What are /lit/'s thoughts on Chomsky? It's time to prove you're not jingoistic /pol/ retards.
>>12758414The elite class is turning the west into the third world while claiming the opposite. Read Chomsky seriously. He is a genius.
>>12758490Americans are too fat to understand this and will blame everything on immigrants/niggers/trannies
>>12758414dude pol pot did notting wrong*smokes blunt**proceeds to sign holocaust denial book*
>>12758541Come on dude /lit/ isn't the place
>>12758511It's because of their propaganda. It's not entirely, entirely their fault.
>>12758497WOW HE SURE BAMBOOZLED ME THERE
>>12758414FINALLY!! A Chomsky thread!
Noam's pretty based but I wish he wouldn't act so self-righteous all the time and dismiss everything he disagrees with as not being serious and not deserving any attention.
chomsky rambles more than my gma with AlzheimerAND, UH, SAGE, UH
>>12758791Mad Pettersen/Zezik fan
>>12758414He's a good barometer for a person's sanity; if you agree with him too much, you know you've lost touch with reality.
>>12758414There is not a single thing Chomsky has been right about except "Manufacturing Consent" which was not only co-authored with Edward Herman but also completely ripped off Bearnays "Propaganda". He belongs into same pseud trashbin as Naomi Klein for same reason: never correct, every idea is half-developed and shitted into ready mold.
>>12759027I agree with just about everything he says. Not because I worship him and consider his word to be unassailable, rather, most criticism of his ideas is just so poor that I have no reason not to side with him.
>>12759146And how much have you looked at how the other side actually thinks and writes in same length and compared notes? Yeah, I remember when I also thought Chomsky=God too and it was exactly that phase when I had no other worldview, arguments or reality checks available. You have to understand Chomsky is so off the whack with reality that any direct criticism is doomed to fail because in that mental mental asylum he has summoned he makes the rules, not reality.
>>12758497Anyone who says the CIA is the devil is a friend of mine, even if Chomsky is a senile, delusional friend.
>>12759058>he's wrong>lol he's just wrongExcellent refutation.
>>12759174elaborate on this
>>12759213It is since counter is easy to prove: wade through all the garbage he has written and find one actionable policy suggestion from him that is functional and not proven wrong by reality. Ever waiting. Null criticism is his main thing, yet I could criticise my curtains for same amount of pages as Chomsky has done null criticism if given enough drugs. >>12759248tldr you can't understand how bad someone is if he is the only metric you have.
He's great at analyzing geopolitical developments from an objective standpoint, but his morals and political positions are hopelessly idealistic.
>>12758497Pinochet was the best thing to ever happen to Chile, and if you disagree then I would be personally honoured to take you on a free helicopter tour of Santiago.
>>12759272There's so many. Have you ever heard him speak? Even the ones people make fun of him for, like that US forces should be kept in Syria to protect the Kurds - is that null criticism just because it is saying "American policy bad - do this instead"? That's what he says all the time. I don't know what exactly is this null criticism, maybe it is a translation from another language?
I diverge from him on only one point that I can tell, and it’s his advice to vote as left as you can, to send some kind of signal I guess. But this strategy hasn’t worked at all over the years. It’s time the people organize their own elections.Love the man in all other respects >>12758791Such as?>>12759186CIA, please go.
>>12759290What name would you like on your bullet?
>>12758497If Pinochet wasnt responsible for saving Chile then maybe hed have a point
>>12759308Are you honestly this dumb?
>>12759300>>12759308For today only I support literal tripfag, bullet for this man here as well, please butterfly.
>>12758414>>12758759>>12759016where to start with Chompers?>>12759186based
>>12759300>>12759315I would like your names on my bullet, comrades, so I know the names of the bourgeois Tankie intellectuals that the revolution will have already sammarily executed before they get round to handling me.
