Is Noam Chomsky a total retard or an actual intellect? His first choice was Bernie...

Is Noam Chomsky a total retard or an actual intellect? His first choice was Bernie, but he nearly eternally btfo Sam Harris, so I'm torn.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

He's a boring retard that's smart in one thing and one thing only. Linguistics. He's contributed nothing to philosophy, and he knows nothing about politics.

>linguistics has nothing to do with politics

We just watched a guy tweet his way into the Oval Office on a shoestring budget against the opposition of both political parties

Well on one hand he is a faggot. On the other hand, he BTFOed and even bigger faggot.

I'd like to see you in a debate with Chomsky, he'd tear you to shreads.

>not knowing what linguistics is

>First, Chomsky is an absolutely shameless liar. A master of the argument in bad faith. He will say anything in order to get people to believe him. Even worse, he will say anything in order to shut people up who disagree with him. And I’m not necessarily talking about his public critics. If you've ever seen how he acts with ordinary students who question what he says, it's quite horrifying. He simply abuses them in a manner I can only describe as sadistic. That is, he clearly enjoys doing it. I don't think anyone ought to be allowed to get away with that kind of behavior.

>Second, Chomsky is immensely important to the radical left. When it comes to American foreign policy he isn't just influential, he's basically all they have. Almost any argument made about foreign affairs by the radical left can be traced back to him. That wasn't the case when he started out back in the late '60s, but it is now.

>Third, he is essentially the last totalitarian. Despite his claims otherwise, he's more or less the last survivor of a group of intellectuals who thought systemic political violence and totalitarian control were essentially good things. He babbles about human rights all the time, but when you look at the regimes and groups he's supported, it’s a very bloody list indeed.

>Communism and fascism are obviously dead as the proverbial doornail, but I doubt the totalitarian temptation will ever go away. The desire for unity and a kind of beautiful tyranny seems to spring from somewhere deep in the human psyche.

>Fourth—and this may be most important—he makes people stupid. In this sense, he's more like a cult leader or a New Age guru than an intellectual. He allows people to be comfortable with their prejudices and their hatreds, and he undercuts their ability to think in a critical manner. To an extent, this has to do with his use of emotional and moral blackmail. Since he portrays everyone who disagrees with him as evil, if you do agree with him you must be on the side of good and right. This is essentially a kind of secular puritanism, and it's very appealing to many people, for obvious reasons, I think. We all want to think well of ourselves, whether we deserve it or not.

>There is an intellectual side to this, as well. You see it clearly in his famous debate with Michel Foucault. Chomsky says at one point that there is a moral and ethical order that is hardwired into human beings. And Foucault basically asks him, why? How do you know this hardwired morality exists? And even if it exists, how can we know that it is, in fact, moral in the first place? We may feel it to be moral, but that doesn't make it true.

>Chomsky's answer is essentially: Because I believe it to be so. Now, whatever that is, it isn't thinking. In fact, it's an excuse for not thinking. Ironically, Chomsky later said that Foucault was the most amoral man he ever met, whereas I would argue that Foucault was simply pointing out that Chomsky's “morality” is in fact a form of nihilism.

>I think people come to Chomsky and essentially worship him for precisely that reason. He allows them to feel justified in their refusal to think. They never have to ask themselves any difficult questions or provide any difficult answers. It’s a form of intellectual cowardice essentially, but I'm sure you can see its appeal.

He's a hack. So much so that an autistic tripfag from /n/ and /jp/ BTFO'd of him.

1/3

>Then, as the facts became more difficult to deny and he started looking worse as a result, things got more complicated. At some point, he must have realized that he was saying things that in all likelihood were false. My guess is that he justified it in two ways: First, by relativizing it. Something along the lines of “whatever the Khmer Rouge may have done, it can't be as bad as what America did in Vietnam, or Chile, or Indonesia, etc. Therefore, I am justified in continuing to defend the regime.” Second, by demonizing his opponents, by saying “whatever the Khmer Rouge may have done, it's more important not to allow my opponents to win, because they are evil, and it is morally wrong to allow evil to win.”

