How can one man be such a sophist?

Sophistry is just a jewish trait. Their reality has been incredibly skewed by their warped culture and past inbreeding habits.

it's you

The more I learn about history the more I've come to realize that Chomsky tends to be right.

Virtually all criticism of Chomsky I've seen resembles this.

Good ad hominem but this isn't /pol/

You do realise that Islamist insurgents still control most of Afghanistan right?

The control a lot of territory but population-wise the government-controlled areas are a lot bigger.

>"Stop meddling in things you don't know anything about you're just making it worse and worse and worse!"
>*in year 16 of a forever war that's spread more and more* "Whadda you know, jew boy?! Shut up!"

Said the brainlet that argues via an ad hominem.

Hitchens summed this guy up really well. To paraphrase:

Prof. Chomsky has taken up the impossible task of convincing himself that the American revolution was not worth undertaking and is indeed a failure and will be very soon a dead entity. This belief is the real source of all his critique. While I(Hitchens) believe the American revolution is the only successful one worth fighting for.

9/11 made him retarded (as that quote perfectly encapsulates)

How many of you have emailed him? He is pretty famous for returning emails.

Didn't the Talibans come to power as a result of US/Soviet fuckery in the first place? And adding to that, hasn't the invasion done shit-all in terms of stability, and Afghanistan is in fact this a supremely shitty place to live?

Literally everyone except crazy neocon kikes thinks that invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake.

Tell that to the Cambodians.

>If the US had done nothing, it would have become an ideal base for international terrorist insurgents to receive weaponry and training.

But Afghanistan still is an ideal base for international terrorist insurgents to receive weaponry and training (although nowadays there are slightly better bases for international terrorist insurgents, like Iraq and Syria, both of which were destabilized by the US)

>If it were up to him, Afghanistan's terrorist threat would not have been contained and half the Afghan population would still live a life of practical slavery.

But Afghanistan's terrorist threat has not been contained, and half the Afghan population still lives a life of practical slavery. Are you retarded?

Chomsky is one of the only public voices worth listening to any more. That said, one needs to be aware of how inflexible and dug-in he is in his position on virtually everything.

Are you sure? What was the outcome for that invasion? The greatest proliferation of Islamic terrorism ever recorded: this is the result of your "understanding of the worls". Had we listenedmto people such as Chomsky, we now would not have to deal with ISIS.

>write hundreds of books
>be active for 50 years
>have one slip, which he also explained extensively multiple times
>it's still the only time he has been wrong, so people mention it all the time

How predictable. Here's my point: he made this mistake when your parents were still infants, almost 50 years abo. This is how little there is to criticize in Chomsky's career.

Oh my God, you poor naive child

Stunning rebuttal

I could say the same for you.

No you couldn't, because you didn't write anything worth rebutting. You wrote a formulaic dismissal and didn't even try to address the points made in the other post

3 other people have written long rebuttals, and it's not like you're responsing to them.

Stunning rebuttal.

>ignores well argued posts such as the ones pointing out that the U.S funded Al-Qaeda in the first place, replies to a shitpost instead
10/10, I hate chomsky now

kek

WOW you're such a frickin idiot

Definitely no lefties raiding this thread
Weak individually, you travel in packs to prevent yourselves being torn to pieces, as you would be if you debated honestly

I'm considering emailing him about an analytical method regarding the search for a genetic or biological basis for universal grammar, as I'm a geneticist who likes linguistics.

Stunning rebuttal

Just as unfunny the second time

Will he post it again?

Hands down the greatest intellectual alive.

Do us a favor and delete this thread, you don't seem like you're interested in talking about Chomsky anyway

So you won't respond to those anons who gave you serious answers? Okay buddy.

>delete this thread because its contents hurt my feelings
No, fuck off back to /leftypol/ if you want a commie echo chamber.

>One little slip

When the slip is missing how bad Pol Pot was, that's a pretty enormous slip. Imagine how culture at large would have responded if instead of saying Pol Pot wasn't that bad, he had said Hitler wasn't that bad.

I'm not the poster/s they were responding to and I have no interest in that discussion, I just enjoy mocking sophists such as yourselves who think that you have anything of value to write

your falseflagging is too obvious to be a /pol/tard, maybe you're the one who needs to go back to leftypol

After you.

You both need to go back to /leftypol/

Veeky Forums is a Natsoc board

Watch this youtu.be/4za50vMRN0I
It's 10 minutes long, and it's mainly descriptive: Noam quotes literally every piece of information that was available in those years, showing this way that he wasn't whitewashing Pol Pot for political reasons, rather he had defended him for about 1.5 years due to the fact that there was literally no honest reporting on these manners (the informations everyone was recieving were false).

I wish. It would make a change from the brain dead communists you find here.

