The greatest living intellectual thinks modern film is shit

Noam is and always has been BASED

>biggest brainiac on Earth
>hasnt actually improved or invented anything
t.brainlet

>greatest living commie

FTFY

legit og. he was asked what he thought of wesely snipes, and he responded who the fuck is wesely snipes. lol.

I was a teenager from 2008 to 2014 and I don't think either decade I spent time in as a teenager was good.

In fact, I thought it was bad.

Attached: Christopher.jpg (1600x900, 104K)

He preferred Salt Of The Earth to On The Waterfront and he saw an early Hiroshima bombing documentary in a porno theater.

>implying his effect on the field of linguistics isn't substantial
Brainlet detected

He's wrong though. Most modern films are shit, but so were most mainstream films 50 years ago. Europe, GB and East Asia are still pumping out a few kinos per year.

"fuck marvel and fuck niggers" - gnome chompstein

>implying most of his theories haven't been debunked or supplanted

he's actually an anarcho-syndicalist sweetie, i suggest you open a book and educate yourself for once

I like he always calls out the rich but doesn't call out his fellow kikes who are 90% of the rich. A true team player.

Attached: George-Soros-1024x683-900x600-c-center.jpg (900x600, 61K)

[citation needed]

'The Indonesian moderates.' - Gnome Champskin

Maybe but hes a good guy. Anti-Israel, anarchist, anti post-modernism, anti critical theory
He sticks up for the common folk, the everyday 4channeler.

>his effect on the field of linguistics isn't substantial
exactly, its fucking nothing.

He has called out soros, milton friedman, every capitalist. Most jews hate him because of hjis anti-israel and anti-capitalist stances

This man basically founded modern linguistics and formalized much of the foundations of computer science.

>He has called out soros
Link me

Lmao imagine believing this.

>>intellectual

Pseudo intellectual. When will Chomsky apologize for supporting the communist government of Venezuela, leading to mass starvation?

Attached: marxists-starving commies eat zoo animals, venezuela.jpg (558x551, 65K)

the era I was a pre-teen in was much better

Is he actually an anarcho-syndicalist? Thought he was an ancom
yeah i want to see his soros condemnation too

chomsky is a budget version of parenti
he has multiple times
chomsky is a socdem

He typically refers to his ideology as “libertarian socialism” IIRC

Based d9 poster

>last few decades have seen a literal Renaissance in both independent film and spectacle blockbusters
>entire market has evolved to the point where movies are being made for direct consumption via streaming services which has changed the very structure and fabric of how films are produced forever
>still thinking "it bad because it recent" is an argument that has ever made any sense
I think Chomsky is a genius but he doesn't have a background in film history so I don't really take this opinion seriously.

redpill me on parenti

will amerinigger zionburgers apologize for deliberately starving the venezuelan people through unwarranted sanctions and embargoes?

Attached: 1514180245690.png (686x798, 33K)

He's a Jewish communist. The fact that he hates modern movies does not redeem him.

Absolute brainlet

Dunno the full criticism but at around 6:42 of this video he mentions soros. Ill have to find the full lecture.
youtube.com/watch?v=8GlTxH4CCEo

Also this video is funny watch it chomsky is cool.

>last few decades have seen a literal Renaissance in both independent film and spectacle blockbusters
What the fuck are you talking about lmao. The trend of the last few decades has been to make every mid and high budget film a remake, reboot or sequel completely devoid of originality and risk you utter brainlet

There are literally more independent films and competing streaming services than there has ever been in the history of film, not including alternative media outlets cranking out shows that get better views than traditional cable. You're a moron. But I wouldn't expect anything less from zoomers on Yea Forums. You know cable is dead, right?

You are specifically talking about Hollywood, he is talking about the entire industry, brainlet.

Parenti is more staunchly "Marxist-Leninist" what anarchists might call "tankie". He is less critical of the Soviet Union. Both chomksy and parenti are critical of western/american/capitalist imperialism but while Chomsky would say that the soviets are authorotarian and corrupted by power, Parenti would say they needed a strong state to help fend off all the attacks by the west (as the west controls much of the world).
Honestly even though I find anarchist theory more interesting and less dogmatic it's hard to argue against the fact that the Soviets needed to be strong because they were instantly invaded and constantly opposed by the west.

Posters like call chomsky a socdem (in a disparaging way, comparing him to the liberal and not leftist democratic party) because even though he critizes the democrats he advocates voting for them in swing states to prevent the republicans getting in.