>Then, when the really horrendous scope of the genocide became clear, he was faced with having to admit he'd been wrong and owning up to it publicly. That is something Chomsky has never done and will never do. Perhaps he has a very fragile ego under all the bluster. It certainly seems like it. In any event, blaming anything and everything bad that happens in the world on the United States has always been Chomsky's default position. So once he'd exhausted all other possibilities of escape, that's what he fell back on. And he'll keep doing it until his dying day. You will never get a mea culpa from him on anything, and certainly not on Cambodia, which is probably the biggest disgrace of his career.

total retard

apparently talented in linguistics and he thinks, and has convinced many other people, that means he knows jack shit about anything else.

>irony

Unlikely since Chomsky probably couldn't even bench his own weight.

>What is truly sad is that if you look at the claims Chomsky attacked in his famous article on the subject, they turned out to be mostly accurate in terms of the number of dead, etc. Now, at the time (most people don't know or have forgotten this) there was a serious debate over possible military intervention to stop the killing. I could be wrong, but I think it was Paul Berman who said that Chomsky helped shift the debate from what to do about the genocide to whether it was even happening. I doubt any words I could write would constitute a more damning indictment than that.

>There may have been another and much darker motive at work—and I want to emphasize that this is speculation on my part. The Khmer Rouge justified its violence by claiming it was wiping out the urban bourgeoisie and that this was a necessary use of force whose purpose was to achieve a more just society. In other words, the people they killed deserved it. Chomsky may have bought this argument. He certainly hasn't shied away from it in other cases. Remember, in terms of motive what the Khmer Rouge did wasn't hugely different from what most other radical Left regimes have done when they seized power. The major difference is one of scale. That is, in terms of the number of people dead and especially in terms of the percentage of the population that was annihilated, the Khmer Rouge was disproportionately bloodthirsty.

Interesting.

I need to cap this and send it to my friend whose been studying philosophy and modern politics. It might nock his noggin.

2/3

Not even. He can only speak English and (((Hebrew))). Complete hack.

retard

3/3

Seeing as a tripfag already did it, it wouldn't surprise me if Noam Chomsky got embarrassed again.

and why this guy opinion matter?

(((Kerstein)))
(((Germany)))

oy vey! fuck chomsky the self-hating Jew!

>It's important to point out that most of what Chomsky says is driven by emotion rather than intellect. His tone is very intellectual, in that he speaks in a very quiet, measured style most of the time. But the content is clearly driven by what can only be called a species of hysteria. I obviously don't know him personally, but he seems to be at heart an extremely angry man, and I would guess that his anger is driven by something that is ultimately not political.

>I will say, though, that one thing you realize very quickly when you deal with Chomsky at length is that he is very conscious of his audience. He often says one thing to a “red meat” type of crowd and something quite different—sometimes the opposite—to a potentially less sympathetic audience. Sometimes you even find both within the same speech or article.

>He's contributed nothing to philosophy
He discovered a new branch of analytical philosophy and if you think linguistics doesn't overlap with philosophy then you are truly retarded.

That literally proves you don't need to know anything about linguistics to get people to vote for you.

He is just a very asmart and skilled propagandist for communism.

He makes a lot of sense once you realize that.

I have friends who literally have said to me "watch noam speak - and if you cant find anything wrong then he's right"

then Noam goes into a twelve minute long diatribe to say what could have just been said in four fucking words.

"Sometimes capitalism is harsh."

then he would look over at me with a "hmm bet you feel pretty silly for being a capitalist"

His linguistics ended the dominance of behaviorism in psychology which was pretty based. His contributions to the philosophy of mind are pretty interesting. His politics is shit though

He's an intellectual, but yah he is a Linguist first and foremost.Trust what he has to say about Linguistics but beyond that view him critically. I've read some of his work, it's very lefty but not terribly sourced, he's definitely peddling an angle though.

you don't need to speak a bunch of languages to be a linguist.
here's a page of chomsky

Marxist hack

he's a master of disingenuous leftist sophistry

the more you learn about politics and history and the more criticaly you think, the more you realize he's completely full of shit

I know, bro. Get a copy of Language in Thought and Action by Hayakawa and give it a read

Linguistics and politics are basically the same thing in a mass media democracy

>expert in Linguistics
>can't make comprehensible sentences

This shit looks harder to read than legalese.