>I was right based on the information I had at the time
Ok
But he was still wrong

Yes, and he took notice as soon as actual informations were available. It's notnlike he kept defending Pol Pot for 20 years just to hide the fact that he was wrong, so what's the big deal?

>Yes, and he took notice as soon as actual informations were available.
And it was clearly a mistake to defend Pol Pot's regime until this point, regardless of what intellectual gymnastics he uses to claim that he did nothing wrong.

Assuming you believe that he was being a completely impartial observer in the first place, which is horse shit.

Also 'actual information' WAS available, he just didn't recognize it as such or didn't WANT to recognise it as such. I doubt anyone would even care about this today if he didn't keep trying to weasel out of responsibility like the sophist kike that he is, but he evidently he even has to defend his failures as being successes.

>he's a kike and he knew what he was doing yeah I believe the gubmint except when it says stuff I don't like then they're ZOG but when they say stuff I like then they're OK

Stunning strawman rebuttal.

Right now, the US is training socialist Kurds to fight al qaeda in Syria and Iraq. Funny how times have changed, isn't it?

>strawman
you've bult a nice strawman of chomsky yourself, nothing to complain about

>you've bult a nice strawman of chomsky yourself,
No I didn't. My depiction of him as a sophist and commie apologist is mostly accurate.

Can you stop being so fucking gay? Why not bring up a point of discussion instead of this constant nuh uh-ing

so is my depiction of yourself as a hypocrite who is ready to accuse others of not taking US propaganda as scripture but would throw it all away the moment it didn't suit your ideological purposes

Wrong.

>fricking
I shyggy diggy

In the video I've linked he literally mention every document that was available at the time. When he was defending Pol Pot, literally no one in the West did not knew a thing about the Cambodian Genocide, and as soon as actual informations start coming out from Cambodia, he radically shifted his stance (inb4 changing opinions once new facts come out means that he is an hypocrite).

If all the informations that are available depicts the Khmer Rouge phenomenon as some sort of democratic liberators, the right choice was to defend Pol Pot. If suddenly, as it happened, documents started proving his genocide, it is reasonable to discard the old, obviously doctored informations, and focus on the new, more factual ones.
There's literally nothing wrong with it, and I'm not saying because he is Chomsky, I'm saying it because literally no one could have avoided such a situation.
It's as if you've just discovered that a world leader that was favorable to you has actually enacted secret death camp in his country, and suddenly everyone around you started calling you a genocide-apologist, even though you reject the support to said leader as soon as you've discovered his crimes.

Except the 'actual' information was being misquoted and blown up all over the media. What's the point even? Was there any need for more people condemning pol pot? The crux of Chomsky's intention was to shed light on the media's cherry-picking of bloodbaths. The invasion of East Timor was proportionally far deadlier and it had US support and yet it was swept under the rug.

>In the video I've linked he literally mention every document that was available at the time.
Where do we draw the line at 'document'? Even someone like Chomsky is not capable of doing this anyway. His claim is a lie.
>When he was defending Pol Pot, literally no one in the West did not knew a thing about the Cambodian Genocide,
Another lie. Plenty of people knew it, because of testimony gathered from survivors, but Chomsky chose to ignore these because he's a dishonest commie apologist and sophist.
>and as soon as actual informations start coming out from Cambodia, he radically shifted his stance
A lie. He kept apologising for the mass murdering Khmer Rouge long after this, ignoring the truth until it was so obvious even a sophist and commie apologist such as himself could no longer ignore it.
>If all the informations that are available depicts the Khmer Rouge phenomenon as some sort of democratic liberators,
They didn't.
>I'm saying it because literally no one could have avoided such a situation.
They could have if there were willing to place value on the testimony of refugees from Khmer Rouge atrocities, and many did do this. Chomsky didn't do it because he was a dishonest coward, and connived to silence those who did.
>It's as if you've just discovered that a world leader that was favorable to you has actually enacted secret death camp in his country, and suddenly everyone around you started calling you a genocide-apologist, even though you reject the support to said leader as soon as you've discovered his crimes.
But yet again, Chomsky ignored the testament from Cambodian survivors of the regime in favour of 'official documents', and to do this he would either need to be a dishonest piece of shit or an idiot. Even I won't try to dismiss Chomsky as an idiot.

>b-but the US!
Another reason why I hate Chomsky. East Timor has nothing to do with the Cambodian Genocide, and it didn't back then either.

And Cambodia has nothing to do with the United States.

*testimony

You're right, and yet Chomsky found a way to blame the US for the Cambodian Genocide anyway, because he's a sophist.

>Another lie. Plenty of people knew it, because of testimony gathered from survivors, but Chomsky chose to ignore these because he's a dishonest commie apologist and sophist.
Literally no one could prove it, their guesses were as good as his since the reportage of this conflict was obscured in its first years.

