I JUST LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THIS GUY. Buckley had just died and instead of just saying that he disagreed with his viewpoints Chomsky starts attacking him personally. A dead man. He's also makes the claim that Buckley was mad at the end of the interview. I just watched it, all 58 mins, and Buckley never got mad. In fact he let Chomsky do all the speaking for the last 3 minutes and Buckley ended it with a friendly joke. Then he thanked him for coming. Chomsky is an asshole.
urgiduurrgghh Chomsky didn't go to Buckley's funeral and say that. This wasn't a eulogy; it was one passing question in the context of a larger interview and Chomsky answered honestly off the cuff.
urgiduurrgghh sure, it's titled "Chomsky on Buckley's passing" but that was done afterwards by the video editor. From Chomsky's point of view this was one random question (which we don't even get to hear how it was phrased) in the context of a much larger interview about other topics. Or do you really suppose the Big Think people called Chomsky up and said, "Can we set up a 3 minute interview to get your take on Buckley's passing?" So yeah, this was an off the cuff response to a passing question. There's nothing coded here. Chomsky obviously thought of Buckley as an arrogant, intellectually pretentious blowhard, and he doesn't disguise it. He doesn't get his panties in a bunch over it, either. He just states his opinion.
He invited me on his program called Firing Line . It was the biggest platform I’ve ever had . I usually only get invited to speak at certain universities that are hotbeds of political correctness. At the end of the program he seemed pretty exasperated. He said he may as well of banged his head against a brick wall for an hour! He was generally well respected but not by me
@@finnsloan586 Why don't you contact Chomsky and ask him if he knows Engineers & Architects for 9/11 Truth instead of writing silly comments here? If Chomsky were to debate a researcher like Jim Fetzer, Chomsky would look like the limited hangout he is.
LOL......chomsky too is quite a bit of à narcissist also....but the other guy , the greatfully dead ...oh man he was a full wandering circus all by himself. Truth is ...that he was void of substance full of illogicities n striking contradictions and also filled to capacity with phrasal pyrotechnics. It was easy for chomsky to confront him because of the fact that Noah always been on higher moral ground. Anyway God rest his soul If there's God If there's such a thing as soul
I JUST LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THIS GUY. Buckley had just died and instead of just saying that he disagreed with his viewpoints Chomsky starts attacking him personally. A dead man. He's also makes the claim that Buckley was mad at the end of the interview. I just watched it, all 58 mins, and Buckley never got mad. In fact he let Chomsky do all the speaking for the last 3 minutes and Buckley ended it with a friendly joke. Then he thanked him for coming. Chomsky is an asshole.
@UCI9YdPVv9uuIX29J8ShDGPw it doesn't matter that he just died, if you die an asshole you shall be remembered as such.Second he was saying that he got mad after the cameras were off.
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. Chomsky gave his honest opinion about Buckley. The only thing what makes this "offensive" is the fact that Buckley is dead. Well: he didn't became a better or different person after he died, he just ceases to be alive . Did Chomsky then have to sugar coat his opinion just because Buckley died? Now that would be hypocritical
He thinks he is so above everyone else. A linguist who think he knows the solution to worlds problem, namely the US and capitalism. All this while sitting in his air conditioned office at MIT from a privileged position.
@@lukegibson9410 People who think that global capitalism under US hegemony is the best of all possible worlds have air conditioners that are just as good.
@@lukegibson9410 He think he's a better person than those who commit and support genocide and torture. Looks like you might be among that group. How dare he point out that genocide and torture at bad. And he has the nerve to do it while sitting in an air-conditioned room!!!
@@lukegibson9410 hes actually one of the most approachable intellectuals in the world. He appears on tinpot public radio shows all the time for no renumeration . He doesn't assume a privileged position at all.
Buckley was clever enough to hear out Chomsky, who was unclever enough to show a whopping bias when it came to left and right wing dictators. Look at the program and it can clearly be seen.
i love it how he doesn't hold back only because the guy just died. a lot of people might have softened their views a little but chomsky still expresses his true opinion. gotta respect honesty.
@@davi-lr4nd His point was a very rational example of the reductio ad absurdum argument. If honesty at all times is the measure of a man, one could praise Hitler, which the person obviously wasn't.
@@roughhabit9085 articulate doesn't make someone smart or right, that's why chomsky said "not by me" and I have to agree, high vocabulary is considered equal to intelligence only by the naive
@@greyfox4838 Chomsky, while articulate and sporting a healthy vocabulary, is not particularly representative of anything that can be described as correct.
He was indeed very smart, never mind eyes. And he was suave, I cannot think of a better word. As an interviewer he certainly was in the class of Bryan Magee. Noam was not especially charitable here in this snippet but then he was not asked to be, and nor is Noam Chomsky the sentimental type. As regards the (one) interview in question, certainly it was not one of Buckley's finest hours. One could almost say he 'lost his cool.'
They obviously did not ask him the question they claim to have asked him. Why would chomsky say what he did at 1:19? BigThink: you need to put the actual question asked up.
Just to make it clear what I am refering to. Chomsky obviously asks for a clarification of the question at 1:19 he says "What you are calling his successors, I assume you mean the so called neo-conservatives"; this request for clarification only makes sense if the question asked was originally about buckley's influence and not his passing. So the title "Noam Chomsky: The Passing of William F. Buckley" is misleading.
I don't see why he's supposed to particularly respect Buckley, from what I've seen of Buckley there's very little substance to most of what he's saying beyond those rhetorical flourishes he was so fond of (which I guess most people were impressed by, but I just find it nauseating)
Realize that people on the other side of the aisle make the same statements with the names reversed. The assertion is that he should be able to recognize that partisanship and be respectful in spite of it. Now where I have sympathy for Chomsky is that I don't think if the situations were reversed Buckley would be able to resist some level of disrespectful comment himself.
lol They are both on the same team children.When are people ever going to understand that when the corporate media sends you wisemen watch your top knot.
Justin, just because there are 2 sides to the debate, doesn't mean you can just pretend that both sides are somehow equivalent and that the other side deserves respect. Buckley and his nationalist successors are mostly war criminals and should be executed. Their side is evil; Chomsky is good. It's that simple. Good vs evil.
Chomsky has always been an idealist, which is both his best and worst quality. Idealism is fantastic in terms of presenting a consistent viewpoint that challenges other ideologies. It utterly fails, however, when presented with the complexity of real world scenarios. Chomsky has propounded the same foreign policy stance for decades, but has never acknowledged the many ways that it has failed both in practice, and in theory (particularly in a globalized society). The same is true for his economic viewpoints. He's a professor, which is the perfect role for him, but it's important to remember that when evaluating his opinions. He has never shaped policy in a meaningful way because he forces complex situations into his faux-complex pre-existing ideology. He is a must read for anyone in shaping their own opinion, particularly relating to morality, but I think it is dangerous for people to adopt his exact stances as if they are universally applicable. I also think it's amusing that he comments on Buckley's (who had some similar idealogical faults) wit, given Chomsky's complete lack in this department. He's the ultimate blowhard, which can be a good thing, but few have less rhetorical charisma or tact (not to be confused with ability, which he has in spades). A brilliant man for sure, but not a great character (which is what Buckley was) nor a person interested in engaging in a real conversation.
Thomas McGrath I'm sorry, but I saw very little content in this comment if yours. For instance, can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that he has "propounded the same foreign policy stance for decades"? As far as I am aware, Chomsky's stance has been that we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions, and we are not responsible for the predictable consequences of someone else's actions. Now if there has been any serious reason why this truism is flawed, I haven't heard it. Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with idealism. It's pretty grounded in the real world in fact. So honestly, in your very long and rambling comment, I haven't grasped any basic point.
Obviously there was little content, it's a youtube comment and not a doctoral thesis. That same inane argument could be applied to your watered down presentation of Chomsky's views on predictable consequences (a view that when presented in this banality is not arguable). Here are my main gripes. Chomsky's position doesn't deal well with the consequences of inaction. In this way it is very poor in combating totalitarian regimes through with diplomacy does not work. It's the same as the Catholic just war theory. Sure, it would be great if you could always predict the results of action and inaction, but you cannot. Chomsky historically has favored diplomacy in these ambiguous situations, and there are times he has been right and times he has been wrong. For instance, he was dead wrong about the ability to engage with Iraq diplomatically. His view was that the Gulf War was unnecessary and that Saddam could have been dealt with through UN sanctions. Putting aside the almost completely clean war that resulted (which he did not foresee), Saddam blatantly defied the negotiated removal from Kuwait, effectively demonstrating (with the addition of violations related to harboring terrorists and negotiating for nuclear weapons) that he did not believe he was bound by any forms of diplomacy. His opinions are usually the strongest ex post facto when he can attribute what he believes was known after it has happened. The problem is that these situations are far more ambiguous than he presents, and rely much more on reasonable intent. It's especially true with regard to his moral equivalencies, which don't account for the nature in which they take place. He often muddles poor execution with intended destruction if the results were similar, a position which seems morally incorrect. For example, arguing that the attacks of September 11th were in fact a just retaliation given US intervention in the Middle East does not account (aside from the religion question he conveniently ignores) for the different circumstances surrounding the examples he points to. Basically, I think he suffers from the problem of many intellectuals, which is not recognizing how much is beyond control. With regard to morality the recognition of circumstance and intent are necessary components that he continuously ignores for reasons I fail to find legitimate.
With regards the "watered down" claim of Chomsky's position, I'm afraid you are quite incorrect. He has explicitly stated, both in writing and in print, that this is the central principle we ought to follow when determining what actions we should pursue. he calls it an 'elementary moral truism". Now to your Iraq claim. Chomsky bitterly condemned the sanctions on Iraq (and he has stated this publicly), so right off the bat your claim is totally false. His view was not that the Gulf War was unnecessary, his criticism is focused on the manner in which it was carried out., as you would know if you had read anything he has written about the topic. As you seem unaware, the US actively blocked a diplomatic solution to the Gulf War. For example, there was a diplomatic solution proposed in the run up to the war. Iraq would withdraw completely from Kuwait with a U.S. pledge not to attack withdrawing forces; foreign troops leave the region; the Security Council indicates a serious commitment to settle other major regional problems. Disputed border issues would be left for later consideration. Of course, we don't know what the outcome of this track would be, because the offers were flatly rejected by the US and its allies, who were committed to force from the onset. That Hussein was a criminal does not preclude the US from committing criminal actions as well. Chomsky never once stated that the 9/11 attacks were a "just retaliation given US intervention in the Middle East". This is simply flat out false, as are essentially all of your criticisms. Such distortions are so predictable as to be beyond parody. With regards to morality, intent is essentially meaningless when looking at certain actions. The worst atrocities in history have been committed with the purest of intentions (see the Japanese wish to establish 'paradise on Earth' in China). What matters are outcomes that we are responsible for. Given the scale of your misrepresentations and falsehoods of Chomsky, I don't have high hopes for your response.
