What does pol think about noam chomsky?

What does pol think about noam chomsky?

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/What-languages-does-Noam-Chomsky-speak-in-addition-to-English
unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.br/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives.html
youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc
youtube.com/watch?v=hdUbIlwHRkY
spunk.org/texts/writers/chomsky/sp001178.txt
tomwoods.com/ep-743-has-the-state-reduced-violence/
corbettreport.com/meet-noam-chomsky-academic-gatekeeper-video/
economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/noam-chomsky-defends-central-banking.html
jeremyrhammond.com/2013/12/18/noam-chomsky-on-the-federal-reserve/
amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0670022950
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

He isn't even a linguist.

What do you mean?

Good at linguistics, embarrassing at everything else.

he's the alex jones of the left

He's one of those few guys that make you think maybe the US citizens aren't all doomed to be shallow thinking retards after all

leftist gatekeeper

he attacks left & right.

>anarchist

least he knows what anarchism is. not like antifa marxists who claim to be anarchists.

Not a single discovery, not even a foreign language learnt. Probably his function is to control the field from those who can unveil their lies.

>muh capitalism is evil

sells ton of books making a lot of money

>muh propaganda is evil

sells ton of commie propaganda to teenagers

Also, he got really triggered about Steven Pinker's book Better Angels of our Nature and sperged out about how it is bullshit only because it contradicts his stupid anarcho-faggy views about how savages are peaceful and muh it's all fault of society.

I agree with Moldbug he is blue pill soaked in red. Obviously a genius though

Kissed the ring of Hassan Nasrallah

He's a despicable backslider

Uhhh?

I used to like him a lot but haven't listened to anything from him in years. That was before I was redpilled so I have a feeling I won't like him anymore

He has a high IQ because he is ashkenazi, just like (((Moldbug))). But he uses his intelligence in the most jewish way possible: selling commie propaganda to teenagers.

You can you to current tribal societies and see how peaceful they are infact.

>Known for:
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
Axiom of categoricity
Bought priesthood
Cartesian linguistics
Chomsky Normal Form
Chomsky hierarchy
Chomsky–Schützenberger theorem
Cognitive closure (philosophy)
Context-free grammar
Context-sensitive grammar
Corporate media
Deep structure and surface structure
Deterministic context-free grammar
Digital infinity
E-Language
Elite media
Empty category principle
Extended Projection Principle
Formal democracy
Formal grammar
Generative grammar
Government and binding
I-Language
Immediate constituent analysis
Innateness hypothesis
Intellectual responsibility
Language acquisition device
Levels of adequacy
Linguistic competence
Linguistic performance
Logical Form (linguistics)
M-command
Markedness
Media manipulation
Mentalism (philosophy)
Merge (linguistics)
Minimalist program
Non-configurational language
[... cont]

Several of the concepts were created by him. He ONLY has three things named after him, though.

quora.com/What-languages-does-Noam-Chomsky-speak-in-addition-to-English

According to the information above he has a good understanding of an additional couple of languages.

I think he's completely wrong but I find him refreshing in that if you ask him why he believes what he believe you'll get an actual answer rather than muh feelz

Parasitic gap
Phonology
Phrase structure grammar
Phrase structure rules
Plato's Problem
Poverty of the stimulus
Principles and parameters
Projection Principle
Propaganda model
Psychological nativism
Recursion in language
Scansion
Second-language acquisition
Self-censorship
Specified subject condition
Speech community
Statistical language acquisition
Structure preservation principle
Subjacency
Symbol (formal)
Tensed-S condition
Terminal and nonterminal symbols
Trace erasure principle
Transformational grammar
Transformational syntax
Universal grammar
X-bar theory

>this

who is moldbug?

so peaceful:

And which of those is truly a discovery and not some fake science. Honestly I didn't research him thoroughly, but in a previous thread I asked what was so great about him and nobody could name one thing in particular.
Listening to his speaches I didn't find him challenging enough to consider him a great mind either.

the guy who own this blog:

unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.br/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives.html

he is a reactionary capitalist

>There is strong evidence that pinker's book is incorrect for virtually all of human history. See Brian Ferguson, Douglas Fry, and others. On the modern period, see the review by Edward Herman and Edward Peterson, on Znet.