>A lie. He kept apologising for the mass murdering Khmer Rouge long after this, ignoring the truth until it was so obvious even a sophist and commie apologist such as himself could no longer ignore it.
You haven't seen that video, haven't you? It was only 14 minutes long for God's sake.

>They could have if there were willing to place value on the testimony of refugees from Khmer Rouge atrocities, and many did do this. Chomsky didn't do it because he was a dishonest coward, and connived to silence those who did.
>But yet again, Chomsky ignored the testament from Cambodian survivors of the regime in favour of 'official documents', and to do this he would either need to be a dishonest piece of shit or an idiot. Even I won't try to dismiss Chomsky as an idiot.
You think Chomsky was an idiot for not taking at face value anecdotal evidence over actual studies of the conflict? If 10 Ukranians comes up tomorrow saying that Putin has death camps in the Urals, would you immediatly dismiss any Putin supporter as a genocide-apologist? What if you have only a handful of testimonies that are not supported by any proof whatsoever?
Truth being told, you're not operating on principles: you hate Chomsky, you've found out he made a mistake (that was justifiable btw), and now you're trying to hammer him down on this ground. The problem is that your argument does not work regardless of the individual at hand: every journalist and commentator could have been excused for such a mistake, and any reasonable person would have blamed those institutions who have manifsctured the false informations that were available to Western intellectuals and journalists at the time

Not that guy, but why has Chomsky blamed the US for the Cambodian genocide? Where can I read about it?

Reminder that Chomsky is a disgusting hypocrite

hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist

>user: ...Even I won't try to dismiss Chomsky as an idiot.
>Second user: You think Chomsky was an idiot...

It's like you don't even read the post you're responding to.

I'm saying that he has not realized that he is an idiot by reason, he just assumed it and reverse enginereed his position. Too bad that his argument would classify virtually every journalist and commentator that has ever been as a sophist, genocide-apologist weirdo on a completely retro-active ground (and it sticks on you for the rest of your life, even if you have changed your stances as soon as new informations came out, even if you then mantain that stance for 50 fucking years).

>Hoover Institution
>Peter Schweizer, Breitbart editor
lol

He literally said that Chomsky is not an idiot. And here you are again saying that he did. Reading comprehension 101 - it's time for you to enroll.

Refute the facts of the article

If you email him about it he will tell you that he did so because he wanted to provide and leave something to his family.
From a public point of view this is till disgusting, from a privave view it's probably reasonable: I'm sure that Chomsky knows that the world is going to shit, and that leaving his damily as a middle class entity means that somewhere along the line his successors will have to become drone slaves for the new global augmented cyber-elites.

>But yet again, Chomsky ignored the testament from Cambodian survivors of the regime in favour of 'official documents', and to do this he would either need to be a dishonest piece of shit or an idiot. Even I won't try to dismiss Chomsky as an idiot.

Read again, dummy. It's a rethorical trick so that you can immediatly define Chomsky as dishonest. I've pointed out that he wasn't, therefore the only option left is that he was an idiot.

>Literally no one could prove it, their guesses were as good as his since the reportage of this conflict was obscured in its first years.
Except for the literal survivors of the regime, which you've chosen to ignore like Chomsky did.
>You haven't seen that video, haven't you? It was only 14 minutes long for God's sake.
Why would I? Chomsky is the most obnoxious sophist on the planet, and I don't enjoy watching such a conniving little shit such as him lie to naive but well-meaning people and corrupt them. Besides, it's extremely obvious that he's going to lie about this topic in particular and depict himself and his actions in a self-serving and inaccurate way. Also, if your summary of this video is accurate, I'm right about Chomsky anyway.
>You think Chomsky was an idiot for not taking at face value anecdotal evidence over actual studies of the conflict?
I didn't say this, I said he would have been an idiot for dismissing it out of hand and later claiming that 'there was no way to know', which he did, but because Chomsky is clearly NOT an idiot, the only alternative is that he was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, and was willing to ignore evidence that they were in fact mass murdering psychopaths because he was blinded by his irrational hatred for the United States and his desire to see shitty commie regimes such as Pol Pot's succeed even if they turned out to be far worse than the US.
>If 10 Ukranians comes up tomorrow saying that Putin has death camps in the Urals, would you immediatly dismiss any Putin supporter as a genocide-apologist?
No.
>What if you have only a handful of testimonies that are not supported by any proof whatsoever?
The refugees - specifically, the huge numbers of them and the detail of their testimonies - were the proof. In other words, there was far more than '10' of them.
I won't bother with your last paragraph, which is essentially just a strawman.

>Refute the facts of the article
There's nothing to refute. It's a version of the old "lol how can you protest against capitalism when you live in capitalism" chestnut.

