THANK YOU! I was going to make this point, but I decided to scan the comments to see if someone had already mentioned it. I guess there are some people whose understanding of this topic goes beyond one two-minute youtube video...
I wouldn't scan RUclips comment threads for evidence of discernment, in general, but, that said, most here seem to understand he was joking. I think the title of this video is what they call "click bait".
Great comment. This was lost on me. Just checked out the Buckley Gore clash. I always thought this was an extreme version of passive-aggressiveness on Buckley's part, but actually, he's laughing at himself.
No. The Vietnam war is today regarded as a blunder for a number of reasons, but very few would hold the American people themselves responsible for it. No one will tell you that it was the "apathy and equinimity" of the American people that enabled the US leaders to go to war with Vietnam, nevermind compare 1960's America to Nazi Germany.
But that's exactly what it was. The US is supposed to be a democracy, these crimes couldn't be committed by a government if their own populace didn't enable them.
To say the US citizens weren't guilty of the vietnam war would indeed be equivalent to saying the German population as a whole wasn't guilty of the holocaust. In fact, at least Germans have plausible deniability going on, with the Nazis silencing any reporting on the mass killings, whereas the Vietnam war was reported on by media, yet people simply didn't care enough about the atroticities being commited to put an end to it.
sithersproductions and a great dumper, doubtless one of the highlights of his days, punctuating, if you will, the dreary plotting of the comeback of the robber-barons and the novelistic exploits of buckey's alter-ego, blackstone furbanks.
Because this era of calm, respectful, reasonable debate largely no longer exists in society, so anyone who was born after, say, the mid 80's was born into an era that by the time they'd grown to the age of reason, their knowledge of debate had more to do with 'owning' the other side and shouting as loudly and often as possible. Back then, people were engaged and knowledgeable to know this sort of thing, whereas now there's too many people out there with the perceptive ability of a drooling mongoloid who've been trained from an early age to be dependent on others to spell it all out.
The first time he said it, it wasn't a joke...he had actually lost his cool. Chomsky subtly brought it up first to mock him. The best Buckley could do at this point was to make a joke of it.
It seems like more of a joke than a threat. Honestly the fact that Chomsky and him were laughing and continue to carry on a conversation gives a pretty good indication that it wasn't serious.
@F.W. They? How can one simultaneously “stand by AND help?” Not being in the Soviet Union in 1922 nor being familiar with N. Chomsky’s ancestors I cannot factually comment on your accusation. However I suppose no one is above criticism these days. Personally I am more concerned with and appreciate what Prof. Chomsky is saying, now.
People who are afraid and stand by do not share guilt as the perpetrators of crimes. Not wanting to become one of the victims is a normal and justifiable reason to stand by. You don't owe anyone putting your saftey on the line to help them, arguably other than your children. People who agree with the actions or are indifferent is a different story. I think people who stand up for others, putting themselves at risk, are heroic but Chomsky is just guilt tripping people who are afraid and put their saftey first which is wrong.
“He nailed it.” he nailed what? this quote is to say that if you watched the january 6th riot on the news then you’re just as guilty as the people who stormed the capitol. noam chomsky is a linguist and professor of language, not a political philosopher. he has literally the worst track record with political and humanitarian tragedies of any writer/orator to date.
Chomsky’s philosophy and take on public policy is great for a make-believe world or a game board like the world of academia that he lived in. Put him in power for two days and he would be pissing his pants.
This was intended as a joke, Buckley is referring to a previous televised confrontation between himself Gore Vidal. Buckley was half sane compared to the unhinged "conservative" talking heads we see on Fox News today.
Buckley was quite learned, and very articulate. The.hawkers at Fox these days are just loud. Can you imagine Hannity with Vidal, or Carlson with Hitchens ?
There doesn't seem to be any room for these types of debates in today's world. Despite the fact that Will Buckley disliked the views of "liberals" like Vidal and Chomsky, he still presented a unique show which represented a unique period of time when controversial topics were discussed and openly debated. We will likely see nothing like this ever again and we certainly never saw this before the middle and late 60s.
@@slthjawa5062If you understand the history, dynamics and political and cultural influences that drove us to Vietnam, you would understand Buckley's assessment and position is beyond sophomoric. He really had no idea of what he was talking about and was a sycophant for the war makers and the depraved policy and behavior of the enterprise. Buckley loved fascism and fascist behavior. I lived in that time and culturally was in the center of it. Were you?
No. Buckley was the product of a 3-channel TV spectrum. They didn't have to fill the airwaves of a thousand channels, 24 hours a day, every fucking day of the year. They were the only game in town. The test pattern was basically there to wake you up and send you off to bed. And they sure as fuck weren't putting inarticulate clowns on the national airwaves, risking the ad revenue which was also from far fewer companies than now.
It seemed at first that Buckley's strategy was to interrupt Chomsky in mid sentence at every opportunity but eventually Chomsky was able to make his points.
+hikelfin From Buckley's perspective Chomsky is the worst kind of liberal: articulate, logical, in command of the relevant facts. Buckley would prefer someone whom he could bully, intimidate and make look foolish. I credit Buckley for having him on knowing what he was up against.
+Tom McVeigh WRONG>>Chomp is a MARXIST hiding under the ''liberal'' label!! Anyone who's heard the nut would know that thge man is a BLABBERING NO NOTHING SELF RIGHTEOUS RADICAL INSTIGATOR!
+James Jacoby Once again your type of people labeled a free thinker a name of your opinion that has any value in the conversation. You need to reframe from the conversation if you have no logical input into what the conversation was about.
When your argument is shit, resort to violence. Buckley said he would be glad to have Chomsky back, never did, never had any intention of getting schooled by Chomsky again.
If you can't tell that he is obviously joking, or if you're not familiar with one of his most famous debates with Gore Vidal that took place prior to this then I guess it makes sense that you say "THIS is how you're treated on his show.." Jesus. Love him or hate him, Buckley was one of the most respectful hosts in the history of television. God compare him to Ed Schultz or Sean Hannity. This kind of intelligent discussion isn't on TV anymore. I have to come to RUclips to get it.
yes, Buckley was making a joke and alluding to his recent confrontation with Gore Vidal as both were commenters on live TV regarding a recent political convention. Chomsky understood the allusion and that is why both men were laughing.
