Noam Chomsky Red Pilled

try to convince me why this man is not red pilled as fuck!

tldr; Noam Chomsky

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
youtube.com/watch?v=4a8vW8qMnp8&t=368s
youtube.com/watch?v=s-0BmqyWJ30
youtube.com/watch?v=RIcra3L-jbI
youtube.com/watch?v=pMnTR6UJqIY
youtube.com/watch?v=zbBgSZv5z9c
youtube.com/watch?v=KB2lDJJr3lE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Isn't he a globalist "philosopher"

i know leftists read him so I always avoided his work based on the association.
I'll have to get around to seeing what he is about.

keep it up, a few more and I think /pol is not worth my time anymore...

how can you be this stupid?

Universal Grammar is stupid globalistic bluepilled shit.

not an argument

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
read this, its not what you think...

He is an academic and this is his work.

UvA-student AUB.

I watched molymeme talk to him, and he said "true libertarianism" also hates businesses and corporations

i think hes an anarcho-communist

>globalist
afaik he's one of the biggest critics of "globalist neo-liberalism"

Expert in academic topics, dumbass on political topics

you are actually right sir, Its not fair to not give any argument and just shout some random insulting things...

okay, try to read about the left AND right to for an opinion. The world is not black and white, if you assume something is bad just because of the people that you "think" support some one. You are excluding a lot of different views and become narrow minded.

So take this as a hint, read his shit. decide for YOURSELF what he is!

He is a pussy who refuses to debate anybody that will tear his ass to shreds.

youtube.com/watch?v=4a8vW8qMnp8&t=368s

Jeff Blankfort will destroy him, thats why he doges him every time.

It's being discarded as unscientific trash.

sssh, #AIVD

heil zwartepiet

Doge?

>MJT: For a while he denied Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia ever happened. Then when he could no longer deny it had really occurred, he blamed it on the United States instead of the perpetrators. What do you think was initially going on in his head? How do you explain it?

>I think that, in the beginning, he may have believed that it was all a frame-up by the New York Times and the US-Nazi alliance or whoever else he made up to blame it on. No doubt a great deal of wishful thinking on his part was involved, but it’s possible he was sincere in his conspiracy theories.

>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.

I'm not sure he is red pilled, but he sure loves to see those Cambodians get killed.

kek

dodger?

Chomsy is absolutely based. And a genius.

Chompsky is a mental midget that should've stuck with linguistics.

I studied it. I took up linguistics. It's pseudosciencey.

Globalist agent he is. Stands behind Institute for Policy Studies. Ideology leader of new left.

Where is that from? He's solidly condemned the killings in Cambodia multiple times.

>german nationals
>kurdish origin
why are people allowed to pick both

The point is that he won't admit he was wrong about it, idiot. His position is literally "well based on the evidence I had at the time I was correct", which is fucking deranged.

I watched one of his speeches many years ago. He was setting up all these very obvious straw men before pulling them down. Also his deliverance was very poor. He's not a good public speaker.

I really didn't see what the big deal was about him. Maybe you have to be a true believer.

I honestly don't know if you're trolling but

youtube.com/watch?v=s-0BmqyWJ30

Also there's a great clip from Penn & Teller's Bullshit on free speech where Noam "worshipped as a god on every american campus" Chomsky says that no one's opinions are being stifled in Academia... lol.

He's regressive leftist as it gets bro.

Chomsky is great.
he talked about meme magic long before Sup Forums.
also, his theories on the liberal media's biases in Manufacturing Consent were totally true. Re-reading those lines in 2016 is incredible.
He said that global media permit a very intense dialogue between different parties on a subkect, but they permit the discussion in a very narrow range of ideas, avoiding the most extreme ideas to enter the dialogue.
he said those things back in the '80s but Sup Forums is full of stormfags and right wing idiots so they think he is useless

That image is bullshit. He's an anarchist and didn't fully endorse any of those regimes. He did praise Chavez though.

He praised all these regimes, at least at the time. Just because he's le Anarchist doesn't mean he doesn't also praise his red brethren scum.

The guy is a fucking idiot Linguist who thinks he knows jack shit about a world he's never experienced. He gets paid because dumb ass college kids think he's smart and will pay to hear him tell them whatever they want about free college.

he got btfo by a tripfag, also

...

...