There's nothing wrong with Israel. Why wouldn't you want Jews to have their own place?

cry more achmed

Look at this idiot babbling about competing streaming services. Who gives a fuck about that. Cranking out more shit than ever doesn't mean it isn't shit, imbecile.

>the greatest living intellectual
Imagine believing this

>dude now we get netflix adaptations AND amazon adaptations

wow such a fucking renaissance, truly its not a golden age until you can choose between three different flavors of capeshit

First we should remember that nation states are a recent invention and in the future we will likely do away them altogether. This isn't super relevant but don't hold a state up to be some sacred thing.

With regards to Israel, ethnic groups do not deserve their own state. Especially when it comes at the cost of people already living in the area.

The creation of israel was immoral from the start, even when it was being achieved "peacefully". When the JNF was created in the early 1900s (even before the Balfour declaration) rich zionists bought lands in Palestine and kicked off the native farmers to have them replaced with jews in order to created an ethno-state. This was racist. It draws a direct comparison to the protestant plantations in northern ireland whose effects we see today.
Having a safe country for Jews is a noble goal (though this was not the original goal and reason for Israel/zionism) but it didnt have to be in Palestine. America and Britain were already safe places for Jews to live.

SEETHING rightoid

It's not something to "believe"

>This man basically founded modern linguistics

Attached: file.png (220x306, 79K)

>right wing bad, only 99% of people who work hard have a good life!

Israel was formed through right of conquest. As are all nations. If you don't think it's "fair" then we need to disband every country formed through military conquest, and good luck with that.

Attached: wetuy.png (287x329, 22K)

disbanding every nation through a global federation is literally based and redpilled and the only worthwhile future humanity has

childhood is when you're a nationalist
adulthood is realizing globalism just makes more sense

>what is burger economic blockade

I thought we were making serious arguments about whats right and whats wrong.
Israel is somewhat different in that it's very recent creation and ongoing existence is only possible because of the acceptance and support of western countries, most notably the USA and the UK. However this support amongst the people of those countries is changing and overtime this will probably (and hopefully) pressure the governments to stop supporting Israel (see jeremy corbyn and the american senators who were denied entry to israel).

Also disbanding countries formed through conquest has happened many times. Take pretty much every former colonial country.
Or for the most apt comparison to Israel, take Apartheid south africa. An immoral country which the west supported but through movements such as BDS lost its western backing and very recently collapsed. A similar thing is happening to Israel.

>t reddit

Chomsky is treated as an example of really bad non-empirical theoretical speculation in linguistics in every Philology Faculty. His Universal Language and Generative Grammar theories are studied as laughing stock rarities, much like Lamarckism is studied in Biology. He himself acknowledges the blunder and rejects that part of his work now.
His propaganda and media studies are far more relevant in Academia now.
t. actual professor

unrelated, but what did Parenti say about Yugoslavia?

Attached: 1538879026494.jpg (1024x768, 100K)

>get country with millions of acres of fertile land
>starve
>blame america
>repeat

It kinda does

""own place""

>90s was the last good decade.
cringe. there hasn't been a good movie since 1927

wow very edgy fellow plebbitor

Disband USA, it was formed form Indian lands

He thinks EVERYTHING is shit and he goes to the movies once a decade and last time he did he was completed befuddled.

He's ok with documentaries but anything fictional or meant to be entertaining is outright alien to him.

You realise that most famines are logisitcal issues and not resource ones? Generally its possible to utilise the land to feed everyone but if your food supply is drastically changed rapidly it can be devastating. So big changes like a blight or dorught, or economic recession, or sanctions can totally fuck up the logistics around feeding your people.
Hence why people call the Irish famine a genocide. It probably wasn't a genocide but things like food exports and land evictions make it seem like it was. But these were just symptoms of an overally fucked up food supply system.

>we dindu nuffin

Indeed. Difference being it happened so long ago and native americans are such a small minority. At the same time there have been some attempts to fix the crimes, natives are given reserves and also allowed to join the new society with (theoretically) no discrimination.
Similarly with palestine, we don't ask for the Jews to be kicked out. Merely a single state formed in the region which favours no group. Along with the right of return of palestinian refugees.

Chomsky BTFO'ing post-modernists and ""feminists""
youtube.com/watch?v=VjNJX64cBOE

When did he say modern film is shit????

>greatest living intellectual
the left CAN meme

>Old people have dementia
They have a risk of developing it. Otherwise they're lucid.

they're as a rule forgetful

They have a higher risk of it yeah. But overall someone who's 80 isn't necessarily any more absent minded than they were 40 years ago.

