Why is this fuck so arrogant...

Why is this fuck so arrogant? It's like he thinks being well-respected by mainstream media makes him the smartest person on the planet and he can just talk shit about other academics without trying to refute them, even after they die.

Other urls found in this thread:

democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_american_governments_have
youtube.com/watch?v=UuQ8Qb0ej38
twitter.com/AnonBabble

He's an old man.

>he wasn't arrogant before
almost got me

I hate this guy as much as you.

It's not arrogance if it's true. Chomsky is one of the most notable alive academics and will be remembered for centuries.

Just because someone is known now doesn't mean they will be centuries later and being referenced on Disney Channel sitcoms doesn't mean your work is significant.

For you.

Chomsky's work is significant and you're absolutely delusional if you disagree. Try seeing beyond your personal biases.

>if it's true
[laughs non-recursively in pirahã]

In linguistics, absolutely.

He has lite Dawkins syndrome, though. He's hot shit in specialized field so therefore he's enlightened and knows more than everybody about everything.

Lol name something not related to linguistics then. (Even his work in linguistics can be said to be bullshit though it is of course influential.)

>Einstein was obviously influential
>Lol name something not related to physics then
What made you this retarded?

>he's enlightened and knows more than everybody about everything.

Give me good reason to believe that this is not the case. And I mean this in all earnestness. I have yet to see anyone attempt a systematic takedown of him that wasn't laughably ignorant.

There are particular issues where his thought are notably weak, i.e. in regards to the motivations of other people's enjoyment of competition and particular conservative impulses that he doesn't seem to be able to empathize with, but his overall thought processes are seriously solid and well backed up.

he is stuck in his time. hes too smart for his fanbase.

>Piraha
The only reason people think Piraha has some big theoretical import is there was a popular-audience book a while ago which made the rounds in online media. The book was sensationalized to say that Piraha disproves Chomsky. Of course the truth is that Chomsky's ideas are accepted by basically everyone to some extent, but it's a question of degrees. Unfortunately that doesn't make an exciting headline.

His work in linguistics is still central to the field, you don't know what you're talking about.

which political scientists or historians have taken him to task? genuinely wondering because it seems like on this website the only criticism people can muster up is a parrot of Sowell that a person can only be knowledgeable about one thing. Not to mention when those who give him credit for his work in linguistics but undercut by deriding it as outdated never ever offer even the most minimal evidence that they have studied linguistics.

Cambodia.

Chomsky is like the Sir Issac Newton of language

He looks down on continentals in general, he loves to use the label "charletan" whoever they may be lacan, zizek, focoult. He just seems to be infinatly baffled by anything that doesn't find into his logical worldview

>well-respected by mainstream media
Has Chomsky even been on American media since like the 70s?
Only foreign media seems to touch him

He's a Jew

Wait, Chomsky was on a sitcom before?

This has been the only good criticism of him I've seen. He's a positivist influenced by Quine, and he really doesn't like to give up to Contis on anything. He's no less rude to them than Searle though. His "debate" with Derrida was mostly insults, and a refusal to publish it was testament to that.

Actually he fixed a lot of shit outside of his field.
Psychology would have never gotten over its black box phase without him.

No, chomsky is a special case.

The man is genuinely a genius when it comes to debate and computational mathematics.

His only real problem is he's adamant about his ideology in the same way muslims are. He emmediately takes the skeptic position regarding any act by any authority ever.
Its really too bad.

That being said, he was lampooned constantly back in the william buckley days and now that the climate us 1, more friendly and 2 hes already lived his life, hes become more careless about what he says.

>if it's true
Kek, he won't be remembered in a century

I doubt you've read a single lick of him, let alone understand Syntactic Structures.

>He emmediately takes the skeptic position regarding any act by any authority ever.

that's because he attacks the system rather than individual policy quibbles

>He emmediately takes the skeptic position regarding any act by any authority ever.
As you should in any functioning democracy.

Democracies are never "functioning"; they are dysfunctional by design

Then they are, by definition, functioning as intended.

It's all simple stuff in poor prose.

This is your brain on pure ideology

For such a remarkable mind (and a remarkable bullshitter) who's right on certain things, he's so far up his own ass on economics it's sad. "The only reason socialism didn't work this time was they didn't try hard enough. If you had someone other than Maduro in power I'm sure you could make it work."
>democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_american_governments_have

>extremely influential scholar just obfuscates simple things with big words
this means you probably don't actually understand what you're reading

Honestly, it's likely because in his 30's he completely revolutionized the field of linguistics. And though it's controversial now, there's no denying he was an absolute dynamo in that field and in the radial zeitgeist during the Vietnam era (when it really meant something) going forward.