From chomsky himself. I emailed him. He has a public email.

/r/iamverysmart

what thread? is it deleted?

Oh fuck off back to your cunt site.

Literally /ourkike/, btfo's antifags and blm

>poo

Just name it. I don't care what was the memes-noone-knows he created in his field, most of humanities are not even science, they can cross-quote and jerk to eachother whatever they want, but still when you go to a foreign country you learn their language in couple of years, when you learn it with such professors, it takes you up to five years after which you don't know it as good as you could.
Here's your random level of linguistic discussions:
youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc

years ago

Yes, but the burgers can't see it; One of the few people who empirically points out the hypocrisy of the US in it's foreign policy.

>Dictator or democracy; We will kill you unless you let us fuck you

Love Zizek and his battles.

I don't know about valid refutations of Pinker's work. Hard to belive that today's tribes are much much more violent than all tribes in the past. Also, Pinker is a very serious scientist while Chomsky is a clear ideologue, so I have a bias.

also:

"Fry explores Keeley's argument in depth and counters that such sources erroneously focus on the ethnography of hunters and gatherers in the present, whose culture and values have been infiltrated externally by modern civilization"

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>"muh it's da white men that is making the savages violent"

that's the fucking agument.

based

Who wouldn't?
>BASED Nasrallah

I like his BTFO of public education as indoctrination

Typical of someone who's never left a university precinct.

Overrated do nothing.

Do you, India bro, understand that those people unironically belive that all tribe violence of today is caused by the "intervention of the white man". Even tho those tribes are much more violent than the actual "modern white man" the theory still makes sense in their damaged heads for purely ideological reasons.

to be gassed

Overrated jew that built his career on sophistry.

He's right about some things and wrong about others.

Confirmed shallow retard
This man is known as a joke who appeals to thr dumbest of the dumb

gusy who is jaques fresco
he died recently and one of my friends who leans commie a little idolized him
is he a cuck or what?

Here's what (((they))) do in linguistics:
youtube.com/watch?v=hdUbIlwHRkY
They show how different languages are. Everybody feels they're different, but the thing is they actually are NOT.
> in (language name) you can say "walks in the store" meaning "he walks in the store" - you cannot do it in english
divide et empera, that's what they do.
As one based semi-jew told me: russians are somewhat belorussians, belorussians are somewhat ukrainians, ukrainians are somewhat polish, polish are somewhat czech, czech are somewhat germans, germans are somewhat dutch, dutch are somewhat english - FUCK THAT - they're going to place shitskins all across this place.

Im sure youve read about the wars of europe. They destroyed the continent repeatedly. This was the same stury till the nuclear age. The fighting in the rest of the word was essentially ritualistic and more like a game than modern standards. You have to consider european violence before you make comparisions.

Also that quote does not imply what you think that it implies.

this desu senpai

False. He's such a good linguist that he has convinced you he's a SME on several subjects. His esoteric grammar and verbosity give the illusion that he's giving a meaningful, substantive answer, when in fact he's talking in circles and completely obfuscating any semblance of an argument.

old self-hating faggot

>consider european violence
Why? It's no worse than any other sort of violence

Highly overrated. With regards to left wing thinkers, Zizek is better. Chomsky is basically just a basic bitch progressive faggot.

He's a smart socialist, meaning he's disingenuous. For example, he calls himself an anarchist but he's against gun ownership:

spunk.org/texts/writers/chomsky/sp001178.txt

"It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting.

But underlying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're misidentifying the source of the attack, but they do feel under attack.

The government is the only power structure yhat's even partially accountable to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the enemy -- not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.

It's not that that doesn't have its justifications. The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's partially influenceable--and potentially very influenceable--by the general population.

Many people who advocate keeping guns have fear of the government in the back of their minds. But that's a crazy response to a real problem. "

guys plz answer
all his videos are too long i need a quick rundown

Yes it was. If you look at the wars of the africans and indegenous americans. you will see that it was intensely ritualistic. They treated it like a game. The whole world was in awe of what europeons were doing to each other. Cant remember the sources. Its there in AOE2 and extrahistory. Im not a historian really tho you can also check up chomsky's books like year 501.