It's incredible that two individuals could actually have an intellectual conversation, regardless of who you think is right or wrong, without shouting and word-grabbing ensuing which is typical today on television.
This was a time when intellectuals from the left and right could sit and just talk quietly without getting personal and (what is evident from this clip) crack a joke or two and share a laugh even if they are on the opposite ends of a debate. Don't get to see any of that these days. Neocons, alt-rights, alt-lefts, liberals, neocon liberals (sam harris, bill maher etc) .... all everyone does is throw in words from a dictionary while trying to be provocative be it in debates or on fucking twitter. Too bad these days there isn't anyone around to match Chomsky's intellect and patience.
These intellectuals are subversive agents. Chomsky brags about the smart way of controlling people is to control the spectrum of acceptable opinion on both sides. I wouldn’t doubt if anything outside of the spectrum that is deemed unkosher would have been brought up he’d start spazzing like the pilpuling Jew he is
@@thorr18BEMThe reference was to Buckley's debate with Vidal. Where he made the same remark. But when he made it at that time, it certainly wasn't a joke lol.
What a completely misleading title. As someone else said, the “threat” was clearly in jest and a knowing reference to a genuine threat he made to Gore Vidal. But hey, you got the click, so well done.
Ian Cooper For anyone who is unaware, he is joking and repeating a quip he made from a more aggressive debate between he and Gore Vidal. It is for comic effect.
Screw William F. Buckley, Jr. He was the most boring scumbag that ever lived. It was too bad that he didn't get punched in the face by Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky.
This is clearly self-deprecating humor on Buckley's part. He is repeating the phrase he used in his infamous debate with Gore Vidal which for which he was much criticized. If anything, its quite humorous on his part.
Buckley wasn't much of an intellectual, one because he's a conservative & they reject intelligence, but also because he called homophobic slurs at Gore Vidal & threatened Chomsky. What a prick Buckley was.
***** This is the type of thing people criticize conservatives for. First I'll say I don't agree that all conservatives reject intelligence, some do, but that isn't a conservative thing that's just an american thing. It's called American anti-intellectualism it's a real thing. But not all conservatives are anti-intellectual and not all anti-intellectual people are conservatives. However, the way you take this statement and filter it in the lens of your own preconceived notions is astounding. I want to compare his original statement to your interpretation of it, so that you can see what went wrong. First, he didn't say they were retards, he said they rejected intellectualism. This is not something you can dispute. Many conservatives, and as I've suggested this is not a consequence of their political persuasion but rather their cultural climate, reject intellectualism, or anything that looks like it. Second, he stops his criticism of conservatives there. You attribute the rest of his opinions to conservatives, probably because it fits this political narrative a bit better. He said, *but he also* called homophobic slurs at Gore Vidal, this implies that, in addiction to being conservative, he also does x y thing. This would mean, by further implication, that he is not assuming all conservatives are retards for getting mad at someone who happens to be gay. Third. Where do I start on that last one and the problems it itself inherently has. Wow, okay calling someone a homophobic slur is never okay. Under any circumstances. This should not be up for debate. Also not up for debate, is whether getting angry at someone who happens to be gay is the act of a prick. It's not. It also has nothing to do with what the OP said. Getting angry in the heat of the moment is fine. Calling them a slur, of any kind, is not. Very simple. Fourth. If you think Noam Chomsky is a genuine idiot I can't help you. Look I am no fan of his. Trust me, I am on the opposite side of a lot of intellectual battles he has involved himself with over the years. But he's probably the most accomplished academic living today, one of the most cited people of all time in academic journals, and by all accounts a preeeetty intelligent guy. You don't need to call people you disagree with idiots. This is the kind of thing others criticize you guys of doing.
Bu Jammy now that i think about it, it was actually Gore Vidal who he threatened to punch and called him homophobic names. My apologies, wrong intellectual.
For those who don't know the context: Buckley is poking fun at himself with that comment. Watch his exchange with Gore Vidal. Buckley and Chomsky were always quite cordial with each other. Vidal was just a passive-aggressive, pseudo-intellectual drama queen for whom Buckley had no respect.
bashful228 He was an absolute crap novelist and anyone can be a social commentator. Listening to Buckley and Chomsky it's clear Vidal had no place in serious political commentary.
Chomsky, banging on the same message for half a century. Call him anything you want, but one thing you cant call him is inconsistent. A man of his word Much respect.
‘If everybody is guilty of everything, than nobody is guilty of anything’ Says a Christian who literally professes to believe that all people are born in sin
It's probably been pointed out several times already, but it's obviously a point worth mentioning. Buckley is referencing his infamous debate with Gore Vidal when "threatening" Chomsky and winking at the camera.
Chomsky Has repeated this argument throughout his life. For this argument alone and the determination with which he built around volumes and volumes of facts, we should build him a statue.
This is why people hate Chomsky. It's not because he's a liberal or he's an atheist. I'm Liberal. And hard agnostic. People hate Chomsky because he has a decades long history of simply being a contrarian for its own sake and no other reason. But young people today don't know that. They don't know he's just been a troublemaker-for-trouble-making's-own-sake for years and years long before they were born. They see "wow he puts anti-science and religious bigots in their place, he's awesome!" lol, if only that was all he did. It's not.
This is why people hate liberals. They're vague, both in their positions and their reasons for said positions. Being anti-Vietnam war is hardly being a contrarian for contrarianism's sake, but it probably made family reunions awkward and that, to the liberal mind, is something that just isn't done.
I guess because simultaneously with the theory of language he was interested in political matters since his teenage years. Because he was engaged in social activism since the war in Vietnam. Because his knowledge of modern history, politics and international affairs is very vast. Because he wrote even more books on political/social matters than related to the theory of language.
He became expert in linguistic because whatever he said/did about made sense. Similarly if he makes sense in politics as well, it should be taken as heartly as linguistic expert. ✌️✌️
Lmao! That’s referring to his threat to Vidal. When he threatened him, with his New England accent, “… _And_ _you’ll_ _ssstay_ _plassstahd!_ “ Absolute hilarity. 🤣
It takes little to unravel most of Buckley's arguments. He's perhaps the greatest pseudointellectual of the conservative movement. At least he tried though, in stark contrast to the race to the bottom we're witnessing from his successors today.
