What is your opinion on Chomsky...

What is your opinion on Chomsky? Is he for anarchists theirguy and/or is he hated among leftists for that beef with Zizek?

Attached: shutterstock_125767211-770x480.jpg (770x480, 205.69K)

Other urls found in this thread:


very useful as an introduction to leftism and a valuable resource when critiquing US foreign policy
he's also a filthy humanist scum and he has a bad habit or preaching reformism in his old age
I still wish he was my grandpa though

Attached: chomsky.jpg (1951x1951, 232.37K)

he- is- just- a- socialist.
red flag, og socialist learned.

Has some interesting books useful for understanding propaganda and has done more for the left than most people living, but his current suggestions of voting for liberals/socdems isn't useful in our present situation.
He's not an anarchist but a "fellow traveler", whatever that means. I agree somewhat with his stance in the Zizek beef, in that much of the theory of the 20th century seems to be rather simple concepts intentionally obfuscated with language incomprehensible to those uninitiated in Hegelian/(academic)Marxist/Pschyoanalytic jargon thus making it useless for the majority of the working class. I'm also bothered by some friends of ours shitting on Chomsky for supporting liberals/socdems against reactionaries in elections while giving Zizek a pass for doing the same thing because he mumbles something about fisting.

He's a very smart guy, no denying that. I remember reading somewhere that he has an I Q of something like 160. Either way, imo he's a bit too sectarian for my taste and while some of his criticisms of leninist socialists are valid (and I have nothing against him for being an ansyn) at the end of the day he'll still tell you to vote for Hillary.

For any reloutionary he's something to keep in mind as a guide to how to operate but yeah he's shit otherwise

He offers good introductory analysis of why capitalism and imperialism are bad, but his praxis is garbage. I don’t understand the seething hatred some people seem to have for him. It seems to me that many tankies are incapable of disliking somebody just a little bit or criticizing somebody without hyperbole. A guy like Chomsky is never just wrong or misguided, they unironically think that he’s a literal anti-communist who loves he CIA and wants capitalism to reign forever.

Politically: Solid anarchist dude, thoroughly well read, outstanding grasp of history and ideology both past and present. His pragmatic willingness to work with everyone on the left from tankies through libs to anarchists, while steadfastly calling allies out on their shit and refusing to muddy his own position, is admirable. About the only serious complaint I have against the man's politics is his blind, kneejerk opposition to anything America or Israel do, and equally blind support for anyone fighting either.

Philosophically: The foremost standard-bearer for true leftism, in the form of concrete analytic intellectualism, against the insipid subhuman sophistry that is postmodern critical theory. Chomsky is completely irreplaceable in this regard, as there is absolutely nobody else today with both his unflinching hatred for postmodernism, and his unimpeachable leftist cred.

Scientifically: His research into language, cognition, neurology, and anthropology is groundbreaking, as is his well-founded skepticism toward AI and transhumanism in general. Not coincidentally, his mastery of language makes him a pleasurable speaker and eloquent writer, even regarding the most sophisticated and controversial subjects, with his signature clear but expressive style.

He is a leftist but very bad at it.
What is unacceptable is that one can read the Chimp, and still stay a socdem

i hate you user
signed your real goddamn grandpa

You want to replace me just because I'm not on goddamn tv you go-nowhere punk? I don't need to be on tv to be a real man you weak little puss. I took you fishing and you just read a goddamn magazine and ate licorice all day wearing a leather jacket and deck shoes you worthless dick. You couldn't catch a fish if your life depended on it you retarded city slicker. I didn't even want to go but I am a great grandpa so I did even though i should have been boning your girlfriend like I usually do. Jesus Christ does she need a better boyfriend. You're going to be hugely fat when you get to my age if you're not dead from all the goddamn sugar and cream in your coffee because you drink it like a weakling. When I was your age I was happy to get a coffee and I drank it black because I was a real man. Do you think I got a hot piece like your grandmother (God rest her nymphomaniac soul) by drinking goddamn soy drinks all day or those faggy Red Bulls that don't give you the energy I have when I'm asleep you pathetic loser? I should come over to your house and kick your ass but I can't even remember where it is, probably because I don't care. No matter because I'd probably get stopped by that hottie on the first floor who is always flirting with me right in front of you, you testicleless wimp. She wants a full face pancake of my baby batter and maybe I'll just give it to her on the hood of that asian shitbox you call a car. Sounds like a blender making a goddamn smoothie at full speed. Pathetic. Why don't you buy American you traitorous wimp. I should come down there and smack the stupid off that pudgy face of yours but I'd probably inflame my goddamn elbow again which is only sore because I eat too much red meat and I've had a lifetime of masturbating hot chicks like your grandmother (God rest her natural Double D's and that sweet little ass) so it's really just natural wear and tear, just a cost of doing business. Goddammit you disgusting leftist Hillary voters make me sick, you wouldn't know a good leader if they shoved you onto a train like you deserve goddammit.

Now go clean your room and I'll be out here on the couch with your girlfriend.

I mean Foucault tried to paint him as this huge moralfag and at first I agreed but then I went to college and took a class on critical theory and now I agree with Chompsky.