So he's entitled to no small amount of deference - not that he's got all the right answers. I'd say, just be glad you were alive and remember when "public intellectuals" still existed as a species.

>extremely influential scholar just obfuscates simple things with big words
Did someone say this?

He is an authority in Linguistics to this day, his last major academic essay was published in 2015. He's not a relic of the pasr in that field, in fsct he is still active.

Also on Veeky Forums there's the meme that he is not able to talk about politics (mainly because they disagree with him), yet lots of his books are required readings in a plethora of politics-related fields.

Now, you may agree or disagree with him, that's on you, but when it comes to his qualifications you are dead wrong.

>I'd say, just be glad you were alive and remember when "public intellectuals" still existed as a species.
This, honestly. Unfortunately, he is a national treasure. Once he'll die we will be officially out of worthy, serious public intellectuals.
For academics it won't matter, since they can study on primary and secondary sources, but it will be somewhat of a tragedy for the uneducated masses.

>He emmediately takes the skeptic position regarding any act by any authority ever.
Not true, he does not hate authority as a whole. As a anarchist he has to identify UNJUSTIFIED power structures, and point them out. Whis implies that often he will immediatly start from a skeptical position, yet the result won't necessarily be dismissive.

>Once he'll die we will be officially out of worthy, serious public intellectuals.
How so?

>be me, European
>10 years ago
>was just 16, read for the first time about Chomsky
>check what /pol/sters have to say (at the time it was just edginess, actual radicals were still mocked)
>they all tell me that he is an unreasonable hippy who just hates America
>read his books and listen to his lectures
>tfw he is right about virtually everything
>he is right so often that the only talking point other people have is that for 6 months he recieved incomplete informations about the Cambodian conflict (which happened to literally everyone else, since the US government was actively censoring these news, as he proved multiple times)

>tfw amerifats are actually brainwashed

When did you discover that even American anons on Veeky Forums are brainwashed? How did that make you feel?

He is full of shirt to understand internacional politics.
I remember that I read in one of his books a part where he says "the world may be multipolar, but the military force of the world it isen't". If he is so smart, he would know that it would be terrible a world where more than one country has a string military like the US.
And lot's of countrys have bad values, why should They have a say in anything in the first place?
Like fucking China. I dont want to hear some place who destroyer human and minority rights say anything about how westerners do their human and minority rights.
Or the arabs who send money for US to build mosques to hold wahabbi preachers intead of taking the wahabbis into their own fucking country.
The world shouldent multipolar in the military, it would be a nightmare.
And better yet, we already should have the world-state, it's taking too long (and with the regressive garbage that rots our institucions now-a-days, it will take longer)

Not worthy and not serious.

Kek, you really think this is an actual critique?

>Not worthy and not serious.
you really think this is an actual critique?

>he thinks NDT is a serious intellectual, although he has literally no academic merit, nor he has advanced or aided his field in any substantial way
>but he is totally like Chomsky, literally the most academically influential intellectual of the last 100 years

Eh, you can see that it's not the same thing.
Regarding your past critique I'll just say this: you are literally criticizing Chomsky because he is not supporting the notion of American exceptionalism. Emblematic, if you ask me.

I am just one of the people you were responding to, but you seriously believe Gnome has been "literally the most academically influential intellectual of the last 100 years"? NDT was just a joke post, but Gnome hasn't been relevant for the past 30 years so giving him that title (if you can call it that) doesn't prove anything but ignorance on your part. Not to mention you haven't said exactly WHAT he is known for other than intellectual posturing. He stirs the shit pot, is that really all it takes to go down in intellectual history? I've seen better critiques of America on /pol/.

He is the most quoted living intellectual, his political writings are required readings in most politic-related academic fields, his first works in linguistics are the foundation of the entire field and he has been active in this field for his entire life (as I said his last contribution is dated 2015, and he is still working on multiple projects).
He is clearly one, if not THE most influential intellectual of our time.
>He stirs the shit pot, is that really all it takes to go down in intellectual history? I've seen better critiques of America on /pol/.
He has more than a hundred od books published, most of them peer-reviewed and sourced to the point of obsession. Are you really jusdging him on the basis of his simplified lectures? Do you think that Chomsky's political theory is just "stirring the shit pot"? What about the thousands of books and documents he used as his sources to reach those arguments? Are they completely insignificant when one has to criticitize him?