It's not hard to form a cogent argument in this case, it's barely necessary. The statement is a complete non sequitur. I was being generous; the remark is more on the order of something heard on an elementary school playground. Buckley is famous for burying his arguments in erudite language, but this little tidbit is in simple terms that do not follow. In paraphrase; "If all the cows are content with everything, then none of the cows is content with anything." Now why don't you illuminate us all as to the brilliance of that reasoning? @@robertmadison1205
Group apathy and and thoughtless behavior are real human qualities... none of us are immune to the influences of the group... we are social beings. Consider the case study where a young woman was murdered on the street screaming for help, many lights were on in appt. buildings around her, but no one even called the cops. It really is a lot of work to be a strong individual and to fight the massive current of social influence.
I think that study was actually debunked a bit. Besides, the operative phenomena was simply people calculating that odds were, someone else would call police, but I agree with your overall point, and Chomski's, and even Buckley's.
Gabe B Lol oh yeah wow you are lost in a profane universe of self-hate and historical revisionism. I'd bet you couldn't name one way Chomsky has ever been politically criticized.
Interesting how Buckley never talked like that to far more controversial people he debated… Like Eldridge Cleaver and Jim Brown. Buckley was an arrogant punk who was fling the buffing of the CIA. Yes, he was secretly on their payroll.
Well, maybe except for the time he said the unvaccinated should starve. And when said his meetings with Jeffrey Epstein were "none of your business". But other than those totally minor things, I'm sure he's a solid dude.
Back when America still had intellectuals that could actually debate and discuss predominantly using logic and reason to get their opposing views across in an educational manner. Boy, those days are long gone arent they?
Because he was civilized, dignified, intelligent, erudite, handsome, super classy, and spoke absolutely beautifully! More importantly than that, he was kind to people.
Buckley a great mind?! give me a break, the guy's only talent is that he mastered the art of not letting the true great minds explain or clarify the facts for those who watched his show. He had the kinda of attitude that would easily make somebody wanna not only punch him in the face but take his head off. Kudos to Professor Chomsky for not giving him the satisfaction of loosing his calm.
Paul Davies it was a joke moron a reference to the recent vidal buckley debate that got heated a moron like you wouldnt know about it and could make threat to a dead guy
Even though I do not personally agree with Buckley I wish he would have punched Chomsky. Chomsky is such a smug prick. He does it in an understated way which is far more insidious and odeus.
+Joseph Eichenlaub You wish he had punched Chomsky because Chomsky completely dismantled him. That's why you hate Chomsky, isn't it? Because you're intellectually incapable of countering his arguments.
+Afonso Sousa I like and agree with a great deal of what Chomsky has to say most of the time. Personally he comes off as a smug, strident prick and this in the penultimate example in my opinion.
Joseph Eichenlaub Are you confusing Chomsky with Buckley? How in the world does Chomsky come off as smug or strident? The common criticism of the man is that he's too monotonous or calm. In this show, he just did what he always does: state facts. Plus he was just laughing at Buckley's joke.
Back in the era of civility, people on TV could disagree respectfully. Nowadays, rarely do hosts have guests who disagree, and, when they do, they often shout the guest down, mischaracterize what the guest said, and won't let the guest defend himself or herself. It so sad to see the garbage pushed on so-called "news networks." And very often on talk radio, the host or hosts don't even have guests. Back in the era of open discussion, hosts used to take callers. Now, it's just blowhards blowing hard.
Buckley was attempting to provoke Chomsky with a cheap threat of violence. Chomsky ignored the taunt and proceeded to take Buckley's positions and assumptions apart. Buckley never laid a glove on Chomsky.
I can't blame you for not being familiar with the circumstances, but Buckley was not threatening him. He was in fact making fun of himself for an outburst he made a year earlier to Gore Vidal during a televised debate where he lost his cool after Vidal called him a "crypto-nazi" and Buckley seriously did threaten to "smash his god damn face." The outburst haunted Buckley his whole life and he remained deeply regretful of it. Anyone watching this at the time would have got the reference and seen it as Buckley making fun of the incident at his own expense.
@3DMusicGroup Yeah, I saw the bit with Vidal. That was definately an unfriendly mix. This one with Chomsky is tense and superficially civil. Their smiles are forced and they can't really conceal the contempt they have for each other but I think Buckley had more of a problem with it. Chomsky was his intellectual match or more so and I don't think he was comfortable with that.
That arrogant transatlantic accent expressed by Buckley is totally nauseating. It's supposed to project a superior aristocratic perception of reality despite the lack of substance of it's meaning.
People are talking about how "civilized" Buckley was, as though the events of the past are totally divorced to the current era. No, modern conservatism trickled down, sludge-like, from his ilk and many others. It was just packaged in flowerly language then.
Buckley was an incoherent speaker compared to the likes of Chomsky or Vidal. He certainly put on the airs of an "orator", but the likes of Chomsky could talk rings around him due to Chomsky's brilliance and encyclopedic memory. Being of Irish ancestry myself, I am familiar with the type of Irish person that Buckley was, and our cultural reference to him would be - based on what he has written and said - "cultural thug".
look at this: a consevative and a socialist talking to each other without yelling. regardless of what they're saying, these gentlemen are behaving as such -- having a rational discourse for broadcast purposes. there are ideas actually being exchanged here. shocking.
When he threatens to punch him he's referencing the last moment of his famous debate with Gore Vidal, he's not actually threatening Chomsky
+The Musical Atheist Haha, Thank you for that. Too bad 900,000 thousand people think this guy is an ass hole based off of this video.
+Montana Hovatter Chomsky actually referenced it first in a really subtly insulting way.
+Sam Kutsch yeah no, I kinda thought that mine was an obvious point, that is until I saw the comments
So many people don't get this. Buckley's caliber of wit flies over most people's heads.
No, there are plenty of other videos that prove he's a first class A hole.
For anyone who is unaware, he is joking and repeating a quip he made from a more aggressive debate between he and Gore Vidal. It is for comic effect.
THANK YOU! I was going to make this point, but I decided to scan the comments to see if someone had already mentioned it.
I guess there are some people whose understanding of this topic goes beyond one two-minute youtube video...
I wouldn't scan RUclips comment threads for evidence of discernment, in general, but, that said, most here seem to understand he was joking. I think the title of this video is what they call "click bait".
