Fuck You, Noam Chomsky

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
#1
I found this picture on Google Images and it sent me into a quiet rage.



There are so many things wrong with this that it made my dizzy. I don't care if people disagree with libertarianism as long as they have some sort of intelligent counter-argument or, at the very least, ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK LIBERTARIANISM ACTUALLY IS. Noam doesn't mention that libertarian philosophy holds the rule of law (constitutional republicanism) over the rule of man (anarchy; democracy). Instead, he does what every retarded anti-libertarian blogger does and argues against libertarianism by arguing against anarchy as though they're the same thing. For being the "smartest man in academia", Noam Chomsky doesn't seem to bring anything unique to the debate table (not that that's anything new). That quote could've been taken from any left-wing blog and no one would've known the difference.

By the way, arguing against tyranny at all makes Chomsky a hypocrite considering that he argues in favor of speech codes in public colleges on the grounds that a college is a student's home and "freedom of speech doesn't extend that far".

Jump to 5:28 (and to 10:40)

Fuck this dishonest, hypocritical, leftist cunt. Fuck him and his sweater.
 
Last edited:

Neon

ネオン
Donator
#2
Chomsky is a cunt bag, and he's also a linguist. Therefore, anything he says that isn't about linguistics should be ignored.
 
#3
Mr. Chomsky isn't for imposing any speech codes provided you agree with everything he says, but should you disagree, well, you're just a crypto-fascist that has to be quieted "for the good of the community."

I found Syntactic Structures to be somewhat useful during my model logic and formal logic days, but his ideas are nonsense regarding politics (as seen when he debated Christopher Hitchens).
 

LineBackerU

There is a good chance I am blocking you.
Donator
#6
If anything, Communist and Anarchist are now interchangeable. Whether you look at the OWS Trustafarians in America or the European rioters, they claim to be Anarchists but don't want limited or no government, they want massive Big Brother control of all our lives. Basically a modern Anarchist is really just a Communist who thinks Anarchy sounds more Hipster than Communism.
 

Hog's Big Ben

Getting ass-***** in The Octagon, brother.
Donator
#7
I thought this was going to be about likes.
 

Foggy

I'm wasting my life here
Donator
#11
If you know how to use Google, Christopher Hitchens really got into it with Noam in written debates and in my opinion not only killed his petty arguments but made him out to be a terrorist-sympathizing pseudo-intellectual.

It's paradoxical with this guy: He tries to make people (white Americans) out to be ignorant elitists who cannot empathize with the plight of savages, which only serves to make him look like an elitist who talks down to whom he considers savage.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
#12
whiskeyguy and Josh_R, as fellow libertarians, I would love to see your respective takes on this. DonTheTrucker, I know you'll have some nice anti-Chomsky sentiments to add.
I expected this to be a made up quote, especially since he is often described as an anarchist. Being that I am not a retard, I understand that anarchy is usually considered to be one step further than libertarians, in that there is no government and all interactions are voluntary. I am strongly libertarian, but I don't think anarchy can work, because even without a "government" there must be some recognized institution that is given authority to resolve disputes and administer punishment for wrongs committed. I think that even in an anarchical society, forms of government would eventually begin to form.

It makes no sense that he claims that, in Europe, libertarian means socialist. Since democrat means socialist and anything with the word "worker" means socialist, and even the conservative parties are kind of socialist. I think what he should have said is that "in Europe, government means socialist". He is a fool. Any "tyranny" that you can choose not to participate in is not that bad. "OH NO the tyranny of Google!!!!!!" "Oh, you mean I don't have to use their product in any way, if I so choose?"
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
#15
It's paradoxical with this guy: He tries to make people (white Americans) out to be ignorant elitists who cannot empathize with the plight of savages, which only serves to make him look like an elitist who talks down to whom he considers savage.
That's the way it usually is with the Left. Deep down, they think that minorities need their help because only the mighty white man has the power and intelligence to Shepard them into the future. In reality, the only thing the mighty white has done is taught them how to be dependent on the government (which is made up principally of white people).

The Great Society is one of the two lasting legacies of white intervention in the black community. (The other is the War on Drugs.)

The Great Society was designed to make life in ghetto more comfortable so that those living in it wouldn't leave. I genuinely believe that one of the greatest fears among the intellectual elite of the American Left is of successful black entrepreneurs; independent, self-reliant black business owners that realize that government is holding them back by coddling them.
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
#19
ol' Noam is one of those guys that hipster college dummies think is some sort of wise sage.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
#20
ol' Noam is one of those guys that hipster college dummies think is some sort of wise sage.

That's exactly right. Any time someone says he's smart I ask for examples and get NOTHING. They think he's smart because they were told to think he's smart.
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
#21
That's exactly right. Any time someone says he's smart I ask for examples and get NOTHING. They think he's smart because they were told to think he's smart.

I've been saying the same thing about Jon Stewart for years. If that hack was in a one-on-one debate with a well spoken conservative like Mark Levin without editing or a friendly crowd to hide behind or wacky graphics or a team of writers to tell him what to say, he'd get sliced diced demolished and humiliated within 5 minutes on every issue.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
#22
I've been saying the same thing about Jon Stewart for years. If that hack was in a one-on-one debate with a well spoken conservative like Mark Levin without editing or a friendly crowd to hide behind or wacky graphics or a team of writers to tell him what to say, he'd get sliced diced demolished and humiliated within 5 minutes on every issue.

Yeah Stewart is a funny guy but he can only be seemingly politically insightful by:

1. Working with a team of writers; and
2. Having facts be secondary to jokes.

Now, regarding both points - his show is a comedy show, so neither are negative things in themselves, but yeah - he can't hang. Greg Gutfeld would brutalize him.
 
#23
That's exactly right. Any time someone says he's smart I ask for examples and get NOTHING. They think he's smart because they were told to think he's smart.
His linguistic work is excellent (Syntactic Structures, The Sound Pattern of English, Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory) and helped form the foundations of modern computational syntax, but these hipsters most likely view him purely on a superficial level (resulting in their morph into parrots). If they were to really examine his political writings they would realize he is simply a statist that believes he can run your life better than you can.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
#24
His linguistic work is excellent (Syntactic Structures, The Sound Pattern of English, Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory) and helped form the foundations of modern computational syntax, but these hipsters most likely view him purely on a superficial level (resulting in their morph into parrots). If they were to really examine his political writings they would realize he is simply a statist that believes he can run your life better than you can.

That's what I said in my first post - his linguistics work is one thing, but I don't think I have ever, in my entire life, heard his name in that context. It's always economics and geopolitics and I think to myself what the fuck? The guy knows about diphthongs and particles. I wouldn't seek political insight from a chemist, so why from a linguist? Especially one this fucking oblivious about politics.
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
#25
I know its (supposedly) a comedy show, but the political/news related videos The Onion puts out are much funnier and closer to what The Daily Show was originally supposed to be instead of what it is now which is the "Democrat Daily Talking Points" hosted by a snarky guilty white Manhattan limousine liberal who doesn't know half as much as he thinks he does.
 
Top