Perhaps I was too aggressive in my response. Let's cast aside the ad hominems as I am genuinely interested in this subject and perhaps have misunderstood parts of what I have read and heard from Chomsky. 1. I do believe that this axiom you present is a distortion of the complexity of his view. I wasn't trying to posit it as your own words, but just a self-evident statement that doesn't get at the heart of the issues I have. 2. I never claimed that the US was a perfect agent of justice throughout the world. I also never claimed that it was perfectly carried out (although I hold it was very well carried out). I do hold that they were right in not engaging with Hussein diplomatically, and I believe history repeatedly demonstrated that what Saddam was willing to agree to and what his actions were did not coalesce. 3. I admit that I may have incorrectly remembered this point. I thought he had made statements to that effect. I still disagree with his moral equivalence between 9/11 and the Clinton foreign policy initiatives (which I distinctly remember reading). 4. This is where I feel Chomsky and followers are often able to win based on a straw man argument. When somebody is speaking of intent they are talking about informed intent. Obviously intentional ignorance or ignorance formed through improper morality is not what is being discussed. The matter at hand is whether intent matters when the action is disproportionately affected by circumstances outside of ones control (or plausibly informed recognition). I don't discount that Chomsky believes intent matters to some degree, but I don't know what this degree is. In examples he always seems to default to the notion that bad consequences were the result of bad or ignorant intent. It is on this point that I have never heard a sufficiently coherent answer. The implication of this 4th point makes it difficult to know what constitutes legitimate self defense. It would also seem to be especially poor at acting in an efficient manner. It appears to require an incredible amount of information to reach the level of assuredness that would satisfy proper intent. This is further muddled by Chomsky's unwillingness to except people's expressed beliefs or actions (such was the case for Bin Laden post 9/11). If I can be convinced this is not the case then I would happily recant my points.
Ok, let's start afresh then. The points system works better when responding as well. 1) The axiom is simplistic, but it is no distortion of his views. He has expressed it many times both in print and in writing. It underlies all his criticism of US foreign policy. 2) The point Chomsky made on this topic (and he made many, which are worth reading), was that we simply do not know if Hussein's proposals were legitimate, because they were flatly rejected by the US. In other words the US wanted war whatever Hussein did. 3) The comparison Chomsky made between 9/11 and the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory were not direct equivalencies. Chomsky simply stated that the toll from 9/11 may have been comparable to the consequences of Clinton's bombing of the Sudan. He said nothing further on the matter, but it was distorted by the likes of Oliver Kamm, and the myth has since made the rounds. In fact what Chomsky did say further about the Al-Shifa bombing are I think very interesting and important, and this leads nicely into the next point: 4) So take the case of the Sudan bombing. Clinton and his advisers knew full well that the factory provided 50% of Sudan's medicines, and that destroying it would have dire consequences for Sudanese civilians (for instance it was the only factory in the country than made the vital component in anti-malarial drugs). However, despite knowing all of this, they went ahead and bombed the factory anyway. In other words, although Clinton did not deliberately intend to kill thousands of Sudanese who would undoubtedly die if the factory was bombed, that was the predictable result, and it was carried through. Therefore, in the eyes of the US, and the West generally, the lives of civilians in small backwater African countries does not matter. In many ways this is even worse than intentional murder, because in the later case at least the victim is treated as a human being. That is Chomsky's basic point (although he has expanded upon it at length), that using intention as a moral metric is meaningless, because good intentions are almost universally expressed by the worst mass murderers in history. That does not mean I accept it, but we should at least be aware of the actual arguments he is making, rather than the almost universal distortions of his views that make it to the mainstream press. I see no contradiction between the above point and the notion of self-defense. If you are being attacked, you have a right to defend yourself. But you should pay attention to your own crimes, and stop committing them. This applies universally.
Noam Chomsky used to be a linguistic scientist, Unfortunately he has gotten too old and blown his cortex. Happened with Nikola Tesla, William Shockley, and other prominent scientists gone to seed.
Correct, it being Chumpsky's adoring fans who are the problem. None of them could hold a candle to any truly intelligent man or woman, but don't try to tell them or Chumpsky that.
@@zenvagabond His sentences weren't unintelligible. Buckley had a great command of the English language--regardless if you support his arguments or not.
What an ego Chomsky has. It's all about him. He had every opportunity to be gracious to an intellectual adversary and he was dismissive and self-promoting.
Why is he acting so shocked that conservatives are nationalists? He describes the “neo-conservatives” as “extreme nationalists”. How is being an American nationalist (i.e. someone who wants to put America first) not an act of conservation?
What has Chomsky accomplished? How about the Chomsky hierarchy, generative grammar, digital infinity, etc. He influenced computer science. He made a big contribution to the field of history. He was a pivotal figure in the cognitive revolution. Now list Buckley's accomplishments.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect both Chomsky & Buckley... I just think Buckley deserves credit for his actual work, I don’t t think it’s fair to pin the deeds of Cheney & Reagan on a postmortem Buckley.
"I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred." (Gore Vidal on W. Buckley, June 15, 2008)
Gore Vidal and Buckley reportedly had a famous feud via TV back in the 1960s; I imagine it was a contest between the witty intellectual liberal (Vidal) and the witty intellectual conservative (Buckley).
He was not being asked in the original production, of which this is a snippet, to deliver some glowing eulogy. He was, we have to assume, asked serious questions about international relations and politics of the time and Buckley was not just an interviewer but a political figure in his own right. He was also pretty rude to Noam Chomsky on the one occasion they met. I expect Buckley would not have gone out of his way to be kind if he had outlived Chomsky.
@@hinteregions Yes, Buckley would be as kind as he could. You would be hard put to find a person more callous and petty than Noam Chomsky. This is a person who ridiculed the testimonies of refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge because what they had to say didn't fit his narrative, and then lied about it afterwards.
@@DrCruel That strikes me as a supremely partisan caricature, a definitively personal and uncharitable description of Noam Chomsky built on a very shaky foundation. In these interviews of the time Noam was preternaturally cool and dispassionate no matter what was thrown at him and here is case in point - is this 'callous and petty' we are looking at? I think 'calm under fire' a more fitting description. Buckley represented 'the establishment' rather too quintessentially and Noam represented 'the progressive' fairly conservatively, no pun, and their sparring is most interesting but mainly from a historical perspective. Personally I think they are/were both rather splendid but to the best of my knowledge Buckley only amounted to 'urbane interviewer' and Chomsky changed the way we understand the human mind and more besides. I think it's a mistake to mix private and professional - as you seem to be doing. That said I have been wondering why present day Chomsky does not view woke as the direly lethal threat I perceive it to be. Is it possible Chomsky doesn't know everything? Buckley certainly didn't.
@@hinteregions Being arrogant, vindictive and petty in a monotone is not the same as being dispassionate and objective. Frankly, Chomsky reminds me of a less scrupulous version of Jonathan Kozol. And if bringing up Marxist Goebbel's prior shilling for the Khmer Rouge is being "uncharitable," then guilty as charged. Why doesn't Chomsky speak out against the woke? Why didn't Oral Roberts speak out against the danger of Christian cults? Why doesn't Kim Jong-un warn against the dangers of totalitarianism? That you'd be struggling with this question makes be believe you don't understand Chomsky's motives very well.
@@DrCruel I think he's saying what he thinks and believes and in the only form that counts and I doubt that it gives him any pleasure to 'speak ill of the dead' and therewith charge you with being sentimental. I am fairly sure you are imparting to him these positively evil motives only because to do so suits whatever political barrow you feel the need to push - we still don't know. Any comparison between Chomsky and Roberts is ludicrous; please craft cogent comparisons. I was well prepared to hear your case - some vague intimation of which belatedly vouched to us in a pile of petulant, painful and above all disjointed citations - but not when I see you conclude with some tawdry, silly insult couched in positively wild purely rhetorical crap that can only confirm me in my assessment of your - still - shady motives. See what I did there? Less passion, more substance is my recommendation to you because I'm not the one struggling, here :D
The intellectual Right has been culled entirely from universities and the political arena altogether. It's a shame- both the Left and Right have decayed as a result.
Joe does not profess to be an intellectual like those others. Unfair comparison. I would argue that thru joes wide range of guests, from all fields, he has disseminated more knowledge into the public forum than all the others.
@@EthanGold indeed. My son is taking linguistics with him at UofA. I don’t care much for his political views (politics is boring me more and more), but my understanding is that he is quite well respected and accomplished in the field of linguistics, which doesn’t seem to involve politics at all
@@hemanag1020 than all the others? Come on now. Joe is a good enough podcast host, although he has more right wing characters on his platform than left wing, but still he’s decent. The others (Buckley less so) have contributed massively to political discourse.
Maybe a nice thing to say about one of your opponents after they are dead is I disagreed with him on many topics and consider his points of view to he wrong, but he was a very smart man with interesting things to say and he will be missed, instead of insisting on the caveats 'not by me'.
The best thing about Buckley is that regardless of whether I agreed with him or not, it was the last talk show of its kind. People of opposing political beliefs could have a conversation without yelling and calling each other names. WFB never resorted to the kind of crap we see on CNN and especially FOX. It's the reason why he was able to get people on his program like Mohammad Ali. Guests felt they would get a chance to speak instead of being constantly interrupted. Buckley asked more questions than he spoke. And I did find him funny. Many of his guests did to. Again, I don't agree with his political views, but people who are comparing WFB to O'Reilly need to watch more Firing Line shows and then watch FOX.. O'Reilly wasn't civil, and allowed no room for his guest to explain themselves.
"people of opposing political beliefs could have a conversation without yelling and calling each other names." That sure wasn't Buckley's attitude towards Gore Vidal lmao
I recently watched the Buckley chomsky debate and Buckley does one of his "I would sock you square in the jaw"- things with a truly fascistoid smile. It was pretty much a trademark of his. By my lights he was the start of an era more than the end of one.
@Erik Boyd yeah, the OP comment is just wrong. Buckley interrupted a LOT. From the 5 or so episodes I have seen, that was a constant. Finished thoughts were rare, unless somebody interrupted Buckley.
Why would he feel it necessary to lie about his appearance on Firing Line. Buckley was very polite and said if I interrupted you, please continue. There is no evidence of what Chomsky implies. Watch the episode your self and see.
He's not talking about what happened during the taping of the show. Guest typically stayed there for a while after the taping. As you can see(Chomsky just sits there when Buckley says his last words).
@Richard Koen the issues Buckley and Chomsky discuss and about which both remain silent are not a question of entertainment for the human beings involved - Buckley however evolved from his biased viewpoint a bit about who assassinated JFK after RFK was assassinated, whereas Chomsky just continues to live from his MIT paychecks. Everybody knows Buckley was CIA employee and asset, who knows who is Chomsky's puppet master - the people who organized 9/11.
@@peteroconnor6394 Because everyone must have some nefarious intentions right? Spanning a global conspiracy that you can see right though? On fkn RUclips? The sheer number of conspiracy theorists and angry little boys complaining about Chomsky are enough to let any rational man know just how "conservative" you lot are. This is the new Trump-conservatism, right? And a 9/11 truther at that lol that's the new trinity I guess.
As Chomsky said, they did not know each other personally, he was commenting as a public figure on another public figure. Why would two absolute strangers need to mourn the passing of each other?
"No particular significance"? The debate, I would say was quite vigorous, and Buckley gave Chomsky a real challenge. Now, he speaks so disinterestedly about it - quite disingenuous.
Chomsky gave Buckley a real challenge. How important that encounter was is open to debate. If Chomsky doesn't consider it that important--perhaps considering Foucault to be a more formidable opponent--it would not be unreasonable or "disingenuous" to regard that debate with a certain disinterest.