>But overall someone who's 80 isn't necessarily any more absent minded than they were 40 years ago.
i disagree. one of my first jobs was in a retirement community (mostly 80+) and i can't think of one resident who didn't show signs of cognitive decline. that's not to disparage old people in any way, they're almost all angels.

Film isn’t really living up to its potential as an art form. In reality it should be better than literature. A moving image has the ability to convey more meaning and be more cathartic than words on a page. Film has no boundaries, however there’s a limit to what you can write about and a limit to how you manipulate language. Every single great piece of literature has already been told

Maybe my experience is just limited.

DROPPED

Disgusting commie old fart

No I don't, movies have been shit for longer than that. This is just the cope new artists give because they suck at making kino

He's intelligent, but he isnt an intellectual. A better description would be the most talented liar born in generations

Name one good movie released this year

>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT CRITICIZE THE US GOVERNMENT!!!!! FUCKING COMMIE LIAR!!!!!!!!!!

Attached: 1555746275463.png (785x731, 279K)

Only good post so far

All of the posts are by me and I've kept the quality consistent.

samecuck CIA shill trying to discredit based gnome

This is your brain on s.oy

Molyneux is unironically a greater intellectual than Chomsky. Shit, Alex Jones is greater than Chomsky. Chomsky is the left's version of Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, and so on.
>the media is biased against communism
>wars are bad if they are fought against communists
>three vacation houses are bad if you aren't a communist mouthpiece
>vote for Obama
>vote for Hillary
>www.spunk.org/library/writers/chomsky/sp001178.txt
Yeah, when the mass graves are being filled with bodies, remember the government is "only power structure that's even partially accountable to the population". And corporations are the real threat since if you don't work for a boss you'll starve and instead of taxing you for shit they think is a good use of your money, Coke stocks vending machines and lures you in with images of polar bears.

>die for amazon, goy

So he's a reactionary?

I'm surprised /pol/fags don't like him since he's been saying Russian collusion was bullshit since the start

Yes, he’s referred to himself as “conservative” before

*STOMP*
*STOMP*
*CLAP*

>american senators who were denied entry to israel

haha what

It's like you read only half of my post. There are literally more movies now than at any point in history. You zoomers know virtually nothing about film. It's embarrassing.

Get back to me when Amazon pulls of a Waco massacre. Or invades another country. Or does anything that if anyone of us did, it would be obviously a criminal act. It's illegal to compete against the USPS for first-class mail. Will Amazon throw anyone in Amazon jail for competing against Amazon?

>Or invades another country.
the government does that for them

sorry congresswomen
irishtimes.com/news/world/us/two-us-congresswomen-denied-entry-to-israel-after-trump-plea-1.3987307

I was gonna say, if he doesn’t know about the banana wars, he’s probably at least heard of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq

People don't seem to realise how much influence corporations have on the government.
Much of the US meddling around the world was specifically to protect the interests of US businesses.

Socialism doesn't generate wealth. Doesn't matter what other issues you are facing if your form of economic governance is inherently stagnant.

Pynchon’s IQ dwarfs this clown’s.

You’re fucking retarded. Mainstream film 50 years ago was much better than it is now.

Reminder that socialism can't work because price controls create resource scarcity and economic stagnation.

List some of your favorite modern directors Yea Forums
>Lars Von Trier
>Refn
>Safdie brothers
>Lanthimos
>Cosmatos

I love reading posts by double digit IQ Republicans who think they're smarter than the most famous intellectual alive

I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowells "Intellectuals and Society". Just because someone's really smart at one thing doesn't mean he is in others.

Source on this about his movie going?

Socialism is just workers having control over the product of their work, rather than the owner of capital getting to exploit those who don't own capital. Thus it doesn't necessarily impact the structure of the economy that much. You can still have markets and countries can be more or less socialist than each other.
That being it can be hard to compete with a business which is allowed to exploit it's workers which is why some call for a worldwide revolution rather than piecmeal.

Also if you consider the soviet union socialist it generated wealth. It was the second fastest growing economy of the 20th century (after japan). And that was on top of defeating the nazis, and constant aggression from the most powerful countries in the world.

Marxists in particular actually place a lot of value on these practical things like wealth generation which is why they call themselves materialists. Then they call other types of socialists idealists.

I can't believe you wrote those first two lines seriously.

You have to go back.