Chomsky is an excellent historian but he's a total brainlet (and of the worst kind, the smug matter-of-fact kind) when it comes to theory.

Watching Chomsky calmly rip open the assholes of pretentious French theorists never gets old

Attached: Social "science".webm (640x360, 4.68M)

Unfortunately Foucault and pomos in general are impossible to argue against because they unironically think that the differences in power and hierarchies that emerge among material equals due to natural differences in intelligence, motivation, charisma etc are just as bad as global empires and systemic crushing of millions of human lives. After the revolution pomos will be like

Attached: 2ABECEBD-AD38-4736-8EA8-87702FBF98E6.png (1039x1092, 546.99K)

It goes much, much further than that, as while they're loath to openly admit it in clear language, pomos will unironically deny truth, facts, objectivity, and physical reality itself to any audience bamboozled enough where they think they can get away with it.

Sad to say, for all his bluster (and some encouraging things he said before he realized how large an audience he could get by casting as wide a mutually contradictory net as possible for gullible eyeballs) kleanroom kermit is a perfect example of this willful duplicity.

Attached: Am I Christian_Timothy Lott and Jordan B Peterson-RIB05YeMiW8.mp4 (960x270, 2.62M)

I think his contribution to linguistics and computer science are wonderful things for which we should thank the man, but how is he related to anything here?

It is not so much that they deny truth and objectivity as it is that they refuse to define their terms in any useful way. It precludes analysis and ensures that people will always talk past one another.

Attached: TimeIsAlwaysOnMySide.jpeg (400x379, 32.49K)

This. I literally agree with everything you said, and am unable to add anything significant. Simply a great post.

The willful ignorance of the banality of evil has no finer face than Noam Chomsky. Where the regimes he praises put academic opponents against the wall, the supposed evil empire, the USA, has rewarded him with tenureship and the status of media darling. In this Chomsky represents the narcissism of the left, the worldview in which their righteousness and victimhood are a-priori facts, a truth that millions of little peasants who simply don't count shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of.


Attached: marx3.jpg (720x670, 16.42K)

I'm confused by what you're trying to say and I've pretty much never heard of that.

postmodernists argue that the systemic problems of capitalism are equally as oppressive as the social constructs and individual power dynamics created and reproduced by through social interactions between people, hence why the solution becomes internal change (decolonize your mind/kill the cop in your head/educate yourself shitlord) rather than confronting the macro-system of capitalism directly.
This is also why they can be so easily coopted by neoliberalism imo

he has some good points, has some bad points. Overall good in history not as good in political theory

Um, he said that he does not mean it in some kind of post-modern way, you are taking him out of context!

This is a broader problem than just pomos. Failing to agree on what the basic terms mean has destroyed discourse. Orwell's idea of newspeak was backward. We haven't gotten rid of ambiguity, art, and subtlety in favor of concrete simplicity. We've gotten rid of concreteness in favor of expressiveness and evocativeness. Hardly ever do you hear people speak of specific policies or actions, but instead posture about values and sides in conflicts. Now any argument is between people working with effectively different languages, since anybody's interpretation of vague words like freedom or socialism is different from the next person's, and in many conflicts it's not completely clear who's on what side. We've reduced discourse to a language game where people try to find the most emotionally impactful series of quips to spout to guide people through a story with an emotionally tight arc but that breaks down completely when you apply logic. Kind of like a Chris Nolan movie. Each side presents their narrative and the narratives compete on the terms of which is more emotionally compelling. In this way discourse has come to mimic the weekend box office.

It's actually a lot like the plot of inception. You use emotional manipulation, digging as deep as possible into the subconscious trying to push people's buttons and make them feel like your version of reality is the one that makes the most sense to them.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1299x999, 628.98K)

he didn't told anyone to vote hilary and he says that the russian hack shit is bullshit.

he is just a socialist. and he sees potential in social democracy.

retard this is sooo wrong
look up "cuck philosophy" channels latest video


He's more useless than people want to think


Yes, it is exactly why Epicurus insisted upon defining terms prior to any philosophical discussion. It is impossible to have a meeting of minds when everyone is speaking a completely different language at one another. You are also right that it is not just people who call themselves "postmodernists" (a perfect example of a term with no meaning that anyone agrees on) engaging in that particular kind of unwitting obscurantism. For example, try listening to liberation theologists talking about their bizarre theory. They use terms that any marxist would think that they immediately recognise like "class," "means of production," "imperialism," but what they mean by those terms is… honestly, I can't make heads or tails of them. Maybe I just heard some idiots talking out their asses; I don't know. In any case, discourse could stand to have some more clarity.

Attached: Epicurus.jpg (485x634, 44.11K)

Postmodernists believe that power dynamics that produce hierarchies are endemic to human social relations, and that this means that emancipation is effectively impossible, even in a fully communist society.

What? He's blacklisted by every major media outlet. His status in academia is because he is the FATHER OF MODERN LINGUISTICS.

Almost, not by RT

Remind me to never get theory from internet imageboards.

Surely you are capable of explaining it yourself when it's such an obvious case.

It's a long ass video but ok. It's a complex topic.

We're an inch away from Jordan Peterson videos here.

Who are you to shit on their hermeneutics?

He's a liberal LARPing as an anarchist.