50 Years on the Left with Noam Chomsky [S2. Ep.2]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman. My guest today needs no introduction, but I'll give him one anyway. Noam Chomsky is a linguist, philosopher, social critic, and activist. Noam is considered the father of modern linguistics, and has written more than 100 books. His most recent being Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth and Power.
Noam and I both signed the infamous Harper's letter many months ago, so we start out by talking about that letter and the fallout that ensued. Next, I asked Noam what has changed most about the culture of the American Left in his lifetime, the strange alliance between multinational corporations and woke anti-racism, the role of money in politics, the rising influence of China and much more.
FOLLOW COLEMAN
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Instagram- bit.ly/2SDGo6o
Podcast-bit.ly/3oQvNUL
Website - colemanhughes....
Merch -bit.ly/Coleman...
FOLLOW NOAM
Twitter - / noamchomskyt
Website -chomsky.info/
dailymotion.co...
Harper's Letter -harpers.org/a-...
BOOKS BY NOAM
Requiem for the American Dream -chomsky.info/b...
The Responsibility of Intellectuals -chomsky.info/b...
Global Discontents: Conversations on the Rising Threats to Democracy -chomsky.info/b...
Optimism over Despair: On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change -chomsky.info/b...
& MORE
#Politics #ColemanHughes #NoamChomsky
I hope he sets up a conversation between Thomas Sowell and Chomsky. It needs to happen
1000% !!
Yes, or maybe Sowell and another ECONOMIST: say, Wolff or Blyth. (Of course, Sowell is more than an economist, but still... it would be productive to drill down on his chosen expertise).
@@xanbra Well, Wolff wanted to debate Jordan Peterson, who in turn backed out... But I suppose it's all speculation at this point (as much for myself as for anyone else who wants to weigh in on this hypothetical debate...)
That would be awesome, although I doubt Chomsky could deal...
@@mattcarman855 Well, Chomsky has taken on: Jean Piaget, Michel Foucault, William F. Buckley, Richard Perle, and plenty others. I'm sure he could deal...
Big lefty here. I have yet to find a true leftist commentator I like who really likes identity politics and corporate wokeness.
how come this stuff is still so popular?
@@Kraterlandschaft because it’s easy to be self indulgent and identify as being a victim
And yet they enable both
This. Those who are well read in the leftist traditions see no value in the liberal establishment and their performance of justice as a stand-in for substantive change. Featherstone calls this the Faux-feminism of the 1%. Neoliberalism that is inherent in the mainstream dem establishment is distinctly the performance of politics as counterevolution. It is meant to diffuse, not support, radical change the leftist promotes. Identity politics is affective and has littlel capacity to create equity.
Chomsky has always criticized postmodernism and even suspected its use as a distraction to real issues, especially issues in third world countries
Noam is a gift to this world
These are a solid set of questions Coleman. Good work.
I wrote to Chomsky about year ago and he wrote back. I asked him a question that I believed I knew the answer to. His response was not the answer I was expecting and one that I disagreed with even after some thought. Regardless I was going to treasure his response. A year later I’ve come to see his response was in fact correct and my initial view was wrong. I see him age with every interview and it breaks my heart that his wisdom and devotion to the human cause will soon come to an end. I for one will use every option I have available to spread his words, he will live on through me and you.
This is like the exact opposite of 99% of snartarse knowall RUclips comments. A breath of fresh air.
Could you share the question and answer?
@@Neoliberal_socialist I felt that a European Parliament, NATO and the concept of international law were moving humanity in a better direction but now feared Brexit and rise of populist movements that we are regressing back into a siloed states.
My question was: similar to the EU parliament and overarching governance, is the concept of a global government a good idea?
Chomsky: I don't agree on the prior move towards international law and a better direction. Quite a mixed story. Take the worst crime of this millennium, the US-UK invasion of Iraq, a textbook example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime," differing from others only that it encompasses all the evil that follows -- the rise of ISIS and a lot more. Was there any reaction?
There's no point discussing global government when major states act like mafia dons.
@@BagofDreams interesting admittance by Chomsky that coalitions are only as morally objective as the subjectivity-in-agreement of the constituency. Leads into why capitalism (being more similar to evolution in a variant expression construct) is a "better" governing system in not having, as much as possible, a planned authority of order.
