who would be worse to have a module under? who's worst for self-masturbatory political ramblings? who has the most insufferable following?
as far I can tell Chomsky although he does very little can be watched just from an academic understanding of his field without grasping at straws to illustrate how important hs political opinions are, but I've only seen one or two linguistics videos from him
Other urls found in this thread:
Chomsky is the most insufferable faggot alive.
>muh (((white))) guilt america is the worst place alive oy vey we inventyed might is right in the 20th century
>who has the most insufferable following?
Chomsky
it's not even a contest
all political opinions are insufferable, just because Jordan Peterson's right about SJWs doesn't make it not the most pathetic pandering circlejerk there is.
I know 2 people who read Chomsky and I've only ever talked about him with them when I brought him up. I've had someone unironically spout the "clean your room" advice in class and it was pure cringe. Peterson fags think they've got an amazing understanding of human behaviour and how to be a successful person that reminds me of first year business students
JP's following, in ten years time, will surpass Chomsky's virulent mass. Give it time.
Has Chomsky ever addressed the fact that Great Britain did everything America is doing now, and in some cases did things even worse?
Peterson's just a choirboy.
...
>all political opinions are insufferable, just because Jordan Peterson's right about SJWs doesn't make it not the most pathetic pandering circlejerk there is.
Chomsky's politics are much worst than most people. But I agree that JP isn't the messiah some people consider him to be. He just spins Jungian memes with a flair for drama.
>Chomsky's politics are much worst than most people
Why is this? What makes Chomsky so insufferable? Why does it seem like people just shitpost at him with all their might without ever pointing out his political opinion they disagree with and distinguish it from what is the truth?
Yeah, this about covers it. Chomsky is a sniveling, disingenuous pop intellectual. He's the same brand of parasitic asshole as Howard Zinn.
I know because I used to be fans of both of them.
Don't know anything about Peterson yet.
See
Le straw man exercise:
Average Chomsker follower:
Probably unwashed, somewhat self-righteous, lives in a city, active social life, likely artistic, socially well-adjusted.
Average Peterson follower:
Not afraid to say fatties are gross, good at memes, failed normie or STEMlord at best, hasn't done much reading on their own
Nuke everyone desu
Average Peterson follower:
hasn't done much reading on their own
JP's followers are indeed illiterate eugenists.
slay that dragon
>ITT user who doesn't grasp even basic Chomsky blindly hates Chomsky
With all the hip contrarianism in Veeky Forums I'd swear you're all 15
Chomsky BTFO Foucault, more than can be said for Peterson and his cringe-inducing taglines.
Why does that invalidate all the shit america is doing/has done? Chomsky is an American - obviously he's gonna focus more on American issues
Why do people not like JP again? He's coherent and uses the kind of stuff you see in "The Hero's Story"
Because the way he presents it makes it all sound so unprecedented. He's like Howard Zinn. He tries to make America come off as uniquely wrong and evil, when really it's all just a tale as old as time.
His idea in that debate that people will work on their own and that everyone has innate creative potential is rather silly. At least Foucault is vaguely realistic with the will to power.
Veeky Forums doesn't like him because he hates post-structuralist/post-modern philosophers.
Oh look and identity politics thread.
Go back to >pol
Much of his advice boils down to:
>"user, sit and listen. You're a fat nerd who needs to clean his room and get his life in order. You're not going to change the world with your 'masterpiece' and joining your college's Socialism Society to try and hook up with that manic pixie dream girl is a guaranteed road to disaster. Get your life in order. You can start by emptying your piss jugs into the toilet."
It pulls the Veeky Forumsizen out of his cloudy dreams of grandiosity and drags him kicking and screaming back to the dull banality of his existence. Naturally, the Veeky Forumsizen rebels.
That's not his goal asswipe. Chomsky attacks the American intellectuals who witness the atrocities committed by the State, constitute a moral objection, but do nothing to actively stop it. Your comment "when really it's all just a tale as old as time" resigns yourself to these types of administrative exploitation simply because "it cannot be helped". That is the much weaker approach and leads to the decay of culture, rather than striving for a better world and trying to improve the actions of the state.
He is looking at creativity from a basic linguistic standpoint. It is clear Foucault had a hard time grasping that. It seems like they both had a lot in common, but spent most of the time talking around one another.
Linguistic Genius vs Meme tranny trash talker...
>Chomsky attacks the American intellectuals who witness the atrocities committed by the State, constitute a moral objection, but do nothing to actively stop it.
Funny that Chomsky had to have his arm twisted to comment about Israel.
This desu.
Can someone tell me what this guy is supposed to offer? It feels like he's popular with people that have never read anything in their life.
Any Jungian can analyze archetypes in movies. How is he distinguished from all the rest?
Intelligent post, my friend
Cambodian genocide denier vs. comfy Canadian memster
It's been a while but Chomsky is critical of Israel and considers his views anti-Zionist iirc
He discovered new archetypes in myths and performed a multilayer validation process to prove that they exist and that they explain mythical stories.
Nothing. He's an aggregator of views expressed by existentialist philosophers analytical psychologists. He's popular because he has a sincere way of expressing himself that makes him fascinating to watch, and because a lot of people (even college students) haven't been exposed to these ideas before.
This is somewhat true, but don't discount his actual work.