Bucketheadhead between HIM and Gore Vidal. (Consider taking a remedial English class.)
Qrayon I'll see if I can squeeze it in somewhere while completing my LLM.
Bucketheadhead In that case it's urgent! (Maybe you'll have time this summer, I hope.)
Chomsky has achieved so much in linguistics and political commentary that it's easy to forget he also fathered Marty McFly....
😂😂😂
He was proven WRONG about Linguistics 😂
Well, that would actually be Bruce Glover!
@@tb8573r/woooooosh
@@joecurran2811ruclips.net/video/s0WoNNdfjUA/видео.htmlsi=VheBGRrWceDyjvhJ
that is hilarious. Both Buckley and Chomsky know that Buckley was making an allusion to the recent Buckley / Gore Vidal clash.
Great comment. This was lost on me. Just checked out the Buckley Gore clash. I always thought this was an extreme version of passive-aggressiveness on Buckley's part, but actually, he's laughing at himself.
Gee and I thought it was a reference to the well known Will Smith vs. Chris Rock incident.🙁
Misleading title, clearly made in jest. Classic clickbait.
1.1 million views later, it still draws in the suckers (hi).
This is clickbait when clickbait on RUclips was just in its infancy.
UncleSamsCabin nothing is really in jest
Clickbait = thumbs down
At least it's classy clickbait
Chomsky taught me the value of calm, cool, rational debate.
Chomsky comfortably lies through his teeth and denies many different genocides.
Chomsky's opinion on this clip was considered extreme at the time of it's recording.
A common opinion about the Vietnam war today.
No. The Vietnam war is today regarded as a blunder for a number of reasons, but very few would hold the American people themselves responsible for it. No one will tell you that it was the "apathy and equinimity" of the American people that enabled the US leaders to go to war with Vietnam, nevermind compare 1960's America to Nazi Germany.
GOffUnit OK,But your comment opens up a huge complex debate that warrent's a lifetime of study.
***** This was Chomsky's point, not mine. Although I do disagree with him on this.
But that's exactly what it was. The US is supposed to be a democracy, these crimes couldn't be committed by a government if their own populace didn't enable them.
To say the US citizens weren't guilty of the vietnam war would indeed be equivalent to saying the German population as a whole wasn't guilty of the holocaust. In fact, at least Germans have plausible deniability going on, with the Nazis silencing any reporting on the mass killings, whereas the Vietnam war was reported on by media, yet people simply didn't care enough about the atroticities being commited to put an end to it.
William Buckley looks like he's constantly about to take a huge dump.
Joe Mutt great man though
sithersproductions and a great dumper, doubtless one of the highlights of his days, punctuating, if you will, the dreary plotting of the comeback of the robber-barons and the novelistic exploits of buckey's alter-ego, blackstone furbanks.
He was a typical anal-retentive upper-class Anglo-Saxon.
@@kafenwar anal-sexon
Yeah, huge dump; but enough about your mom...
How can people not know it’s a joke when the audience laughs right after
Because this era of calm, respectful, reasonable debate largely no longer exists in society, so anyone who was born after, say, the mid 80's was born into an era that by the time they'd grown to the age of reason, their knowledge of debate had more to do with 'owning' the other side and shouting as loudly and often as possible.
Back then, people were engaged and knowledgeable to know this sort of thing, whereas now there's too many people out there with the perceptive ability of a drooling mongoloid who've been trained from an early age to be dependent on others to spell it all out.
Ever hear of nervous laughter?
The first time he said it, it wasn't a joke...he had actually lost his cool.
Chomsky subtly brought it up first to mock him.
The best Buckley could do at this point was to make a joke of it.
this is a baffling thing to ask. are you from mars?
@@b_ksjust he's referencing a previous debate as a joke. Hence the laughter.
It seems like more of a joke than a threat. Honestly the fact that Chomsky and him were laughing and continue to carry on a conversation gives a pretty good indication that it wasn't serious.
Look at his facial expression. Clenched teeth, and stiff muscles in the face. He really did want to punch him in the face
@@bigmacattk lol
@@bigmacattkI mean, did Bill Buckley ever make a facial expression that wasn’t stiff?
@@nicholai1008
He wanted to punch alot of people in the face
@@bigmacattk Its also entirely possible (and quite likely) that he just had a stiff and idiosyncratic demeanor.
Not exactly a threat if its a joke... usually that's well understood.
It was in poor taste.
Well, at least the joke was at Buckley's own expense.
Chomsky; "...people who standby and observe share guilt with those more extreme who are reviled for their actions..." He nailed it.
@F.W. They? How can one simultaneously “stand by AND help?” Not being in the Soviet Union in 1922 nor being familiar with N. Chomsky’s ancestors I cannot factually comment on your accusation. However I suppose no one is above criticism these days. Personally I am more concerned with and appreciate what Prof. Chomsky is saying, now.
People who are afraid and stand by do not share guilt as the perpetrators of crimes. Not wanting to become one of the victims is a normal and justifiable reason to stand by. You don't owe anyone putting your saftey on the line to help them, arguably other than your children. People who agree with the actions or are indifferent is a different story.
I think people who stand up for others, putting themselves at risk, are heroic but Chomsky is just guilt tripping people who are afraid and put their saftey first which is wrong.
“He nailed it.”
he nailed what? this quote is to say that if you watched the january 6th riot on the news then you’re just as guilty as the people who stormed the capitol. noam chomsky is a linguist and professor of language, not a political philosopher. he has literally the worst track record with political and humanitarian tragedies of any writer/orator to date.
And what he says about people who observe and deny... genoside- Like him with Srebrenica??????
Chomsky’s philosophy and take on public policy is great for a make-believe world or a game board like the world of academia that he lived in. Put him in power for two days and he would be pissing his pants.
This was intended as a joke, Buckley is referring to a previous televised confrontation between himself Gore Vidal. Buckley was half sane compared to the unhinged "conservative" talking heads we see on Fox News today.
Buckley was quite learned, and very articulate. The.hawkers at Fox these days are just loud. Can you imagine Hannity with Vidal, or Carlson with Hitchens ?
@@bernardliu8526 Hitchens was trash lmao .
Not so. Buckley was pure pretentiousness. Disgusting, vile man.
