What do you think of Noam Chomsky? Is he a beautiful, enlightened mind of our times...

What do you think of Noam Chomsky? Is he a beautiful, enlightened mind of our times, or does he fall too short for achieving this? He is in very old age, now, and it was his 89th birthday recently.

Jew. He insists that it doesn't matter who did 9/11.

Jews did 9/11.

I like Lil Uzi Vert better

I wrote him a letter once about how a burger king sandwhich had patties far smaller than the buns. It was a travesty and he ignored my plight. 2/10 and only because he was great in Left 4 Dead.

Gate keeper 9/11 cover-up complicit jew faggot

He is a very intelligent, and eloquent speaker, although his voice is a little too raspy for me, at times, to understand what he is saying. I disagree with his political views almost as much as Bernie Sanders, though. I hope before he passes away, he could become a Christian, accepting the salvation of Jesus Christ, or he is doomed. He is very old now. Noam comes across as a very nice, approachable man, too, but being nice isn't everything that matters.

he wrote some good books

Which books would you recommend? I have never read anything by Noam Chomsky.

As far as old commie jews go he's intelligent, his politics is disgusting but his philosophy work is good stuff

How exactly are his political views and his philosophies separate? I'm interested in weeding out the bad for the good, any advice? What are some of the things he says? Thanks!

Well he's very far left, but he's not a Marxist, as most leftists of his generation were. So his philosophy work is linguistics, deconstruction basically, the main idea is that matter is derived from language, why we call I don't know a rock a rock is because in our specific observable reality it has characteristics which allow for us to call a rock a rock. Thus somewhere along the way his generation concluded that the same idea should be put for policy. The language of a specific piece of policy is more important than the idea, the way it is written is the matter. Nowadays leftists use the same idea but are Marxist, you have a minority (in number ruling elite) oppressing a majority (in number) oppressed class, and when you put the deconstruction idea that language is matter along with the Marxist idea you have the modern left's notion that policing language is the most important thing in drafting policy

Very intelligent/rational man that's been one of the best at dissecting american politics and US foreign policy. And even if you don't agree with him you can still tell he's an incredibly decent and nice person.

I am not very keen on his politic stuff.
It seems as if he focuses entirely on the underdog being oppressed in any situation. There is no moral grey area the bigger or more advantaged person in a situation is always an oppressor and the less advantaged a victim.

and that really explains quite a lot of leftists. Never really noticed that before.

>and that really explains quite a lot of leftists
Yup, it all started with Derrida, doing literally analysis, analyzing texts and finding meanings. So Chomsky is a linguist, and the way I should have put it is that reality is derived from language, something exists because thought and language have rationalized it's existence, so you can't really say a rock's a rock because it's a rock, you say a rock is a rock because in this observable reality we have the contextual definition that describes its characteristics as one of a rock. Which is fine again these guys weren't Marxists they came up in a generation when you had a oppressive Marxist state. And they started analyzing policy with that idea, the actual meaning of policy is derived from the language with which it is written, which is also fine.
Problem nowadays is you have actual Marxist using the same idea, class warfare and oppression become the main proposition (doesn't only have to be economic class, there are cleavages in society) and if language is reality, action you have have to police language therefore you will manipulate the way policy is written

Well I had noticed a lot of political rhetoric had actually sort of trickled down and some of it sounded like some half assed chompsky-isms. I suppose it's stupid it hadn't occurred to me that perhaps they'd been studying his material.
Does put into perspective why they'd be so interested in controlling speech. I often try to avoid the leftist types like that as they have no common sense about it and rather demean important functions where it can actually effect people seriously rather than being hyper aggressive and attacking others with their own little microaggressions of pc culture.

Also try to avoid them because it's quite ridiculous how they take this tone of "stop living your daily life the way you do, you're oppressing others making them live their life a certain way, we unironically want you to live the way we tell you instead"

I don't really see how they think they can rationalize the irony of "stop living your life and inconsequentially effecting others, it's not fair" "listen to us so we can tell you how to live your daily life so we continue to inconsequentially effect others but I get to be a control freak about it"

>I don't really see how they think they can rationalize the irony of "stop living your life and inconsequentially effecting others, it's not fair"
It's somewhat logical actually, if you start from a Marxist position, meaning history and reality are based on three aspects- class struggle and dialectical materialism mainly, and of not that great importance, an economic reading of history and you presume that all that exists comes from the language that is used for it, to stop oppression you must control not only text but speech. And you don't use that idea just to analyze philosophically, since oppression of a given class exists it must be stopped, reality is derived from deconstruction therefore if you deconstruct all traditional notions you will eliminate oppression.
Let me try and rationalize it, if humans stop using the word tranny or faggot for example you eliminate violence towards those specific groups. Now that you've done that you must draft policy to protect those groups, i.e. the government should interfere, with that specific language.

Pretty intelligent Human Being, not your average person and is worth listening too in my opinion.

I can see how that could happen it makes sense in that context.
I wonder if refusing to speak English around those types would cause them to fuck off and leave me alone more often.

Maybe they'll accept you as diverse.