This is what I meant earlier. If you disagree with him it's fine, but to pretend that on this board there's a single person who can argue his political stances with 1/10 of the rigor and accuracy of Chomsky. When people call Chomsky clueless, they are basically admitting that there are maybe 4-5 people in the world who actually have the qualifications to say anything at all about US and foreign politics.

>And lot's of countrys have bad values, why should They have a say in anything in the first place?
>Like fucking China. I dont want to hear some place who destroyer human and minority rights say anything about how westerners do their human and minority rights.

the fucking ironing. americans need to kts

Was shitting your diapers part of your plan?

Please skim your comments for errors before posting them.

You dont? The only things Chomsky talks in political debate is "merica is bad", literaly, thats all he does.
I dont see any value at that.
Is like reading one libtard text on Tumblr.
No deepth, no understand of internacional scenario and no true opnion.
If he has all the three I just mencioned, than he is doing hes darnest to hite.

Also, even if 'merica is this bad, oh god, I wonder how bad it could be in a non-american world. It must be a complete nightmare them, because, for fuck sake, we all must be brain dead to not allow China's or Iran's to run the world instead if the US, right?

I aint american, dumbass.

the guy who said it's all simple stuff in poor prose

What Dawkins is to evolutionary biology, Chomsky is to linguistics.

Both are brilliant contributors to their field, and fucking idiots when they talk about anything else.

I agree on Dawkins, but Chomsky objectively contributed to other fields.

I don't really know about the comparison seeing as Chomsky basically shaped modern linguistics, whereas Dawkins is more of a science popularizer.

>You dont? The only things Chomsky talks in political debate is "merica is bad", literaly, thats all he does.
He has written over 50 books on Foreign Politics, most of them positively peer-reviewed and still used in academia. Critics on America is just a fraction of them. You're probably referring to his lectures, which are set in the US and are taught to mainly American people. Isn't it obvious why is he talking about American politics so much?

>Is like reading one libtard text on Tumblr.
Nope, since it's based on extensive research and actual facts. Are you triggered by legitimate critiques on the United States? If the critique is true, do you still dismiss it only because people on tumblr hate the US too? Because that's incredibly weak reasoning.

>No deepth, no understand of internacional scenario and no true opnion.
Comfirmed for never having read any of his books. To say that Chomsky never accounts for context is downright laughable.

>Also, even if 'merica is this bad, oh god, I wonder how bad it could be in a non-american world. It must be a complete nightmare them, because, for fuck sake, we all must be brain dead to not allow China's or Iran's to run the world instead if the US, right?
The critique is not necessarily biased. If the US does something wrong should NO ONE report on it? And who can be a better reporter of a nation than a extremely erudite citizen of that said nation, with contacts with high level bureaucrats, politicians, journalists and whistleblowers?
Also, criticizing the US does not equal supporting Iran. Again, your reasoning is all over the place, and it does not really apply to neither a philosophical and political model on your part, nor the contents you are commenting on (which you have clearly not read, since you don't even know how they are structured and written).

He's big in America. Not so much in Europe.

Best man!

You're an idiot. There's nothing more that needs to be said.

are you a fucking infant?

Back to /pol/

Why does /pol/ hate him? He basically says the world is run by (((international bankers and big corporation elites))).

chomsky talks *to* people not with them

>over 50 books on Foreign Politics
literally all his books besides MC are just commentary on current events and why america is evil in said context. his other books are just collections of "talks" (ramblings)

>extensive research
chomsky doesn't research shit besides linguistics. he admits he just read the new york times every day. bill bryson probably researches more for his books.

you're a cuck if you think "the most important intellectual alive" researches everything he claims to be an expert in. you don't know what research is. it's a battle of personal will just to be an expert in one thing say a phd in math. you probably think elon musk is an expert in ai while he really just fucks whores and convinces you give him your money.

This. And as such his critique of America as the big bad empire is erroneous, hypocritical, and misleading. I'm glad the jewish cultural gatekeepers the boomer goyim allowed to rise in their wake due to all the anti-racist egalitarian propaganda they were subjected to are finally being deconstructed and seen as the frauds they always were.

