This Guy

I'm looking for dirt on this guy, times he got it wrong, holes in his philosophy etc

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uwUDEOAxLlc
youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk
youtu.be/rIOA8Cyc4_Y
youtube.com/watch?v=gbTxLmbCoo4
youtube.com/watch?v=uITrIgSSqH0
paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjCqcmvvf_TAhVKKyYKHUfUBRcQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHam_Vkr6jQLvmf1_tqRFHUjepKDA
algemeiner.com/2013/01/17/chomsky-and-the-terror-masters/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>times he got it wrong
pretty much anytime he opens his mouth

look for the exchange between him and zizek

also there's a discussion between him and foucalt

you know, in fact this guy pretty much ignores continental philosophy to his detriment

>holes in his philosophy
where is philosophy there are holes

not an argument

300 level genius IQ you idiot you cannot compete with that

I guess he (wrongly) doesn't see the threat or power being exerted by practitioners of foucalt, derrida etc He's only thinking in terms of capital.

>power being exerted by practitioners of foucalt,

I'm not looking to compete with him. I'm looking for dirt should I ever need to tarnish his ideas in debate with his fans.

lol

Why not debate his ideas, instead of tarnishing them with the dirt that you want to dig up? It would be obnoxious otherwise, unless you purely want to troll them.

youtube.com/watch?v=uwUDEOAxLlc

His political ideas are largely historically based & he always seems to use impeccable sourced facts. He only ever attacks one side (the west) & the reason he gives for this is that it is the role of a dissident. What this method achieves is constantly presenting the west as the bad guy. Whereas the truth is that things are a lot more complicated. Intrinsic corruption is a lot of 3rd world / middle eastern countries is as much to blame as the actions of the west.

You should debate ideas, not dirt.

But the biggest thing on this guy is if he really was a dissident, he would be in prison.

Chomsky is a gatekeeper for information. Limited hangout type deal

youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk

James Corbett nails it in this vid^
Biggest flaw of Chomsky is he refuses to talk about the real force behind evil, the banks.

>I need to crowdsource my opinion. Please tell me what to think.

Pretty sure he's sucked a dick familam. Also Kike.

I'm not looking for opinion's sweet tits, just dirt.

his main problem is downplaying a certain (((lobby))) power in America and shifting the blame on the neocons and republicans, they're good goys sure but they're not the real problem. you won't find dirt somewhere else because there is hardly any. some retards try to bring up pol pot as if that's relevant nowadays

"He's a Jew!" doesn't go down to well in polite company, but thanks bruv

Looks like subtle digs at what he's failing to say is the best i'll get.

Always liked him for having well thought out ideas. Being an independent thinker and refusing to go on CNN.

Isn't he pretty based?

I think the reason you won't find "dirt" that you might find on someone else is because he's actually sincere, his fuck ups are simply blind spots and biases that we all have according to our origins

No, he ignores anything that doesn't fit his agenda - denigrating the west. He's used as a tool of the batshit left (the west is build opon a system of patriarchal oppression etc).

He supported the Red Khmer regime way after it was ethically responsible to do so. At the time he believed the stories of genocide was Western propaganda to discredit communism.

Supporting a genocidal regime usually counts as 'dirt'

Dude, just read his fucking wikipedia page. There's a section for all the communist genocides he's denied.

Absolutely batshit outside of his actual field of study—linguistics.

...

>9/11 and JFK assassination were not significant, don't investigate those topics, just accept the official story.
youtu.be/rIOA8Cyc4_Y

nice!

How's it going, Lionel?

He's a socialist.

...

He's a very intelligent man who has a history of interesting ideas and arguments but when he went public with his opinion about 9/11 he showed his true colors. It's not hard to find videos of the guy attacking legitimate 9/11 theorists, but when he finally openly stated that it's not in anyone's interest at all to find out who actually committed the atrocities on 9/11 that's when he completely lost me. There's something wrong with anyone who would make a statement like that.