@@joerogue231 he looked extremely uncomfortable when debating with Buckley. Even though Buckley was way out of his prime
This was a joke. A reference to the Buckley debates with Gore Vidal
There doesn't seem to be any room for these types of debates in today's world. Despite the fact that Will Buckley disliked the views of "liberals" like Vidal and Chomsky, he still presented a unique show which represented a unique period of time when controversial topics were discussed and openly debated. We will likely see nothing like this ever again and we certainly never saw this before the middle and late 60s.
That's why Chomsky never returned, right. Buckley did not like people who could take him apart.
@@kenkaplan3654Chomsky didn't take him apart though
@@slthjawa5062If you understand the history, dynamics and political and cultural influences that drove us to Vietnam, you would understand Buckley's assessment and position is beyond sophomoric. He really had no idea of what he was talking about and was a sycophant for the war makers and the depraved policy and behavior of the enterprise. Buckley loved fascism and fascist behavior.
I lived in that time and culturally was in the center of it. Were you?
I wish I had Buckley’s voice it’s so bad ass lol, he can’t say anything without it sounding super important
I dunno
I appreciate Buckley
But, IMO, there's no denying that his delivery was filled with a heaping helping of self-importance...
I miss actual smart people on television.
My mom commented on William F. Buckley: “Stephen, I don’t know how anyone that smart could be that stupid."
Yes. Although they also had Gomer Pyle and Jethro Bodine back then.
@@stephencindrich6787 you're mom doesn't know much does she?
Buckley was not smart. He was a racist most of his life and a crypto fascist who clothed his loathsome beliefs in Ivy league robes.
@@xstatic-ow5mzyour*. The irony of calling people ignorants while making the #1 English mistake.
I miss Buckley; he was the product of a bygone era when conservatives thought they had to make sense.
American politics is comprised of two parties taking cheap shots at each other, when will you lot mature ?
Some of us still do...
@@cosmiclino2080 Name a country that doesn't happen in, arsehole.
No. Buckley was the product of a 3-channel TV spectrum. They didn't have to fill the airwaves of a thousand channels, 24 hours a day, every fucking day of the year. They were the only game in town. The test pattern was basically there to wake you up and send you off to bed. And they sure as fuck weren't putting inarticulate clowns on the national airwaves, risking the ad revenue which was also from far fewer companies than now.
It seemed at first that Buckley's strategy was to interrupt Chomsky in mid sentence at every opportunity but eventually Chomsky was able to make his points.
+hikelfin Depends on the guest. He wanted some guests to feel comfortable, others not so much. Chomsky was the latter type.
+hikelfin From Buckley's perspective Chomsky is the worst kind of liberal: articulate, logical, in command of the relevant facts. Buckley would prefer someone whom he could bully, intimidate and make look foolish. I credit Buckley for having him on knowing what he was up against.
+Tom McVeigh WRONG>>Chomp is a MARXIST hiding under the ''liberal'' label!! Anyone who's heard the nut would know that thge man is a BLABBERING NO NOTHING SELF RIGHTEOUS RADICAL INSTIGATOR!
+James Jacoby Once again your type of people labeled a free thinker a name of your opinion that has any value in the conversation. You need to reframe from the conversation if you have no logical input into what the conversation was about.
+James Jacoby You should avoid listening to him if he upsets you that much.
Chomsky is cool, and we could use some more intelligent, thinking Conservatives like Buckley again too.
Our current situation is a direct result of these two character’s line of thinking.
@@hohetannen4703 i guess but more accurately Reagan and Gorbachev.
Chomsky thought, correctly, that he was a fake idiot
ruclips.net/video/57mi_RpaZr4/видео.html
When Buckley threatens to smash you in the goddamn face it is only natural to laugh at him.
Just as it's natural to laugh when he brings up his derring-do in the Second World War.
Good one.
Because he is civilized and civilize people don't do that.
Also because the people watching know he's actually joking.
@@xstatic-ow5mz No. Because he's a pussy.
All it takes for evil to happen is ordinary people to do nothing
Was it a real threat? It didn't seem nearly as threatening as the time a trans person threatened to beat up Ben Shapiro.
Sonik Phan you're comparing a debate between intelectuals with an exchange between an obsessive debater and some fruit cake
When your argument is shit, resort to violence. Buckley said he would be glad to have Chomsky back, never did, never had any intention of getting schooled by Chomsky again.
Buckley’s insecurity was so disturbingly palpable.
?? Buckley has so many flaws except for that.
@@josuebarboza9809insecurity?
If you can't tell that he is obviously joking, or if you're not familiar with one of his most famous debates with Gore Vidal that took place prior to this then I guess it makes sense that you say "THIS is how you're treated on his show.." Jesus. Love him or hate him, Buckley was one of the most respectful hosts in the history of television. God compare him to Ed Schultz or Sean Hannity. This kind of intelligent discussion isn't on TV anymore. I have to come to RUclips to get it.
yes, Buckley was making a joke and alluding to his recent confrontation with Gore Vidal as both were commenters on live TV regarding a recent political convention. Chomsky understood the allusion and that is why both men were laughing.
*****
or Bill O'Reilly and Piers Morgan to name other highly respcted hosts ;-)
Cosmic86x I actually kinda like Bill O' Reilly. And I really like his books. I don't agree with him on everything though, namely his foreign policy.
It's incredible that two individuals could actually have an intellectual conversation, regardless of who you think is right or wrong, without shouting and word-grabbing ensuing which is typical today on television.
That's true. Unfortunately, most people, including leftists, don't even want a conversation. They just want to jump on you.
Funny coincidence, one of the first major instances of that happening was between Buckley and Vidal
Now Chomsky is reduced to the eloquent reply of, "none of your business" when asked about his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.
@yahublooddrunkeness4841 Yeah, Joe Rogan is an intelectual kek
Ah, yes, let’s brand people living with HIV/AIDS. Intellectual.
This was a time when intellectuals from the left and right could sit and just talk quietly without getting personal and (what is evident from this clip) crack a joke or two and share a laugh even if they are on the opposite ends of a debate.
Don't get to see any of that these days. Neocons, alt-rights, alt-lefts, liberals, neocon liberals (sam harris, bill maher etc) .... all everyone does is throw in words from a dictionary while trying to be provocative be it in debates or on fucking twitter.
Too bad these days there isn't anyone around to match Chomsky's intellect and patience.