>Why would I? Chomsky is the most obnoxious sophist on the planet, and I don't enjoy watching such a conniving little shit such as him lie to naive but well-meaning people and corrupt them.

Too bad, he quotes literally every sources he had available at the time. All of them. I guess I don't have to bother with your argument from ignorance, since you're not willing to do even the most basic research on the topic.

No. There is a difference between making a living in capitalism and criticizing it, and actively making as much profit as you can.

I'm fine with people making a living, but what Chomsky does is disgusting.

>Too bad, he quotes literally every sources he had available at the time. All of them.
Except for the numerous refugees that he chose to ignore, and who turned out to more accurate in their description of the situation than any of his shitty little 'documents' did.
>I guess I don't have to bother with your argument from ignorance, since you're not willing to do even the most basic research on the topic.
>it hurts my feelings so I'm going to ignore it and call you 'ignorant' for not believing literal lies instead because they were written down!!!1
Noam would be proud.

I'm a Chomsky-head and you're wrong. Surviving under capitalism is different that investing actual capitals into big oil and the US military machine.
He's also somewhat of a piece of shit when it comes to CC and his fees: according to not his words but his actions, education and information is not really meant to be democratic.
This does not disqualify his arguments, rather it disqualifies his personality cult.

You have not hurt my feelings, it's literally an argument from ignorance, for you know nothing about which sources were available to Chomsky, and then you also refuse to aknowledge them, even after I have provided a document that list them all. Why should I bother? Nothing I can say, no fact and no context will change your mind, in fsct you won't even look at what I have to provide, so why the hell do you want me to keep debating you? You know it's not going anywhere.

Yet another case of the right being too lazy to understand even easiest and most basic tenets of socialism
>actively making as much profit as you can
Do you know what profit is?
Which factory does Chomsky own? Whose surplus labor is he expropriating? On what page is the "On People whose Wages are Pretty High" section of Capital?

He is giving money to fsctories that produces weapons for the US army and to big oil corporations. Is this socialism?

>having a 401K makes you bourgeois
Yeah, and I'm a lion tamer because I have a cat.

That's not a 401k, so yeah, what you've said is true.
I would say that having a multi-million capital that has been used for decades to invest in big oil and the war machine is extremely bourgeoise.

>for you know nothing about which sources were available to Chomsky,
???????
I've referred to the 'sources' that Chomsky had available to him multiple times in this thread, and like him, you insist upon ignoring them in favour of factually incorrect 'documents' which have no relevance because, THEY WERE FUCKING WRONG.

I have done so, you have just mentioned sources without actually quoting them, and without actually proving that Chomsky chose to ignore them. "Saying" something does not mean that you have proved it.
But whatever, you can keep pretending that I'm an offended libtard that was deeply hurt by the clueless unsourced rants of a random user who is not willing to check on ANY source, all of this happening on Veeky Forums.

>invest in companies/industries that he criticizes 24/7 and doesn't need to invest in to make a living, not even to make money as apparently being a multimillionaire isn't enough for good ol' chomsky
>charges ridiculous sums for his speeches and charges for recording while claiming that free information is necessary in a democratic society
>private property is wrong, but here i'm going to give the rights of not just my property but my works to my children, because even though IP is bad, it's not when i do it and make a killing

Oh i'm sorry, i forgot Chomsky was truly representative of a working class man just trying to make his way in the system. He's a hypocrite, and so are you if you think what he does doesn't go against his ideas.

Looks like you're as bad as those 'right-wingers' who can't take any criticism of any of the personalities who represent your political viewpoint, no matter what they do.

More sophistry. Your argument is essentially 'lies are closer to the truth than truth itself'. If you want 'proof' that Chomsky ignored these testimonies, I'll give you a hint; don't ask him. Do some research for yourself. It's very well known that he chose to ignore the refugees in favour of his precious documents and insisted that other people do the same, and despite him being a commie sophist, I'm 90% that even he has admitted this from time to time.
>"Saying" something does not mean that you have proved it.
>but documents containing lies are in fact closer to the truth than the truth itself', because they're written down xD
I despair.
I also never claimed that 'saying' something means it's automatically proven true, yet another strawman you've constructed.
>But whatever, you can keep pretending that I'm an offended libtard that was deeply hurt
I don't know why you keep mentioning how totally not butthurt you are, I couldn't care less.
>clueless unsourced rants of a random user who is not willing to check on ANY source, all of this happening on Veeky Forums.
Perfect description of your own posts tbqh.
I'm sure Noam is a reliable source with regards to his support for Pol Pot's genocidal regime though, you should just keep taking him at his word. There's no way he would try to depict himself in a unduly flattering way.

>It's very well known that he chose to ignore the refugees in favour of his precious documents
Post a source, faggot.

No.