It does, their theory is simply: savage violence spiked because of the contact with the civilized men. They can put some makeup on it, but that's still the core idea. And when they say "civilized men" they're talking about european whites.

The graph in

is counting both world wars, and still the savages are making the "civilized white men" look like a bunch of angels. Also, even tho the europeans "destroyed the continent repeatedly" they are at least capable of building it and re-building it, different from the savage tribes that did all this crazy violence using only spears and arrows.

This

Articulate speaker. Could convince you that shit was gold. Too wrapped up in his own dogma, I think.

Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert type, only for college students instead of high school kids.

that's dave thomas

this is it

Retard who thinks that a degree in linguistics makes him an authority on EVERYTHING. When his opinion has value only in the field of linquistics. He is a loudmouth who displays his ignorance at every opportunity.

...

Didn't he discover and graph how the brain structures sentences? Or did someone before him figure it out? That's about all I learned about him in college.

Chomsky destroyed Harris by avoing to make the distinction between violence for good and bad reasons in a famous debate. Harris tried to defend the US by saying that it's violence in the ME was for good causes(yes, it was as stupid as it sounds) and Chomsky just destroyed this argument by considering that violence by itself is bad and that violence for "good reasons" is still bad because you can't claim that your individual motive is the right one. So by this logic, "ritualistic" violence is as bad as european violence, you can't claim that sacrificing someone to some stupid sun god in a gruesome ritual is better than killing muslims or protestants in name of Jesus.

I don't even like my argument, but basically the idea is: stop saying that killing is good if you're doing it for some stupid sun god.

Elite styled education, therefore frankfurt school marxism ideology ingrained.

He got btfo by Slavoj Zizek "sniffle* simply because Noam Chomsky didn't build his career on percieving hidden messages in film and medi which governs American psyche and common morality in post christianized society.

Wrong, there was cannibalism, tribal warfare, etc
And why would I only look at Africa? India, Mesopotamia- both bloodbaths

Also, can witch-hunt done by protestants be considered "ritualistic" violence? So it was better than the war violence during ww2?


So gain,
it's simply "muh da white man", that's what those fucktards belive and will use all kind of shenanigans to defend.

>Also, he got really triggered about Steven Pinker's book Better Angels of our Nature and sperged out about how it is bullshit only because it contradicts his stupid anarcho-faggy views about how savages are peaceful and muh it's all fault of society.

Many other people who have nothing to do with Chomsky or his ideas have published rebuttals to Pinker's book, including Nassim Taleb and Stefan Blankertz. Taleb called Pinker a science entertainer.

tomwoods.com/ep-743-has-the-state-reduced-violence/

Father of modern linguistics.

Also he said a bunch of political nonsense that no one takes seriously.

intelligent evil jewish teenage indoctrinator being BTFO by crazy stpid slav commie grampa.

sorry if I don't belive that this happened.

But why would we make the state vs non-state distinction in terms of violence?

Chomsky didn't destroy shit.

Chomsky just didn't want to admit that intentions matter and violence is necessary. Stabbing you on purpose and stabbing you by accident has very different consequences. In one of these scenarios I might actually call an ambulance after I stabbed you by accident, and the community doesn't have to fear that I'll stab them in the future. In the other scenario, I should be locked up cause I am dangerous and tempted.

And on violence: A pacifist that walks by as a good person gets raped right in front of him is pure evil and can't claim the moral high-ground. If you have the capacity to stop evil and you don't, you are arguably evil yourself.

yes, I don't agree with the guys. Was just pointing that by his own logics there should be no distincton between "ritualistic violence" and "european violence".