Because this time was an illusion and because all they were doing was just talk
These intellectuals are subversive agents. Chomsky brags about the smart way of controlling people is to control the spectrum of acceptable opinion on both sides. I wouldn’t doubt if anything outside of the spectrum that is deemed unkosher would have been brought up he’d start spazzing like the pilpuling Jew he is
Civil debates like this should be more common today. Despite the headline they are very civil
A threat made, even in jest, is a threat nevertheless.
It wasn't a threat. It was a joke referencing another debate in which Chomsky had received such a threat.
@@thorr18BEMThe reference was to Buckley's debate with Vidal. Where he made the same remark.
But when he made it at that time, it certainly wasn't a joke lol.
What a completely misleading title. As someone else said, the “threat” was clearly in jest and a knowing reference to a genuine threat he made to Gore Vidal. But hey, you got the click, so well done.
Here we see a glimpse of the thug behind Buckley's seemingly refined mask.
You see what you want to see.
Ian Cooper For anyone who is unaware, he is joking and repeating a quip he made
from a more aggressive debate between he and Gore Vidal. It is for
comic effect.
Screw William F. Buckley, Jr. He was the most boring scumbag that ever lived. It was too bad that he didn't get punched in the face by Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky.
Nah, Noam Chomsky couldn't approve of any violent act without it first being voted on by a committee.
@Ulysses432 - Like can you be more specific?
This is clearly self-deprecating humor on Buckley's part. He is repeating the phrase he used in his infamous debate with Gore Vidal which for which he was much criticized. If anything, its quite humorous on his part.
reminding himself how he got owned by gore vidal because history was repeating itself more likely
cujonautics nothing is really all humor
Buckley wasn't much of an intellectual, one because he's a conservative & they reject intelligence, but also because he called homophobic slurs at Gore Vidal & threatened Chomsky. What a prick Buckley was.
***** This is the type of thing people criticize conservatives for. First I'll say I don't agree that all conservatives reject intelligence, some do, but that isn't a conservative thing that's just an american thing. It's called American anti-intellectualism it's a real thing. But not all conservatives are anti-intellectual and not all anti-intellectual people are conservatives. However, the way you take this statement and filter it in the lens of your own preconceived notions is astounding. I want to compare his original statement to your interpretation of it, so that you can see what went wrong.
First, he didn't say they were retards, he said they rejected intellectualism. This is not something you can dispute. Many conservatives, and as I've suggested this is not a consequence of their political persuasion but rather their cultural climate, reject intellectualism, or anything that looks like it.
Second, he stops his criticism of conservatives there. You attribute the rest of his opinions to conservatives, probably because it fits this political narrative a bit better. He said, *but he also* called homophobic slurs at Gore Vidal, this implies that, in addiction to being conservative, he also does x y thing. This would mean, by further implication, that he is not assuming all conservatives are retards for getting mad at someone who happens to be gay.
Third. Where do I start on that last one and the problems it itself inherently has. Wow, okay calling someone a homophobic slur is never okay. Under any circumstances. This should not be up for debate. Also not up for debate, is whether getting angry at someone who happens to be gay is the act of a prick. It's not. It also has nothing to do with what the OP said. Getting angry in the heat of the moment is fine. Calling them a slur, of any kind, is not. Very simple.
Fourth. If you think Noam Chomsky is a genuine idiot I can't help you. Look I am no fan of his. Trust me, I am on the opposite side of a lot of intellectual battles he has involved himself with over the years. But he's probably the most accomplished academic living today, one of the most cited people of all time in academic journals, and by all accounts a preeeetty intelligent guy. You don't need to call people you disagree with idiots. This is the kind of thing others criticize you guys of doing.
adub4ever adhominem.
Bu Jammy now that i think about it, it was actually Gore Vidal who he threatened to punch and called him homophobic names. My apologies, wrong intellectual.
adub4ever to be fair vidal goaded him endlessly
All it takes for evil to flourish is good men to do nothing.
the evil will flourish regardless, because good men don't have any power.
@@plasticweapon Crazy Idea: There is no such thing as evil, only people?!
For those who don't know the context: Buckley is poking fun at himself with that comment. Watch his exchange with Gore Vidal. Buckley and Chomsky were always quite cordial with each other. Vidal was just a passive-aggressive, pseudo-intellectual drama queen for whom Buckley had no respect.
Vidal was a very good novelist and social commentator. Buckley who?
bashful228
He was an absolute crap novelist and anyone can be a social commentator. Listening to Buckley and Chomsky it's clear Vidal had no place in serious political commentary.
Golden Age is excellent.
United States of Amnesia was a very clever way of describing American politics.
@@netjunkie9
Please kindly.deign to read, carefilly, Vidal's marvellous essay. A true man of.letters. Very rare in USA.
Chomsky, banging on the same message for half a century. Call him anything you want, but one thing you cant call him is inconsistent.
A man of his word
Much respect.
Well, perhaps (
Bill Buckley defended Franco and other dictators until the end. It reflects his staunch Catholicism.
‘If everybody is guilty of everything, than nobody is guilty of anything’
Says a Christian who literally professes to believe that all people are born in sin
No way Buckley is a Christian. This dude worshipped only one god - himself.
Chomsky is well thought and spoken! Amazing clarity! Thanks!
It's probably been pointed out several times already, but it's obviously a point worth mentioning. Buckley is referencing his infamous debate with Gore Vidal when "threatening" Chomsky and winking at the camera.
Chomsky Has repeated this argument throughout his life. For this argument alone and the determination with which he built around volumes and volumes of facts, we should build him a statue.
I’d settle for William just washing his hair once a week.
This is why people hate Chomsky. It's not because he's a liberal or he's an atheist. I'm Liberal. And hard agnostic. People hate Chomsky because he has a decades long history of simply being a contrarian for its own sake and no other reason. But young people today don't know that. They don't know he's just been a troublemaker-for-trouble-making's-own-sake for years and years long before they were born. They see "wow he puts anti-science and religious bigots in their place, he's awesome!" lol, if only that was all he did. It's not.
This is why people hate liberals. They're vague, both in their positions and their reasons for said positions. Being anti-Vietnam war is hardly being a contrarian for contrarianism's sake, but it probably made family reunions awkward and that, to the liberal mind, is something that just isn't done.
