Remember when NJR went all in on the Tara Read allegations and then stopped once Chomsky gave the orders to vote for Biden, and then deleted most of the Tara Reade tweets lmao
You could email Chomsky your question, and please let me know if he replies.
Apparently Chomsky is critical of continental philosophy.
What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/5f0yhc/whats_up_with_chomsky_vs_zizek/
It's true that critical theory uses the term in a completely different way than the way that Chomsky does--theory in humanities is much closer to "critical perspective or methodology." The problem that Chomsky has never been able to adequately address though is that just because something is nonfalsifiable doesn't mean it's not true.
In Chomsky's debate with Foucault Chomsky was completely manhandled and out of sorts and eventually started talking about how at some point his own politics believed in Platonic ideals of truth. Foucault clearly came out on top as the more systematic and rigorous thinker, and Chomsky for his part hasn't engaged with critical theory since.
Lol, well who knows. Maybe they are actually objecting to my definition of critical theory not referring exclusively to the Frankfurt School, or they are objecting on the grounds that Marxist theory is grounded in an objective analysis of natural history? 😉
I think on the whole critical theorists actually like Chomsky quite a bit more than he likes them.
Superman went so fast that he changed the spin of the earth to rewind time and unkill Lois. Sonic never did something like that.
trump isn’t gonna do fucking camps, nathan
He literally already does camps.
ever since this guy dishonestly shit on Marx I've had zero respect for him
i dont know who this is and i dont give a fuck
edit: i assume its some internet "journalist" who only publishes spicy hot libshit takes, judging from other comments.
anyways, i look forward to telling libs they shouldve voted for trump when we're all on the joe-biden affordable-bus-care camp transports together, cause fuck em. :elmofire:
editor-in-chief of decent (if somewhat lib-y) leftist mag Current Affairs
source? I did some googling and found that a few people have made this point, but I can't find an article or anything where he actually lays out his position. Not trying to say it isn't true, I'd just like to see his position.
https://hexbear.net/post/6332
https://hexbear.net/post/37012
https://hexbear.net/post/41680
He agrees with Marx on quite a bit. What he criticizes is:
- Treating Marx's writings like infallible holy scripture rather than a 150-year-old text that's one of several important pieces of leftist thinking. Not all Marxists do this, but it does happen (e.g., "the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism"). His argument is along the lines of "we don't call physics Newtonism because while Newton was important, other thinkers have added important contributions since his time."
- The tendency of some socialists to insist that people read Marx instead of explaining socialism in more accessible language. If you're trying to teach physics to someone with no knowledge of physics, you don't start them off with Newton. You may not ever have them read Newton's original papers. What you give them is some modern literature that includes Newton's ideas plus the contributions that have been made since. Note that he's on the side of Lenin and Mao here -- they built on Marx with writings specific to their time and place, they didn't just point to Marx until people read him.
These are defensible points whether you ultimately agree with them or not. Deriding him as "lol fancy lad who hasn't read Marx because it's impossible to read Marx and do anything but worship the guy" is dumb and counterproductive. We have to be able to disagree with folks who are to the left of probably 90% of the country without being complete assholes to them, otherwise we're not getting anything done.
i don't think anything about him comes close to the level of badness of his voice / fake accent
an anarchist who's pivoting hard to the side of the establishment and mainstream narratives to boost his newspaper sales lol
liberals and socdems (but i repeat myself) who don't read any theory and just co-opt anarchist aesthetics cause they look cool :agony:
The anarcho-libs come out of the woodwork every election season. They will never stopped being duped by propaganda and influenced by self-interest over strategic action.
I could be wrong but I don't think he's ever claimed to be an anarchist.
there he's arguing with an Intercept editor who thinks we need to fight the CCP by banning TikTok
I thought we agreed that was frustrating after Banksy. Or did we agree that was frustrating after adbusters? Or did...
If you want anarchist shit read Crimethinc. Or It's Going Down, or Earth First! Journal, or Black Seed Journal. Stay away from the New Yorker knockoffs.
"Don't trust a white man in New Orleans who dresses like Jim Crow is still on the books" I explain to the person next to me reading NJR tweets.
His twitter seems overrun with libs. I know he wants to have his own show on MSNBC super hard but it ain’t happenin’.
Thousands of citizens go to camps every single year from the very city where Nathan lives. One is called Angola Prison and it is literally a former slave plantation and is full of mostly black inmates.
He just wants to continue to not be subject to the camps.
Fuck off.
Hey guess who has been a public defender and worked pro bono is the Louisiana criminal justice system?
Yeah that’s good but it is pretty weird he would never think of a prison bus while writing this tweet and stop himself.
Why would that stop this tweet? Not wanting to be on a prison bus for political speech is fine as far as takes go, and you can't be like "well what about the people already on the prison bus" when he's literally worked to keep those literal people off of that literal bus.
Look, you gotta hand it to them, the American right defeated American leftism with utter certainty if this is what the mainlanders have left
I'm diagnosing Nathan Robinson with phimosis. I can't explain why, but I have a feeling.
Harm reduction in a world barreling toward climate apocalypse while also full of nuclear arms is basically rearranging deck chairs on the titanic but I'm impressed that Nathan J Robinson still has the energy to scold the literal damned for asking for an alternative. At least he mentioned buses and not trains, he remains vaguely cognizant of the distinctly American contours of 21st century reaction.
Literally nothing of value to say or add to the movement at this point.
Other than running an openly-socialist magazine that is a platform for people you might like better, sure.