>HOW THE WORLD WORKS in a big, clenched rising fist
*sniff*

Except there's a bunch of stuff in linguistics that's almost got nothing to do with Chomsky. Hell, Chomsky didn't even change what the previous linguists had done, because his approach to language is completely different from theirs. The funniest thing about Chomsky is that he complains about Zizek et al. because of "theory", when his contributions are largely theoretical and it was the previous (and current) linguists that went into the Amazon and the Himalayas or spent decades reading and deciphering texts to compile the corpi that Noam then could take and abstract to say *he* found the Holy Grail because he could draw fucking schemata.

Check out the fight he had with Zizek:
>Chomsky: Zizek and his ilk are clowns, I don't see any value in their work and therefore it has no substance; read this authors I approve instead.
>Zizek: I respect Chomsky, but he was wrong by his own rules and supported the Khmer Rouge; what I'm getting at is that this kind of empiricism is more damaging than good.

And before you start thowing citations about who said what about Cambodia for the quadrillionth time, please get it through your head (like Chomsky can't) that the "facts" aren't what this is about. You don't help people by getting on a high horse, saying you're correct so you don't have to have any gratitude or humor.

His work in linguistics is dead, or at best on life support.

Because his solutions is Jewish bolshevism in global scale.

>You don't help people by getting on a high horse, saying you're correct

But he is and you're underselling what he actually contributed.

How am I underselling it? It's you people that constantly go on about how Chomsky revolutionized linguistics when he neither started nor finished it. And seriously what has Chomsky done that he gets a free pass to talk shit about everyone and everything he feels like? He's the exact kind of person that Zizek criticizes all the time. Sure you're a Marxist, sure you're correct, sure you're smart, but you're attacking the game rather than the players, and it's led to a cartoon like Trump get elected. And boy, isn't it so comfortable to talk shit about the thinkers who've actually had to go through communist regimes and Europe's reconstruction from your liberal hugbox the other side of the Atlantic?

>and it's led to a cartoon like Trump get elected

No.

Yes.

You mean the time that he didn't know what was going, had his quote taken widely out of context and is now banged to death by Chomsky haters even after he apologised and admitted he was wrong?

you're fucking dumb

He means that time a paramilitary organization fashioned themselves as murderers and Chomsky didn't change his biased position because what people say about themselves is meaningless since he already knows the whole truth.

>You mean the time that he didn't know what was going, had his quote taken widely out of context
youtube.com/watch?v=UuQ8Qb0ej38

All the context in the world doesn't give him a faux pas to play with numbers and be constantly dismissive when talking about genocide.

This is something I always post in these Chomsky threads. I'm not even a fan of his linguistics but what americans call propaganda is just what the rest of the world thinks about them and the shit they do.

Well, both you and him are stupid goyim d&cing whites. No one even knows what you mean when you say 'Americans' anymore because America is little more than a geopolitical tool of jewish power players pushing bad policy decisions and subversive jews like Chomsky who refuse to acknowledge this reality and instead blame whites and an amorphous entity known as "the system" to throw dumb people off. Get your shit straight if you're going to levy blame and make people think you know what you're talking about. The Amerifats vs Europoor paradigm is so 90s, you loser.

I'm glad to see the right wing is more accepting of gay people these days, because you sound like the biggest faggot to LARP as a nazi ever.

Tom Wolfe's The Kingdom of Speech absolutely btfo's Chomsky as a linguist.

Don't believe the Chomskyites who jump in here and claim otherwise.

Read the book. It's rather short, and it's quite enjoyable.

It knocks the shit out of Chomsky on substantive grounds while puncturing his pomposity and persona to a fare thee well.

Oh, so you're a jew. Never mind, I understand why you were trying to divide white and intentionally obscure the message.

I don't really know anything about Chomsky's political ventures. All I know is his linguistic theorizing is tied to specific empirical phenomena. It really shows you don't know what you're talking about when you say he just drew schemata over exotic texts other people documented.

Good b8, I replied.

It'd really show you don't talk about what you know if you say pic related is an adequate depiction of what language is. You might as well study dog bones to call yourself a dog expert.

>All I know is his linguistic theorizing is tied to specific empirical phenomena.
Empirical phenomena don't exist on their own. They're not a magical gift that falls on your lap and you can wield to be correct about things. What you're talking about is a result of human activity.