>>12759294Null criticism is combination of whataboutism and captain hindsight. Vast majority of his pulp fiction of the week is that. The ones that are not, his actual policy suggestions or good goy cheers when someone else is doing something he approves always end up badly. He is truly anti-sage of our times with 90 years too long lifespan considering the damage he has done.
>>12759295Disregard that cia comment. I was half asleep reading it.>>12759333Any ol’where. Read the titles, maybe description, pick the one that stirs interest >>12759334I’m so low class I’m nearly lumpenprole No tankie either
>>12759333Manufacturing Consent is pretty good to start with.
>>12759333"The race to destruction" so you can see very clearly with power of hindsight that Chomsky has no clue about anything. You can extrapolate that to rest of his books.
>>12759174>And how much have you looked at how the other side actually thinks and writes in same length and compared notes?Quite extensively. On linguistics I'm made sure to go out of my way to look at alternatives to his viewpoints that argue against him, but every one I've seen which argues against structural linguistics as a whole either shoves claims in Chomsky's mouth that he never made or flat out presumes that he must be wrong for basically ideological reasons and then essentially claims that, despite that his theories do seem to explain things that alternatives currently don't, they'll surely eventually work out other means of explaining those same things even though they can't right now.https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/10310/article.pdfThere do however exist alternatives to Chomsky's linguistic models within structural linguistics, like those of Ray Jackendoff's, which I feel are respectably superior to Chomsky's models.>Yeah, I remember when I also thought Chomsky=GodI've explicitly said that I don't, please actually read and don't respond to what you simply assume other people's views are. I personally disagree strongly with his psychological explanations for why 'vulgar' people enjoy sports and pop entertainment over 'higher pursuits' and feel that this is down to his lack of appropriate empathy. I also feel he fails to give people like Derrida the credit they more appropriately deserve.
>>12759376Switching to linguistics over his indefensible braindead politics in desperation to lick anus of your master properly? Got you covered there too pal, Chomsky's theories have nothing to do or do not even fit into actual computational linguistics. He is irrelevant at best, misleading at worst. Look up word2vec.
>>12759335Feel free to give some examples. Sounds like you're talking out of your arse.
>>12759403>Switching to linguistics over his indefensible braindead politicsWhen did we 'switch'? I never brought up his politics, though I assume that you're interpreting this as me running away from the rest of the thread? Anyway, if you have any specific objection to his political points, I have a copy of Manufacturing Consent on my shelf and I'd be happy to go through it in the case that you object to any specific detail in it. >Look up word2vec.This is *exactly* the kind of thing I was talking about in my other post. How the hell is the existence of word vectorisation algorithms an objection to Chomsky's linguistic models? Are you claiming that he somehow predicted that this shouldn't be possible without making use of his theories, or that the fact that they aren't dependent on his grammar models somehow makes the latter empty?>>12759460Virtually all criticism of Chomsky I've seen is like this. They'll vaguely allude to the idea that his pointing out of American and Israeli war crimes with extensive research is somehow trite and pointless but without being able to say why he is wrong or why this stuff shouldn't matter.>>12759295>it’s his advice to vote as left as you can, to send some kind of signal I guessI see no reason to not do this. Why would Chomsky want his followers not not vote, and hence not have any influence in potentially preventing more right wing politicians getting into office? It seems silly to do otherwise and I've never heard of an objection to this that wasn't ideological claptrap.
>>12759508Like said, Manufacturing Consent is rare exception because it's co-authored so he had someone intelligent to babysit him and also blatant ripoff of Bernays "Propaganda". Like said, Chomsky has nothing to do whatsoever with computational linguistics, he is irrelevant like flogiston salesman. Yes, pointing things out is null criticism. My curtains have fabric not pleasant to touch. I'm like Chomsky this is all my criticism.
