Noam Chomskys office

Oh you :3

This is impressive to the young and the financially under-educated.

Chomsky's political and economic commentary are entry level.

His linguistics are unmatched.

prove it without resorting to ad hominem or strawman shenanigans

>rich people have to have all the money or they won't give the rest of us jobs

Oh sweetie have you drank the wealth creator koolaid?

'government policies' isn't general discussion of politics, 'politicians' are retarded and would know less anyway and you dismissed the entire reply of the other user based on 1 of the 3 things he offhandedly suggested.

>prove it
I don't want to take the time. I've been studying finance and economics for a long time - there's a lot of information stored in this head of mine. If you are curious, begin studying yourself, if not, whatever.

Also, don't resort to naming logical fallacies. It tells your age (or education level).

>wealth creator koolaid
Unless you're an heir, all wealth is created.

I didn't. I've seen other instances of Chomsky's political thought. I had dismissed Chomsky's politics before the user ever typed his reply.

"You begin your transformation by tidying your damn room."

Y-yes Mommy...

This is both an argument of authority and a completely retarded statement.

Politicians aren't even the trained experts on politics you chod.

>I'm an expert trust me
Lmao

I'm not asking for your trust, or acting as an authority. I'm telling you you're nothing to me, and, therefore, I don't care whether you share my views or not, believe me or don't, study or fail to. It is up to you. The only figure I am an authority for, is myself, as is any man.

You need to restudy your logic texts, lad.

I imagine you still have them?

>I'm not an expert
>He's just wrong because I say so
>Trust me

Lol.

>politicians aren't the trained experts...

No, but they are the ones who deal with the day-to-day reality of politics. I do happen to know a Ph.D., tenured, Political Scientist, and I would ask him before Chomsky as well.

I also happen to know one of Chomsky's former, and renowned, students from his glory days. Isn't that something?

Of course, you won't believe either, but that just makes you more entertaining.

Wew, lad, you must have failed that class.

>and I would ask him before Chomsky as well
Would you ask Sarah Palin before Chomsky?

>Isn't that something?
Not really.

...

Not the same questions, of course, but I could think of many questions for Mrs. Palin as well.

You don't think you could learn anything from someone who has served as a govenor and was a Vice-Presidential nominee? How arrogant.

>not really
To you, perhaps. I'm pleased I don't share your values.

You're right.

As I've said. It was not an argument. It still isn't, though you seem simultaneously unaware and hyper-aware.

this is some great spaghetti spilling in action

>he likes chomsky's linguistic theories
that's even more retarded than liking his political works

>kid who read a few wiki pages and thinks he understands linguistics

Noam "Gnome" Chomsky is a neoliberal and so on.

He said something mean about America, so everything he has ever said is wrong because I said so and anyone who so much as mentions him is an idiot and should kill themselves.

Most of those books look like they have never been opened.

He must be absolutely frantic now that le Drumpf is in office, I hope he doesn't have an aneurysm.

This.

No wonder Chomsky can't think, he's a big fat mess.

Dirty jew.

Someone should tell him about the existence of computers.

Who cares!

This argument tends to get used when someone says something the arguer doesn't like
Its just a more sophisticated argument from authority

But no he isn't
He says he is a clown distracting from what the senate and congress and various secretaries are doing

Alright, boob here

Why would i be interested in Linguistics as a boob?

It's actually just an relevant anecdote.

Philosophy 101 really isn't for everyone.

>be Chomsky
>write groundbreaking book, exposing the politico-media complex
>enter Trump, enemy of the establishment
>side with the politico-media complex against Trump because "muh torture"
>Trump wins anyway
>he changes his mind about torture because "Mad Dog" Mattis convinces him otherwise
>be left with dick in hand, increasingly irrelevant as an intellectual in the 21st century
>at least my room is messy so people think I'm still reading a fuckload of books

He uses email. In fact, he'll respond to anybody that takes the time to properly format their email and say something worthwhile. I once sent him an email asking about cognitive science and whether it's worth pursuing. Wasn't really an awesome event but it was pretty cool to get a response.

unironically this

Just the thought of all the dust among those papers, etc, makes me itch.

>his linguistics are unmatched

His fundamental belief in nativism is completely and utterly blown out of the water by any case where a child does not have a caregiver providing them with language acquisition support structures.

There is zero evidence to support his ridiculous belief that children simply 'unlock' elements of speech as they grow up.