Chomsky is great but he's completely ideological. The world doesn't give a shit about ideology, it is only about competing interests.

Chomskyians are like the Native Americans who didn't have a concept of land, which worked fine until colonials with different ideas came and eternally cucked them. Their philosophy, however nice and ethical, is irrelevant in the face of something stronger.

nah you learn to see things like that.

many people will thing that are smart for understanding that i'm sure every body can learn math

He is a leftist meme.

Even his work on linguistics is unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscience

>>There is an intellectual side to this, as well. You see it clearly in his famous debate with Michel Foucault. Chomsky says at one point that there is a moral and ethical order that is hardwired into human beings. And Foucault basically asks him, why? How do you know this hardwired morality exists? And even if it exists, how can we know that it is, in fact, moral in the first place? We may feel it to be moral, but that doesn't make it true.
>>Chomsky's answer is essentially: Because I believe it to be so. Now, whatever that is, it isn't thinking. In fact, it's an excuse for not thinking. Ironically, Chomsky later said that Foucault was the most amoral man he ever met, whereas I would argue that Foucault was simply pointing out that Chomsky's “morality” is in fact a form of nihilism.
I had an identical experience with a Jewish philosophy professor.

Chomsky looks smart to dumb people because he is superficially witty and genuinely disrespectful. His argument for moral relativism permitting abortion depends on conflating mosquitoes and human beings (seriously, watch "Lake Of Fire").

Because the language is used in such a way to describe things incredibly specific, without room for interpretation. "Normal" language doesn't have to look so complicated.

What?

Brilliant in linguistics. I have used his research in complex geometric modeling grammars.

He's a complete jack ass and conman in politics that has built up a massive cult around himself. He will blabber on for 45 mins saying absolutely nothing and have his adherants convinced he's a prophet.

Just another commie Jew.

Any good modern philosophy you guys can suggest? Anything most recent.

>Is Noam Chomsky a total retard or an actual intellect?
Is this a serious question? Yes he's an "actual intellect", more than any of you fucktarded manchildren put together. Disagreeing with him doesn't change that.

>Describing his political theory in a political philosophy seminar
>Says that people deserve to be able to grow to their full potential, and that if nobody is present to provide for them then the state should take the place of parents or a church
>I ask him why he thinks his belief is justified
>He says he doesn't know, he just believes it
>Moves on with the lecture

Lol i don't think that autistic retard btfo chomsky. Other way around friendo.

I also asked him if I could write my termpaper on Stirner, but he told me that Stirner 'scared' him. He was retiring from his position as an emeritus professor of philosophy at the end of that semester. It really struck me as pathetic. Analytic philosophy is dying graceless death. Old Jews shuffling around philosophy departments...that's all it is.

I feel like people here would be pretty conflicted on him. On one hand, he's very anti-continental (Frankfurt school among them), on the other, he's pretty liberal.

How do you research linguistics? Has he written a paper on greentexting or what?

None. Read Evola instead.

Scott Adams-The Dilbert Future and The Dilbert Principle

icycalm

Define modern.

Any Wittgenstein.
Any Popper.
Any Kripke.

Approach Saussure at your own risk, but understanding him is important to understand how this whole critical theory/sjw thing came about.

Watterson

athens made that thread on ch0n's /new/ when Jewt removed the board here. those were good times.

Sounds like Chomsky is part of continental philosophy

I'm a linguist. The linguists I know think he is a retarded linguist, but a good political scientist. The poli-sci people I know think he is a terrible political scientist, but a great linguist. I think he is a retard.

ironically popper was soros' mentor. In many ways sores is carrying out the open society agenda.

Popper was a critic of Marx.

And ironically again soros considers himself as fighting Marxism.

link to Chomsky BTFOing Harris?

That's actually really interesting, I'd never heard of that. Any good books on the subject?

>I'm a linguist
So you're employed full time by a linguistics department? What kind of non-generative linguistics do your colleagues pursue?

By funding BLM?

google "the limits of discourse"

reckon he really believes that in his sick, jew-brain? Or is that just his "public opinion"

A commie Jew. To no one's surprise. He should have been gassed long ago. Fucking kike.

...

Well, that's completely false and has nothing to do with what I said.

Retard. Hes a linguist that only speaks English lol.

