the Plain of Jars, the day they met the guy gave him either a book on the area or a books worth of government documents I forget which
The next day Chomsky was quoting whole chunks of it while interviewing government officials
He had read the whole thing in a night

>It starts
>Catholicism founded on reason and objectivity
Honestly you fucked up at the start.

Thank God.

He's an idealist. Anyone who thinks some random grab bag of political ideas is The One Truth has poisoned his mind from the outset. All ideas are immediately coloured by it, and altered to fit into the paradigm. It makes one blind for the failings of their "side". Anyone who waves a red flag is no better than a football hooligan who wants to kick ass for his club. Provide the hooligan with a proper vocabulary and convince him to lay off the brews for a while, and he'll come up with insights to rival any ideological "philosopher".

Even so, he will still have sown the seed for a future white America. Our children will be raised white without the current threat of genocide hanging over them

Why?
What was wrong with the reformation and enlightenment?

>It takes 10 minutes to decode a lie
I didn't think Chomsky's preference for stretching out what could be answered in a minute to over ten, was a motto he consciously lived by

And this fag clearly doesn't know what he is saying. There is no substance. Its nothing but a meaningless vague word salad and pejoratives.

Because you have to explain what was happening and what Comsky and Herman were doing
He didnt even get into East Timor which was the whole point of their analysis of the coverage of Cambodia

They ended the true age of reason that occurred under the Catholic Church

Read some pic related, ffs

>What was wrong with the reformation
Literally the whole thing tbqh. It caused the counterreform, which was great, but other than that the whole thing.
>What was wrong with the enlightenment
The creation of the pure autism that is Representative Democracy, the rapid surge of atheism, the deaths in general, lots of stuff tbqh.

>the true age of reason under the church
>you must be peasants it is gods will, your suffering is divine
>paying money to forgive sins
>crusades
>kill all heretics
>heliocentric model is wrong we will kill you

I'm glad to see that rambling on isn't something he usually does.
youtube.com/watch?v=wtm-JmnSK_E

>tfw you don't have those neat Ashkenazy genes and an excellent academical upbringing, nurtured by well-read, extremely intelligent parents

Not fair, I'd say.

>The creation of the pure autism that is Representative Democracy, the rapid surge of atheism
I this the lit guy or the pol guy?
I can't tell who's trolling who anymore.

Doubt it, seems like fanboy bullshit.
You have about as much understanding of the Age of Reason as Carl Sagan or Bill Maher.

You are simply butthurt. This posturing is meaningless. My poist is clear as day: Anyone who believes in an ideal, like Marxism, is incapable of objectively assessing said ideal. Something that is clearly present in you, commie dumbass that you are. Your entire post is just a morass of lazy insults and righteous indignation that someone dared question your Great Leader.

And if your revolution ever comes, you'll be among the first they'll take care of, as they always do. Once the enemies are gone, they'll find new ones in the dissenting voices among the believers. And they always manage to find them.

He talks costantly about it in his major works (it's a pretty big point in Manifacturing Consent): the idea that everything can be explained in a few seconds only because the question was straightforward is a tool that is costantly exploited, with intellectually dishonesty.

The truth is that in the answer he gave there was no useless or redundant information. That guy accused him of having been a Pol Pot supporter, Chomsky responded by giving an actual, factual historical report of what his critic (and the general one) has been in those years.
There was no rambling, only facts linked logically and chronologically.

How would you have summarized it? What details were uninportant?

What ideal does Chomsky believe in?
At this point I'm surr that he only believes in core, human values, mostly based on common sense.
To say that he has been a Marxist ideologue is ridicolous.

>the idea that everything can be explained in a few seconds only because the question was straightforward is a tool that is costantly exploited, with intellectually dishonesty.
Actually, the evasive, droned-out answer is the intellectual dishonest one more often.

Having a fire lit under his ass by a critic trying to discredit him is possibly the only thing that could keep Chomsky on point.

>How would you have summarized it?
Some guy fabricated the 2 million figure by adding the 800,000 killed by Nixon's bombings into the number killed by Pol Pot's regime.