>>12759508>I see no reason to not do thisIt's largely a placebo now. The political process doesn't allow leftism through. We have a handful of moderate leftists that people are being told are wild eyed radicals and commies you can't trust, but they will be outspent in following elections or ignored and neutralized, for a lifetime like Kucinich even. Meantime we have the neoliberal oligarchy running us into the ground.Vote how you like, but we need something more substantive. More than even an American yellow vest movement. We need The Strike to end all capitalism.
>>12759560Yes! We must start The Strike today and stay on it until capitalism goes away! To augment its effect let's make it hunger strike!
>>12759560Hey we’re doing great jobs in our different threads tonight, back to back fighting the scourge of ignorance! But I posted a comment in another thread regarding your stance on anarchy. Please tackle that :3
>>12758414He's an irredeemable jackass.But he also hates Foucault, so he's alright.
>>12758414he's responsible for generating and maintaining the embarassing dogma of universal grammar in linguistics. he's a hack fraud. His media/political theory is outdated and overly reductive. Jurgen Habermas is like the chad version of Noam Chomsky
>>12759601You tackle it
>>12759623>Jurgen HabermasHow the fuck is his media theory outdated?Corporations run the show, this is common knowledge, and all he did was provide examples which hold firm today.
>>12759736imagine defending the propoganda model of communication in the year 2019. It's stupidly reductionist to think that the onus of responsibility in the collossal fuck up that is contemporary american society solely wrests in the hands of people like rupert murdoch. It doesn't take into account how people act, react, and interact with media. With the construction of cyber public spheres, the so called control and filter of information is not the problem facing civilization today in fact it's quite the opposite. The very lack of filters and over information has created an atmosphere of mistrust and paranoia so palpable it's threatening to tear america apart. The popularity of alternative news sites like Breitbart, Buzzfeed, and even the so called citizen journalism movement in sites like twitter obsolete models of a top down press.
>>12759736>How the fuck is his media theory outdated?You really expect these people to explain? It should be clear at this point in the thread that they are only capable of vaguely alluding to the idea that Chomsky is an outdated hack, but shy away whenever you ask them for actual objections to specific ideas.You won't see anything actually addressing his theories of media control, or his arguments for his approach to structural linguistics from the poverty of the stimulus. Instead you only get misdirection from people who are not at all interested in being confronted with the evidence for his major ideas, which can be backed up extensively. I'm going to assume that there is a less than insignificant chance that we are dealing with actual CIA flunkies.>>12759783>models of a top down pressThis isn't fundamental to the model though, and isn't even as 'false' as you're implying. A hugely important point he makes is that direct, hierarchical control is not necessary, and instead that influence can have powerful effects via the creation of a general 'consensus' of truth, to the extent that any dissent by independent reports can be written off a crazy by the mainstream and excluded from acceptable dialogue, even in the absence of explicit censorship or top down conspiracy. Large corporations absolutely wield enormous power over public discourse, Reddit for instance has gone from actively championing uncensored speech to being heavily moderated, and large amounts of social media is concentrated into a relatively tightly controlled sites that can be policed in overt and covert ways, with alternate means of information dissemination begin regulated to the non-mainstream and condemned as 'fake-news'.
>>12759846> with alternate means of information dissemination begin regulated to the non-mainstream and condemned as 'fake-news'.but here exactly is the flaw of projecting the propoganda model to contemporary society is that the internet has laid bare the huge ammount of ways that people interact with media text. People can have oppositional readings, and negotiated readings. 4chan should be the first and final proof for this idea. The ideal consumer of the propaganda doesn't exist anymore, instead what we can observe plainly is hypersegmentation and identity politics informing our readings of news media. The overwhelming response of the public has been to deny consensus and this is plain when you look at the splinters not only from the dominant hegemonic encoding of text but even within oppositional decodings.
>>12759617Whats wrong with Foucault?
>>12759903sorry, I forgot I didn't even directly address the quote in the first place. The problem with positing a dichotomy of consensus vs. fake news as a symptom of the corporate control on news media is that there is no consensus on what "fake news" even is, or what it looks like. To some it looks like breitbart and to others it looks like buzfeed and to others it looks like CNN. For some all news is fake news.
