Chomsky on the Republican Party.

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

what didn’t you understand.

 

[Der Eisbär]

what didn’t you understand.

(C • I) • (C • ~I) = reductio ad absurdum

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

(C • I) • (C • ~I) = reductio ad absurdum

Listen if you want to stick with the idea that Peterson is this amazing intellectual have fun with that.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Listen if you want to stick with the idea that Peterson is this amazing intellectual have fun with that.

How are you going to assert that chomsky is both an intellectual and not an intellectual

 

[Prokofievian]

Means nothing

Sure it does. It means at the very least that he was a tenured prof at MIT (for about 50 years IIRC) before retiring. That's not invalidated because he's at University of Arizona right now.

 

[HomerThompson]

Sure it does. It means at the very least that he was a tenured prof at MIT (for about 50 years IIRC) before retiring. That's not invalidated because he's at University of Arizona right now.

Old people like Arizona more than Massachusetts, who knew?

 

[Jack V Savage]

If he stayed out of political philosophy I really wouldn't care. He's just not well read enough to offer anything of substance, and he lashes out angrily at any sort of counter argument in often bizarre ways. Did you know that you can't draw a distinction between Stalinism and Marxism in general? If you disagree with him on that point, you ought to be punched in the nose, apparently. This is a rather bizarre argument from him. Specifically since he does in fact claim to draw a causal link between modern identity politics and the terrors of Stalinism, he subsumes the ability to understand Stalinism's causes. What is unconscionable to him, however, is the notion that anyone could do anything about them (which is what he's attempting to do, incidentally).

Specifically on this issue, he does a tremendous disservice in dissuading (by threat of hypothetical physical violence) any investigation on the part of his followers of the single most interesting question of the Russian revolution: the one we ought to discuss if we're to discuss the revolution at all. Specifically, is Stalinism its logical end? Instead we are to assume a specific conclusion, or get punched in the nose. It's boring.

I agree with your criticism of him here. I don't endorse everything he says, and I think some of what he says is downright nutty. However I think that people migrating from Molyneux or Shapiro or Limbaugh to Peterson are going to learn a lot and get us much closer to a place of sane, productive disagreement.

Do you think the same "dominance urges" that exist in the mind of today's average adult American also existed in the mind of the average adult Iroquois in 1700?

In other words, how much "dominance urge" is instilled by the social order versus inherent in the human genome?

I have no idea how anyone would be able to have any confidence in an answer to that question. I think that the dominance urge is to a greater or lesser extent inevitable.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

How are you going to assert that chomsky is both an intellectual and not an intellectual

What are you talking about.

 

[Prokofievian]

What are you talking about.

You typed Chomsky instead of Peterson.

Well in regards to chomsky he is a fake intellectual and has never been a leader in his field. The same can’t be said about Noam

 

[splendica]

Lol good grief one has never been a leader in his field.... NEVER, and the other revolutionized his entire field of linguistics

At no point has academia looked up to Peterson.

Debunked.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/

"The idea that we have brains hardwired with a mental template for learning grammar—famously espoused by Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—has dominated linguistics for almost half a century. Recently, though, cognitive scientists and linguists have abandoned Chomsky’s “universal grammar” theory in droves because of new research examining many different languages - and the way young children learn to understand and speak the tongues of their communities. The work fails to support Chomsky's assertions."

 

[Der Eisbär]

What are you talking about.

Profo pointed it out. I know it was just a typo and I was fucking with you but you never got it. Lol.

So am I getting this right? In order to be a real intellectual, one must be a current or former leader in his or her field of study? So by this criteria, there are what, a few dozen REAL intellectuals in the world, while everyone else is a fake intellectual?

 

[Jack V Savage]

It is apparent from this thread that Peterson rents a lot of space for free, in a lot of people's heads. This thread wasn't even about him.

For a guy that's pretty dull and non-controversial (in my opinion), the guy sure seems to spark a lot of debate around him.

He's talked about a lot because he's super popular among the right. I'd guess that even people who strongly oppose him in this thread would say that he's way less objectionable than the other right-wing guru types out there.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You typed Chomsky instead of Peterson.