His father worked in a textile sweatshop when he first came over from the Ukraine, joined the IWW, eventually became a teacher and worked on Medieval Hebrew

Chomsky got sent to an experimental primary school modelled on the teachings of John Dewey, students were encouraged to pursue their interests without grades or a set curriculum

They lived in an Irish/German Catholic neighbourhood in Philadelphia, every Sunday the kids would beat Chomsky and his brother up after they got out of Sunday school learning about the Christ killers. There were torch lit rallies in the street when the Nazis entered Paris.

Most of his family were unemployed and poor during the depression, but there was a sense of solidarity and work was going on to overcome the depression (unlike today) and an intellectual culture - they would organise orchestras and trips out to the country side and he had an uncle who ran a news stand in New York and he would hang out there meeting radicals and exiles

>this posturing is meaningless

Big talk from a man who spouts empty condemnations

good post

>every Sunday the kids would beat Chomsky and his brother up after they got out of Sunday school learning about the Christ killers.
Utter bullshit.
>There were torch lit rallies in the street when the Nazis entered Paris.
In Philadelphia? Complete and utter bullshit.

>Veeky Forums is a marxist catholic board
Wrong

He is an anarcho syndicalist.
But he does not lay down in concrete how such a society should take shape - he is an anarchist! he doesn't believe in authority! he believes in self determination obviously he doesn't tell people "I've got it all figured out this is how its all going to work", in fact you should be wary of such people.

>evasive
Chomsky's answer was not evasive in the slightest. It was actually factual.

>Some guy fabricated the 2 million figure by adding the 800,000 killed by Nixon's bombings into the number killed by Pol Pot's regime.
That sentence begs for explanations and justifications. What you're saying makes sense only if everyone is already aware of what you're talking about, wich doesn't happen in this case. I mean, this was also a major point in his answer, since he stated multiple times that the sources he's citing were practically censored in the US.

Well, if he isn't a Marxist, he certainly talks like one.

>evasive, droned out answer
What was?

>Some guy fabricated the 2 million figure by adding the 800,000 killed by Nixon's bombings into the number killed by Pol Pot's regime.
And he provided evidence and citations

>What you're saying makes sense only if everyone is already aware of what you're talking about
Everyone does.

And I said the longer answer is usually the more evasive one, fanboy; the tactic that Chomsky usually resorts to.

Well thanks for your well argued response

You mean, he disagrees with you?

Do you seriously think he got beat up in Philadelphia for being Jewish, even after the Catholic church had expressed explicit disapproval for antisemitism since the middle ages?

And show me some evidence for these torchlit fascist rallies in Philadelphia after the Nazis took Paris.

This.

>I can't name a single thing he was wrong about.

Does it make sense to be precise? Can Western democracy work everywhere only becuase it is doing great in Switzerland?
You're the ideologue here. Chomsky thinks that the ideal world is anarchic, and that the closest way we've got to get there is anarcho-syndacalism. Does it make sense to say how this society will work without knowing amything about factors such as: the culture we're talking about; in what year the revolution will explode; what are the resources and characteristics of tha time, etc.

What you're asking is an example of perfect political theory, wich has literally never happened, not even when we take in consideration the system, we live under now.
What instead he can do is to criticize the crime of the current system, and educate the masses thoroughly on what this system actually looks like when you look at it on a global scale.
It's almost a clichè at this point "showing people the actual, uncensored and unbiased datas is enough". When you look at his body of works you will find almost no anarchic propaganda, only critics on actual atrocities and censorship, that any ethical man may make.

He may be a leftist, bit he's unbiased. Most of the critics he's moving may come out from a Christian conservative. That's his strongest weapon.

I've already explained it twice. Are you sure you aren't just a butthurt idealist, reeling at being told you don't have all the answers?

Those years of being triggered took their toll.

He's far left, so he's automatically wrong in the only social science that matters - economics

Go fuck yourself.

So, have Chomsky ever wrote that Pol Pot didn't kill anyone?

>Everyone does.

So everyone knew the history of the first sources on the Khmer Rouges, their reviews and their publishing history? Did you know any of the things he said? No, you only knew the summary (sources weren't reliable in the mid '60s), and that's apparently enough for you.

Let me ask you this question again: what are the useless informations in his rebuttal?
I'll remind you that the initial question was a personal attack on Chomsky, who was accused od being a Pol Pot supporter.

Why are you so mad? Please tell me more about your feelings. Maybe you should write those down and we can create a science together :)

We'll call it - sociology

>Everyone does.