SagesseNoir Chomsky is one of the most brilliant minds ever. He was also a first-class asshole. His basic opinion on everything: "America sucks, let me explain to you how." Why do you think even his close friends and colleagues like Christopher Hitchens fell out with him. "Brilliant" doesn't mean "right."
***** You've obviously haven't read Chomsky's own writings if your interpretation of him reduces to "America sucks". As for Hitchens, he moved politically toward the Right and turned on a lot of his liberal or left former friends and colleagues. If you want to prove that Chomsky is wrong, then you must actually engaged his work. You must actually STUDY so that you can make an informed critique. Consider the EVIDENCE he offers in his critique of American foreign policy, or his critique of the policies of administration of Obama and pervious presidents. But unfortunately, many people in this shallow American culture believe that name-calling ("asshole", commie, etc) actually constitute critique or a debate..
SagesseNoir I have read quite a lot of Chomsky's work. If you'll note from my post, I began with a compliment to his brilliance. However, he's incessantly critical of everything the US does and though I admire him in many ways, I simply don't agree with him on the whole. Chomsky's views on 9/11 alone are absolutely deplorable, which is why I consider him to be a jerk, and I make NO APOLOGIES for this. As far as proving Chomsky wrong, lol, I've got more important things to do with my life. I was simply stating an opinion, which you disagree with, which is fine.
***** Without a REASONED refutation of his arguments, you'e simply left with an Argumentum ad Hominem. Whether he really is critical of EVERYTHING America does may be debatable. He is certainly very critical of most of what the GOVERNMENT does and the corporate elite does, but that's another matter. If you do not equate America with the US government or corporate power structure, then his picture becomes different. And what exactly ARE his views on 9/11? Are they deplorable because simply false? Or do you say that because you don't like them? It makes no sense to enter a dispute or make an attack unless you consider and refute what the adversary asctually says or writes. It is time for public discourse to rise above the level of TV talk shows.
Big Think: "What did you think of William Buckley?" Chomsky: "Let me first extract my head out of my own ass... Oh, he was considered witty... but not by me..." What a bung hole... Buckley ate Chomsky for lunch and had him spinning in self-contradictory circles... One of my favorite lines from their debate was Chomsky claiming that South Vietnam made the first incursion (into the North) of the war (thereby hinting that the North was simply a peaceful country minding its own business), to which Buckley replied: "And did they bump into any refugees on their way?" Which perfectly highlights the intentional blindspots of a boob like Chomsky... Buckley was spot on when he said that Chomsky is very careful to precisely define his starting points (for his logic and his argument), starting points that are not at all obvious to someone with a contrary view (i.e. they're contrived for the sake of his own argument). Thomas Sowell says Chomsky is brilliant... in linguistics...
You cant be serious. Buckley knew way too little about the topics they talked about in that episode. I'm sure many right-wingers could have done a better job that day. Thomas Sowell is another interesting intellectual that's being laughed about in Europe with his insight. His comments regarding Bernie sanders " That has never worked anywhere". Well Thomas, except for the most successful countries in the world. All the countries in The Nordic region rank way higher than The u.s on the human freedom index, Democracy index, average life expectancy, and many more metrics. You can't possibly call them failed states.
@@ujmm you can't be serious simply saying "nordic states". That's been answered so many times, probably by Sowell himself, that it doesnt merit wasted space here. Suffice it to say, we are probably more socialist than they... more govt meddling, less freedom for biz as you've already said. How that reflects on Chomsky at all is beyond me. Chomsky is a loon. He's a backer of true nuttery... overlooking, like Sanders, the obvious failures and atrocities... overstating and misconstruing the realities of capitalism
@@derekthompson5731 Thomas Sowell(which you choose to involve in your comment) Has said "socialism has never worked" which there could be a case for, but he says it in the context of Bernie sanders. Bernie is for Social democracy of the type we see in the Nordic countries. If that doesn't work, there is almost not a single society that works today. metrics don't tell you everything but if you care at all about metrics, the nordic countries are doing just fine. And I'm sure you could tell Buckley had a very notable lack of knowledge on the topics they discussed in that debate. Every event Chomsky mentioned there are at least sources for, but Buckley mentioned twice events that definitely never took place and Chomsky noticed both times as well. I'm sure the American right-wing had/has brighter people than him.
@@ujmm I've already addressed the Nordic countries. Continuing to reference them as your main point is pointless. There is obviously a continuum and you take it as an assumption that I think the USA is the shining light. It isn't, and certainly isn't now. But what these two are debating is the US in the 50s and 60s (recent history for them) vs the Soviet Union and Cuba. There was a bigger difference then than now. The theory is the same though, and I stand by my first point. Chomsky avoids anything that derails his belief system, which is why the comeback on refugees is so prescient (and why Buckley was both intelligent and witty, not a bore like Chomsky). And no, you're wrong about Bernie. Bernie loves socialism EVERYWHERE and is complimentary of it everywhere. Both he and Chomsky ignore the problems, ignore the details separating Norse countries from other Communist/Socialist countries, and ignore the atrocities it inevitably creates in its wake. Bernie loved the Soviets. Socialist thinking, even in America, always leads to hell. Saying "Norse" in every sentence doesn't change the reality that you're empowering government officials to meddle in centralized control. That creates precedence for doing more and more, because there is no limiting principle. We would not be having to face mask and vaccine mandates right now, something the govt has no business meddling in (and is utterly incompetent to do), unless we were already far down the socialist road ourselves. But it's the socialist mind that takes us there. A and B deciding what C must do for D. And then passing a bill to enact raises for themselves.
like him not not Buckely is to be commended for starting and maintaining Fire-ing line where there was civil uninterrupted discourse. we dont see that today .
I the contrast between the way Buckley treated Chomsky and Galbraith interesting. Buckley and Galbraith were pals despite the fact that they disagreed on almost everything.
Umm they were best friends actually and yes it was a trans ideological friendship, and they were both players too . Galbraith was an important cog in the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations and his Economic theories have influenced the world. While Buckley of course was the founder of the modern Conservative party and put Kissinger Bush and Reagan into the White House. Chomsky on the other hand is nothing, and has done nothing but brainwash the youth . There is no need to fight for freedoms according to Chomsky, there are no tyrants in the world! Just because Stalin extinguished 60 million people and Mao even more , that doesn’t mean that the ideology is evil ! Galbraith once said that one should always be wary of using irony because there is always going to be numbskulls that don’t get it . Well I think the same analogy can be made with Chomsky zealots and reason.
@@roughhabit9085 I rather doubt that Chomsky believes there are no tyrants. i don't agree with Chomsky on everything, but I have yet to see him wrong on the facts. One thing I wish he would address are some of the 911 anomalies.
@John Lee how much of Marx have you read? we can discuss the Law of Value if you want. I assume you have read enough to know the Labour Theory of Value is Ricardo's not Marx.
@@milithdheerasekara6957 Actually the labour theory of value was first conceptualised by Adam Smith, how would anyone have a debate with you about this when you don't even know the basics.
attackfighter, then you're clearly not listening as you watch. I tend not to watch the videos, I prefer to listen to the audio with earphones on, it gives an entirely different perspective.
While WFB had a very entertaining way of speaking, he was, essentially, Bill O'reilly...When presented with facts that clashed with his preconceived notions of american exceptionalism WFB bullied Chomsky (and others)...I watched the entire episode, and it was WFB who was evasive and deflectionary when presented with facts, as opposed to opinion. Considering that these two only met once, one can consider Chomsky's lack of platitude for WFB, at the very least...honest.
***** Chomsky does not use ad hominems as the fascists like WFB does... Chomsky dispels a lot of BS that's propagated in sciences... take BF Skinner for example, Chomsky tore him apart without any personal attacks
"The Best of Enemies" is a documentary film about 10 famous television debates between William Buckley and Gore Vidal. The debates took place in 1968. The documentary film premiered in 2015.
The Chomsky v. Buckley debate was epic in many ways. Buckley just interrupted Noam, with attempting to seem bored but you could see he was frazzled. They debated like champs compared to today....yet they argued things that are silly really...a nation acts in its self interest, often immorally....the debated the latter morality. That to me is silly.
Chomsky gave a considered and thoughtful reply to the question, adding a little of his own judgement. I trust his judgement. Buckley was entertaining, and also thoughtful, but inevitably done in by his blind adherence to his brand of conservatism.
Buckley's "sin" is being conservative. Chomskey's "brilliance" is not being conservative. 🤪 I think that's as far as most of Chomskey's fans get. They just like that he does their thinking for them.
That is not so. However we may treat Buckley's views - in their proper context, that is to say 'historical' - even if only as an interviewer he was stellar. Noam Chomsky did not say Buckley was irrelevant, in fact he said pretty much the opposite.
Without substance? You realize that the Cold War didn't win itself, right? He substantially contributed to the political ethos which defeated the Soviets. People associate anti-Communism solely with McCarthy's zealotry; never recognizing the sensible anti-Communism which allowed the West to ultimately persevere.
Although their contact was only slight, Chomsky's comments on Buckley are suprisingly valuable in putting the latter in context of the Neo-Con movement which followed him. I don't think Chomsky was unfair to Buckley in any way, he just wasn't impressed by him.
Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge. That's all you really need to know. Never once condemned Communist mass murder, never. And he was supposed to be an anarchist!!!
He didn't defend the Khmer rouge, what he and many others did was to criticize the American press for failing to quote Francois Ponchaud correctly. Ponchaud gave one of the earliest estimates on how many people were killed during pol pot in Cambodia. But the french book included more estimates of killing pre-pol pot. The American press somehow confused this and ended up with a way too high estimate, and did not correct this even after Ponchaud had corrected this. Even though what was going on was obviously horrific, we shouldn't just be making up numbers
"A book learned fellow cant possibly have all the answers." You assume incorrectly that Chomsky hasn't visited many of the places he's written about. You must have some serious academic credentials in order to critique Chomsky; I mean, you must have some lengthy experience in both linguistics and politics to suggest that Chomsky can't possibly write about the things he does...or your name is Dunning-Kruger! :)
So true. I don't know of anyone that is a bottom-less pit of knowledge like he is. I could listen to him for 2 minutes and spend the next several hours researching what he was talking about.
I believe the subject was Buckley, Chomsky immediately takes swings at all “conservatives, “ to whom refers to as “ radical nationalist.” Chomsky is himself, a radical. He really has no voice in mainstream American policy, neither liberal nor conservative. I have nothing but respect for his intellect and his achievements in the field of linguistics. I simply cannot take a man with such extremist views with any degree of seriousness on the political front.
And the comment section delivers a whole bunch of infantile hand-wringing over Chomsky not liking their hero. The video just becomes twice as funny reading all the pissed off comments that lack the vocabulary to come up with anything better than this.
I think Chomsky owned Buckley, but Chomsky comes across as presumptuous here to me; an inelegant winner. Buckley was acknowledged a leading conservative mind, and had a robust mind, right or wrong. To say essentially, "he was beneath me" seems, to me, to be pompous. (And I'm a Chomsky fan!)
If Chomsky wasn't being rude, then neither am I. All I did was comment on him in the same manner that he commented on Buckley - .with complete sobriety and straightforwardness. Why so upset?
+SnapCracklePapa He stated pretty plainly in the video that he was only in contact with Buckley once, and that that was around the time he was on "Firing Line" with him. Even so, he shared some thoughts on him. After that I assume he didn't have much more to say on the subject, which would explain why he moves on to talk about people associated with him instead. What did you expect, a heartfelt eulogy?