Not to be so ignorant as to say that there are not hierarchies/powerful conglomerates that arise in capitalism, but to say that in the attempt to locate monopolies and disband them, capitalism admits that concentrated power should be questioned in it's ability/authority to coerce. To point to Corporations or Military Industrial Complexes that happen within the structure of Capitalism and then blame Capitalism itself for the aberration, is disingenuous IMO. Proving the validity of those ventures as legit Monopolies becomes paramount.
Though that being said, I do think a mix of Socialist and Capitalist views being expressed with caution in a society (similarly to Democrat/Republican ideals expression) are important dynamic forces for a culture to always allow for expression. The good/bad polarization over nuance and context is proving detrimental.
@@BagofDreams I don't understand then how Chomsky so strongly deplores Trump, when he very well knows that all the forces that opposed him were the very perpetrators of that 'worst crime of this millennium'. I'm not saying Chomsky had to wear the red cap. Just why hate him with such vigor when clearly democrats and establishment Republicans have far far bloodier hands than Trump ever had on those tiny mittens.
I love all of these RUclips channels dedicated to the real conversations that need to be happening. I'm not going to go on naming names, but Coleman is definitely included in that group. The more people watch these sorts of RUclips channels - both featuring hosts/guests that they agree with ideologically, and by listening to those who challenge their views, we clean up a lot of the deep rot of anti-intellectualism that has been festering in the American body politic and the American mind for decades now. The more people watch these sorts of programs, the more obvious it becomes how vapid and purely headline-driven the mainstream media outfits (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS) are... A new age of internet intellectualism is springing up. As it has been for years now. The best part about it - is that it's free and accessible to everyone... and it's actually refreshing to watch.
May I recommend Krystal Kyle and Friends as another great podcast? Or Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar? You may enjoy their guests.
you lucky bastard, i would absolutely be geekin if noam chomsky allowed me to interview him
Chomsky the Gray has emerged Chomsky the White
He fought the Balrog of Morgoth.
“Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountain side... Darkness took me and I strayed away through thought and time. Stars wheeled overhead and every day was as long as a life age of the earth... But it was not the end. I felt life in me again. I've been sent back until my task is done.”
Sounds like chomsky to me :D
Chomsky sounds much more like an Ent, than a wizard - if you think about it.
Five years ago, his new, unexpected '2020s' look, with these wild hair and beard, immediately reminded me of some iconic philosophers in the Ancient Greece. Never before had our dearest Prof looked so much like the one and only "modern Socrates" he's always been, a natural master in 'maieutica'.
We heeeeeeere. Been looking forward to this one
Chomsky in full Moses drag is still Chomsky.
Great podcast. Thank you both!
Good stuff. I hope this kind of good discourse leads to some real hope in our system.
Incredibly impressed by Coleman’s knowledge and nuisance!
Tuff tuff shoes to fill when engaging in a Chomsky discussion
Well done indeed !
Nuance? haha
Hughes and Chomsky.
Interesting conversation!
(Do yourselves a favour, set the playback-speed to 1.25x)
THANK YOU
Try 2x, dude!
Nah, just play a video game while you listen
Thank you!
@@thetshirtblog lmao this is me listening to bunch of political conversations
You need to have Thomas Sowell on! Just like Chomsky, the window to do this is clearly closing
Coleman and Sowell are a perfect combo.
Sowell has a terrible attitude. Tough to listen to, even if his perspective is interesting
Coleman asks great questions, and Chomsky gives informative and thought-provoking answers. What more could you want from a 50 minute interview with a 92 year old author of over 100 books? You young libertarian snipers are way out of your league.
Chomsky is just a very successful sophist.
nah
chomsky is a libertarian too, just a nuanced one
@@emilianosintarias7337 Yeah he's an anarcho-syndicalist who wants to use revolutionary industrial unionism to achieve anarchist society. That's a pretty nuanced libertarian
@@JIMEYZ no, that is a pure, straightforward , libertarian.
Yes, Fred Hampton was feared by the political police (FBI) and establishment, because he was an organizer, gathering support not only from Hispanic communities but also poor whites. He was an amazing guy, so, of course, he had to be eliminated (with the complete compliance of the Chicago police)
As well as his ardent opposition to capitalism in favor of socialism.