>>12759783I've never read where Chomsky said the media is the main problem in society but maybe you can point me to it.Alternative news sites are still the overwhelming minority in terms of how people get their news. The mere fact that Chomsky is the worlds leading public intellectual today and yet his visibility is essentially nil. Whereas seemingly without exception the typical political discourse at the water cooler is the ubiquitous regurgitated non-issue talking point bullshit fed to us by the mainstream media.It's the most simple equation imaginable; corporations will not pay the media (typically they are the media) if they don't sing their tune. The media landscape has changed sure, but the equation holds and strives.
>>12759952sure it's kind of an obscure tome deep in the subcorpus of chomsky's output. not your fault not a lot of people have heard of it
>>12759920>there is no consensus on what "fake news" even is, or what it looks likeAnd this is precisely it's power. The very idea of 'fake-news' suggests that, in contrast, there exist reliable, dependent, trustworthy sources of *real-news*, which are of course namely the traditional media establishments. It's this suggestion that makes the concept insidious, as it suggests that it would be justified to just ignore or 'hide away' alternate sources of information.
>>12759976Yes I've read it, guide me to the page where he says the onus of responsibility in the collossal fuck up that is contemporary american society solely wrests in the hands of people like rupert murdoch
>>12759300I begin to like you, butterfly
>>12759952>Chomsky is the worlds leading public intellectual todayIsn't it Zizek?
>>12758511In all fairness, they do commit a lot of crime in every single country they inhabit and have 0 successful cities or countries in the entire world. So.... they can appropriately take some of the blame. There's a reason Japan has almost no crime. Ethnically homogeneous and good people these days.
>>12758511Like, it really is a cartoonish level of crime.
>>12758414He's the Harrison Ford of Academia. His past work has been good enough for him to command some amount of respect or reverence up to today, but he's been growing crabbier and less open to new things as time's gone on. Some might find an appeal to that.
>>12760491When he's right and the same junk keeps happening why change? There's no reason to.
Pol is smarter and funnier than lit
Recommend me a brainlet's guide to linguistics.
>>12759952As you know he's never said anything like that. Stop feeding the dumbos it makes me sad to people like that.
>>12760316Both are only appreciated by mouth-breathers who require ready made talking points for their uneducated positions.
>>12760897This is completely incorrect.
>>12760897Can't even look at it for more than 10 minutes, they're fucking terrible. I feel like its easier to tell which people use /pol/ in real life
>>12760897>Pol is smarter and funnier than litthis was true pre-2016maybe even during 2016As a massive /pol/tard, I can say that, at this moment, this isn't true. In fact, at this moment in time, /lit/ is probably funnier than /pol/ by a margin greater than has ever before.
>>12763100>this was true pre-2016No it wasn't I mean, I get what you're saying but no.
>>12758414His linguistics are highly regarded. His political commentary/activism I ignore because he is a limited hangout, like Ellsberg and Snowden.
I liked chomsky until>Trump should leave our troops in syrialmfao. way to show your true colors. imagine spending 70 years crafting a very, very elaborate lie only for it to come crashing down because of your dementia.
>>12763177This is the worst opinion mate. Please write:a) why Chomsky took this positionb) give a quotation of his that disagrees with this reasoning
>>12759736Habermas is a crypto-Deleuzian
>>12763177Do you know why he said that or are you intentionally omitting details to shape views? It's okay to be ignorant (and willing to learn) but it's not okay to be deceiving.
>>12760460Maybe it's more cultural and ethnic.
>>12758414His defence of the khmer rouge and his subsequent justification for defending a genocidal regime is a pathetic cop-out. Even though Zizek is an idiot he is right to say that for an empiricist its ironic how often Chomsky's reliance on data leads him astrayApart from that he's alright. Bit of a dweeb
>>12763187>>12763233takes 3 seconds to google ffsHe said he wants the US army to stay to protect the kurds. But really? Does it even matter what his public explanation is? What is this? reddit? Ever heard of Nietzsche? Marx? Foucault? Goddamn.
