"Cunning linguist" ...

>> ^quantumushroom:

The Top 200 Chomsky Lies


I love how they label the nuanced statements of Chomsky as "The Lie" and their half-truthy reinterpretation of them as "The Truth".

Example:

The Lie: “I have never considered myself a ‘Marxist,’ and in fact regard such notions as
‘Marxist’ (or ‘Freudian,’ etc.) as belonging more to the domain of organized religion than of
rational analysis.”

The Truth: Previously, Chomsky had said: “in my opinion, a Marxist-anarchist perspective
[on politics] is justified quite apart from anything that may happen in linguistics.” He had also
declared: “I wouldn’t abandon Marxism.”


Here's the last quote in context, from a printed interview and thus easily cited out of context:
"[Chomsky:] [...] But I don't see any reason to abandon the notion anarchism just because it has some strange periphery that uses it [namely, the right-wing anarcho-capitalists].
[Interviewer:] Just as you wouldn't abandon Marxism.
[Chomsky:] Yes, like I wouldn't abandon Marxism. After all, we're not interested in making heroes and identifying ourselves with them, but of finding what's valid in various ideas and concepts and actions that have some use for us."

So, Chomsky says we can't abandon either anarchism or marxism as wholes just because of some extremist interpretations. How does that say he is a Marxist? It does not, of course, unless you are a paranoid anti-communist trying to discredit Chomsky by associating him with what you consider an Evil ideology.

Also, you must understand that being a scholarly discussion, Marxism is here strictly differentiated from Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc. Marxism only refers to the initial political doctrine as expounded by Karl Marx.

As we can see, the cited text is taken out of context and made to imply much more that it actually says. Of course this is the typical modus operandi of the right, because let's be honest: their only arguments are those that appeal to our greed and selfishness. Better to demonize the opposition and thus appear angelic by default.

>> ^blankfist:
Violent aggression will almost always be met with protective violence, because it is in fact very natural.


You need to conflate property with possession to make your argument, you pretend that the imposition of property is an act of self defense, when in fact all you have done is use a subtle linguistic trick.

All that you say is true for possession: If I have something in my hand, and I do not wish to relinquish it, then you must use force to take it.

But what you say is not true of property: If I place a pen which I claim to own on a table, and you take it, you do not need to accost me to succeed.

Your natural examples are about possession, dog at a bowl, bear in a cave, but you can't get to property from that.

Your self-defense example replaces the primacy of moral autonomy, with property, apparently in a facile attempt to make property good for something.

In none of the cases you mention is property relevant, or necessary. Possession suffices for all legitimate claims of defense, and in no case have you shown a link between defense of property and defense of self.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Love the overuse of the definite article for comic effect. That's a real internet/linguistic phenomenon.

Thats too bad that they don't agree. The Cree in northern Manitoba confirm that they call us Eskimo based on "eaters of raw-meat", but hey, what do they know?

Qallunaq (also pronounced kabloonak) comes from kabluk (eyebrows), and naak (stomach). The story goes that Scottish whalers who came over in the 1700's had big bushy eyebrows and big stomachs - and the name stuck.

You can call me a snow-chink if you want. I won't feed that troll.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Throbbin:
it's actually a Cree word that the French adopted
Very few linguists, apparently, agree with that etymology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Origin_of_the_name_Eskimo
What's 'Qallunaq' translate to?
How about we call you guys 'snow-chinks'?

>> ^Throbbin:

it's actually a Cree word that the French adopted

Very few linguists, apparently, agree with that etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Origin_of_the_name_Eskimo

What's 'Qallunaq' translate to?

How about we call you guys 'snow-chinks'?

hah, I was super pissed off. I did downvote based on content ! there was non !

with my super linguistic hyphenating skills I thought I had thrown the * in the block word I wrote.

If I can take it back I would, but this is vs and foreward is the only way to go !

sorry mate!

p.s- I hate blocked videos.

I hate the fact you can waste your time on an ad and then realize you literally wasted your time because you did it for no gain to your self.