I don't even find anything horribly wrong with what he says, but that's because it seems Chomsky would do anything to not be wrong, and not because he's positing something that must be posited.

But hey, this is par for the course with science. Can't expect the imaginative manchildren to actually be responsible for what they do. Make nukes, make viruses, make machines and AIs that obsolete life, it doesn't matter, so long as you're right. So long as you're not the one pushing the button, you're not to blame.

So you think what Chomsky says is so trivial it doesn't need to be posited? Notice that your image is called BASIC english syntax tree. Basic. Syntax isn't just about drawing trees on sentences, it's about explaining why certain sentences are in a given language, and other sentences aren't in the language. The trees are just a convenient way of talking about what the sentences are like. Do you have an explanation as to why the sentence "Who does John think someone likes?" is a sentence of English, but "Who does John know someone who likes" isn't?

Chomsky is one of the most practical leftists out there though and actually makes sure he backs shit up, but otherwise avoids insulting and slinging shit for the sheer purpose of ideology.

Please stop putting words into his mouth and substituting the idiocy of much dumber leftists as if that was equivalent to his actual philosophy. He always advocated for simply voting for Hilary to prevent Trump getting in but otherwise not giving any more of a shit about the media circus than necessary.

There are a ton of stupid anti-right idiots who I have little doubt did contribute to Trump's victory in the way you are implying. Chom is not one of them

>if you say pic related is an adequate depiction of what language is

So you are approaching his ideas with this level of naivety and treating him as some kind of reductionist without recognizing how he justifies the abstractions he proposes and what they are intended to be useful for? He proposed his structures precisely so that they are open to both empirical and analytic criticism. It's not like he trying to say, for instance, that Wittgenstein's insights on the nebulousness of language are somehow overthrown by his ability to draw diagrams.

>So you think what Chomsky says is so trivial
Yes, that is why I put apocalyptic suggestions right after.

>Do you have an explanation as to why the sentence "Who does John think someone likes?" is a sentence of English, but "Who does John know someone who likes" isn't?
Why would I *need* to know this? Why would it be a failure on my part to not know it when I can already speak English properly? Sure, it's interesting to look into and gets me out of a bind when someone asks your (very specific) type of question, I've heard it has aplications in computer science, but what the hell does that matter when the people that are going to be behind the computers are terrible?

Chomsky is no better, and worse, no better off, than anyone for simply knowing these things. Aimlessly asking questions upon questions doesn't get you anywhere, and it's making the world one huge mess.

>Please stop putting words into his mouth and substituting the idiocy of much dumber leftists as if that was equivalent to his actual philosophy.
The fact that you think this has to do with intelligence first and foremost only helps my point.

>There are a ton of stupid anti-right idiots who I have little doubt did contribute to Trump's victory in the way you are implying.
At that point it didn't really matter whose fault it was. The point to do something had passed long ago. It was a failure of the left as a whole, in all of the planet.

>So you are approaching his ideas with this level of naivety
Do you think I'm so brutish I wouldn't want to know how to cure a dog's bones in most circumstances?

>It's not like he trying to say, for instance, that Wittgenstein's insights on the nebulousness of language are somehow overthrown by his ability to draw diagrams.
Yes, I know this. The issue begins when he refuses to entertain the other side's ideas despite this admitted fact.

Mr. Chomsky has simply looked at all of the data, all of it. So he knows without a doubt he's correct. Oh wait, he made a mistake. What does that mean? The data can't be "wrong" and it's always incomplete. Mr. Chomsky made a bet. There's no shame in that if you don't hide your hand away.

>Why would I *need* to know this?
*You* don't, but someone who is trying to say anything substantive about what language is and how it works does. Again, the question is which strings of words are sentences of a language and which ones aren't, and how you can tell. It's important as a scientific question, but even as far as applications go, you need to have some way of answering this question if you want to implement any kind of technology that interfaces with language. For instance you'd like to be able to have a grammar which a parser can use to interpret strings of words.

>Why would it be a failure on my part to not know it when I can already speak English properly?
Nobody is claiming that learning this stuff will help you learn English better. Humans can learn and use languages. No other animal can. Linguistics is about explaining what it is that lets humans do that. A big part of that endeavor is coming up with a theory about what "a language" actually is.

The thing is that you're starting with the idea of the machine and then looking for ways to get to it. Or not necessarily a machine, but whatever implication came from the question. Questions don't arise innocently. They're there to fulfill a need of some sort.