Not that I know of, if you Google "popper soros" you might find some quotes.
It is interesting how soros started off as a philosophy student and eventually became a queenmaker in he US. Also there is stuff about him selling out his fellow Jews to fascists in his youth, I am dubious of how true that is.
Yes, liberals like him don't consider themselves socialists despite appearing to differ in only degree to the likes of Marx.

He's an anarcho-syndicalist.
youtube.com/watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI

He's just an awkward virgin with a shitty degree who will never accomplish anything. He probably works at a supermarket sucking dick

I don't like his name.

>It sounds like a sound I'd make eating munchies super baked.

Looks to me like the kid got BTFO desu senpai

you idiots realize linguistics isn't a real discipline, right?

>fags thinking their glossary of terms learned thru rote memorization makes their study in any way rigorous

fucking lol

>he thinks linguistics is memorizing terms like "present progressive" and "compound-complex sentence"
read a book bud

I've seen this same thing with a lot of my older college professors. They're incredibly intelligent, but they're just too old at this point to grasp the current reality of the world like some of us do. I bet chompsky still gets his news from newspapers just like one of my political science prof. does for fucks sakes. You can't expect people from a different era to see and be aware of the same things you are.

>h-he could beat you up
Yeah, you really showed him!

>reaching to justify his groundbreaking research on casual social pleasantries

ok lmao. are you here to study how many vowels are in dank memes for your """research"""?

>chomsky gets his news from newspapers

You really have no idea who chomsky is do you?

Come to think of it, I never made the connection between Open Society Foundation and Popper. Amazing. Thanks for the heads up, I'll have to re-read some Popper.

I don't think you got the point.

>research on casual social pleasantries
>how many vowels are in memes
what do you actually think linguistics is?

>Is chomsky a total retard

Only Sup Forums could be so dense as to ask this question. For this entire election cycle Sup Forums has been making(quite valid) arguments about the institutions of power controlling media and propagating narratives to work in this favor etc. Do you guys seriously not realize chomsky LITERALLY started these arguments in the 70's? You've co-opted his arguments and just used them to run to the right instead of the left like him but they're still all functionally his arguments.

Ha you mean a student?

((((((((((Noam Chomsky))))))))))

Nothing more needs to be known.

Chomsky is intelligent but no genius. He is a philosophical non entity, his fame does from political thought, which I concede has had a remarkable impact, but it does not require a remarkable mind.

I got your point, it wasn't particularly subtle or insightful. I'm just making fun of you for even making such a statement like chomsky gets his information from newspapers. Whats next, Ted Cruz gets his views from thinkprogress?

worthless

Haha ((((Einstein))))

Suuure

wouldn't be surprised

clever response! here's your reply, user!

Suure

Learn more dumbass. Physics isnt a real dcience. Lingustics is

Haha loser

He is modern dumbass.

Jesus. Another insufferable idiot that thinks linguists are all about speaking as many languages as possible. "Woah you can speak 6 languages? Well by god here is your phd"
Do you realize there are entire dissertations written about a single vowel change? One god damn letter. When you get to the phd level you narrow your focus of research quite a bit buddy.

>Sup Forums is one person
>left/right one dimensional view on politics

Come on now.

I think Moldbug said it best.

His shit is Bluepill soaked in Red. He's worth reading, but not the be-all, end all.

you realize a STEM major could do a thesis on 100 vowels and call it an elective? kek not making a strong case here, boy-o.

There is nothing more entertaining than idiots arguing the intelligence level of people smarter than them. You think Chomsky has these arguments. Of course not. Only insecure autists do this.

I was never making the argument that he's a genius(though depending on how rigorously you want to define gatekeeping I would grant him the title just based on his work in linguistics), just that Sup Forums would have to be extremely hypocritical to call him stupid when they literally plagiarize a large portion of his views(i've seen his criticisms of Obama making the rounds here as well).

But I definitely agree that his poly-sci work doesn't require a remarkable mind, in fact something thats nice about chomsky is that he largely says the same thing. He's always talking about how the propaganda model isn't some some well hidden complex mechanism, its functionally obvious for anyone who's willing to take a step back and examine the structure of the media. This is most likely why its so well subscribed to on the educated far left and the educated far right, despite huge ideological differences.