Attached: 1508176179305.png (840x384, 182K)

>the problem isn't the government, which is the only power structure that can initiate force, it's corporations
>governments wouldn't go to war if it wasn't for corporations
All the government is is the initiation of force. A butcher asking a favor from the Mafia to whack another butcher isn't corrupting the Mafia. But you fuckers just zero in on the butcher hired some kid to sweep the floor.

>Socialism is just workers having control over the product of their work, rather than the owner of capital getting to exploit those who don't own capital
why can't i own my company?

>government or bureaucracy controlling means of distribution, production, and exchange
>not directly/indirectly price controlling
Nah. Soviet Union literally had towns of ppl starving next to perfectly fertile land because they were so bad at central planning.

mises.org/wire/how-price-controls-leads-socialism

Israel was actually gonna allow them in but trump pressured them not to cuz he doesn't like them

be nice and forma coop instead

>all socialism is bolshevism
>mises.org
No

What if I want my own business?

oh yeah that would be nice, but i don't want to be exploited by the coop if i work harder to create value for the company

Price controls are inherently part of socialism. Constantly creates surplus and scarcity.

why do you think socialism involves things like central planning?
Have you heard of anarchism? Look up anarchist spain, read George Orwells book homage to catalonia

holy shit lmao the brain rot induced by listening to dark money funded upward failing dipshits spew refried red scare bullshit into your skull

Not an anarachist. Mixed economy is best when oriented towards markets.

Not an argument.

socialism is when everybody starves and the more starving people the more socialister it is

i think you might be bad at verbalizing your ideas

>why do you think socialism has central planning?
Because politicians are not economists.

based context-free-grammars

Attached: barclay.jpg (694x530, 91K)

How in the fuck do you do anything without trading private property?

One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky's work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich" and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor--like 80 percent of the population--pay off the rich."
But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution--just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. Although he did say that the tax shelter is okay because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people.

i took an upper div computation class it was pretty neat but i didn't expect a linguistic formulation

>he thinks working hard guarantees reward in capitalism
There are many indians who are smarter and work harder than americans but they may never be as wealthy. Perhaps if there was no such thing as inherited wealth and everyone started equal than we could have a meritocracy.
But the idea of a meritocracy is flawed. We dont live in one and creating one is nigh impossible. And desu i would rather live in a society where the strong help the weak rather than rule over them

private property does not mean random shit you own

>he thinks working hard guarantees reward in capitalism
i didn't say that. my hypothetical was obviously not in a capitalist system.

Indians in the USA make a shitload of money. India does not really have a free market.

There have been societies without private property. Any primitive one. Egypt. Plus the nature of private property changed drastically upon the arrival of capitalism in the last couple hundred years.

>a free market
No such thing

>Egypt didn't have private property
did the pharoahs not own their own homes?

How comes socialists don't understand supply and demand

lol this dumb shit was already tried and failed with bernie's money from book sales

it can be more free or less free, India's is less free

Yikes.

>One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky's work has been class warfare.
I though he was a linguist.

>he calls himself a "capitalist" but he doesn't even control any capital
lmao

even if this is true this just means he isn't an idiot and takes every tax advantage he can as literally everyone should

Not really
Not an argument

Thats the point, the pharoahs ultimately owned everything. But it was the workers who didnt own anything that actually built society.

Attached: capitalism.png (499x275, 148K)

This stuff is his hobby

Love my free markets like Somalia

would it be wrong to say that egypt did have private property, but that was all owned by one faction?

And then socialist are surprised when people start supporting violent purge of socialists in their countries :^)

>this annihilates lolbergism

>not an argument
>what is laizzes-faire

>somalia is free market
lolwut

>what is laizzes-faire
A buzzword.

>responding to post #119598082

>no private property
>no trade of capital goods with money
>no uniform unit of account
>economic calculation and therefore planning is impossible
Venezuela regression is the goal, apparently.

Chomsky on free market capitalism
youtube.com/watch?v=1LvntriHLxA

They'd be worse off with socialism. Just check out Ghana and Ivory Coast's competition in the 60s. One took up socialism, the other capitalism. I'll let you figure out which one prospered but I'll give you a hint, look for a trend in history.

They were offended by reality that 52 countries tried socialism and all 52 countries ended up with government death squads, deficits of basic goods, etc and decided to come back with some retarded shit that only commies would come up with.

you mean the country that still hasn't recovered from decades of socialist dictatorship?

>How comes socialists don't understand supply and demand

Most ardent socialist supporters do not derive their beliefs from stupidity (at least not directly), 99% of the time it's pure rent-seeking behavior as they're losers who calculate that even if society is massively worse off under socialism, they would personally be better off.