Chomsky is an expert linguist, I don't understand why people take his politics to heart so much
I guess because simultaneously with the theory of language he was interested in political matters since his teenage years. Because he was engaged in social activism since the war in Vietnam. Because his knowledge of modern history, politics and international affairs is very vast. Because he wrote even more books on political/social matters than related to the theory of language.
He became expert in linguistic because whatever he said/did about made sense. Similarly if he makes sense in politics as well, it should be taken as heartly as linguistic expert. ✌️✌️
Maybe because he's right.
@@JCPJCPJCP The proof is?
Hardly a threat, eh? Also, this is one of the only times I've seen Chomsky smile.
"He was pretty angry" - Chomsky, ruclips.net/video/57mi_RpaZr4/видео.html
Ladies and Gentlemen what you are now seeing is known as a joke. A jest. Witty banter. That is all please go back to what you were doing
Lmao! That’s referring to his threat to Vidal. When he threatened him, with his New England accent, “… _And_ _you’ll_ _ssstay_ _plassstahd!_ “ Absolute hilarity. 🤣
We've become anesthetized to CLICKBAIT.
Buckley, that is one dreadful comb over.
It is.....it is self-sustaining and sentient.
Not anymore as he's now dead
Chomsky is the closest thing we have to a national treasure... he's always gravitated toward truth.
Body language of Buckley says everything
Leaning to the far right, you mean?
He was always laconic like that. His rockribbed conservatism didn't extend to his posture.
'if everyone's guilty then nobody's guilty' is such a classic shithead logic response to so many valid points made these days
Both of these guys need props for being world class at what they do, even if they're diametrically opposed to each other.
"If everybody is guilty of everything, then nobody is guilty of anything..." Buckly regresses to his sophomore year with that little toss-off.
It takes little to unravel most of Buckley's arguments. He's perhaps the greatest pseudointellectual of the conservative movement. At least he tried though, in stark contrast to the race to the bottom we're witnessing from his successors today.
@@sergioperez2771 And what do you contribute, besides ad hominem?
It is very easy to call someone sophomoric, and rather hard to form a cogent argument.
It's not hard to form a cogent argument in this case, it's barely necessary. The statement is a complete non sequitur. I was being generous; the remark is more on the order of something heard on an elementary school playground. Buckley is famous for burying his arguments in erudite language, but this little tidbit is in simple terms that do not follow. In paraphrase; "If all the cows are content with everything, then none of the cows is content with anything." Now why don't you illuminate us all as to the brilliance of that reasoning? @@robertmadison1205
Group apathy and and thoughtless behavior are real human qualities... none of us are immune to the influences of the group... we are social beings. Consider the case study where a young woman was murdered on the street screaming for help, many lights were on in appt. buildings around her, but no one even called the cops. It really is a lot of work to be a strong individual and to fight the massive current of social influence.
So Watchmen?
I think that study was actually debunked a bit. Besides, the operative phenomena was simply people calculating that odds were, someone else would call police, but I agree with your overall point, and Chomski's, and even Buckley's.
It hate to say it.
Chomsky was right and even more right now.
By the way, I am a republican.
Chomsky is so much more advanced in his thinking than Buckley, it's like an adult trying to explain a simple notion to a miscreant toddler.
Back in the day, people were not so offended all the time and willing to have tough discussions
Bullshit
They (we) were offended, but well-mannered enough to express our objections calmly and rationally.
It's comical how many times Buckley threatened to "smash" people in the face considering how soft and privileged a man he was.
lol at the hypocrisy of this comment
Overcompensating.
I see the Buckley fans are having a hard time hearing the truth.
Smashing an idiot goes beyond privileged and unprivileged.
Gabe B Lol oh yeah wow you are lost in a profane universe of self-hate and historical revisionism. I'd bet you couldn't name one way Chomsky has ever been politically criticized.
Norm MacDonald sent me here.
It's Gore Vidal's interview that got a lot more heated....but I'm here because of Norm, too haha.
pretty sure he was just referencing the gore vidal incident here. Try the gore vidal one, which is true anger
When did Norm make a reference to Buckley? Can you give title of the video?
Cinqmil Norm's podcast when he interviews Stephen Merchant. It's the 2nd newest one. He introduces Stephen with a Buckley impression.
Kickerinthehead
Thanks. Will check it out!
a fake british accent is a poor substitute for the facts
Annihilated By Society He went to a british boarding school
sithersproductions So did his siblings. But he's the only one who came back talking like that.
Annihilated By Society Some people are more affected by their environment than others.
sithersproductions ...and some people are frauds.
Annihilated By Society Well Buckley did not have a british accent he had like a mix hard to explain I saw an interview of him on fox like 10 years ago
Understatement.
Buckley was always slightly crazy. That's why people watched him.
crazy because the left took over the status quo of how society should be run. to us it is norm, but to him in his time it was the end of the world.
Interesting how Buckley never talked like that to far more controversial people he debated…
Like Eldridge Cleaver and Jim Brown.
Buckley was an arrogant punk who was fling the buffing of the CIA.
Yes, he was secretly on their payroll.
A ranked genius, one of the top most articulate, intelligent, and good men of our time. We are so very fortunate to have him.
Who, me? Thanks man. I love you too.
@@pappapapsofc you
@@eraserhead2063 Aww you guys!
@@pappapaps 💀
Well, maybe except for the time he said the unvaccinated should starve.
And when said his meetings with Jeffrey Epstein were "none of your business".
But other than those totally minor things, I'm sure he's a solid dude.
RIP William F Buckley
A very intelligent commentator
It was a joke on himself about his threatening Gore Vidal during the 1968 election debates that they had...come on, people.
Finally, someone who actually knows the context and the history!
Yep! Crazy huh?
No disrespect to those who had to go and fight, but with the benefit of hindsight it's clear that Chomsky was 100% right about the war in Vietnam.
Buckley later admitted he was wrong.
I think it was during the episode of Uncommon Knowledge he did with Christopher Hitchens but I may be mistaken.
Back when America still had intellectuals that could actually debate and discuss predominantly using logic and reason to get their opposing views across in an educational manner.
Boy, those days are long gone arent they?
I love William F. Buckley! Love love love love love love LOVE love love him!!!!!!!!!
+Kittie Pride Why?
Because he was civilized, dignified, intelligent, erudite, handsome, super classy, and spoke absolutely beautifully! More importantly than that, he was kind to people.