+Bobby Grenwald What I expected him to do is exactly what he did; take any and every opportunity to bash the united states with bias, half truths and wildly inaccurate information.
+SnapCracklePapa It's his political point of view - how is he supposed to be unbiased? Where are these half truths and this "wildly" inaccurate information you speak of?
Shall we take each one piece by piece? It'll take a few years, which is why Chomsky does this, he knows there's no time to get to the bottom of his claims.
+Bobby Grenwald Shit, I don't know. Basic respect? Instead he uses it is a way to take shots at Buckley ("he wasn't witty or clever") and then politically brow beat?
The only good communist is a dead communist. Communism only has killed 100 million people and we have people in the United States saying they can make it work.
There is no greater example of a Marxist sociopath Narcissist than Noam Chomsky. He predicted EXACTLY this same end of the World capitalist USA evil garbage on Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party. Absolutely the biggest blowhard for Socialism wealth redistribution, a massive De Constructionist with severe nihilistic tendencies, a classic Maoist semantic, mesmerizing untold sheeple millions into a Stockholm Syndrome of imminent USA capitalist demise and always environmental disaster. Pick up any fugue state dialectical mass murder tome of Noam Chomsky and go to the bibliography and notes. The prodigious notes of a sociopath. 90% I, me, mine, 10% the rest ? proven intellectual dishonesty. Witness the endless page after page quotes of his very own previous words and books as if source and corobboration are one and the same, himself. Noam Chomsky and Joseph Campbell are next to the $1 Billion CITIZENS UNITED BANKSTER donations "library" man, Barak Obama, the biggest semi Faust intellectual snake oil vipers for $ dollars, since the Marxist Pablo Picasso talked the evils USA capitalism with his pockets stuffed with ENDLESS USA $100 bills from evil capitalist art millionaires.
I totally disagree with Noams suggestion that Regan was worried about Japanese take over. Not only did Regan give carte blanche to the Japanese auto makers in the 80's which allowed the Japanese to used American manufacturing techniques like " just on time". He was also rewarded for this after his presidency. Regan became very rich form the Japanese lecture circuit. It was loophole pay off to him for opening the door for Honda and Toyota to flood the market with cheap substandard cars. How many Japanese cars from the 70's and 80's do you see on the road now? The answer is zero. However I still see American cars from that era. We were made to believe American cars were poorly made but Japanese were superior. All the while Japan was given and stealing America auto tech.
+zigzagbigbag In mid 1970 i bought my first american car (i n Europe it was a status symbol) and thought I just had a bad luck, shortly later i traded it for another, it was hudge, expesive (for me). Since then I had many different makes, but after these two I will never buy an american. The second one had enormous engine which if one stepped on the accelerator just made more noise and nothing else. I had some German made all except for Audi were OK, Audi was pleasure to drive when it was running, but to keep it running required constant attention. For last several years my family drive ondas and lately Toyotas, regardless what model and how expensive or cheap they proved to be excellent and trouble free.
Noam Chomsky had blamed and chided the CIA for it's meddling in Nicargua which led to violence against the Sandinista government. The funny thing about this is, that his senility has rendered him forgetful as to how the Sandinista government came into power in the first place.
The violence against the Sandanistas (legally elected by the Nicaraguan people) was committed by the demented US crime-leader, Ronald Reagan, and the CIA when Reagan illegally funded the Contras (the prohibition enacted by Congress at an earlier time) using money from weapons sales to Iran. Chomsky is so truthful, so utterly righteous... one can only spit upon the grave and name of Ronald Reagan.
The Sandinistas came to power in pretty much the same as did the American revolutionaries of 1776. And they were confronted with a far more murderous tyranny than Americans faced in 1776. Oh, and they were victorious in free elections. Elections which (unlike our first elections that made George Washington president) included the entire people. Unlike our elections which excluded women, Blacks, and the poor. I think Chomsky is aware of all this.
SagesseNoir Lie. It was due to the fact that American companies and the American people put pressure by divesting in South Africa that things changed. Regardless what does that have to do with the Sandinistas being controlled by the Soviets?
Chomsky never seems to think much about ppl who don't feel the same way he does, I think that's human nature, but when he claims to not have any co-thinkers it makes me sad to think he could be such a lonely man.
I notice from the comments below that you have one group of people pointing out that Chomsky gives details that can actually be looked up and verified whilst those attacking him come out with he hates America and other such crap. Newsflash to the loons out there you can be to the far left or to the far right or somewhere in between but still love your country and also love the world and being critical of your country in the pursuit of improving it even if your wrong is still being noble. Its pointless arguing with fools as you can never win and their opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Chomsky has been proven to be a liar a great many times...and no, there isnt anyone on the planet that is infallible and thus everyone should be questioned. Thus, dont argue with yourself since you dont like arguing with fools.
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
I JUST LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THIS GUY. Buckley had just died and instead of just saying that he disagreed with his viewpoints Chomsky starts attacking him personally. A dead man. He's also makes the claim that Buckley was mad at the end of the interview. I just watched it, all 58 mins, and Buckley never got mad. In fact he let Chomsky do all the speaking for the last 3 minutes and Buckley ended it with a friendly joke. Then he thanked him for coming. Chomsky is an asshole.
Noam Chomsky on the Passing of William F. Buckley:
"I don't know why I was asked to speak on this"
@urgiduurrgghh lol, at least he gave the disclaimer. many pundits wouldn't
urgiduurrgghh Chomsky didn't go to Buckley's funeral and say that. This wasn't a eulogy; it was one passing question in the context of a larger interview and Chomsky answered honestly off the cuff.
urgiduurrgghh sure, it's titled "Chomsky on Buckley's passing" but that was done afterwards by the video editor. From Chomsky's point of view this was one random question (which we don't even get to hear how it was phrased) in the context of a much larger interview about other topics. Or do you really suppose the Big Think people called Chomsky up and said, "Can we set up a 3 minute interview to get your take on Buckley's passing?" So yeah, this was an off the cuff response to a passing question. There's nothing coded here. Chomsky obviously thought of Buckley as an arrogant, intellectually pretentious blowhard, and he doesn't disguise it. He doesn't get his panties in a bunch over it, either. He just states his opinion.
Henry Swanson That’s a very good observation. Thanks!
@urgiduurrgghh My goodness, the ignorant trolls have arrived.
Noam Chomsky on Buckley: "We weren't tight."
Mango that sums it up
He invited me on his program called Firing Line . It was the biggest platform I’ve ever had . I usually only get invited to speak at certain universities that are hotbeds of political correctness. At the end of the program he seemed pretty exasperated. He said he may as well of banged his head against a brick wall for an hour! He was generally well respected but not by me
At that program invited by Buckley Chomsky was very rude. Chomsky repeatedly interrupted Buckley. I lost any respect I had for Chomsky.
@@peteroconnor6394 You know you're talking nonsense about Chomsky, just admit you dislike him and leave it at that.
@@finnsloan586 Why don't you contact Chomsky and ask him if he knows Engineers & Architects for 9/11 Truth instead of writing silly comments here? If Chomsky were to debate a researcher like Jim Fetzer, Chomsky would look like the limited hangout he is.
Listening to Chomsky is the audio equivalent of continually clicking the links in Wikipedia articles.
Yeah he does tend to segue much.
Cause he can't focus on a single topic?
@@xstatic-ow5mz thing about the links is that they're links. so you kinda failed to get the reference
@@sacred1827Man what a brilliant joke.
"He was considered witty, articulate, knowledgeable....again not by me." That says it all for Noam.
Well he was being honest.
Noam is a savage. Bless him
Too bad Buckley didn't live long enough to see a black president... Not that he wanted to
@@vankirwin30Obama is half wht half blk
@@vankirwin30 which makes him another wht president
Hell of a eulogy
Lmaoooo
An extremely appropriate one
@@TheJonnyEnglish I second that🍻
LOL......chomsky too is quite a bit of à narcissist also....but the other guy , the greatfully dead ...oh man he was a full wandering circus all by himself.
Truth is ...that he was void of substance full of illogicities n striking contradictions and also filled to capacity with phrasal pyrotechnics.
It was easy for chomsky to confront him because of the fact that Noah always been on higher moral ground.
Anyway God rest his soul
If there's God
If there's such a thing as soul
@@TheJonnyEnglish Only in the sense that Chomsky is a petty person, and so pettiness is appropriate to him.
Chomsky's effusive praise of Mr. Buckley brings tears to my eyes
LOL
Buckey was a crypto nazi. He adored his privileged place.
"One owes respect to the living; to the dead one owes only truth."
-Voltaire
Favourite
polymath7 nice quote
de mortuis nihil nisi bonum. Besides Chomsky only stumbled into the truth occasionally Like the blind squirrel who finds a nut.
What a lovely saying. Never heard it before. Thank you.
Old V , Another extremely arrogant Intellectual.
That first 'not by me', excellently dry
I JUST LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THIS GUY. Buckley had just died and instead of just saying that he disagreed with his viewpoints Chomsky starts attacking him personally. A dead man. He's also makes the claim that Buckley was mad at the end of the interview. I just watched it, all 58 mins, and Buckley never got mad. In fact he let Chomsky do all the speaking for the last 3 minutes and Buckley ended it with a friendly joke. Then he thanked him for coming. Chomsky is an asshole.
@UCI9YdPVv9uuIX29J8ShDGPw it doesn't matter that he just died, if you die an asshole you shall be remembered as such.Second he was saying that he got mad after the cameras were off.
I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. Chomsky gave his honest opinion about Buckley. The only thing what makes this "offensive" is the fact that Buckley is dead. Well: he didn't became a better or different person after he died, he just ceases to be alive . Did Chomsky then have to sugar coat his opinion just because Buckley died? Now that would be hypocritical
***** Logical. It was his only connection with Buckley. I don't think they ever went out fishing together
+Individual Rights Chris haha
+Grey Winters You have no clue what bolshevism entails.
Chomsky has more brains in his discarded finger nail clippings than you have in your entire head.
He is more of an anarchist. There is a difference
Chomsky is a patriot, it is just that some people don't understand what that really means.
'not by me'...Chomsky cracks me up :)
He thinks he is so above everyone else. A linguist who think he knows the solution to worlds problem, namely the US and capitalism. All this while sitting in his air conditioned office at MIT from a privileged position.
@@lukegibson9410 People who think that global capitalism under US hegemony is the best of all possible worlds have air conditioners that are just as good.
@@lukegibson9410
He think he's a better person than those who commit and support genocide and torture. Looks like you might be among that group.
How dare he point out that genocide and torture at bad. And he has the nerve to do it while sitting in an air-conditioned room!!!
@@lukegibson9410 hes actually one of the most approachable intellectuals in the world. He appears on tinpot public radio shows all the time for no renumeration . He doesn't assume a privileged position at all.
@@MrAhuapai I never wrote that he was greedy or unapproachable.
“He was considered- not by me, to be clever” Absolutely brutal and hilarious.
Couldn’t be a better compliment to Buckley. My new life goal is to be “considered, not by Chomsky, as intellectual.”
@@kalebstuckey570 Buckley's own brother said "if you had money, Bill liked you....if you had a lot of money he REALLY liked you".
Buckley was clever enough to hear out Chomsky, who was unclever enough to show a whopping bias when it came to left and right wing dictators. Look at the program and it can clearly be seen.