It's the same reason why single mothers vote 95% Democrat, it's not that they're in "error" and if you just explain economics to them they will stop doing that, it's purposeful behavior. Most leftists are not dumb, they're just evil.

Attached: 1537223066669.jpg (480x360, 27K)

They got rid of that, though.

a terrible way to spell it.

See

frickin what the crap you didn't even click on it?! that guy is so owned now
explain the effect of socialism on the food supply of a country. then explain how american sanctions did nothing at all to contribute to hunger in venezuela

>thomas sowell
OH NO NO NO NO

Reminds me of the comparison between China and India. China's more socialist government rolled out healthcare to its poor rural population. When compared to india they saved hundreds of millions of lives.

>Communist dictatorship destroys country, undergoes complete societal collapse, and erupts into civil war
>THANKS MILTON FRIEDMAN

Attached: 66567575564.jpg (500x619, 69K)

>yes, this will be the anthill I die on
Just admit you're wrong. It's the definition of a free economy.

>Just admit you're wrong. It's the definition of a free economy.
When has such an economy existed in practice?

>explain the effect of socialism on the food supply of a country
mass starvation

China and Indias biggest gains in the fight against poverty have occurred after adopting capitalism.
fee.org/articles/capitalism-is-good-for-the-poor/

Thanks for playing, I can tell you tried your hardest.

I have no fucking clue what you two are sperging about, I simply dislike people who try to appear smart by using foreign terms and can't even spell them right.

>the people bear their arms, overthrow an oppressive socialist regime and institute a stateless free market paradise

>119598261
>still trying to get my (You)

>The president intensified his comments after the decision was announced, writing: “Representatives Omar and Tlaib are the face of the Democrat Party, and they HATE Israel!

what did he mean by this

Thanks spelling bee gatekeeper we will keep that in mind.

Chomsky was originally kind of zionist, but he wanted it to be a socialist state where jews could live safely alongside the locals. Not the colonial apartheid state it became.

>in practice
Ah fair enough. I thought you meant the concept doesn't exist.

Or just trying to sound like a smartass, that'll work too.

>how does Venezuela imposing its own sanctions on its own people destroy Venezuela
What part of planning is impossible do you not understand?

>literally the father of modern linguistics
>hasnt improved anything

>t. Adum

who says that?

What movies did he Write, Direct, or Star In?

imdb.com/name/nm0159008/

Attached: chompers.jpg (1000x1462, 247K)

he starred in documentaries? what a fucking cineast.

You're just a teenager who doesn't actually watch film. That's fine, zoomer.

Avram Noam Chomsky[a] (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian,[b][c] social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics",[d] Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science.

at least include the wiki citations

Noam Chomsky": Why you can not have a Capitalist Democracy!

youtube.com/watch?v=8mxp_wgFWQo

so, you just read the wikipedia article and have no idea?

Cope

>"Mr. Chomsky ... is the father of modern linguistics and remains the field's most influential practitioner." (Fox 1998)
>"Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and professor of linguistics emeritus at MIT, widely known as the father of modern linguistics, a philosopher, prolific author, and globally influential political activist." (MIT150: Noam Chomsky 2011)
>"As the founder of modern linguistics, Noam Chomsky, observed, each of the following sequences of words is nonsense ..." (Tymoczko & Henle 2004:101)
>"At 87, Noam Chomsky, the founder of modern linguistics, remains a vital presence in American intellectual life." (Tanenhaus 2016)
He asked a question and I answered. What more do you want?

high school citations nice

I asked who says something so loaded. If the answer is "wikipedia" and you think that this is enough, give me a fucking break.

>thinks modern film is shit

source

>Crowned father of modern linguistics by the fucking New York Times
Go home, Saussure, you've been bested.

Attached: 1515139508704.jpg (400x235, 100K)

You asked for examples of Chomsky being called father of modern linguistics, I provided an example, even in his wikipedia entry he's referred as such. If you want more information on his work do your own fucking research, I'm not here to spoonfeed you retards.

was a teen in the 00s and I hated it and missed the 90s

now ironically I hate the rampant political correctness of the 10s and miss the carefree silliness and game modding scene of the early 00s but not the shitty movies and tv

I'm sure many here feel the same

>not a PhD in Physics or Math
>'intellectual'

What do you think "intellectual" means?

don't give yourself too much credit bud

t. fake sciences

That's not an answer

>he's the best linguist ever!
>Says who?
>wikipedia says that
>But why is he regarded as the best eva?
>I just told you, it's on wikipedia!
m8.