@@themaltesesailor9774 Can't forget that!!
Yeah it's amazing how so many people familiar with and who look up to the Black Panther movement, will completely gloss over his beliefs/speeches and focus solely on his assassination. I remember one of the lines from his speeches (and please don't quote me exactly on this) he said something along the lines of 'I believe in "Black Power, White Power, Yellow Power, Red Power, Brown Power" etc. basically saying that humans of all colors deserve to be empowered. You never hear these lines spoken in the woke, Critical Race Theory thinkers. You would never hear this period in national media. This sentiment is taboo right now. They want to keep us divided. These times of mass manipulation need an independent person like Fred Hampton now more than ever.
Production value has gotten much better. Nice work.
I need to try Clojure
Although I think some of Dr. Chomsky's views are patently wrong there is no denying he is one of the great minds of our time. Wonderful to see him on your podcast Coleman - good on you!
I would frame him as one of the greatest con artist and hypocrits of his time
@@robfedele8446 In what sense?
@@ALeaud I understand he is a highly respected linguistic expert and there's no doubt that he's highly intelligent but, in his personal life he lives like a capitalist American, he's accumulated a great deal of wealth selling socialism . He's taken millons of dollars from the Pentagon then berates them as a Nazi institution, the hypocrisy in this instance is he publically called on his colleagues to refuse to do business with the Pentagon while he took in millions doing business with them. I'm just not buying the scruffy old sage persona he uses to con people into paying him thousands of dollars per appearance to listen to him berate America then pick up his check and put an addition on his Summer vacation home ....
@@robfedele8446 millions from the pentagon? is there somewhere i can read about this?
@@ChrisLee-jp3jn he's probably referring to the fact that MIT is (was? not sure) funded by the pentagon. Being employed by the MIT, he is "indirectly" receiving pentagon money.
Chomsky China vaccines: The effectiveness of these vaccines is more like 50-80% range (based on studies).
Not every truck driver has the abilty nor the will to find a different job.
Whats your point?
definitely, we should bring back the horse and cart.
@@colainc90 Exactly.
@@NickMart1985 the point is is that Chomsky seems to think he knows best how the truck driver ought to live his life.
@@manaloola2018 He knows that a truck driver won't be able to drive a truck forever. I think you missed his point.
Thank you Chomsky for talking about where we are falling short in helping other countries with Covid
We don't even help ourselves. You know how much money our government throws out there to other countries? Please🙄
Chomsky's Point about truck drivers finding new creative jobs is exactly the sort of argument you'd hear from the Davos crowd dismissing the problem of manufacturing job losses in developed economies. Look where that position got us politically. I wonder if he sees the irony in that.
There's no reason to believe that other jobs can't be created. Obviously when all production is controlled by the capitalist class, you're at their whims, but it doesn't have to be that way. There's plenty of work that needs to be done now that isn't done, and a substantial amount of that work can only be done by humans. An artificial intelligence can do dangerous, repetitive, boring work without human costs. A society that says it will provide opportunities for everyone, and have automation do the work nobody else wants to do, would be utopian.
@MotoIncognito Yes, they use the word proletariat. So what?. By the way, when you say “hide behind the guise of compassion” what does this mean exactly? Yes socialism has a deep moral appeal which is driven by compassion but you’re acting like that is the only thing socialist doctrine has to offer, which is so naive I can’t even believe you said it.
@@camellia_black I feel like a broken record saying the point you’ve just made.
@MotoIncognito Yeah this is a point that Jordan Peterson (I think I saw in one of the two videos I’ve seen of him presents). I’m just curious as to what evidence you have of this? The right wing commentators particularly on RUclips (Ben Shapiro, Peterson, crowder) tend to make the same point you just made. Considering facts over feelings are paramount, what facts do you have?
@MotoIncognito okay, here we have a few examples. It is virtually impossible to take a large degree of homeless people into your home precisely because of the system we live in. It is unaffordable to do this at a large scale and is incredibly unfair to tare socialists as somehow dishonest for not doing this. Suppose, for example, I were to shun all the people who did not take Jews into their homes during the Holocaust. Is this somehow indicative of their resentment for the success of the affluent Nazi’s? Of course not.