He was responding to a critic. Someone who would not know.

>usually resorts to
[citation needed]

...

Well, I do disagree with him. I disagree with Marxism as a whole. But it's a soft science. He uses Marxist arguments, he supports Marxist causes and regimes, and Marxists support him in turn. He may hold this uniquely personal point of view about the ideal world, but we all do. His is only more known because of his fame. In the grand scheme of things, he's virtually indistinguishable from mainstream Marxism.

So even if he holds a less dogmatic views of things, he's still joined at the hip with the dogmatic idealists. Though I don't think a man who is on record as denying a communist genocide and referring to his detractors as "fascists" can be accused of being a moderate.

>Do you seriously think he got beat up in Philadelphia for being Jewish, even after the Catholic church had expressed explicit disapproval for antisemitism since the middle ages?

Is this nigga serious?

>show me some evidence

Google German American bund celebrate fall of Paris

You haven't explained anything because you haven't said anything

You should read George Orwells essay Politics and the English Language

The psychological sciences are valid, but also sadly succeptible to people impressing their own view on them. Chomsky was one of those people, as he railed against Behaviourism, a type of psychology that sought to eliminate "guessing" at emotional states. As the title states, only behaviour was the subject of research, because (at the time) only behaviour could be observed.

Your right. If someone can't understand that economic models that ensure a concentration of wealth and political influence amongst a wealthy elite isn't the right and proper way to shape society, then they're an ebil gommunist

Watch it again

No, I simply said things you either do not understand, or do not want to understand. I could write an entire essay on my views, and you would dismiss them, because you are a butthurt fanboy who puts so little effort into his posts that he can't even find the period key.

>The fall of Rome was beneficial

No he doesn't

I've literally never heard him using any Marxist term or concept. I mean it.

You don't need Marxism to criticize what was happening in Cambodia.

>arguing for behaviourism
>in a chomsky thread
You're not even trying to hide your crude efforts at trolling

How is he a philosopher? He was a linguist then a political writer. Those are far from the main fields in philosophy.

I mean has he even tackled Nietzsche? If he wanted a philosophical foundation for his work, rather than just "common sense" "basic human values" cop-outs, then he'd need to be able to side-step Nietzsche's critique of ethics. Until then his whole political project is trashed, whenever it appeals to anything more than "objective" descriptions.

I think Marx had the same problem with Stirner.

Why is Bateman as the pic of Veeky Forums? Did the person who made this never read AP?

I don't understand because there is nothing to understand, its empty verbiage

They don't you fucking retard you're just buttmad that Marx and his cult worshippers contributed NOTHING to mainstream economics

He doesn't do philosophy, he only tackles linguistics and political theory.
People usually try to downplay his contribute in the latter field, but a quick glance at modern political theory curricula will show you that he has been an authority for almost 50 years, with good causes.

also kek@this
>Chomsky got sent to an experimental primary school modelled on the teachings of John Dewey, students were encouraged to pursue their interests without grades or a set curriculum

I mean if he's just a Dewey disciple then that would explain the lack of philosophy in his work; Dewey was pretty crude in regards to taking on the entire philosophical tradition, and at least he qualifies as a philosopher more than Chomsky would.

He's not much of a philosopher so no.

>Economic inequality caused by global capitalism
Proof that the only humanities & social science that isn't retarded is economics

Ok, first off if they're attending a Chomsky lecture, they're going to have a decent understanding of what the Khmer Rogue was.

>Let me ask you this question again: what are the useless informations in his rebuttal?
You might be slow, so I'll try to go at an easy pace. I told you that the extended answer is often a tactic used for evasion (against the incredibly stupid suggestion that a concise answer is the one that more often evades and conceals), and that Chomsky often answers questions in this manner. Were not playing this game where you're controlling the questioning in order to dismiss what you don't like about the guy whose dick you like the taste of. We don't need to hear about vague references to "the media" "misquoting all over the place" (whoever the hell that is); he could've answered the question by stating that the source added the 800,000 killed by Nixon to the number killed by Pol Pot, getting away with it through censorship by the US government and credulity of the US public. This isn't a 14 minute response.

Honestly, you're not even second-rate.