I hope Noam doesn't mind when I use this for him after his death.
@@dunningkruger3774 Chomsky is a multimillionaire, but I wasn't feeling the love in that interview.
I swear, if you ask Professor Chomsky if he wanted tea or coffee, he'd start telling you about US atrocities in South America.
Would he be wrong though?
@@daveed467 depenfs on where the tea came from haha
@@daveed467 Yes because the atrocities were committed by the Sandanista not the Contras. Commies are always the bad guys.
He said Central America, namely Nicaraugua
LMAO!!
i love it how he doesn't hold back only because the guy just died. a lot of people might have softened their views a little but chomsky still expresses his true opinion. gotta respect honesty.
Hitler didn't hide his opinions. Much respect to that honesty?
What a hateful person you are.
@@davi-lr4nd His point was a very rational example of the reductio ad absurdum argument. If honesty at all times is the measure of a man, one could praise Hitler, which the person obviously wasn't.
His opinion of Buckley wasn't as acerbic as you suggest.
I don’t think he was trying to be funny “ not by me” he was just clarifying the general perception that he doesn’t necessarily agree with.
Not necessarily. He certainly didn’t find him witty, intelligent, etc.
If that was the general perception then I guess I’m mainstream. Hands down Buckley was the most articulate person that was ever on tv
@@roughhabit9085 articulate doesn't make someone smart or right, that's why chomsky said "not by me" and I have to agree, high vocabulary is considered equal to intelligence only by the naive
@@greyfox4838 Chomsky, while articulate and sporting a healthy vocabulary, is not particularly representative of anything that can be described as correct.
@@brian2090 says who? You? Lmao
But Buckley had those eyes which said, "Didnt i just say something really smart?"
Yeah it's was his magic eyes,,, u tell urself that,,, 😂
He was indeed very smart, never mind eyes. And he was suave, I cannot think of a better word. As an interviewer he certainly was in the class of Bryan Magee. Noam was not especially charitable here in this snippet but then he was not asked to be, and nor is Noam Chomsky the sentimental type. As regards the (one) interview in question, certainly it was not one of Buckley's finest hours. One could almost say he 'lost his cool.'
I thought he either had something wrong with his eyes or something on his nose- a hair or a fly- that he didn't want to swat away with his notes.
They obviously did not ask him the question they claim to have asked him. Why would chomsky say what he did at 1:19?
BigThink: you need to put the actual question asked up.
Just to make it clear what I am refering to. Chomsky obviously asks for a clarification of the question at 1:19 he says "What you are calling his successors, I assume you mean the so called neo-conservatives"; this request for clarification only makes sense if the question asked was originally about buckley's influence and not his passing. So the title "Noam Chomsky: The Passing of William F. Buckley" is misleading.
bump
bump
Yeah, wtf?
Nice catch
"I was on his show once and it meant nothing to me. Buckley was considered witty, intellectual, profound... but I found him to be phony and boring."
I rather think Chomsky put it better.
I don't see why he's supposed to particularly respect Buckley, from what I've seen of Buckley there's very little substance to most of what he's saying beyond those rhetorical flourishes he was so fond of (which I guess most people were impressed by, but I just find it nauseating)
Realize that people on the other side of the aisle make the same statements with the names reversed. The assertion is that he should be able to recognize that partisanship and be respectful in spite of it. Now where I have sympathy for Chomsky is that I don't think if the situations were reversed Buckley would be able to resist some level of disrespectful comment himself.
***** I don't expect them to have that much respect for Chomsky either if they feel the same way. That's fine, they don't have to
lol They are both on the same team children.When are people ever going to understand that when the corporate media sends you wisemen watch your top knot.
Justin, just because there are 2 sides to the debate, doesn't mean you can just pretend that both sides are somehow equivalent and that the other side deserves respect. Buckley and his nationalist successors are mostly war criminals and should be executed. Their side is evil; Chomsky is good. It's that simple. Good vs evil.
The Truthful Channel well that was disturbing
Chomsky has always been an idealist, which is both his best and worst quality. Idealism is fantastic in terms of presenting a consistent viewpoint that challenges other ideologies. It utterly fails, however, when presented with the complexity of real world scenarios. Chomsky has propounded the same foreign policy stance for decades, but has never acknowledged the many ways that it has failed both in practice, and in theory (particularly in a globalized society). The same is true for his economic viewpoints. He's a professor, which is the perfect role for him, but it's important to remember that when evaluating his opinions. He has never shaped policy in a meaningful way because he forces complex situations into his faux-complex pre-existing ideology. He is a must read for anyone in shaping their own opinion, particularly relating to morality, but I think it is dangerous for people to adopt his exact stances as if they are universally applicable. I also think it's amusing that he comments on Buckley's (who had some similar idealogical faults) wit, given Chomsky's complete lack in this department. He's the ultimate blowhard, which can be a good thing, but few have less rhetorical charisma or tact (not to be confused with ability, which he has in spades). A brilliant man for sure, but not a great character (which is what Buckley was) nor a person interested in engaging in a real conversation.
Thomas McGrath I'm sorry, but I saw very little content in this comment if yours. For instance, can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that he has "propounded the same foreign policy stance for decades"? As far as I am aware, Chomsky's stance has been that we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions, and we are not responsible for the predictable consequences of someone else's actions. Now if there has been any serious reason why this truism is flawed, I haven't heard it. Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with idealism. It's pretty grounded in the real world in fact. So honestly, in your very long and rambling comment, I haven't grasped any basic point.
Obviously there was little content, it's a youtube comment and not a doctoral thesis. That same inane argument could be applied to your watered down presentation of Chomsky's views on predictable consequences (a view that when presented in this banality is not arguable).
Here are my main gripes. Chomsky's position doesn't deal well with the consequences of inaction. In this way it is very poor in combating totalitarian regimes through with diplomacy does not work. It's the same as the Catholic just war theory. Sure, it would be great if you could always predict the results of action and inaction, but you cannot. Chomsky historically has favored diplomacy in these ambiguous situations, and there are times he has been right and times he has been wrong. For instance, he was dead wrong about the ability to engage with Iraq diplomatically. His view was that the Gulf War was unnecessary and that Saddam could have been dealt with through UN sanctions. Putting aside the almost completely clean war that resulted (which he did not foresee), Saddam blatantly defied the negotiated removal from Kuwait, effectively demonstrating (with the addition of violations related to harboring terrorists and negotiating for nuclear weapons) that he did not believe he was bound by any forms of diplomacy.
His opinions are usually the strongest ex post facto when he can attribute what he believes was known after it has happened. The problem is that these situations are far more ambiguous than he presents, and rely much more on reasonable intent. It's especially true with regard to his moral equivalencies, which don't account for the nature in which they take place. He often muddles poor execution with intended destruction if the results were similar, a position which seems morally incorrect. For example, arguing that the attacks of September 11th were in fact a just retaliation given US intervention in the Middle East does not account (aside from the religion question he conveniently ignores) for the different circumstances surrounding the examples he points to.
Basically, I think he suffers from the problem of many intellectuals, which is not recognizing how much is beyond control. With regard to morality the recognition of circumstance and intent are necessary components that he continuously ignores for reasons I fail to find legitimate.
With regards the "watered down" claim of Chomsky's position, I'm afraid you are quite incorrect. He has explicitly stated, both in writing and in print, that this is the central principle we ought to follow when determining what actions we should pursue. he calls it an 'elementary moral truism".
Now to your Iraq claim. Chomsky bitterly condemned the sanctions on Iraq (and he has stated this publicly), so right off the bat your claim is totally false. His view was not that the Gulf War was unnecessary, his criticism is focused on the manner in which it was carried out., as you would know if you had read anything he has written about the topic. As you seem unaware, the US actively blocked a diplomatic solution to the Gulf War. For example, there was a diplomatic solution proposed in the run up to the war. Iraq would withdraw completely from Kuwait with a U.S. pledge not to attack withdrawing forces; foreign troops leave the region; the Security Council indicates a serious commitment to settle other major regional problems. Disputed border issues would be left for later consideration. Of course, we don't know what the outcome of this track would be, because the offers were flatly rejected by the US and its allies, who were committed to force from the onset. That Hussein was a criminal does not preclude the US from committing criminal actions as well.
Chomsky never once stated that the 9/11 attacks were a "just retaliation given US intervention in the Middle East". This is simply flat out false, as are essentially all of your criticisms. Such distortions are so predictable as to be beyond parody.
With regards to morality, intent is essentially meaningless when looking at certain actions. The worst atrocities in history have been committed with the purest of intentions (see the Japanese wish to establish 'paradise on Earth' in China). What matters are outcomes that we are responsible for.
Given the scale of your misrepresentations and falsehoods of Chomsky, I don't have high hopes for your response.
Perhaps I was too aggressive in my response. Let's cast aside the ad hominems as I am genuinely interested in this subject and perhaps have misunderstood parts of what I have read and heard from Chomsky.
1. I do believe that this axiom you present is a distortion of the complexity of his view. I wasn't trying to posit it as your own words, but just a self-evident statement that doesn't get at the heart of the issues I have.
2. I never claimed that the US was a perfect agent of justice throughout the world. I also never claimed that it was perfectly carried out (although I hold it was very well carried out). I do hold that they were right in not engaging with Hussein diplomatically, and I believe history repeatedly demonstrated that what Saddam was willing to agree to and what his actions were did not coalesce.
3. I admit that I may have incorrectly remembered this point. I thought he had made statements to that effect. I still disagree with his moral equivalence between 9/11 and the Clinton foreign policy initiatives (which I distinctly remember reading).
4. This is where I feel Chomsky and followers are often able to win based on a straw man argument. When somebody is speaking of intent they are talking about informed intent. Obviously intentional ignorance or ignorance formed through improper morality is not what is being discussed. The matter at hand is whether intent matters when the action is disproportionately affected by circumstances outside of ones control (or plausibly informed recognition). I don't discount that Chomsky believes intent matters to some degree, but I don't know what this degree is. In examples he always seems to default to the notion that bad consequences were the result of bad or ignorant intent. It is on this point that I have never heard a sufficiently coherent answer.
The implication of this 4th point makes it difficult to know what constitutes legitimate self defense. It would also seem to be especially poor at acting in an efficient manner. It appears to require an incredible amount of information to reach the level of assuredness that would satisfy proper intent. This is further muddled by Chomsky's unwillingness to except people's expressed beliefs or actions (such was the case for Bin Laden post 9/11). If I can be convinced this is not the case then I would happily recant my points.
Ok, let's start afresh then. The points system works better when responding as well.
1) The axiom is simplistic, but it is no distortion of his views. He has expressed it many times both in print and in writing. It underlies all his criticism of US foreign policy.
2) The point Chomsky made on this topic (and he made many, which are worth reading), was that we simply do not know if Hussein's proposals were legitimate, because they were flatly rejected by the US. In other words the US wanted war whatever Hussein did.