LOVE THIS CLIP! How Chomsky obliterates this hyped-up pseudo intellectual!
He really doesn’t …
Buckley a great mind?! give me a break, the guy's only talent is that he mastered the art of not letting the true great minds explain or clarify the facts for those who watched his show. He had the kinda of attitude that would easily make somebody wanna not only punch him in the face but take his head off. Kudos to Professor Chomsky for not giving him the satisfaction of loosing his calm.
Mr. Bending, has a good point, Buckley would talk over guests, so they never got a chance to fully explain their answer to Buckley's question.
@@glennwilson284 Buckley tried to talk over Chomsky but never succeeded. Chomsky handled him like an overheated graduate student.
Interesting how different accents were back then compared to today
This was a joke William F Buckley was making poking fun at himself for saying that to Gore Vidal years before. Not sure how you are unaware of that
If he had touched Chomsky, even now in 2014, I would make it my life's mission to fly to America, track him down and kick the shit out of him.
Paul Davies it was a joke moron a reference to the recent vidal buckley debate that got heated a moron like you wouldnt know about it and could make threat to a dead guy
I was half joking too
Well, he's dead. So good luck with that.
i believe he thinks he is British
That was the accent of many upper-class New York and Boston WASPs until maybe 30 years ago.
Even though I do not personally agree with Buckley I wish he would have punched Chomsky. Chomsky is such a smug prick. He does it in an understated way which is far more insidious and odeus.
+Joseph Eichenlaub You wish he had punched Chomsky because Chomsky completely dismantled him. That's why you hate Chomsky, isn't it? Because you're intellectually incapable of countering his arguments.
+Afonso Sousa I like and agree with a great deal of what Chomsky has to say most of the time. Personally he comes off as a smug, strident prick and this in the penultimate example in my opinion.
Joseph Eichenlaub
Are you confusing Chomsky with Buckley? How in the world does Chomsky come off as smug or strident? The common criticism of the man is that he's too monotonous or calm. In this show, he just did what he always does: state facts. Plus he was just laughing at Buckley's joke.
+Joseph Eichenlaub Billy Buck had his ego bruised, and he just could not contain himself verbally.
+skidrowsux1977 You are patently right about their comparative amounts of knowledge on the issues at hand.
I still cannot get over how ridiculously good looking Chomsky was
I hope you’re a girl!
Back in the era of civility, people on TV could disagree respectfully. Nowadays, rarely do hosts have guests who disagree, and, when they do, they often shout the guest down, mischaracterize what the guest said, and won't let the guest defend himself or herself. It so sad to see the garbage pushed on so-called "news networks."
And very often on talk radio, the host or hosts don't even have guests. Back in the era of open discussion, hosts used to take callers. Now, it's just blowhards blowing hard.
Buckley was attempting to provoke Chomsky with a cheap threat of violence. Chomsky ignored the taunt and proceeded to take Buckley's positions and assumptions apart. Buckley never laid a glove on Chomsky.
+Tom McVeigh No, he was joking. It was a joke known to those at the time.
+Bret Z An inside joke. I can see that given Chomsky's reaction.
+Tom McVeigh Can you imagine if Chomsky called the police and pressed assault charges on the $Buckster$.
I can't blame you for not being familiar with the circumstances, but Buckley was not threatening him. He was in fact making fun of himself for an outburst he made a year earlier to Gore Vidal during a televised debate where he lost his cool after Vidal called him a "crypto-nazi" and Buckley seriously did threaten to "smash his god damn face."
The outburst haunted Buckley his whole life and he remained deeply regretful of it. Anyone watching this at the time would have got the reference and seen it as Buckley making fun of the incident at his own expense.
+TheJordanChronicles Yes. I have since watched the Vidal/Buckley exchanges here on RUclips.
Noam, spot on!
Buckley was a punk, Chomsky isn't a leftist he points out history and how people are manipulated. Forget the bogus left right argument.
Buckley resorted to ad hominem attacks including threats of physical violence when he knew he was outmatched or otherwise losing an argument.
Gnome Chumpski feels guilty for failing to question 911 -
What a guy Chompers is!!!!.....a truth seeker
@3DMusicGroup Yeah, I saw the bit with Vidal. That was definately an unfriendly mix. This one with Chomsky is tense and superficially civil. Their smiles are forced and they can't really conceal the contempt they have for each other but I think Buckley had more of a problem with it. Chomsky was his intellectual match or more so and I don't think he was comfortable with that.
He really wanted to say, "Hey chomsky, why dontyou make like a tree AND GET THE HELL OUTA HERE!"
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the inspiration for Family Guy’s James Bottomtooth: Mr. William Buckley.
And, I might add, Chomsky never appeared on Buckley's show again. Buckley could not confuse Chomsky's photographic mind.
Nah. That was a joke. Anyway, Chomsky metaphorically kicked his ass.
That arrogant transatlantic accent expressed by Buckley is totally
nauseating. It's supposed to project a superior aristocratic perception of reality despite the lack of substance of it's meaning.
Mid-Atlantic, not transatlantic. JFC.
From Mr. Buckley's posture, it would seem that he and his chiropractor , have a definite bearing to the right side of politics..
People are talking about how "civilized" Buckley was, as though the events of the past are totally divorced to the current era. No, modern conservatism trickled down, sludge-like, from his ilk and many others. It was just packaged in flowerly language then.
Buckley often resorted to threats of violence when his arguments fell apart.
Buckley was an incoherent speaker compared to the likes of Chomsky or Vidal. He certainly put on the airs of an "orator", but the likes of Chomsky could talk rings around him due to Chomsky's brilliance and encyclopedic memory.
Being of Irish ancestry myself, I am familiar with the type of Irish person that Buckley was, and our cultural reference to him would be - based on what he has written and said - "cultural thug".
look at this: a consevative and a socialist talking to each other without yelling. regardless of what they're saying, these gentlemen are behaving as such -- having a rational discourse for broadcast purposes. there are ideas actually being exchanged here. shocking.
Wolfe gets the knock out punch in The Kingdom of Speech.
He would have been under a hell of a fire for saying goddamn in 1969
If I'm not mistaken, this was Buckley's show and it was carried on PBS. Not so much heat.
Chomsky says all kids of words to come to no real point in this excerpt