What does LIT think about Noam Chomsky? I tried asking POL but i got mostly racist slurs...

What does LIT think about Noam Chomsky? I tried asking POL but i got mostly racist slurs. Id like to know the opinion of this board.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/chomsky.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Chomsky is a hack. Everything he utters can be easily refuted by someone who browses r/worldnews for half an hour every day. It's embarrassing. He has a conception of socialist economics that i've acquired in ninth grade and have far since surpassed. The most powerful quote regarding communistic industrial economy states: socialism is fine until you run out of other's people's money. It's one chomsky should keep to heart.

He's good as an historian of imperialism and American interventionism, though he has blind spots. The Cambodia thing was genuinely a little weird. Mostly, he's good at exposing how completely intertwined the media, the government, and big business are in America. He is a good empirical historian, and he's basically right that the American public is being mind-controlled by rich people.

He has pretty good integrity when it comes to a lot of things, like free speech. But his actual political philosophy is so weak and sophomoric as to be nonexistent (again, he's better at cataloguing historical examples of leftist collectives that he likes, than doing the actual leftist philosophy). And he's also a millionaire who stashes millions of inheritance bux in offshore, tax-dodging trust funds, for his spoiled brat children. While claiming to be an anarchist. Make of that what you will.

His linguistic work is boring and can be understood in 30 minutes. And his defeat of behaviorism just rehashed nomothetic vs. idiographic debates, a century late, for no reason.

Read him for Manufacturing Consent, and for his histories of how ugly and cynical power politics became in the 20th century, and especially after the Reagan era. Ignore retards who say he's a cultural Marxist or that he's a radical leftist. If anything, Chomsky isn't radical enough. To most radical leftists he's boring and pro-establishment as fuck. He tells people to vote for fucking Hillary Clinton. The only people who have a serious problem with Chomsky are fake-conservative neocon Reaganites and their brainwashed slaves.

>His linguistic work is boring and can be understood in 30 minutes. And his defeat of behaviorism just rehashed nomothetic vs. idiographic debates, a century late, for no reason

t. knows nothing about linguistics

You study a fake, make-work subject.

no u do

See? I can do it too

Well said, comrade. I too think anyone who disagrees with my own point of view is a nazi. We need to kae the goyim aware of what the correct way to think is. Keep up the good fight, toвapищ.

Wonderful if you're just considering his contributions to linguistics. Anything else and he falls off. In fact, even today, he basically doesn't know anything because he doesn't keep up with his own fields let alone fields beyond his. He is not up to date with anything and had no authority on what he mostly comments on, to begin with. That being politics.

How is he a hack?

>refuted
Who is bombing and invading countries and supporting friendly dictators and undermining democratic governments? Lichtenstein? Mongolia? The Sandwich Islands?

>Chomsky supports state socialism

Nope.avi

What was weird about Cambodia?

>But his actual political philosophy is so weak and sophomoric as to be nonexistent

You make an accusation and don't explain it.

>And he's also a millionaire

News of the day: MIT doesn't pay peanuts

>who stashes millions of inheritance bux in offshore,

I'm sure you have a source for this

>tax-dodging trust funds

as above, and has he said not to have trusts for your family? Also if I were raise the same matter for the Koch Brothers I'd get an army of ditto heads shrieking "Soros"

>for his spoiled brat children

ad hom

>While claiming to be anarchist

Has he ever said not to do these things? Does anarchism preclude providing for your children and family?

>His linguistic work is boring and can be understood in 30 minutes.

Is it wrong?

>he defeated behaviorism a century late

wut

>f anything, Chomsky isn't radical enough. To most radical leftists he's boring and pro-establishment as fuck.

Thats because they're either ML or tankies, or dumb kids who think anarchism and revolution means hitting people with bikelocks and throwing rocks at cops.

>He tells people to vote for fucking Hillary Clinton.

Is that the only thing he said on the matter? He didn't have any sort of explanation or nuance, or a whole essay?

>and here is evidence and examples

>Everything he utters can be easily refuted by someone who browses r/worldnews

You couldn't sound dumber if you tried

I'm not replying to your godawful autistic post except to tell you that you don't know what an argumentum ad hominem is, so you can stop embarrassing yourself in the future.

What is it about Chomsky's supporters AND detractors being mental defectives in this thread?

Alright what would you prefer?
Strawman?
Pejorative?
Defamation?

An ad hominem fallacy is neither a strawman nor simply an insult ("pejorative," "defamatory").

An ad hominem fallacy is fallacious because it implies a faulty inference. "If someone is a fag, then they are wrong." Something is right or wrong regardless of whether someone is a fag. Insulting someone is not an ad hominem fallacy. Claiming that someone's reasoning or evidence-finding is biased by their political sensitivities is not inherently an ad hominem, either.

Chomsky is a hypocrite, a sell-out, a shill, a lazy thinker, a bourgeois faggot, and a status quo apologist. He's still right about plenty of things.

He's empirically wrong

>clueless infantile amerishit asking for opinions about amerishit rhetorician
Was about fucking time for one of those threads.

Good job buddy.

I think Chomsky is "the bomb".

Hi NSA.

Idk if anybody here have actually read his works and don't just mumble the shitstorms that some of his speeches and lectures cause since people are jealous of his rhetoric skills which are quite remarkable. Along with that he has done his research and gives people the idea that they are basically fucking stupid for believing the mass media. That is just wonderful.

> He has a conception of socialist economics that i've acquired in ninth grade and have far since surpassed
I know you're baiting, but I don't think you could get through an article written by Chomsky if you tried

I like his stuff. Someone post that picture of his office.

>He tells people to vote for fucking Hillary Clinton. The only people who have a serious problem with Chomsky are fake-conservative neocon Reaganites and their brainwashed slaves.
What the fuck man?

He is mostly against the powers of the "democracy" that you have there in USA. He has made some jokes of Trump since he is another bigot out there making his tweets for millions of arrogant people.

He has said quite a few times that the field of politics is a narrow field and there is no real differences between the parties who meme their way out for votes for their own life. Mostly he just focuses on how much lobbying there in the political machines and how it doesn't drive the car for people but rather that of selfish companies who have no ethics or soul at all.

You don't need to read or see too much of his work that the powers are under scrutiny, not individual parties and persons since almost all of the politics in today's world is

That annoys people since it might cross some roads with being successful in life. You need to be deceitful and being to control other people to do that and this is what the clearly denounces.

Also his major work is in linguistics. Trying to take that off him and regarding that as "boring" is like praising Bill Gates without taking Microsoft and computers into account.

It is a personal loss if texts like these marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/chomsky.htm do not seem interesting.

I meant for the >You.

>Is that the only thing he said on the matter? He didn't have any sort of explanation or nuance, or a whole essay?

He specifically advocated voting for Hilary in order to make sure Trump didn't get elected instead, not because he thinks she's worth supporting. There's nothing milquetoast about this, rather, it's the people who refuse to vote on principle that he's criticizing for being naive.

Noam "gnome" Chomsky is an establishment academic and probably a neoliberal and so on and so on.

Mein gott

Fucking Anarkiddie. Besides that not bad.