>Humans can learn and use languages. No other animal can.
Wasn't there research going on with dogs and artificial voice implements? I'm asking non-rhethorically here.

Regardless, imagine that was the case, that we were capable of establishing language outside the human organism, and either another lifeform or machine got ahold of language. With language alone it would have access to most of our science unless some biological component was lacking. Still there's nothing stopping the ongoing process of improvement and efficiency that we live in today. So then suppose whatever thing is there that has access to our science turns out to be "better" and more efficient than humans. There's nothing to stop them from wiping the whole human race even if slowly.

So tell me, what are we aiming at with this research? The complete mastery of all dimension. Instantaneity and efficiency. The removal of all that is unnecessary. The proscription of the unique and unequal. And you might think these are all good things, and they are in the right measure and moment, but left wild as they have been, they're creating a world of pure release, in which humans are obligated to be pure energy. We must compete with that which we created to be better than us. I'm not going to tell you I'm certain of how this ends, but from what I see, it's either humans not existing or living a purely symbolic life. A world made of kernels, at best.

This *is* a harsh charge to drop on Chomsky, and really it is a social fault and not only a personal one of him. The thing is that there's no Chomsky the linguist and Chomsky the political commentator. There is a continuity between the two things. The methodology Chomsky uses, I assume, is the same in both cases, or he would enter in a contradiction, which I take him to be too smart to do so glaringly. The ideological values he's operating on are the same.

So it comes down to me not wanting to accept the authority of such a person unless I don't have a choice. I'm not about to let myself be coerced by the efficiency of whatever machines people can concoct because they don't want to deal with each other and instead think of millions of people who they depend on and live with as puppets. I don't care how many stacks of paper some idiot politician put secretly on their pockets if what's motivating you is even worse and has lead to worse. And I'm not going to consider reevaluating myself for people who clearly won't reevaluate themselves.

>Wasn't there research going on with dogs and artificial voice implements?
No.

Dude what do you even think I'm talking about here? There's nothing mystical about language. We want to understand it for the same reasons we want to understand any other part of nature. You're acting like there's some kind of cosmic master plan underlying this stuff.

>There's nothing mystical about language.
Precisely because there's nothing mystical about it and it's such a great tool is that I worry. Or wouldn't you agree it's language that's made us what we are? Doesn't Chomsky consider it the #1 human faculty?

>We want to understand it for the same reasons we want to understand any other part of nature.
Understanding things has consequences.

>You're acting like there's some kind of cosmic master plan underlying this stuff.
I'm trying for there not to be.

he's a literally who in america as well

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, much of the mainstream left has loathed and avoided Chomsky for years and years now and his sort of scrupulous and detailed criticism wouldn't be welcome at all in any contemporary Democratic campaign. If you pitted Trump against a candidate that could actually keep their cool and pull citations as deep as Noam does when questioned about anything, he wouldn't stand a chance. Instead everybody tried to outmeme the man.

He's right about several things but I disagree with his political philosophy, so much so that it often irritates me to listen to him

>implying he don't say the same thing in 50 books
>implying that because you are in 'merica this changes his discorse (and if does, well fuck)
>implying complaining with extensive research changes the fact that it can't be writte like a tumblr text
>If I am triggered by critics on 'merica? Nah, I have some myself, specialy the way it deals with public healthcare; but Chosmky just says 'merica is the problem of the world, so I am used to this poor of a excuse discourse.
>If he accounts context, I wish he had better awnsers them "merica iz badz, merica iz evilzz, merica iz worldiz problemz", beucase, of course it's always mericas faulty
>That's true, critics of 'merica aren't supporting Iran or China. And if one can denounce somewrong doing by 'merica, you should. It was me trying to be ironic with this, and this was a complete falacy of my part.

But the other things, they arent falacys, because literaly, that's all he does.

Thanks, will put that in my curriculum.

>a candidate that could actually keep their cool and pull citations as deep as Noam does when questioned about anything, he wouldn't stand a chance
So you want your head of state+government to be someone that passes authority onto someone else whenever he's questioned, specially when the *papers* he passes authority onto are not only far removed from the population's scope, but also from pretty much anyone because there's nearly nobody who's as well read as Chomsky? Yeah, that sounds like a representative democracy alright.

>his sort of scrupulous and detailed criticism
Check out the video