Oh thank you for pointing that out. I didn’t realize I did that

 

[Trotsky]

If he stayed out of political philosophy I really wouldn't care. He's just not well read enough to offer anything of substance, and he lashes out angrily at any sort of counter argument in often bizarre ways. Did you know that you can't draw a distinction between Stalinism and Marxism in general? If you disagree with him on that point, you ought to be punched in the nose, apparently. This is a rather bizarre argument from him. Specifically since he does in fact claim to draw a causal link between modern identity politics and the terrors of Stalinism, he subsumes the ability to understand Stalinism's causes. What is unconscionable to him, however, is the notion that anyone could do anything about them (which is what he's attempting to do, incidentally).

Specifically on this issue, he does a tremendous disservice in dissuading (by threat of hypothetical physical violence) any investigation on the part of his followers of the single most interesting question of the Russian revolution: the one we ought to discuss if we're to discuss the revolution at all. Specifically, is Stalinism its logical end? Instead we are to assume a specific conclusion, or get punched in the nose. It's boring.

Want to punch yourself in the nose for how deluded and stupid his fans are? Read the comments in the Reddit thread below. Just a bunch of complete idiots who don't know what they're talking about, yet speak very confidently while getting everything wrong.



And the thing is: I've written paragraphs and paragraphs on the differences between communism, Marxism, Leninism, and Marxism-Leninism(Stalinism). And what it comes down to is that people just don't fucking care. It's all about tribalist absolutism. I mean there might be a narrow, narrow sliver of centrists like PolishHeadlock who are interested just for the history of it, but beyond that post-Cold War Americans are just comfortable with reductive propaganda.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Debunked.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/

"The idea that we have brains hardwired with a mental template for learning grammar—famously espoused by Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—has dominated linguistics for almost half a century. Recently, though, cognitive scientists and linguists have abandoned Chomsky’s “universal grammar” theory in droves because of new research examining many different languages - and the way young children learn to understand and speak the tongues of their communities. The work fails to support Chomsky's assertions."

You do realize that chomsky himself has added to and changed some of his past findings In regards to linguistics.


And he also hasn’t been debunked either. There are more than 1 group of people here. It’s more Than this one side belives chomsky, the other side doesn’t. There are also the individuals who fall inbetween.

None of this matters though because it doesn’t change the fact aboutPeterson who will soon be forgotten once this trump alt right fad goes away.

When he’s been debating other high end intellectuals for 50 something years please give me a call.

 

[Byron Carter]

Chomsky is a can.

The stereotypical liberal elite.

 

[splendica]

You do realize that chomsky himself has added to and changed some of his past findings In regards to linguistics.


And he also hasn’t been debunked either. There are more than 1 group of people here. It’s more Than this one side belives chomsky, the other side doesn’t. There are also the individuals who fall inbetween.

None of this matters though because it doesn’t change the fact aboutPeterson who will soon be forgotten once this trump alt right fad goes away.

When he’s been debating other high end intellectuals for 50 something years please give me a call.

Peterson, isn't dumb, isn't a fad, won't be forgotten about.

Noam isn't dumb but I think he is overrated, and others do too.

It is what it is.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Peterson, isn't dumb, isn't a fad, won't be forgotten about.

Noam isn't dumb but I think he is overrated, and others do too.

It is what it is.

I never said he’s dumb.
Peterson will be forgotten within the next few years and he’ll never be spoken about again.

He’s an alt right fad. Like I said, when he’s been debating high end intellectuals for 50 plus years give me a call. He’ll play t safe and continue debating college kids

I also stick with the idea that Peterson is now swimming in his cult of personality from his internet fan base that academia never gave him. Why? Because he has never been a field leader or looked upon as one.

 

[splendica]

I never said he’s dumb.
Peterson will be forgotten within the next few years and he’ll never be spoken about again.

He’s an alt right fad. Like I said, when he’s been debating high end intellectuals for 50 plus years give me a call. He’ll play t safe and continue debating college kids

I also stick with the idea that Peterson is now swimming in his cult of personality from his internet fan base that academia never gave him. Why? Because he has never been a field leader or looked upon as one.

The reality is he didn't seek out his fame. In fact he was far along into his stand against cultural Marxism as a lone voice of reason on a major university campus. Fame found Peterson and anything else is myth or blind hatred. He was the voice of the unrepresented, rising up against the mob.

*edit. I took out the video, sort of a meandering scene.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I have no idea how anyone would be able to have any confidence in an answer to that question. I think that the dominance urge is to a greater or lesser extent inevitable.

We're talking about type and degree. If you had any knowledge of 18th century Iroquois societal structure the answer would be obvious. (I'm only cherry-picking the Iroquois because it's the non-European culture about which I know the most.)