3) The comparison Chomsky made between 9/11 and the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory were not direct equivalencies. Chomsky simply stated that the toll from 9/11 may have been comparable to the consequences of Clinton's bombing of the Sudan. He said nothing further on the matter, but it was distorted by the likes of Oliver Kamm, and the myth has since made the rounds. In fact what Chomsky did say further about the Al-Shifa bombing are I think very interesting and important, and this leads nicely into the next point:
4) So take the case of the Sudan bombing. Clinton and his advisers knew full well that the factory provided 50% of Sudan's medicines, and that destroying it would have dire consequences for Sudanese civilians (for instance it was the only factory in the country than made the vital component in anti-malarial drugs). However, despite knowing all of this, they went ahead and bombed the factory anyway. In other words, although Clinton did not deliberately intend to kill thousands of Sudanese who would undoubtedly die if the factory was bombed, that was the predictable result, and it was carried through. Therefore, in the eyes of the US, and the West generally, the lives of civilians in small backwater African countries does not matter. In many ways this is even worse than intentional murder, because in the later case at least the victim is treated as a human being. That is Chomsky's basic point (although he has expanded upon it at length), that using intention as a moral metric is meaningless, because good intentions are almost universally expressed by the worst mass murderers in history. That does not mean I accept it, but we should at least be aware of the actual arguments he is making, rather than the almost universal distortions of his views that make it to the mainstream press.
I see no contradiction between the above point and the notion of self-defense. If you are being attacked, you have a right to defend yourself. But you should pay attention to your own crimes, and stop committing them. This applies universally.
Noam was born in 1928 and he’s still kicking. 91 years old. Amazing.
As they say the good die young.
He's turned into a rambling old man.
Noam is a clown. His types won't be missed.
Noam Chomsky used to be a linguistic scientist, Unfortunately he has gotten too old and blown his cortex. Happened with Nikola Tesla, William Shockley, and other prominent scientists gone to seed.
@@pianoman551000 "He says things I don't agree with"- there, fixed it for you.
I'm no fan of Buckley, but has Chomsky ever said anything positive about someone? His rhetoric seems to always be in negative tone.
Bertrand Russel, for one. I won't type a list, though.
Linguists gonna ling.
lil laughing...
Buckley would have given a similar response regarding Chomsky... limited mutual respect on both sides. I agree not much to fuss about.
melvin kay you know it! I couldn’t believe the flash in Buckley’s eyes, smile and sarcasm. Buckley also baited people.
Except Buckley couldn't carry Chomsky's jockstrap in an intellectual debate - he was a lightweight who hid behind long, unintelligible sentences.
Correct, it being Chumpsky's adoring fans who are the problem. None of them could hold a candle to any truly intelligent man or woman, but don't try to tell them or Chumpsky that.
@@zenvagabond His sentences weren't unintelligible. Buckley had a great command of the English language--regardless if you support his arguments or not.
@@AnimeMovement That's subjective - he rarely displayed it. He wasted a lot of time trying to make
simple points.
What an ego Chomsky has. It's all about him. He had every opportunity to be gracious to an intellectual adversary and he was dismissive and self-promoting.
I've emailed him and he's just as arrogant and cunty.
This is the best eulogy I've ever heard lmao
Chomsky literally can't even deliver a brief statement on Buckley without a tedious, repetitive line about neocons. Broken record.
Well, maybe. But you have to admit that the wind blows hard against the NeoLib/Con. Trump being the current flag bearer.
@@DonOnAMeme do you actually think trump is a neocon… do words just mean nothing
@@willbentley8856 no, I might have misspoke. I meant he is NOT a “Neo.”
AGAIN, not by me. Love Chomsky.
You look like the kind of unemployed dirtbag that would.
Might want to check your calendar, it's rural Trump supporters who are struggling with unemployment nowadays.
Dee Gee Sort out your issues and jog on.
He is a senile old man that liberals think is God.
Mohamed al Yahudi doesn't mean he isn't.
Why is he acting so shocked that conservatives are nationalists? He describes the “neo-conservatives” as “extreme nationalists”.
How is being an American nationalist (i.e. someone who wants to put America first) not an act of conservation?
Because they claim to be for limited government but want a powerful state for Imperial purposes. Pure hypocrisy.
Wit and intelligence aren't the same thing. Buckley was a witty and talented conversationalist, but Chomsky's a brilliant man. Period
Interviewer: "Noam, what are your views on the passing of William F. Buckley?" Noam: "Who?"
You suggest that there are things Chomsky doesn't know?
I don’t know her
That's because chomsky is a jealous, resentful communist. One might expect these type comments from a 16-year-old.
Buckley died? When?
What has Chomsky accomplished? How about the Chomsky hierarchy, generative grammar, digital infinity, etc. He influenced computer science. He made a big contribution to the field of history. He was a pivotal figure in the cognitive revolution. Now list Buckley's accomplishments.
He won the Cold War
Chomsky , whether I agree with him or not, his blade is always sharp, slices deeply and leaves a clear wound to anyone who confronts him.
About the only video I’ve watched where Chomsky doesn’t just groan on about the military industrial complex.
Don’t get me wrong, I respect both Chomsky & Buckley... I just think Buckley deserves credit for his actual work, I don’t t think it’s fair to pin the deeds of Cheney & Reagan on a postmortem Buckley.
he was a sophist.
@@yuval5628: Yes, he was a sophist, but a talented & charismatic sophist nonetheless.
"I thought hell is bound to be a livelier place, as he joins forever those whom he served in life, applauding their prejudices and fanning their hatred."
(Gore Vidal on W. Buckley, June 15, 2008)
Gore Vidal and Buckley reportedly had a famous feud via TV back in the 1960s; I imagine it was a contest between the witty intellectual liberal (Vidal) and the witty intellectual conservative (Buckley).
I assure you it was no contest.
Well Damn Chomsky 😂 You really gotta shade him like that even in death? 😂
He was not being asked in the original production, of which this is a snippet, to deliver some glowing eulogy. He was, we have to assume, asked serious questions about international relations and politics of the time and Buckley was not just an interviewer but a political figure in his own right. He was also pretty rude to Noam Chomsky on the one occasion they met. I expect Buckley would not have gone out of his way to be kind if he had outlived Chomsky.
@@hinteregions Yes, Buckley would be as kind as he could. You would be hard put to find a person more callous and petty than Noam Chomsky. This is a person who ridiculed the testimonies of refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge because what they had to say didn't fit his narrative, and then lied about it afterwards.
@@DrCruel That strikes me as a supremely partisan caricature, a definitively personal and uncharitable description of Noam Chomsky built on a very shaky foundation. In these interviews of the time Noam was preternaturally cool and dispassionate no matter what was thrown at him and here is case in point - is this 'callous and petty' we are looking at? I think 'calm under fire' a more fitting description. Buckley represented 'the establishment' rather too quintessentially and Noam represented 'the progressive' fairly conservatively, no pun, and their sparring is most interesting but mainly from a historical perspective. Personally I think they are/were both rather splendid but to the best of my knowledge Buckley only amounted to 'urbane interviewer' and Chomsky changed the way we understand the human mind and more besides. I think it's a mistake to mix private and professional - as you seem to be doing. That said I have been wondering why present day Chomsky does not view woke as the direly lethal threat I perceive it to be. Is it possible Chomsky doesn't know everything? Buckley certainly didn't.
@@hinteregions Being arrogant, vindictive and petty in a monotone is not the same as being dispassionate and objective. Frankly, Chomsky reminds me of a less scrupulous version of Jonathan Kozol. And if bringing up Marxist Goebbel's prior shilling for the Khmer Rouge is being "uncharitable," then guilty as charged.
Why doesn't Chomsky speak out against the woke? Why didn't Oral Roberts speak out against the danger of Christian cults? Why doesn't Kim Jong-un warn against the dangers of totalitarianism? That you'd be struggling with this question makes be believe you don't understand Chomsky's motives very well.
@@DrCruel I think he's saying what he thinks and believes and in the only form that counts and I doubt that it gives him any pleasure to 'speak ill of the dead' and therewith charge you with being sentimental. I am fairly sure you are imparting to him these positively evil motives only because to do so suits whatever political barrow you feel the need to push - we still don't know. Any comparison between Chomsky and Roberts is ludicrous; please craft cogent comparisons. I was well prepared to hear your case - some vague intimation of which belatedly vouched to us in a pile of petulant, painful and above all disjointed citations - but not when I see you conclude with some tawdry, silly insult couched in positively wild purely rhetorical crap that can only confirm me in my assessment of your - still - shady motives. See what I did there? Less passion, more substance is my recommendation to you because I'm not the one struggling, here :D
Once upon a time we had Chomsky, Buckley, Hitchens. Today we have… Joe Rogan.
The intellectual Right has been culled entirely from universities and the political arena altogether. It's a shame- both the Left and Right have decayed as a result.
Still have Chomsky
Joe does not profess to be an intellectual like those others. Unfair comparison. I would argue that thru joes wide range of guests, from all fields, he has disseminated more knowledge into the public forum than all the others.
@@EthanGold indeed. My son is taking linguistics with him at UofA. I don’t care much for his political views (politics is boring me more and more), but my understanding is that he is quite well respected and accomplished in the field of linguistics, which doesn’t seem to involve politics at all
@@hemanag1020 than all the others? Come on now. Joe is a good enough podcast host, although he has more right wing characters on his platform than left wing, but still he’s decent. The others (Buckley less so) have contributed massively to political discourse.
Maybe a nice thing to say about one of your opponents after they are dead is I disagreed with him on many topics and consider his points of view to he wrong, but he was a very smart man with interesting things to say and he will be missed, instead of insisting on the caveats 'not by me'.
Yep. It’s called basic human decency. You don’t even have to praise the guy, just not absolutely insist twice on “not by me”. It’s in bad taste.
@@alvaroanton636 Good point - but Chomsky got paid by military-industrial complex, whose aesthetics is retarded.
The best thing about Buckley is that regardless of whether I agreed with him or not, it was the last talk show of its kind. People of opposing political beliefs could have a conversation without yelling and calling each other names. WFB never resorted to the kind of crap we see on CNN and especially FOX. It's the reason why he was able to get people on his program like Mohammad Ali. Guests felt they would get a chance to speak instead of being constantly interrupted. Buckley asked more questions than he spoke. And I did find him funny. Many of his guests did to. Again, I don't agree with his political views, but people who are comparing WFB to O'Reilly need to watch more Firing Line shows and then watch FOX.. O'Reilly wasn't civil, and allowed no room for his guest to explain themselves.
"people of opposing political beliefs could have a conversation without yelling and calling each other names."
That sure wasn't Buckley's attitude towards Gore Vidal lmao
I recently watched the Buckley chomsky debate and Buckley does one of his "I would sock you square in the jaw"- things with a truly fascistoid smile. It was pretty much a trademark of his. By my lights he was the start of an era more than the end of one.
@Erik Boyd yeah, the OP comment is just wrong. Buckley interrupted a LOT. From the 5 or so episodes I have seen, that was a constant. Finished thoughts were rare, unless somebody interrupted Buckley.
Matt Smith yes, they haven’t watched many William Buckley debates if they compare those two.
BS. The show chomsky appeared on , Buckley yelled at him and threatened to sock him in the jaw. Revisionist histor👎
"He was considered...not by me"
Buckley #rekt
OMG Noam plz he's already dead!
The majority of this video wasn't about Buckley...
Why would he feel it necessary to lie about his appearance on Firing Line. Buckley was very polite and said if I interrupted you, please continue. There is no evidence of what Chomsky implies. Watch the episode your self and see.
He's not talking about what happened during the taping of the show. Guest typically stayed there for a while after the taping. As you can see(Chomsky just sits there when Buckley says his last words).
Chomsky and Buckley have the same effect on the other's fans. I enjoy them both and agree with neither completely.