Provides insight into how language develops and how society forms around language. Never found it incredibly interesting personally, but some of the stuff surrounding it can be interesting. The reason New Yorkers pronounce 'coffee' as 'cawfee', for example, is because of Jewish migration to the city in the early 20th Century.

He didn't side with the media, he just believed that Clinton's positions were better on almost every issue. He still believed that she was a terrible, hawkish, and typically corporate candidate; he just thought Trump was worse.

I heard Chomsky mention torture maybe once but that was only a small fraction of the reason for his disliking Trump. The majority of it was that Trump was unclear on almost everything, from what little he did present with any consistency was mostly just minor variations on typical republican talking points. And his seeming enthusiasm to get us involved in more conflict.

From my interpretation of it, his biggest qualm with Trump was that he's absolutely retarded. Imagine being the founder of modern linguistics and listening to someone as consistently grammatically incapable as Trump. Language and syntax is a good baseline, starting point for determining IQ and general intellectual capabilities. Trump's language is incredibly poor when free spoken and he overall seems incapable of understanding questions asked to him and formulating coherent thoughts and responses to things.

And looking through this thread reminds me of dogs barking at the moon. There's literally no criticism that's not a kid going "but wait, I think it's this way though" or a major misrepresentation of his positions. Or just guys like this ( & ) saying, "oh believe me, he's an idiot, you just don't understand why"

>does not have a caregiver and so on
Aberrations of "feral" children lack the substance to blow out any theory of language as such. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.

I don't see how they do. If he's so completely adamant that behaviorist theory is incorrect, how can he explain feral children?

He doesn't need to explain them; they are aberrations, they are not significant to the general sense of his arguments. Feral children are disabled by neglect, this doesn't disprove anything that Chomsky claims.

Phrygians are the oldest nation.

Wow, you really proved him wrong there.
Guess you should've been the recipient of 42 honorary degrees, author of over 100 books, creator of over 40 notable ideas, and one of the most important and influential contemporary philosophers.

I know I'm not disproving your point, that's cause I don't know the field well enough to. But seriously, what are the fucking odds that you're right and he's wrong

It does though. If he claims that linguistic development is entirely based in biological innateness, and that a child will develop a full and functioning vocabulary without any involvement from a caregiver, then why do feral children (or, for example, children raised by mute parents) have difficulty producing language at the same level as children who have received sufficient caregiver support?

I do admit that there is compelling evidence for nativist theory (the Wugs phenomenon, for example) but I still find it hard to reconcile Chomsky's beliefs with evidence to the contrary (even if, as you say, that evidence is abberational). I suppose the answer is most likely found somewhere in the middle.

>Wow, you really proved him wrong there.
>Guess you should've been the recipient of 42 honorary degrees, author of over 100 books, creator of over 40 notable ideas, and one of the most important and influential contemporary philosophers.

>I know I'm not disproving your point, that's cause I don't know the field well enough to. But seriously, what are the fucking odds that you're right and he's wrong

I'm just talking about general evidence to the contrary. Skinner, for example, contradicts Chomsky's theory on CLA almost entirely.

No need to get angry user, I'm not claiming he's wrong - just arguing the toss.

>somewhere in the middle
I agree and really Chomsky is the type of academic who thrives on controversy and public attention. At the very bottom of it he wants to be well known and for people to agree with his arguments and furthermore for people to act according to his arguments which is a peculiar type of pedagogy even a hegemonic type urge, ironic really.

This guy looks like a less masculine version of Judith Butler

>Chomsky is the type of academic who thrives on controversy and public attention

I've noticed this too. It's strange really, and even if it has netted him some fame, it's still odd to see that he is so outspoken on so many issues, even if he doesn't fully grasp them. Incredibly smart man all the same though.

You're just making yourself look worse.

what did he mean by this

Wow, you really proved him wrong there
Guess you should've been the recipient of up to two (you)s

I really liked "Is the man who is tall happy?"
I can see why he is such a successful lecturer; but I think all that gets in his head and he approaches people in the same way that he does students with the same kind of "I'm Socratic but there is still a reason that I am the teacher and you are the student" kind of dynamic.

>But seriously, what are the fucking odds that you're right and he's wrong
Since universal grammar is just some ill-defined nonsense, I'd say the odds of him being wrong and user right are quite high.

It's just like my bedroom except with books instead of manga.