Can someone tell me why I should respect Chomskys opinion on economics when that has nothing to do with his credentials

Except anyone who was a teenager before 2006 would be objectively right to think that now, and every generation gets progressively shittier.

I don't know, which opinion of his strikes you as misinformed?

The support of socialism in general.

He invented the Chomsky Hierarchy and nothing else of lasting value

Elaborate

>movie takes forever to be made
>actually lives up the hype
Any kinos for this feel?

Attached: slipknot-corey.jpg (800x584, 250K)

>he's the best linguist ever!
Said nobody. I said he's the father of modern linguistics. He is referred to as the father of modern linguistics. You asked who says that and I posted the citations. You never asked me why he's regarded as the best, as I never claimed that he was. Quit moving the goalposts and stop embarrassing yourself just for the sake of having the last word.

What answer would you accept? Not that user, but you are being ridiculous.

He regards Venezuela as a success due to it.

Does he? Proofs.

Venezuela had great economic growth under socialist rule compared to their past until they were put under economic sanctions from the US. I'm not defending the communist dictatorship there, nor defending Chomsky if he did defend them, but their economic growth during that time is a fact.

aren't those policies also the downfall?

>getting upset I jokingly exaggerated what you said
Your facetiousness makes you look like a total faggot, just want you to know that. Come back to me when you can answer the simple question I asked: who says he is the father of modern linguistics? (And no, one lady that writes obituaries for the NY does not count).
The reason why that question is important is because there was a ton of linguists just as influential since the 19c, and your statement implies that their contributions are somehow all outdated. Why would academics all around the world decide, in the last 10 years if we go by the other sources, to dispel Saussure, Jakobson or even Wittgenstein in favor of that guy. It is a bold, if not outrageous claim, and I would expect you wouldn't just throw it around without being able to explain why that is.

Venezuela had an economic growth because of ridiculously high oil prices that the government chose to spend on gibs 4 votes and on filling their own pockets.

>gibs 4 votes
Yeah, I wonder why people in a poverty-stricken country would want a welfare state funded with money from said country's valuable resources.

>This man basically destroyed modern linguistics
Fixed it for you

2 main reasons for their downfall, their over reliance on oil (which can be considered reasonable since they have one of the biggest oil reserves on the world), which was made into nothing because Saudi Arabia lowered the price of oil they sell, and the extreme US sanctions put on them that strangled their economy. The long-term effects of their domestic socialist policies didn't really have a chance to be observed whether they would be harmful or helpful as international pressure demolished them.
This is an incredibly simplistic and partisan point of view user and you know it.

>greatest living intellectual
I could kick his ass, can't be that great

man Im so glad the venezuelan coup failed. we in the west should be ashamed

Lol no.
Government overspending created catastrophic deficits when oil prices plummeted. Worker co-ops wound up in the hands of incompetent and corrupt political cronies. The government responded to its budgetary problems by printing money, leading to inflation. Inflation led to price controls, leading to shortages. Shortages led to protests, leading to repression and the destruction of democracy. Then followed widespread starvation, critical medical shortages, an explosion in crime, and a refugee crisis to rival Syria’s.

Haven' t a ton of his hypothesis been debunked by now? The guy is more famous for marketing himself as an intellectual and political activist than for actual academic merit.

this is more of an argument against democracy than anything else

Kek how? Who even told you that?

How so?

>This essay is adapted from the author’s new book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday, 2005). Available from the Hoover Press is The Fall of the Berlin Wall, edited by Peter Schweizer.

Thanks Peter Schweizer! Your commentary has been noted.

Commie with extra steps

Attached: brainlet1.png (645x729, 69K)

Venezuela was starving years before the U.S. put any sanctions/embargoes on Venezuela.

>This is an incredibly simplistic and partisan point of view user and you know it.
I fucking live there, you retard. Socialists were the worst thing to happen to this country and if you think that populists that shat on every single law there has been and would gladly burn down the country than abandon their blow money were any good then I wish them on your country.

>Muh language games
>Muh analytic philosophy
>Muh all problems are pseudo-problems
Mate, Wittgenstein dealt a serious blow to philosophy IMO

Grow food

languages games are a pretty cool concept, what don't you like about them?

bad example with single mothers as they are generally too dumb to do that sort of cost-benefit analysis. they literally act purely on emotional appeals to marginalized people.

because he's smarter than you and he doesn't care about economics as much as he cares about government

lmfao post the back of ur hand!!!