>>12758791yeah he does do that
>>12763585... and the psued outs himself
>>12763585Yes, the staunch anti-imperialist who has been an activist for longer than all of us in this thread have been alive is actually in favour of more US imperialism. That is why he said we should (((protect the (((kurds)))))), right? This senile delusional fuck just wants the oil money. Chomsky revealed!Are you seriously retarded? Do you go on /pol/? Serious connected questions inb4 /pol/ baba yaga.
>>12758414>Chomsky's linguistic writing8/10 very interesting>Chomsky's political writingEntry-level at best
I like Chomsky a lot but I disagree with him 99%. He tends to say a lot of shit like any other old man but he sometimes makes a good point. Gotta listen to him at at least 2x speed.
A lot of people in the thread say they disagree with what Chomsky says but say nothing that refutes him. Stop being lazy.
>>12764321He has a thousand booksGonna need to write several thousand books to refute him
I can't tell if /lit/ has been raided in the last year or so or if it's back on an unironic lefty/pol/ trend. I guess everyone ditched Guenon or whatever because it got too popular and they don't want to look like midwit posers.
Stopped listening to him years ago when he said all pornography is exploitation. I’m sure his fans jack off to porn. BOOM I just refuted the fuck out of this old turd.
>>12764599That doesn't change the fact that it's exploitative.
https://youtu.be/-0dM6j7pzQAI dislike his reflexive dismissal of continental philosophy but his heart is in the right place
>>12764608But it’s not lmao, it’s a wonderful and high paying job. If you say this you also BTFO feminists.
>>12764627Current pop feminists have a weird obsession with sex workers now, are you caught in a time warp from the 70s?
>>12764636What’s the point of making the world a better place with activism if you’ll never have sex again?
>>12764716>i don't know shit
>>12764716Incels deserve to be gassed.
>>12764716You will be able to buy sex robots a thousand times more engaging than whatever washed up old whore you might have gotten off with a few times a year.
>>12760465>a right wing COP who ran in an election as a memeber of the conservative party and whose wikipedia page is a list of corruption charges and general piece of shit doingsyeah, I'm sure his numbers all add up
As you can see from yesterday, /lit/ suffers a decline in posting and quality without the flirtatious butterfly and me. :3Have no need to fear, I am not an asshole! It is time to get to work. If you really think about it, me and butterfly have cucked this whole board, basically. I mean just FYI she definitely isn’t denying she is receiving sexual tension. I don’t think she would ever admit it, but there were definitely one time a few days ago when she was. I think we all know that time. So we are basically cucking everyone on this board. But in exchange we will be somewhat adorable. :3 Flirting will be happening today. Guaranteed
>>12766067She also only posts when I’m posting. Which is often, but as you all noticed, not yesterday
>>12766091>>12766067Are both me obv. There are not multiple people interested in her, and even if there are, she can tell. She didn’t respond to anyone else interested in her. I was watching yesterday.Alright, I’ll stop posting without her being here. But I can guarantee she will be on because I’m here. She can at least feel okay about that. I can’t guarantee she will treat me too well though
>>12759290Day of the rope, subhuman degenerate.
I think CIA is a pretty cool guy eh makes Nazi drugs and doesn't afraid of anything
>>12766433>american government is evilwho knew
Why is he not a Maoist?he is politically idiotic
>>12758414i generally like what he says about borders and foreign policy, especially with regards to proxy wars and genocide.
>>12760897Pol is smarter but only completely by accident based on our bizzaro contingent history
Who will take Chomsky's place as the world's leading "US is bad" expert when he dies? Cocaine man? Obama?
>>12769298Definitely Barrack "Nobel Peace Drone Strike" Obama.
>>12769281Retard. Pol is a kindergarden