@Richard Koen the issues Buckley and Chomsky discuss and about which both remain silent are not a question of entertainment for the human beings involved - Buckley however evolved from his biased viewpoint a bit about who assassinated JFK after RFK was assassinated, whereas Chomsky just continues to live from his MIT paychecks. Everybody knows Buckley was CIA employee and asset, who knows who is Chomsky's puppet master - the people who organized 9/11.
@@peteroconnor6394 Because everyone must have some nefarious intentions right? Spanning a global conspiracy that you can see right though? On fkn RUclips?
The sheer number of conspiracy theorists and angry little boys complaining about Chomsky are enough to let any rational man know just how "conservative" you lot are. This is the new Trump-conservatism, right?
And a 9/11 truther at that lol that's the new trinity I guess.
@Don This is the best comment I've read in maybe half a year
As Chomsky said, they did not know each other personally, he was commenting as a public figure on another public figure. Why would two absolute strangers need to mourn the passing of each other?
"No particular significance"? The debate, I would say was quite vigorous, and Buckley gave Chomsky a real challenge. Now, he speaks so disinterestedly about it - quite disingenuous.
Chomsky gave Buckley a real challenge. How important that encounter was is open to debate. If Chomsky doesn't consider it that important--perhaps considering Foucault to be a more formidable opponent--it would not be unreasonable or "disingenuous" to regard that debate with a certain disinterest.
SagesseNoir Chomsky is one of the most brilliant minds ever. He was also a first-class asshole. His basic opinion on everything: "America sucks, let me explain to you how." Why do you think even his close friends and colleagues like Christopher Hitchens fell out with him. "Brilliant" doesn't mean "right."
***** You've obviously haven't read Chomsky's own writings if your interpretation of him reduces to "America sucks". As for Hitchens, he moved politically toward the Right and turned on a lot of his liberal or left former friends and colleagues. If you want to prove that Chomsky is wrong, then you must actually engaged his work. You must actually STUDY so that you can make an informed critique. Consider the EVIDENCE he offers in his critique of American foreign policy, or his critique of the policies of administration of Obama and pervious presidents. But unfortunately, many people in this shallow American culture believe that name-calling ("asshole", commie, etc) actually constitute critique or a debate..
SagesseNoir I have read quite a lot of Chomsky's work. If you'll note from my post, I began with a compliment to his brilliance. However, he's incessantly critical of everything the US does and though I admire him in many ways, I simply don't agree with him on the whole. Chomsky's views on 9/11 alone are absolutely deplorable, which is why I consider him to be a jerk, and I make NO APOLOGIES for this.
As far as proving Chomsky wrong, lol, I've got more important things to do with my life. I was simply stating an opinion, which you disagree with, which is fine.
***** Without a REASONED refutation of his arguments, you'e simply left with an Argumentum ad Hominem. Whether he really is critical of EVERYTHING America does may be debatable. He is certainly very critical of most of what the GOVERNMENT does and the corporate elite does, but that's another matter. If you do not equate America with the US government or corporate power structure, then his picture becomes different. And what exactly ARE his views on 9/11? Are they deplorable because simply false? Or do you say that because you don't like them? It makes no sense to enter a dispute or make an attack unless you consider and refute what the adversary asctually says or writes. It is time for public discourse to rise above the level of TV talk shows.
Big Think: "What did you think of William Buckley?"
Chomsky: "Let me first extract my head out of my own ass... Oh, he was considered witty... but not by me..."
What a bung hole...
Buckley ate Chomsky for lunch and had him spinning in self-contradictory circles...
One of my favorite lines from their debate was Chomsky claiming that South Vietnam made the first incursion (into the North) of the war (thereby hinting that the North was simply a peaceful country minding its own business), to which Buckley replied: "And did they bump into any refugees on their way?"
Which perfectly highlights the intentional blindspots of a boob like Chomsky...
Buckley was spot on when he said that Chomsky is very careful to precisely define his starting points (for his logic and his argument), starting points that are not at all obvious to someone with a contrary view (i.e. they're contrived for the sake of his own argument).
Thomas Sowell says Chomsky is brilliant... in linguistics...
may i... complete a sentence?
You cant be serious. Buckley knew way too little about the topics they talked about in that episode. I'm sure many right-wingers could have done a better job that day.
Thomas Sowell is another interesting intellectual that's being laughed about in Europe with his insight. His comments regarding Bernie sanders " That has never worked anywhere". Well Thomas, except for the most successful countries in the world. All the countries in The Nordic region rank way higher than The u.s on the human freedom index, Democracy index, average life expectancy, and many more metrics. You can't possibly call them failed states.
@@ujmm you can't be serious simply saying "nordic states". That's been answered so many times, probably by Sowell himself, that it doesnt merit wasted space here. Suffice it to say, we are probably more socialist than they... more govt meddling, less freedom for biz as you've already said. How that reflects on Chomsky at all is beyond me. Chomsky is a loon. He's a backer of true nuttery... overlooking, like Sanders, the obvious failures and atrocities... overstating and misconstruing the realities of capitalism
@@derekthompson5731 Thomas Sowell(which you choose to involve in your comment) Has said "socialism has never worked" which there could be a case for, but he says it in the context of Bernie sanders. Bernie is for Social democracy of the type we see in the Nordic countries. If that doesn't work, there is almost not a single society that works today. metrics don't tell you everything but if you care at all about metrics, the nordic countries are doing just fine.
And I'm sure you could tell Buckley had a very notable lack of knowledge on the topics they discussed in that debate. Every event Chomsky mentioned there are at least sources for, but Buckley mentioned twice events that definitely never took place and Chomsky noticed both times as well. I'm sure the American right-wing had/has brighter people than him.
@@ujmm I've already addressed the Nordic countries. Continuing to reference them as your main point is pointless. There is obviously a continuum and you take it as an assumption that I think the USA is the shining light. It isn't, and certainly isn't now. But what these two are debating is the US in the 50s and 60s (recent history for them) vs the Soviet Union and Cuba. There was a bigger difference then than now. The theory is the same though, and I stand by my first point. Chomsky avoids anything that derails his belief system, which is why the comeback on refugees is so prescient (and why Buckley was both intelligent and witty, not a bore like Chomsky).
And no, you're wrong about Bernie. Bernie loves socialism EVERYWHERE and is complimentary of it everywhere. Both he and Chomsky ignore the problems, ignore the details separating Norse countries from other Communist/Socialist countries, and ignore the atrocities it inevitably creates in its wake. Bernie loved the Soviets.
Socialist thinking, even in America, always leads to hell. Saying "Norse" in every sentence doesn't change the reality that you're empowering government officials to meddle in centralized control. That creates precedence for doing more and more, because there is no limiting principle.
We would not be having to face mask and vaccine mandates right now, something the govt has no business meddling in (and is utterly incompetent to do), unless we were already far down the socialist road ourselves. But it's the socialist mind that takes us there. A and B deciding what C must do for D. And then passing a bill to enact raises for themselves.
Noam it's Americas fault Chomsky
Why is he so insufferable, arrogant, and disrespectful?
Thanks for lessons on how to NOT speak about people with opposing views.
like him not not Buckely is to be commended for starting and maintaining Fire-ing line where there was civil uninterrupted discourse. we dont see that today .
Does Noam ever smile? He was being cheeky, he owes us a smile.
He is another unhappy Communist
@@stevetyson1322 Anarchist. Not communist. There’s a considerable distinction.
I the contrast between the way Buckley treated Chomsky and Galbraith interesting. Buckley and Galbraith were pals despite the fact that they disagreed on almost everything.
Umm they were best friends actually and yes it was a trans ideological friendship, and they were both players too . Galbraith was an important cog in the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations and his Economic theories have influenced the world. While Buckley of course was the founder of the modern Conservative party and put Kissinger Bush and Reagan into the White House. Chomsky on the other hand is nothing, and has done nothing but brainwash the youth . There is no need to fight for freedoms according to Chomsky, there are no tyrants in the world! Just because Stalin extinguished 60 million people and Mao even more , that doesn’t mean that the ideology is evil !
Galbraith once said that one should always be wary of using irony because there is always going to be numbskulls that don’t get it . Well I think the same analogy can be made with Chomsky zealots and reason.
@@roughhabit9085 I rather doubt that Chomsky believes there are no tyrants. i don't agree with Chomsky on everything, but I have yet to see him wrong on the facts. One thing I wish he would address are some of the 911 anomalies.
Not s fan of Buckley, but his show was great. Where else can you see interviews with Chomsky, Thatcher, beat poets, Gore Vidal, etc.
I agree with you and am being nit picky but Vidal was never on firing line
“Not by me.” Savage. 😂
this guy can never talk on an issue, he just rambles on and on all over the place.
Buckley was awesome.
Noam wants to make sure that you know one thing: Other people thought this dead man had redeemable qualities, but he does NOT.
@John Lee Righties tend to generalize, AND be egoists
@John Lee egoist in action^
@John Lee how much of Marx have you read? we can discuss the Law of Value if you want. I assume you have read enough to know the Labour Theory of Value is Ricardo's not Marx.
He was pretty cool.
@@milithdheerasekara6957 Actually the labour theory of value was first conceptualised by Adam Smith, how would anyone have a debate with you about this when you don't even know the basics.
Pretty telling for Chomsky to not find Buckley witty considering how mind-numbingly boring he is.
R.I.P. Bill
"again,not by me."
i watch these great orators on youtube and all i learn is that no one knows anything. it's all just a drama, like a play
attackfighter, then you're clearly not listening as you watch.
I tend not to watch the videos, I prefer to listen to the audio with earphones on, it gives an entirely different perspective.
Young Chomsky was a treat but old Chomsky doesn’t give a shit
All the Buckley haters... smmfh
While WFB had a very entertaining way of speaking, he was, essentially, Bill O'reilly...When presented with facts that clashed with his preconceived notions of american exceptionalism WFB bullied Chomsky (and others)...I watched the entire episode, and it was WFB who was evasive and deflectionary when presented with facts, as opposed to opinion. Considering that these two only met once, one can consider Chomsky's lack of platitude for WFB, at the very least...honest.
Chomsky is the same really. He's simply sneakier. He has a record of character assassinating people who disagree with him in his field.
*****
Chomsky does not use ad hominems as the fascists like WFB does... Chomsky dispels a lot of BS that's propagated in sciences... take BF Skinner for example, Chomsky tore him apart without any personal attacks
Yea, he doesn't do those things in the limelight. Big deal. I said he was sneakier.
randy1285 hevwas first so he was the predecessor of bill oreilly with out the falafel and sexual harassment suits.
He was a homophobe
randy1285
Grey comparison
He said that he did not consider him to be witty, knowledgeable, articulate. He also said he did respect him.
“Noam Chomsky” sounds like the name of a sandwich at a Jewish deli.
“I’ll take a Noam Chomsky on rye, gold the mayo!”
I'm a cook, always on the look-out for "specials". Good idea, Laurie. I'd be proud to serve a Chomsky!
Well it would be simple, distinct and with the highest quality ingredients.
Well, there are brands of whiskey named Jack Daniels and Jim Beam.
"The Best of Enemies" is a documentary film about 10 famous television debates between William Buckley and Gore Vidal. The debates took place in 1968. The documentary film premiered in 2015.