>leftist
>red pilled

Kek

Even his linguistics work is absolute shit tier

Here's your answer
youtube.com/watch?v=RIcra3L-jbI

He is basically the antithesis of everything Sup Forums and redpilled. He hates America and down plays the faults of communist countries by continued reference to the US and its failures. Asides from this his claims are bogus, his reasoning is faulty and the only reason he was ever given a platform to speak is because of the Jewish nepotism.

I'm a linguistics graduate student and have met (((Chomsky)) multiple times.

AMA

(Spoiler: He's a fraud.)

He's not a fraud. He's just disillusioned about his own ideas.

Many of the things he have said makes a lot more sense than anything else in the field of psycholinguistics. But the main premise of his idea is based around some strange assumptions, and he's been trying to adjust his theories the last 50 years in hope that they'll eventually make sense.

Basically, he's a smart man, who thinks he's a really, really smart man.

Is the continuity theory of the origin of language any good?

>try to convince me why this man is not red pilled as fuck!

he's a commie apologist with a massive hate boner for all things american. also big on propagating white guilt and general minority pandering.

If by "contiguity theory" you mean language arising from one small evolutionary saltation, I would say yes, though some disagree.

Chomsky has his own particularly bad theory of language evolving as a saltation, but few people apart from his close friends in the field take it too seriously.

The alternative is idiotic. Language is not unique for humans.

Primates have Broca's and Wernicke's areas in their brains - the areas that process language in humans. Campbell monkeys have language with suffixes and dialects.

>Primates have Broca's and Wernicke's areas in their brains - the areas that process language in humans.

Yeah they do and in the primate brain they do nothing related to language.

>Campbell monkeys have language with suffixes and dialects.

You mean they have vocal cries that correspond to particular dangers? To call this language is a huge stretch of metaphor that only Neil deGrasse Tyson-tier (((journalists))) should do.

>The alternative is idiotic. Language is not unique for humans.

delet.

If he was telling the truth, he wouldn't be in academia.

He's a brilliant philospher, he's redpilled on who the oligarchy elites are, however he still supports socialism and globalism. Thing is with this guy, he can get you thinking politics, government and economy. He strong disagrees with the glass-stegal act getting repealed, among other things that Bill Clinton has screwed up. It's not a danger to read/watch him, it seems he supports more government regulation, which you can quickly discredit him from that angle.

Besides he's a philosopher, and that's all he is. Not an economist, or a lawyer. Neoclassical economics still being preached in ivy league schools he addresses as a problem, and that's the most redpilled liberal you can get.

He's based as fuck. He's dealing some good redpill on who's ruling the world, he just names perpetrators more cautiously than Sup Forums (corporations instead of naming the Merchant)

The guy publically defended Holocaust revisioner Faurisson and his right of expressing different opinion.

At least he's consistent with what he preaches.

This, he's what Conservatives vs Democrats should really be about. Problem is, Democrats have no fucking clue what they're about.

>Yeah they do and in the primate brain they do nothing related to language.

Don't be daft. Producing mouth movements, gestures and facial expressions, as well as understanding others' facial expressions, gestures and vocal expressions - is intentional information transference not related to language?

>You mean they have vocal cries that correspond to particular dangers? To call this language is a huge stretch of metaphor that only Neil deGrasse Tyson-tier (((journalists))) should do.

Where do you draw the lines between language and not language? These "vocal cries" are distinct sounds with specific meanings, and they transmit additional information based on their order (ie. semantics). It's a lot simpler than any human language, but it's intentional behaviour for transmitting information through the use of sound.

youtube.com/watch?v=pMnTR6UJqIY

youtube.com/watch?v=zbBgSZv5z9c

these are pretty good

Left wing parasite who should have stuck to linguistics

Hes also in his 90s. He used to debate a wide range of people.

He's talking about internal grammar, you ming mongs. Not only does Chomsky agree that external grammar is not universal, he says it's barely relevant.

I don't think you know what globalism means

I don't think we need your definition of globalism

/Thread

chumpsky

youtube.com/watch?v=KB2lDJJr3lE

>He's an anarchist
Need I say more?

28 years old is my cut off for somebody being a socialist.
Anyone older who is still a socialist and has not grown out of it is either egregiously ill-informed, completely fucking stupid or deliberately evil.

...

>Bill Whittle

Corporations are People, my Friend.

You think? The man himself has said it numerous times. He's anarchist first, everything else second. I find myself agreeing with him a lot more as I grow older