FUCK THIS BLOCKED SHIT.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by geo321.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by pho3n1x. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

sorry ant.
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Things-We-Say-Wrong-Linguistics-What-You-Ought-To-Know

I love "explainers". Say something other people criticize, and then imply other people are stupid for not "getting" you or are just not perceiving your particular form of linguistic conveyance. And then you go on to agree with a comment that says basically what you did without using hyperbole.

Mentality said "you're the fucked up psychos". Do you not recognize hyperbole? Earlier, you used the same term (psycho) as mentality. Why is it hyberbole when you use it, but you fail to see it as such when others use it? Do you think hyberbole is incapable of relating the true feelings of a writer? Or is it just a convenient method of saying whatever bat-shit nonsense you wish, complete with back door?

Also, your proclamation of pet ownership is simply a comical appeal to authority. Is it also the basis of your behavioural profile of cat haters, such as the "c*nt"? Do you realize that more people have pets than have children? Did you intend for people to read your comment and think, "Oh look... pet owner. I thought he was just an idiot before, but it's obvious now that he knows what he's talking about."?

Your weak analogy of cat and baby is a logical fallacy in itself.>> ^shponglefan:
First of all, learn to recognize hyperbole. Second of all, as a pet owner I think you are completely full of shit.
Let me ask you this: if she had done the same to a baby, would you have the same lackadaisical reaction?

Circlejerkular Logic.

Jon is a linguistic god!

@Mcboinkens, Your comments about the language in this video have definitely stirred up some discussion here, so I am glad you made them. In general, I would agree that strong crude language often works against an effective argument. However, given the nature of this crude issues, it is my opinion that the strong language is more than justified. That being said, there are a few points in the video that I thought were worth pointing out if you have not reviewed them already.

2:01. The woman you heard reading this monologue, who knows so much about booming, is not the author. The author chose to remain anonymous, as was stated in text two minutes into this video. The author, who knows so much about booming, may very well be working on cleaning up this mess or cooking for those who are. He says he is good at it.

You can read his original essay here. If you are up for it, his follow up article is also well written.

3:07. This is the point at which the language begins to... deteriorate. It is at this point that the intended audience of the video shifts from general audience to being directed towards people who need/must/ought to know about booming. The author lists off the people he believed should know about booming in the video. This change is marked by the following statement:

Nomenclature. Since this is your first day of booming school, you have to fight--no wait--lets go over some important definitions in oil field grammar.

I'm not going to lie, I am no linguist. I had to look up the definition of nomenclature. But yeah, he's talking to oil/gas/producition/workers using the same language they use amongst themselves.

3:40. "Boom is long and bright orange or yellow. It is not bright orange or yellow so that you can see it, fledgeling boomer, but so that it governors, senators, presidents, and the media can see it."

Again addressing the boomer trainees, the author re-affirms that the intended audience here is people who use crude language routinely. Noting this, the statement describing booms lacks some of the crude language you find offensive because it contains information important for the rest of us: the lion's-share of the booming you see going on is just for show.


Now that that's off my chest. Fucking *promote this fucking tutorial already!
There's fucking oil hitting the motherfucking coast there and it's a goddamned tragedy!

Oh, and check out these images about how the oil/spill/cleanup is going.
(They make me cry on the inside.)
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/oil_reaches_louisiana_shores.html

>> ^Mcboinkens:

@NordlichReiter
Thanks for catching my mistake. Normally I edit my posts before I submit them, but I was kind of in a rush so my your and you're were mixed up, haha. But anyway, that is what I meant. I still don't know if this occured, but I remember hearing that BP hired locals to drop booms. I think that everyone was in such a hurry to try to contain the spill that they were not properly trained in booming techniques. It is a shame this woman was not down there to help out, she seems to know a good deal about booming.

>> ^gwiz665:

"I can only imagine the rage building up inside you... I know you're really wanting to stick it to Israel now... I can't say I approve of your vengeful thoughts, but I know I can't stop you from doing what you're gonna do...."
The next day's headline: "Chomsky threatens vengeance!"


I can only imagine what hell a Linguistics Professor could visit upon this earth...oh wait I've read his books...Oh god no!

submitting a video = sifting a video. Every cult has their own linguistic terms to represent their own reality. Submit many videos and be one with the sift.

In reply to this comment by joel_eb:
In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
When you gonna' lose that big red P and sift a video?

...wtf is sifting?