I'll check that out user, thanks. I'll be honest, you clearly know a lot more about him than me. I'm doing A-level Linguistics at the moment and I've done a fair bit of research into his linguistic theories but little outside of that (other than watching YouTube videos of him on the Iraq War etc.). I'll have to check him out in more detail, good conversation though - plus you've probably helped me revise a little on his theories haha.

My office of genocide denials.

lmao he hates poetry tho. he would end up hating you too.

I may not know much more than you but that documentary really helped me, it is the first I've seen where he gives insights into his linguistic ideas--most videos about him are about his
politics. Also yes it makes me happy to discuss things like this (which is why I've left /pol/ for Veeky Forums )

>>he changes his mind about torture because "Mad Dog" Mattis convinces him otherwise

source? not that i dont believe you

I want this too. Recently watched Mattis on Face The Nation and I was actually very impressed by his general notions of prescriptive foreign policy. It chilled me out about the whole Trump covfefe

isn't this a fucking fire hazard?

I'll make sure to check it out before my exam then, thanks. And yeah I know exactly what you mean, I feel like when posting on /pol/ you're one 'wrong' opinion away from being called a shill or a Jew, so not much ever gets talked about.

>tfw hes said numerous times he likes poetry

I have a lot of books for my tiny room, and it makes me fidget just having to double stack a few shelves. I'd spend 48 hours organizing this shit.

>yfw he said numerous times just the opposite

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

I don't think you understand what he was explaining by that

>the ultimate pseud's backlog

>"I have AIDS but I am happy"
You sure this isn't Foucault's office?

>pseud

CLEAN

They all look like the books Oprah would reccomend in her show
What a hack

It was his secretary, sorry for bust your happy buble, sport

I don't think you have read him enough. He EXPLICITLY said he deslikes poetry.

YOUR

I don't think you have read him enough. He EXPLICITLY said he dislikes poetry.

>The reason New Yorkers pronounce 'coffee' as 'cawfee', for example, is because of Jewish migration to the city in the early 20th Century.
this is hardly a revelation

Ok fine but colorless green ideas sleep furiously is to demonstrate grammar's independence from semantics

Not saying it is user, just a little interesting note on language change.

>monoglot linguist
yeah fuck Noam Chomsky

He speaks Hebrew, Spanish, French, and I'm pretty sure he understands German given some talks back in the 70s.

Not that that even matters for a linguist.

It matters hugely for one who touts universal grammar among other sweeping theories.

Even if it's true he's able to communicate in these languages there's a reason he's never published anything non-English. Most linguists do work in at least two languages, and he's from an era when fluency in Latin was academic minimum.

undeservedly deified kike-ademic. Kevin B. MacDonald was right.

i usually do a big sweep in my place and it stays spotless for a while. after about 3 years, thats when i do the sweeping again.

are all intellectuals this fucking messy?

realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/25/trump_i_think_torture_works_but_i_trust_general_mattis_to_tell_me_not_to_do_it.html

>blah blah blah

>I'm going to write a book about how the corporate establishment maintains domestic and international hegemony and why its a bad thing for humanity

>only to throw it out because of "muh policy platform", which is always, for the most part, an exercise in intellectual masturbation and rarely a reflection of actual intentions

I've never seen such a spooked bastard. If you're willing to let democracy fall into ruin and wealth get siphoned by the Davos men over a person's APPEARANCE, then you're no intellectual IMO.

>I heard Chomsky mention torture maybe once but that was only a small fraction of the reason for his disliking Trump. The majority of it was that Trump was unclear on almost everything, from what little he did present with any consistency was mostly just minor variations on typical republican talking points. And his seeming enthusiasm to get us involved in more conflict.

Trump is doing nearly everything he said he was going to do, and it's driving everybody crazy to see such a determined president. I don't agree with a significant portion of what Trump does, but his role in clearing out institutional corruption and creating a second faction in Washington DC (compared to establishment Democratic-Republican uniparty politics) is of crucial importance.

Trump's appointments for the main cabinet members are probably the best in modern history.

>Mattis
>Tillerson
>Ross
>Mnuchin
>Sessions

Dream team desu. I could watch each of them speak for hours and grow only more confident in their abilities in each role. And this is someone who was initially critical of all of them (except Mattis).

Looks like Chomsky needs to sort himself the fuck out.

You're a total fucking dipshit. Mattis is a double mouthed, aphorism spouting, murderer. He talks a big game about engaging with the Muslim world to end terrorism but the reality is he is a pro Saudi shill whose idea of ending sectarian violence is killing all Shiites.