I've already posted a video in this thread. I'm not going to hold you hand and wipe your ass for you as well.

>I don't have any evidence for my baseless claims and I've dug myself into a hole. I really want to exit this losing conversation right now, so I'll finish with "just google it" to save face.
Nice.

So butt hurt
What is there to kek at? That primary school experience influenced him all through his life.

He is responding to the critic
You can't seem to get that
I think we need to consider autism at this point
(For you, not Chomsky.

>censorship by the us government
It wasn't the government, it was the media

Its not my fault you don't know history
I tell you to google it because any source I provide you will say isn't good enough, doesn't have enough facts, is biased, etc - you know widening the goal posts
Its the classic tactic of people who won't search for themselves
They don't want to know
They will refuse anything that contradicts their worldview
And no worldview needs more protection than that of Americana

To add a little bit to this graph you present

>the word of the great leader can not be questioned

Behavourism is outdated, but it was quite valid during its day, and provided a stark move towards scientific psychology, in contrast to the intuition-based German psychology, which was in turn wiped out by idealogues as well. Honestly, it's funny how psychology is always the first victim of people who want to tell others what to think, huh?

Lmao look up Chomsky on Zizek kid. Maybe if it's YouTube, in a video format, you'll be able to comprehend it ;)

>He doesn't do philosophy, he only tackles linguistics and political theory.
>People usually try to downplay his contribute in the latter field, but a quick glance at modern political theory curricula will show you that he has been an authority for almost 50 years, with good causes.
I mean that's fine and all. But I hope there's no suggestion (and the common misconception that he is a philosopher at times reflects that there often is) that Chomsky's (and academia's) political theory is philosophically-based. It's a set of assumptions, which are able to be challenged in the same way Chomsky likes destroy a lot of powerful assumptions.

Another thing is that if people were to claim his best bits are amoral cold objective descriptions, that is problematic when you consider that objective knowledge isn't valued in itself. Especially, political knowledge, is used towards a philosophical goal. It's like how so much of the nazi and many 19th century science is not only dismissed for being outdated, but also because it served a disliked philosophical objective. tl;dr knowledge is always serving a philosophical goal, and to sidestep a philosophical basis for your work is to be willfully blind towards that. I think Foucault perhaps tried to point this out to Chomsky, albeit with his atrocious ability to communicate clearly (and he wasn't even the worst of his kind).

Saying something doesn't make it true, user. Of course, if you had anything to say at all, you could make an argument for your point. But in three posts, you haven't. Just empty butthurt from an empty mind that needs spiritual waffling to guide it.

>Ok, first off if they're attending a Chomsky lecture, they're going to have a decent understanding of what the Khmer Rogue was.

Chomsky here is talking about the specific history of one of his hundreds of books. No, it's not reasonable to expect every single listemer to have memorized this specific bit of knowledge.
Here is not talking about main concepts of his works, he's here talking about the obscure history of one of his paper, release in years of rampant censorship. You're the one being unreasonable here.

>We don't need to hear about vague references to "the media" "misquoting all over the place" (whoever the hell that is); he could've answered the question by stating that the source added the 800,000 killed by Nixon to the number killed by Pol Pot, getting away with it through censorship by the US government and credulity of the US public. This isn't a 14 minute response

But that was part of the response. You can't take any part off that response.
It's not an unordinate rambling of random history facts, they're literally all consequential one to another.

You haven't managed to individuate any form of obscurantism or useless informations in his speech. You're complaining about him being actually clear on his statements, and only because you think it took him too much time to answer.

Also the fact that you're saying that this is random elitist gibberish makes me even more suspicious. It's easy to follow that answer: the language is clear and concise and every thought is perfectly linked to the consecutive ones.

I'm 99% sure that you're just too uneducated to follow even such a easy answer.

He wasn't 100% right about subjacency and the Empty Category Principle

Koko can communicate abstractly in sign language, therefor he was wrong about language being exclusive to humans.

In a way Chomsky is responsible for Harambe's death

Didn't he write endlessly on language? From that alone I don't trust him, not even addressing the jew question

What annoys me about Chomsky is that he thinks he's anti-establishment, when he's distilled establishment opinion to the bone.

You're out of your depth. Don't reply to the ones talking about philosophy if you have no interest in it. Stick to the Chomsky stuff.