>implying that fertile soil is all you need. Especially when your country is run by favela monkey rape gangs working for the government to nip every little sign of rrbellion in the bud.

Just look at Africa. The most resourceful and fertile region in the world and yet all the niggers starve and die of aids. These people are uneducated and prefer to make mosquito burgers to learning how to farm properly. Same goes for Venezuela which in contrast to Africa used to be a prosperous nation even surpassing the US Dollar several decades ago. Sadly, now it's a former developed country turning into Africa because the new generation and the recent governments couldn't be bothered with fixing their shit. It's the equivalent of letting monkeys loose in an empty New York and wondering why Wall Street drops in value.

>appeal to authority
>not even an authority on the subject
Double yikes.

analytic philosophy when it comes to language is a real thing with a lot of research behind it, what educational background do you have?

>Yea Forums is filled with insecure faggots whose first goto reply is "what education do you have"
Gee, could you be more obnoxious

you're right you should get your views from some idiot right wing youtuber

and also you literally appealed to his lack of authority in your original post you retard

>it was just a joke!
Ah yes, the "I was only pretending to be retarded" rebuttal.
>Come back to me when you can answer the simple question I asked: who says he is the father of modern linguistics? (And no, one lady that writes obituaries for the NY does not count).
Funny how you ignore the other pages there, one of which is directly from MIT and cherrypick the NYT article. You're literally in denial of a general consensus of what the man is being referred as, you can type his name to google and among the first suggestions is "father of modern linguistics". You might disagree with that assessment, and I would respect that, but that assessment exists, and denying that it does is just plain retarded.
>The reason why that question is important is because there was a ton of linguists just as influential since the 19c, and your statement implies that their contributions are somehow all outdated.
I've never claimed or implied as such and I'm not the one who gave him the fucking title.
>Why would academics all around the world decide, in the last 10 years if we go by the other sources, to dispel Saussure, Jakobson or even Wittgenstein in favor of that guy.
Where are you even getting such a claim? This isn't fucking Highlander, it's not like there can only be a single linguist out there whose ideas are considered important. Why are you grasping at straws?
>It is a bold, if not outrageous claim, and I would expect you wouldn't just throw it around without being able to explain why that is.
Again, never was my claim. You're arguing against a strawman at this point.

ANALytic philosophy is just anglos jerking eachother off over how much better they are than the french and the germans and never actually accomplishing anything

sounds pretty based to me

Appeal to a lack of authority isn't a fallacy. And I wouldn't consider Milton Friedman a YouTuber seeing as though he's been dead for years

>appeal to lack of authority isn't a fallacy
Yes it is.

If you say so, retard.

>Ah yes, the "I was only pretending to be retarded" rebuttal.
Is this autism?
>Funny how you ignore the other pages there
did you read my post at all?
>You're literally in denial of a general consensus
Lmao what?? Nigger, how is this general? That's precisely what I am asking, you complete simpleton.
>I'm not the one who gave him the fucking title.
No, but you're throwing it around, you dishonest fuck. That means you are accountable for the claim just as much.
>Where are you even getting such a claim?
I really encourage you to look up the definition of "father" and think for five minutes what it entails
>Again, never was my claim.
Do you have negative IQ? I swear to god, I don't meet many people as stupid as you.

Oil prices didn't plummet out of the blue, they were a result of foreign intervention. The rest that followed is just standard procedure in every country that is under economic assault the way Venezuela is.
>I fucking live there, you retard.
Doesn't change the fact that you're approaching the debate from an extremely partisan and simplistic viewpoint. As I said, I do not defend Chavez or Maduro, they both made a lot of fuck ups, but denying the effects of foreign intervention on Venezuela and blaming everything on the socialist government is a very amerimutt thing to do.

>Oil prices didn't plummet out of the blue, they were a result of foreign intervention
being unhedged against global market fluctuations is a problem of central planning. if you aren't going to be our little bitch, you shouldn't flood the market with cheap product.

Nome mo foreskin lol

Not that guy, but are you really telling a Venezuelan you know his country better than he does?

typical analytic reply

from a grammar point of view you're not doing much better

>they were a result of foreign intervention
It was a result of a greedy socialist government. Chavez replaced anyone in the industry who knew what they were doing with government heads. This started with the firing of PDVSA employees in 2003 and continued with pushing international expertise out of the country in 2007.