A few years before Peterson I saw a large conference by analytic psychologists. The head of the conference said something to this effect in the intro
"We have always been considered the second best school of psychology behind the Freudian. Historians of psychology say the 20th century was the century of Freud. I think this century will be the century of Jung."
There are people, and smart people too, whose entire image of the Cold War is derived from Chomsky's writings, and they think only the Western world funded dictators in the Third World, and that people like Mengistu Haile Mariam never existed.
More colleges assign Chomsky than Anne Applebaum. It's a fucking travesty.
I have an axe to grind with Chomsky for the way he seems to disregard the importance of religion. Like, he doesn't seem to take it seriously as a motivation for people to act the way they do. I think this is why I feel the things he says about ISIS are incomplete.
That is an accurate description of virtually every modern thinker. Religion is relegated to small sections and footnotes, and treated like some cultural aberration, some weird irrational thing people used to do. It's absurd because human cultures are pretty much 99% religion. Everyone in the West walks around acting out the Christian ethic while saying "I'm not a Christian though :)". We're just sitting on piles and piles of this stuff.
I feel as though he sees Hierarchical Religion as another power structure through which people are drive to commit acts of violence. Not so much that he discounts it outright, but that he sees it secondary to administrative power which in turn alters religious hierarchies.
>jordan redditson or the greatest linguist of all-time that also happens to be the most influential academic alive
geez that's a hard one!
I don't know about Peterson, but I don't think he is as much an intellectual dishonest liar as Chomsky.
He wrote about a political crisis in Laos blaming the U.S. for the breakdown in the relations between communists and nationalists and ignored a communist invasion of the country. He also wrote against the Black Book of Communism arguing that Indian famine deaths equaled Chinese famine deaths, and those should be blamed on democratic capitalism.
Not mentioning the fact that criticizing a historical work that documents crimes of a political movement is bad taste for someone who prizes himself in denouncing these kind of political crimes, not mentioning that there is no citation for the "Indian deaths = Chinese deaths" statistics, saying that India during the Cold War was a "democratic capitalist" society is just plain falsehood, considering that India was a socialist country alligned with the Soviet Union during this period.
But my favorite one is his criticism of the "loss of China" term. According to Chomsky:
>"In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western discourse as "the loss of China" – in the US, with bitter recriminations and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The "loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had major policy consequences."
Not to mentioning the historical falsehood (China gained independence in 1949), Chomsky reveals himself to be a psychopath here. "It is only possible to lose something that one owns". Chomsky never had a friend? If you lose a friend, you lose something that you didn't owned. It seems like either Chomsky never had a single friend in his remarkably long life, or he is a deliberate liar and spreader of falsehoods.
I'll bite.
I think his criticisms of the Black Book of Gommunism is that many of the atrocities described within it are not directly tied to ideology, and not wholly free from Western intervention. He is writing against the black and white mentality of the Cold War, a mindset that appears to be on the rise once more. He is seeking to correct the score of a "historical document" that is disingenuous in its self-presentation as an objective historic account.
>Chomsky never had a friend? If you lose a friend, you lose something that you didn't owned
You don't understand what he is saying. China was a market to Western powers, who had been manipulating and exploiting China both explicitly and implicitly since the mid 1800s. China turning red was a loss of that market until Nixon.
But, like I said, that's incomplete. Religion is a lens through which at least some people see the world. It's an ideology. Why doesn't Chomsky take it as seriously as capitalism and communism, both of which are also ideologies? Even if you don't think they're true you should recognize their power to motivate. Zizek does.
>The terminology is revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns.
Chomsky has always been a smug piece of shit, but damn, to think I actually liked this guy when I was in college.
This. Love this politically ignorant pseud or you're x ad hominem
We're all 15 but we sure ain't hip. We're fucking school shooters and adult virgins, get it right.
peterson
i would unironically skip his class
reviving interest in religion and self-help mostly.
he's also a very engaging speaker and endearing in his own way.
here he is talking about this board's favorite meme philosopher: youtube.com
the tranny/sjw shit is the least interesting stuff and he freely admits that it just happened to be the hill he chose to fight on to instantiate his views in the world. he'd already written a book and been teaching most of what he's talking about for 20 years.
It's not a crime to be wrong about something all your contemporaries were wrong about also. Chomsky's 'controversial' statements about Laos and India were popular at the time.
Chomsky is one of the only people who actually follows the logic of classical liberalism, and it's very amusing to see how this triggers today's political factions who claim to descend from it. His stances are consistent and well thought-out, they're outrageous to people because they present an actual alternative to neoliberal hell without the bullshit of the post-modern left. I respect him.
Pederson is the definition of a sophist on every level. He expects you to accept his view of the world at every step. Chomsky speaks much more informatively and far less argumentatively, whatever you may think of what he presents.
This is so blantantly false and it has been the flag of anti-Chomsky ideologues for decades now.
If Chomsky's opinion on Israel is not resoundingly clear to you then you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
>This is so blantantly false and it has been the flag of anti-Chomsky ideologues for decades now.
I'm sorry, he urged "caution" when it came to believing the stories of the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge because the information was often being filtered by US governmental sources, a caution that Chomsky himself didn't display when he bought the discredited Lancet study of the the Iraqi death toll, or when he believed Saddam's government when it came to the death toll that resulted from the US sanctions. If it confirms his political bias, he automatically believes it, if it doesn't, then he urges for more evidence to be gathered.
yeah but his voice is angelic