Whats their beef...

surveillance

Chomsky being a smug ass liberal who defends Pol Pot and the Soviet Union for sure.

Nope.

chomsky.info/1986____/
youtube.com/watch?v=j9Z05xyGB0c

chomsky is pretty based tbh

And a finisher.
youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

And of course you are the true revolutionary

Considering Chomsky dismisses both Lacan and Hegel… I don't know how that could be possible. Also he's an anarchist and Zizek is a Marxist Leninist – their positions are almost the opposite.

I'm more alarmed at the anarchists here who think that everyone having a gun is the only thing that will stop violent crime in an anarchist society.

I've never seen anyone claim that.

If you are recognized and famous philosopher people are going to be coming for your neck all the time trying to prove you wrong, disagree with you, or call you stupid.
I prefer zizek cause he is a walking meme.
I think chomesky has made some important insights but is kind of boring to listen to, his voice sounds like a yawn, like he is yawning forever, like an old jew man yawn.

also there would be a lot of money to be made to watch them debate before chumsky dies of being and old jew.
Then i want to see zizek fight Alexander dugin in a cage match at wrestlemania

Im willing to accept that haven't personally seen every post on leftypol. That's understandable.

Chomsky is almost 90 years old. I think it's amazing he still puts out so much new material and still teaches linguistics.

I'm more alarmed at the tankies on this board who think all weapons should be confiscated from the working class to keep them from rebelling against the "socialist" state.

If you don't know who I'm talking about, it's understandable, since you haven't personally seen every post on Holla Forums.

reactionary logic

Chomsky has had a beef with continental philosophy in general ever since he got BTFO'd by Foucault

...

I linked to discussions about the Soviet Union and I didn't even talk about Pol Pot. Do you think Pol Pot was secretly in charge of the USSR or are you just an idiot?

Wow, someone call an ambulance, I'm dyin over here.

It was meant for

chumpsky:" pol pot pol pot pol pot its holiday in cambodiaaaa"

zizek:*musses hair, wipes nose, sniffs, pulls on shirt "and so on"

literally what zizek thinks

I dont give a fug about chomsky, I hope a jellyfish stings that yuppie cunt in the dink on his private beach.

Zizek is entertaining not only because hes a walking sack of neurosis

When are we gonna finally get a Dugin V. Zizek slapfight that would be the ultimate meme-war

Literally nobody gives a fuck about Dugin.

>>>/gulag/

...

stalinists are cancer

American philosophy is generally based in a quantitative approach. Note that Chomsky is a linguist as well.
European philosophy is generally based in qualitative processes.
As someone who is big on le sniff man, I'll admit that his criticisms of Chomsky can be pretty weak. Chomsky is just a salt meister though.

existentialcomics.com/comic/64

Didn't chomsky fuck zizek's wife?

wat

This is correct though. Zizek is a reactionary who panders to fascists with his transphobia, racist immigrant bashing, defense of "western civilization" and rants against "political correctness". Chomsky is a reformist liberal who thinks we will achieve anarchy through the bourgeois democratic process. Thankfully we have leftist academics who aren't total trash such as pic related.

Fuck Zizek, that chubby sniffling rat should crawl back into his Slovenian hole and never come out

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. As an anarchist I think outlaws are the only cool people, that's why I support banning guns."
-Noam Chomsky

BS meme based on three-seconud youtube clip of Chomsking saying "Human Nature" and a chuckle by that guy. But a snarky attitude is no substitue for a proper argument. Marx only pointed out that much of capitalism apoligists' talk about linking behavior to fundamental human nature was self-serving myth building (eg. the claim people just looooourve to truck and barter all the time) in contradiction with historical evidence. Marx saw personalities as strongly shaped by society, but did not subscribe to the pomo anything-goes view of humans as blank slates that have their entire personalities programmed into them by society (else he wouldn't have talked about species-being), that's a caricature of Marxism. Anarchists' use of the term isn't that of capitalism apologists, rather they argue for anarchism as something which ought to appeal to very common and general sentiments which they see as an outgrowth of the self-preservation instinct.

kek, gonna need a source on that.

Chomsky is a cranky, arrogant Americentric liberal.

Only Zizek has what it takes to implement FULL COMMUNISM.

Zizek is so fucking useless.

Chomsky has at least written shit dealing with the real world and has exposed America's disgusting imperialism. You'd know if you read him

All this while Zizek uselessly "analyzes" movies and other media.

Chompsky has a giant ego and is kind of a liberal with feet deep into academia, while Zizek is an unapologetic anti-liberal using intentionally "shocking" language to make fun of academia's uptight nature.

famous last words my western liberal friend, also plz tell that to your state dept

They make for the perfect leftists philosopher tbh

The day of reckoning will come.

It's like they're rivals and they fuse like some Dragon Ball Z shit.

I agree, but ultimately chomsky has become equally useless even though he has exposed much of ameriKas dealings.

He has no program, he is entrenched in the intellectual establishment, he is a gatekeeper of sorts, his purpose is to limit debate to a sanctioned spectrum and make college faggots feel enlightened and good about themselves without making them feel like they actually have to do something

zizek is way more entertaining and he too says some good things but i struggle to identify any kind of program with him either(not very well read on him i must admit, I will get to it considering how everyone here adores him)

Well, seeing how libtards, pseudo "leftists", and many others (including even tankies and anarchists too) get easily triggered by him, I'd say Zizek is far from being useless.

like i said, the man can be funny, but if you really think his work can be used for anything other than lols or possibly a better understanding of western mental illness, i feel bad for you son

Well, I don't disagree here. Yeah, he has no plan except for people to get into bourgeois politics, but I think it's because he's so old. He isn't in his prime anymore. I'm just saying that he really did hit impact and was extremely influential with his work. He did a very good job at that.

Zizek doesn't trigger me. He is funny, but he's so fucking useless. He talks about "theory" and how we should focus on it (which I agree) but what has he done? What has he proposed?

...

That's his whole point. To identify what is the root-cause of many of the so called "illnessess" of todays late-stage capitalism.

For what? He has proposed many things.

Here's your (You)

...

I like them both quite a bit despite their often shitty politics. I wish people wouldn't outright reject them when, despite their numerous shortcomings, they offer a great deal of insight.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod

Hey somebody has to be.

If by everybody you mean Chomsky, Zizek, and , 3 people.

this is getting replies because it obviously hits close to home for both of these guys

i think their hearts may be in the right place but it is undeniable that they pander to the dominant ideologies on their continents–liberal democracy in the USA and fortress of europe social democracy in the EU.

In purer times, these guys would have been discarded by the left long ago, but these days we take all the help we can get, even from insightful neo-fascists and liberals

...

2nd pic is Stellan Skarsgård. Now you know.

...

what if you actually followed his line of argumentation and realized non of that is true