Second, the Chávez government failed to appreciate the level of capital expenditures required to continue developing the country’s oil. This was in no small part due to inexperience among the Chávez loyalists that were now running PDVSA, but it may not have mattered in any case. When oil prices were high, Chávez saw billions of dollars that could be siphoned to fund the country’s social programs, and that’s exactly what he did. But he failed to reinvest adequately in this capital-intensive industry.
He also doubled the amount of expenditure on social programs and hiked up minimum wage 5 times in a short span of time.

>global market fluctuations
Concentrated international economic warfare is not global market fluctuations. Look up Oil Glut of 2010's.
>you shouldn't flood the market with cheap product.
That's exactly what the US and the Saudi's did.
No, I'm telling him he is simplifying the situation and he knows it. As an example, is it wrong to tell an American SJW that "the only problem with the US today is that there aren't enough black people in superhero movies" is bullshit even though I'm not an American?

So you're telling him what he knows, gotcha.

What's the use of arguing a point if you're going to completely ignore what I'm trying to say? Might as well call each other faggots and get on with it.

What you really want me to ignore, I believe, is that you are trying to school a native Venezuelan on the economy of his own country.

he sat in a Manhattan office for 60 years of course he's an anarcho-communist, """""material independence""""" means dirt roads and starvation, retarded old cuck lmao

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to get you to do.
Faggot.

Not a word of what you said is accurate.

well, that's quite dishonest.

>I'm smarter than Noam Chomsky
it's funny seeing such obvious idiots say things like this

Noam isn't gonna fuck you, dude.

At least I'm not a faggot, faggot.

Kek

I think we should militarize the entire population of Earth, edit the genes of every new baby from this point forward and colonize the universe until we all die from heat death. We can have lots and lots and lots of fun along the way, too. Fucking, smoking, drinking, eating delicious food etc. etc. It'll be rad.

another high IQ post by someone who watched some Milton Friedman youtube videos and thinks he's smarter than an MIT professor

do you bring up IQ because you have absolutely no sense of humor?

Yeah, and that retard Jordan Peterson is or was a Harvard professor. la de fucking da

But who would build the roads?

>the libertarian professor was visibly shaken

We'll have an MOS (or whatever you jarheads call it) for that.

Outsider here. I think the bottom line is that just because someone is smart at something doesn't make him an expert on all subjects. Noam being a lynguist authority doesn't make him an economist, just like Peterson being an authority on psychology doesn't make him an authority on communism.

That's neither here nor there, we are discussing user's lust for linguist cock.

Ah, carry on.

Who?

some guy who studied words

except for the part where he has dozens of books, lectures, essays, etc where he lays out his thoughts coherently and fully

this isn't Jordan Peterson going on Joe Rogan

Guys, just face it already. You can't stop the capitalist/fascist machine. It's too powerful. Embrace it and make positive changes within the system. We'll all have a lot more fun that way.

I hated the era I was a teenager in. The last good decade was the 1910s.

>he doesn't have a background in film history
Anyone who does have a background in film history should be executed because they're fucking useless.

and so what if he is, what suddenly being born in a plac emeans you're a geopolitical and economic expert
fuck off

>anarcho-syndicalist hates movie made by person who ratted out leftists
based

>BTFO'd by some backwards Amazonian tribe

Attached: pirahã tribe.jpg (650x434, 130K)

The Irish famine is called a genocide because the Brits had stockpiled food but didn't give it out
Also the Brits did nothing wrong

Peterson has a huge repertoire of scholarly articles too. You don't become a professor at Harvard by chance.

I haven't read them and can't comment on them but scholarly journals are total horseshit for the most part.

t. edited a top 10 law journal

>You don't become a professor at Harvard by chance.
peterson became a professor at harvard because his friend begged the faculty so much they eventually gave in and let him in, so it wasn't chance it was even more pathetic

Chomsky is a pretentious hack and a senile old man. Zizek is far more down to Earth and articulate.

which zizek book should I read first

I turned twenty in '15
my favorite films are mostly from the 60s and 70s and they stopped making good blockbusters in the 80s

I've found the opposite, chomsky was much more down to earth to my ear than zizek who is more rambling and incoherent. but I guess the language barrier factors into that

anybody? I don't want to go to Yea Forums. they always make fun of me

Leftists were cooler before Stalin gulag'd everyone

chomsky would have been gulag'd by Lenin and Stalin

He's actually barred from setting foot in Israel.

I'm pro-nationalism. Which of his books should I read to get blue pilled on nationalism?

Lot's of useful leftists would be

Only 50/50. Good about anything not to do with foreign policy, or economics.