Edited by icecrystal ()
![](http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/66280000/jpg/_66280269_tv017408413ap.jpg)
glomper_stomper posted:is there any real basis for chomsky's endorsement of clinton?
no, he basically just says a democrat is always better than a republican in terms of damage control, and that hillary, being the presumptive nominee, will be who he probably votes for, or would vote for in the national election.
wheres my blood pressure pills
icecrystal posted:edite: fuck embed
remove the "s" from "https" when u wanna embed a video then it works
tsinava posted:icecrystal posted:
edite: fuck embed
remove the "s" from "https" when u wanna embed a video then it works
THANK YOU
Edited by Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia ()
icecrystal posted:tsinava posted:icecrystal posted:
edite: fuck embed
remove the "s" from "https" when u wanna embed a video then it worksTHANK YOU
Alternatively, erase everything but the video ID from the URL for clean and concise coding/posting
tsinava posted:sorry op i thought you were an actual chomskyist for a whole moment. whew am i salty.
wheres my blood pressure pills
wGxyIhsSAow
in all fairness to the colossal nerd though he didn't Endorse clinton or wahtever dumpster media just ran with that idea based on his repeating the same thing he's said for like 100 years every election about lesser evilism
chickeon posted:besides the stuff about newtonian physics and einsteinan stuff there's also the fact that chomsky himself has shit similarly named after HIMSELF. i've always thoguht htis was one of the funniest things he's ever said
in all fairness to the colossal nerd though he didn't Endorse clinton or wahtever dumpster media just ran with that idea based on his repeating the same thing he's said for like 100 years every election about lesser evilism
As an anarchist, Chomsky naturally distrusted the state, large institutions in general, and the university and all its functionaries. Disaffected intellectuals of this kind, according to one historian, “are less vulnerable to the corruption of title and salary because their resistance is moral, almost instinctual”. Chomsky respected science, especially mathematics and physics. By the same token, he was deeply suspicious of the so-called ‘social sciences’, regarding them as patently ideological. Chomsky dreamed of ridding linguistics of such contamination. He would do this by detaching the discipline from its current institutional affiliations and rendering it purely formal - if possible, purely mathematical. Was it no more than a happy coincidence that this was exactly what the nascent computer industry - and its military sponsors - required?
aerdil posted:its worth repeating that chomsky is pretty dumb when it comes to marxism or really any kind of theory and non-analytical philosophy. it quickly becomes clear in any of his printed interviews about it. he knows literally zero about marx's thought.
swampman posted:That makes sense, actually - you know that Chomsky got their start in linguistics? If you're a linguist you should really check out this book they wrote in 1957 called Syntactic Structures. I honestly don't know why they didn't just do linguistics their whole life, I guess it was their voilon d'Ingres (that's a foreign language called French - if you're into linguistics, you should definitely take a look at French. Lots of fucked up vowels sounds in that language.).
Cool I'll check this out. Thought he was just famous for speaking near, but on topics entirely distinct from, Foucault.
but that's probably true about everything. i mean even anarchists radically disagree about what anarchism means and you'd think that would be a pretty easy one to pin down. i used to make fun of anarchists on message boards by asking them if they supported the zapatista's war on drugs and i'd get elaborate posts back about how anarchists aren't against laws, even though i mean if you told most european anarchists that you're an anarchist who supports laws they'd laugh at you.
getfiscal posted:if i picked ten self-described marxists from my facebook i'd bet i'd get at least five radically different conceptions of what marxism really means and they'd be mutually hostile to the point where they thought each other were repulsive hacks. and they'd give very detailed answers why the other people were completely confused about what marx thought about basically every major issue.
Several discussions on these boards between posters like yourself, babahoboputin, or blinkinnaise, have eventually devolved into both parties identifying the specific point at which semantic interpretation lead to disagreement, followed by a synthesis of both stances, strengthening the minds of the cadre. By which I mean, you should be encouraging your friends to confront each others' conceptions of Marxism in the good faith that all parties want mutual understanding and political unity. Lol.
tpaine posted:wait what the fuck is this thread even about?
threads aren't "about" things, dimwit