I was obsessed with Chomsky a year ago. Then I went 1488 and came here and all that shit, and now he's just kind of boring. I actually watched one of his talks today for the first time in forever. He's not bad on some things, I appreciate the anti-statist philosophy he pushes. He's just a utopian commie at the end of the day. His linguistic work and its impacts on psychology and computer science are far far more valuable than his activism.

chomsky has condoned several wars and invasions as necessary.

but how do i know your intentions. how do i know whats going on your head. when we make mindreading devices then ill start following harris

>Chomsky just destroyed this argument by considering that violence by itself is bad and that violence for "good reasons" is still bad because you can't claim that your individual motive is the right one.
>invading Nazi Germany was just as bad as muh 6 gorillion because the application of violence is universally wrong, regardless of the preconditions
If confronted with that implication, he would double talk his way out of it like the jew rat he is.

And he's a defender of the Federal Reserve too. He replied to someone that we need to abolish capitalism first before we can consider abolishing the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

corbettreport.com/meet-noam-chomsky-academic-gatekeeper-video/

economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/noam-chomsky-defends-central-banking.html

jeremyrhammond.com/2013/12/18/noam-chomsky-on-the-federal-reserve/

Can anyone think of a more capitalistic institution than a banking cartel that creates money and lends it to the government at interest?

Chomsky is an apologist for statism dressed up in an anarchist costume.

chom is not a fucking pacifist. hes condoned several wars and invasons

Oh I agree with that part. I just don't agree with Chomsky when he acts like George Bush is just as evil as say, Bin Laden. George Bush may have killed more people, but George's intentions are completely different. If George had his way the entire middle east would be filled with McDonalds and starbucks. If Bin Laden had his way everyone would be living under Sharia law.

Yes, he condoned Pol Pot and his communist massacre in Cambodia.

Then he's a double talking jew rat. If he told Sam Harris that violence is equal and cannot be considered "good" under any circumstances, he was lying like a faggot to score cheap points in an argument.

Well, one of the ways is to look at past behaviour. What did the US do with Japan after they hit them with the atomic bomb? Instil Sharia law?

This shit again. It been debunked repeatedly. He diny deny any genocide. He was just sceptical about the figures in the beginning.

do you happen to have the name of the paper?

at least moldbug isn't a fan of his (((Cathedral))), unlike chomsky and his fashionable intellectual anarchism

>"He was just sceptical about the figures"

just like Sup Forums, there are no holocaust deniers on Sup Forums, just healthy scepticals.

>In the beginning.

Dont break my sentences.

He certainly had an interesting idea of a utopia, but that's about it. His dream was to build cities that make sustainable resources and then they will spread the resources around between each other as needed. All this will be handled by a computer system. As I understand humans would still make the laws and whatnot, but the computer would strictly handle the allocation of resources.

It's been a long time since I watched it, memory's a little fuzzy.

if you're referring to that chart, it's something pinker uses in amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0670022950 and ted talks on the subject. It's made a lot of people mad, especially the noble savage believers. You get a lot of interesting "not real socia--err hunter-gatherer society" arguments

>One of the few people who empirically points out the hypocrisy of the US in it's foreign policy.

That's the only thing he was ever good at. Back in the 1970s-80s he would have been useful for that kind of information but now we have the internet so he's outdated anyway.

His opinions seem to be:
>we need to go full anarcuck utopia
>but until we attain this unrealizable state of being, we must [mainstream democrat shilling]
In other words, pro dem shill with an impossible ideology floating in the background to maintain "outsider" status

Anarchists hate him, jewish guy uses something called data to prove that svages were actually savages.

Well the first thing they did was steal all the nookie.

Japan may have done better as an unaligned nation.

Lenin institued an authoritatrian regime after orchestrating a coup. That did do alot of good if you look at the figures.

Osama also dint impose sharia anywhere

oh my God, are you saying that the divine super intelligent (((Chomsky))) is just a jewish democratic shill that makes a ton of money selling communist propaganda to teenagers?

>leet quints

Noam Chomsky is Bill Hicks.

But why would we distinguish between state and non-state violence in such a simplistic way. How does that help us?

I only know of his linguistic stuff from a Languages, Automata and Computation course at uni.

Ok this is half true.

But chomsky hates the democrats. He's exposed their lies again and again.

yes and....

I found the source, it's Keeley's 'War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage'.

I was curious as to the methodology that got these numbers. Personally I think 'tribal warfare is more deadly per capita than modern warfare' is a no-brainer, but I still need to see how the case was put together.