Well he is still just a human

((human))

This. Absolutely, unequivocally and absolutely this. Any discussion of Noam Chomsky needs to include the content of this video. This is absolutely damning. It's psychopathic tier commentary. Who cares? Who cares? Well I guess if you don't have an ounce of empathy or an ounce of goodness or an ounce of any desire or need to expose evil and corruption and tyranny then I guess you wouldn't give a rat's fucking ass, would you? Fuck off Noam Chomsky.

He's a kike and he knows both of those events benefitted the Kikes directly.

>Noam Chomsky vs. William F Buckley on the Vietnam War- The Complete Interview
youtube.com/watch?v=gbTxLmbCoo4

>Noam "Pol Pot did nothing wrong" Chomsky
The kike denied the Cambodian genocide by the Khamer Rouge calling it a capitalist hoax

The main problem with Noam is he is an anarchist. Most anarchist think the state of nature is the simular to the state of nature of Rousseau, and when we move from the state of nature we are oppressed by society.

In fact, the state of nature is a Hobsean state of war where life is nasty, brutish and short.

(((steve pinker))) was also a jewish anarchist growing up but he was fortuante enough to see what happened when the police his hometown, Montreal went on strike.

Even the liberal pussies in Canada quickly devolved into the hobsean state of war.

Noam also hates every capitalist intervention ever and ignores the cost of communist interventions as unjust. But when you look back and see what Stalin did to Russia and the Ukraine and what Mao did to China and Tibet all of a sudden the CIA proping up right wing dictatorships and McCarthysim seem justified, and in fact, the moral act.

Noam rejects this. We should have let Chilea fall to a Marxist dictator and go the way of Russia, China, and North Korea.

The funny thing is the neocons ideology was originally Jewish. They wanted a movement that would get the US to intervene on the world stage on behalf on Israel and so they created the NeoCon movement, a movement of international intervention that ignores existing laws.

That is the most Jewish thing ever.

Chomsky is usually wrong but pretty consistent in his stance. The only real dirt on him is that he accused Rumsfeld (?) about the quote "There are things we know, things we don't know and things we don't know we don't know", which was said in reference to the WMD that served as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq.
>someone please correct me if I'm wrong
Chomsky, although criticizing Rumsfeld for that, said about the Khmer Rouge that they were righteous rebels fighting Imperialism and he sided with them. When it came out that the Khmer Rouge were a bunch of murderous psychopaths and asked if he regretted supporting them, Chomsky replied "I wasn't wrong. I was right with the information I had available at the time. It's just that the information was incorrect."

Here you go :

youtube.com/watch?v=uITrIgSSqH0

>what is the EU?
>what was May of 68?

Denied the Cambodian Genocide by the Khmer Rouge.

> "I wasn't wrong. I was right with the information I had available at the time. It's just that the information was incorrect."

What a weasel.

Like Andrew Anglin is?

Read "intellectual morons" by Jonah Goldberg (yes he's obviously a fucking Jew, big whoop). He does a good chapter pointing out how retarded Noam "blame the west for everything and show the world I should have stuck to linguistics instead of politics" Chomsky is

Pointing out someone named Chomsky is a Jew is redundancy. People are more than likely to reply "No shit, Sherlock..."

>Chomsky replied "I wasn't wrong. I was right with the information I had available at the time. It's just that the information was incorrect."
Damn kike talk about the Jewing intensifying

He had a spat with Sam Harris where he was not only wrong but came of as an asshole.

But Chomsky is pretty solid, because he tries to be as honest as possible. It's not his fault that retarded leftists took his criticisms and weaponized it.

He's a decent jumping off point for a lot of redpills, but only because he has you look deeper than you might have thought to look. The fact that he's so respected by the left and academia helps this. He's far from based, though.