Noam tore Buckley to shreds on his show, check the clip, its pretty eviscerating, no invite, no surprise
Gotta love how Dr. Chom never forfeits an opportunity to give a brief rundown on the atrocities of the American so-called right wing.
The Chomsky v. Buckley debate was epic in many ways. Buckley just interrupted Noam, with attempting to seem bored but you could see he was frazzled. They debated like champs compared to today....yet they argued things that are silly really...a nation acts in its self interest, often immorally....the debated the latter morality. That to me is silly.
Chomsky gave a considered and thoughtful reply to the question, adding a little of his own judgement. I trust his judgement. Buckley was entertaining, and also thoughtful, but inevitably done in by his blind adherence to his brand of conservatism.
Buckley's "sin" is being conservative. Chomskey's "brilliance" is not being conservative. 🤪 I think that's as far as most of Chomskey's fans get. They just like that he does their thinking for them.
Buckley: a legend without substance. Chomsky summarized his legacy pretty well here.
That is not so. However we may treat Buckley's views - in their proper context, that is to say 'historical' - even if only as an interviewer he was stellar. Noam Chomsky did not say Buckley was irrelevant, in fact he said pretty much the opposite.
Without substance? You realize that the Cold War didn't win itself, right? He substantially contributed to the political ethos which defeated the Soviets.
People associate anti-Communism solely with McCarthy's zealotry; never recognizing the sensible anti-Communism which allowed the West to ultimately persevere.
Chomsky is spot on as usual . That whole debate Buckley was giving Chomsky the 'dont make me look like a fool wink'.
Chomskey is incapable of making Buckley look like a fool.
LOL. It's fun to see Chomsky's alcolytes turning on him now that he's opposed to the Ukrainian war and calling out NATO imperialism.
@@tamething1 Buckley had that covered himself.
@@tamething1 Buckley was a fool. But his upper class accent fooled a lot of gullible people.
This track was the original "Not Like Us"
Although their contact was only slight, Chomsky's comments on Buckley are suprisingly valuable in putting the latter in context of the Neo-Con movement which followed him. I don't think Chomsky was unfair to Buckley in any way, he just wasn't impressed by him.
Chomsky has the charisma of an old sofa
Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge. That's all you really need to know. Never once condemned Communist mass murder, never. And he was supposed to be an anarchist!!!
He didn't defend the Khmer rouge, what he and many others did was to criticize the American press for failing to quote Francois Ponchaud correctly. Ponchaud gave one of the earliest estimates on how many people were killed during pol pot in Cambodia. But the french book included more estimates of killing pre-pol pot. The American press somehow confused this and ended up with a way too high estimate, and did not correct this even after Ponchaud had corrected this. Even though what was going on was obviously horrific, we shouldn't just be making up numbers
"A book learned fellow cant possibly have all the answers."
You assume incorrectly that Chomsky hasn't visited many of the places he's written about.
You must have some serious academic credentials in order to critique Chomsky; I mean, you must have some lengthy experience in both linguistics and politics to suggest that Chomsky can't possibly write about the things he does...or your name is Dunning-Kruger! :)
I'm sure he's heart broken
Noam Chomsky, once he passes from this world, what I leave on his grave will not pass for flowers!!!!!
He was certainly articulate.
So true. I don't know of anyone that is a bottom-less pit of knowledge like he is. I could listen to him for 2 minutes and spend the next several hours researching what he was talking about.
Check out Thomas Sowell.
@@joshuarosenblattSowell is a quack.
Buckley was a bold individual. Chomsky is a soft intellectual. The two never appreciated each other. Perhaps they will be buddies in the afterlife.
I suspect it would have to be a long-distance relationship.
I believe the subject was Buckley, Chomsky immediately takes swings at all “conservatives, “ to whom refers to as “ radical nationalist.” Chomsky is himself, a radical. He really has no voice in mainstream American policy, neither liberal nor conservative. I have nothing but respect for his intellect and his achievements in the field of linguistics. I simply cannot take a man with such extremist views with any degree of seriousness on the political front.
Big Think delivers Chomsky's small think.
And the comment section delivers a whole bunch of infantile hand-wringing over Chomsky not liking their hero. The video just becomes twice as funny reading all the pissed off comments that lack the vocabulary to come up with anything better than this.
@@utkarsh2746 yep...
I think Chomsky owned Buckley, but Chomsky comes across as presumptuous here to me; an inelegant winner. Buckley was acknowledged a leading conservative mind, and had a robust mind, right or wrong. To say essentially, "he was beneath me" seems, to me, to be pompous. (And I'm a Chomsky fan!)
Arrogant as you would expect
Is this low life a Jew?
@@BuckyBrown-lt4ry don't cut yourself on all that edge.
If Chomsky wasn't being rude, then neither am I. All I did was comment on him in the same manner that he commented on Buckley - .with complete sobriety and straightforwardness.
Why so upset?
Hilarious. So Chomsky's take on the death of Bill Buckley was that Reagan was evil. Got it. Thanks, Noam.
+SnapCracklePapa He stated pretty plainly in the video that he was only in contact with Buckley once, and that that was around the time he was on "Firing Line" with him. Even so, he shared some thoughts on him. After that I assume he didn't have much more to say on the subject, which would explain why he moves on to talk about people associated with him instead. What did you expect, a heartfelt eulogy?
+Bobby Grenwald What I expected him to do is exactly what he did; take any and every opportunity to bash the united states with bias, half truths and wildly inaccurate information.
+SnapCracklePapa It's his political point of view - how is he supposed to be unbiased? Where are these half truths and this "wildly" inaccurate information you speak of?
Shall we take each one piece by piece? It'll take a few years, which is why Chomsky does this, he knows there's no time to get to the bottom of his claims.
+Bobby Grenwald Shit, I don't know. Basic respect? Instead he uses it is a way to take shots at Buckley ("he wasn't witty or clever") and then politically brow beat?
hahahahaha. I love how Chomsky said 'Not by me!' everytime coz thats how i felt when I watched Buckley babble during the interview.
I would like to know why Buckley didn't ask him back on the show. I watched the interview and my take was his love for communism.
Roger Wissinger - Even though he's an anarchist?
Oh, I get it. People who criticised bombing communist countries were communist?
The only good communist is a dead communist. Communism only has killed 100 million people and we have people in the United States saying they can make it work.
Roger Wissinger - You seem to be going off on a tangent.
There is no greater example of a Marxist sociopath Narcissist
than Noam Chomsky. He predicted EXACTLY this same end of the World
capitalist USA evil garbage on Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party.
Absolutely the biggest blowhard for Socialism wealth redistribution, a
massive De Constructionist with severe nihilistic tendencies,
a classic Maoist semantic, mesmerizing untold sheeple
millions into a Stockholm Syndrome of imminent USA capitalist demise
and always environmental disaster.
Pick up any fugue state dialectical mass murder tome of Noam Chomsky
and go to the bibliography and notes. The prodigious notes
of a sociopath. 90% I, me, mine, 10% the rest ? proven intellectual
dishonesty.
Witness the endless page after page
quotes of his very own previous words and books
as if source and corobboration are one and the same, himself.
Noam Chomsky and Joseph Campbell are
next to the $1 Billion CITIZENS UNITED BANKSTER donations "library" man,
Barak Obama, the biggest semi Faust intellectual snake oil vipers for $ dollars,
since the Marxist Pablo Picasso talked the evils USA capitalism
with his pockets stuffed with ENDLESS USA $100 bills
from evil capitalist art millionaires.
Buckley interviewing chomsky is on RUclips. It's actually a pretty civil, interesting interview discussing a wide range of international topics
Except for the part that Buckley cannot stop interrupting and changing topic every 3 seconds.
@@FIVEPANCAKES how else can you “win” a debate with little to no evidence lmao
I totally disagree with Noams suggestion that Regan was worried about Japanese take over. Not only did Regan give carte blanche to the Japanese auto makers in the 80's which allowed the Japanese to used American manufacturing techniques like " just on time". He was also rewarded for this after his presidency. Regan became very rich form the Japanese lecture circuit. It was loophole pay off to him for opening the door for Honda and Toyota to flood the market with cheap substandard cars. How many Japanese cars from the 70's and 80's do you see on the road now? The answer is zero. However I still see American cars from that era. We were made to believe American cars were poorly made but Japanese were superior. All the while Japan was given and stealing America auto tech.
+zigzagbigbag
In mid 1970 i bought my first american car (i n Europe it was a status symbol) and thought I just had a bad luck, shortly later i traded it for another, it was hudge, expesive (for me). Since then I had many different makes, but after these two I will never buy an american. The second one had enormous engine which if one stepped on the accelerator just made more noise and nothing else. I had some German made all except for Audi were OK, Audi was pleasure to drive when it was running, but to keep it running required constant attention.
For last several years my family drive ondas and lately Toyotas, regardless what model and how expensive or cheap they proved to be excellent and trouble free.
Chomsky destroyed Buckley. Not surprised he didn't want to invite Noam back for another ass-kicking.
Noam Chomsky had blamed and chided the CIA for it's meddling in Nicargua which led to violence against the Sandinista government. The funny thing about this is, that his senility has rendered him forgetful as to how the Sandinista government came into power in the first place.
The violence against the Sandanistas (legally elected by the Nicaraguan people) was committed by the demented US crime-leader, Ronald Reagan, and the CIA when Reagan illegally funded the Contras (the prohibition enacted by Congress at an earlier time) using money from weapons sales to Iran. Chomsky is so truthful, so utterly righteous... one can only spit upon the grave and name of Ronald Reagan.
The Sandinistas came to power in pretty much the same as did the American revolutionaries of 1776. And they were confronted with a far more murderous tyranny than Americans faced in 1776. Oh, and they were victorious in free elections. Elections which (unlike our first elections that made George Washington president) included the entire people. Unlike our elections which excluded women, Blacks, and the poor. I think Chomsky is aware of all this.
Asphodelea96 Any pearls of wisdom concerning the fact that the Sandinistas were backed by the Soviets?
tikiedit Or pearls of wisdom concerning the fact that fascistic South Africa was supported by the USA?
SagesseNoir Lie. It was due to the fact that American companies and the American people put pressure by divesting in South Africa that things changed. Regardless what does that have to do with the Sandinistas being controlled by the Soviets?
Chomsky never seems to think much about ppl who don't feel the same way he does, I think that's human nature, but when he claims to not have any co-thinkers it makes me sad to think he could be such a lonely man.
"At the end he was pretty angry" oh i love noam
He was considered, not by me, witty.. Lol
Because it takes wit to recognize it.
This really made me laugh out loud
3 minutes of backhanded compliments.
" he was respected, again no by me " , God, you gotta love Chomsky hehe
Why do I have to respect Chomsky for repeating a rehearsed talking point?
@@angusmcculloch6653 talk about rehearsed talking points-I’ve seen you make this same comment a couple times now 🙂
I notice from the comments below that you have one group of people pointing out that Chomsky gives details that can actually be looked up and verified whilst those attacking him come out with he hates America and other such crap. Newsflash to the loons out there you can be to the far left or to the far right or somewhere in between but still love your country and also love the world and being critical of your country in the pursuit of improving it even if your wrong is still being noble. Its pointless arguing with fools as you can never win and their opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Chomsky has been proven to be a liar a great many times...and no, there isnt anyone on the planet that is infallible and thus everyone should be questioned.
Thus, dont argue with yourself since you dont like arguing with fools.