His main flaw is that he merely critiques, albeit very effectively, the West/Capitalism for all their flaws, hypocrisies, and shortsightedness. But when it comes to offering a solution to these flaws, all he can offer is a very opaque, rough outline of an anarcho-syndicalist utopia which would be virtually impossible to establish. It's easy to point out flaws, much harder to come up with viable alternatives.

>the reason he gives for this is that it is the role of a dissident. What this method achieves is constantly presenting the west as the bad guy.
There it is. There's your "dirt". He's taking a one sided approach on purpose. To defend western civilization you only need to look at history and the present state of the world. We are living in unparalleled levels of prosperity right now and that' because of, not in spite of, capitalism and western civilization. Finding some flaws doesn't mean we need to throw out the whole thing. Every other style of civilization has been worse historically.

I think this is him being a weasel. If he declared himself a socialist he'd have the weight of all socialisms atrocities used against him. His anarcho nonsense has never nor will ever come to pass. Therefore he has no weight to bear & he can remain vague.

It's not enough, his followers simply point out other historical dissidents that didn't see it as their job to critique other powers - only their own. some men would like to see the world burn, for others just their own nation is enough.

If the world were filled with peaceful, high IQ, academic philosopher types, then sure - anarchy would work fine. Most forms of governments would.

Chomsky's problem is that he imagines everyone else in the world is like him. They aren't. Some people are too dumb, unwilling to learn, or just downright evil.

We need governments to handle natural evils, like fires, earthquakes, and floods. We also need governments to handle man made evils that come from things like people being stupid, uneducated, or evil.

If you support the government for things like enforcing minimum wage, or workplace safety regulations, or police, etc then you also support other aspects of the government, like tax collectors to fund it, prisons to hold criminals, and so on and so on.

Chomsky's anarchy is indefensible because practically, we need a government to organize society to make it livable for most people and improve happiness, health, and productivity. Some aspects of the government are not needed and should be dissolved. Others do immoral things. Nobody would argue that the police or prisons are perfect, but that means we need to work to remove them, not dissolve unjust power structures. Even if we have gone to war, or applied state violence, in places and times where we shouldn't have, we need to work to be more judicious in the future, not spend our time in recriminations over the past.

He is absolutely right about everything. He is a God among men. You cannot refute him.

> and so on and so on.

Thanks for stopping by Zizek!

Then you're arguing with retards.
Seriously point to the average life expectancy and level of wealth among even the "poor" in western civilization and contrast that with any other form of civilization. Same with social and class mobility. You can't argue against those facts. The western world is so fucking comfy right now because of western civilization and capitalism.

>Cries about (((Capitalism)))
>Thankfully his millionaire status takes the sting out of it

>Chomsky's anarchy is indefensible because practically, we need a government to organize society to make it livable for most people and improve happiness, health, and productivity.

You are wrong. It's not necessary. People have lived and died quite contently without meeting a beurocrat.

paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjCqcmvvf_TAhVKKyYKHUfUBRcQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHam_Vkr6jQLvmf1_tqRFHUjepKDA

Well this certainly hasn't aged well. Even before its fall into barbarity, the writing was on the wall with that country. Yet ideology would have to come before facts and this brain-dead fuck would have to ignore that.

God, how do people take this insufferable cunt seriously? Is it just because he rags on America?

There's some gold here, thanks. algemeiner.com/2013/01/17/chomsky-and-the-terror-masters/

>write introduction to book denying the holocaust
>protest Israel every chance he gets
>get called a kike by pol

Not retards, ideologues. You're point is valid but a counter argument would we live here better at the expense of those that don't live in the west. There is some validity to that point but not nearly as much as a lefty ideologue believes.

forgot
>first person to call out the liberal media on being propagandaists for the elite

Universal grammar theory is incomplete and structured with assumptions.

Vygotsky>>>dogshit>>>Chomsky

There is no validity to that point. That's what they don't get. Every country that adopts western civilization and capitalism is doing well. SKorea, Taiwan, all of Europe, China is even capitalist. Everyone is doing well. The ones who aren't doing well are either not capitalist or not western.