As to Orwell’s point, this is used by right wingers often and is so simplistically wrong it’s not worth going into unless you want me to.
I should also mention, even if your assumption is correct it’s not a “logical” conclusion to say that they are resentful of the rich. That is a non-sequitur. All it would say is that (according to you) they do not properly live out their values.
Excellent interview
You have to give Chomsky credit for the sheer scale of his body of work, but... to me, he is the quintessential liberal intellectual; exceedingly well educated, highly intelligent, and yet fails to understand human beings and our societies in the most basic ways.
His whole thought process around UBI is naive. The idea that people, when “freed” from the need to do hard work, will suddenly dedicate their time to creative and personally fulfilling pursuits AND pay their bills that way is laughable. A tiny fraction of people will be able to pull that off.
He mentions all the work that could be put into schools, and he’s right to say they are lacking in many ways. But a sudden increase in available workers won’t change that alone. The schools won’t be improved after automation for the same reason they aren’t being improved now; lack of proper funding and/or inefficient use of funds.
In reality, as the need for human beings to participate in hard manual labour decreases over time, a small fraction of us are able to realize creative and innovative potential which we couldn’t have accessed previously. But most people simply kill more time, get fatter, live longer but on average less happy and fulfilled lives.
Agreed and you can see this during lockdown, where some people are being very flexible in pushing to still work, even changing professions and others who certainly enjoy the sofa, a ps4 and government cheques. That not disrespect to those forced out of work that can't get back in. However I remember my early 20s too... Enough for some grass and a pizza and its all good.
This line of reasoning is telling of the broader comment section who haven't read his work nor listened to any lectures he's presented on these topics.
You may want to do some research into his stance on UBI, Libertarian socialism, his lecture on the "Corporatization of University", education and work. The arguments you're making, many would say, are the arguments of the quintessential neo-liberal.
Your last paragraph was addressed in a talk Chomsky held previously and much of what you said can be summarized as the "view associated with capitalist systems", especially the neo-liberal argument that "most people simply kill more time, get fatter, live longer but on average less happy and fulfilled lives" when they aren't given compulsory work that encompasses the majority of their conscious life for something as abstract as a wage and in service to a large employer ruclips.net/video/3fQroFeoD9U/видео.html
@@bluemiles7860 Thanks, I’ll check that out. You’re correct, I’m replying to how he presents his thoughts in this interview. I do want to point out though that the idea that meaningful, creative endeavours are not how the majority of people spend their time (when relieved of more immediate tasks) is well established via research. I don’t make this claim for ideological reasons, but rather because it is a well documented trend.
Of course, there is a balance. Our technology has largely brought us out of the abject poverty that required our predecessors to grind themselves into nothing just to survive long enough to continue the species. We certainly don’t want to go back to that point. But it does seem that there is a vague, blurry line which some argue we have already crossed.
There’s an interesting book on this subject called “Bullshit Jobs”. The basic argument is that in our modern western societies, our technology and wealth has created a situation where our collective needs are handled by a very small fraction of the population. Left with nothing truly necessary to do, the majority of us have collectively created jobs, professions, and entire industries that don’t NEED to exist. We do work that doesn’t really need to be done... we know it, and our employers often know it, but we must constantly try to justify our jobs (both for monetary reasons as well as our own feelings of self-worth), and this cognitive dissonance, this “lie” that many of us live, is one of the key reasons that nihilism, depression, and an overall lack of meaning are all riding dramatically across the world’s richest nations.
@@bluemiles7860
I certainly wouldn't want someone to misrepresent Chomsky's positions, but it'd be nice if Chomsky did the same with others he disagrees with. Milton's stance on UBI was anything but cruel. His goal (emphasis on goal, the real effect it would have would remain to be seen) with UBI, at least my understanding of it, was the most beneficial compromise between simplicity, efficiency, and compassion. It certainly had its problems like any solution or system on offer, but it was in response to the negative impacts, influences, and incentives of the current welfare system. Chomsky did the same thing to Sam Harris as well. I don't know, he's clearly smart and I enjoyed this talk, but my thoughts and leanings rarely align with his and his judgment seems flawed on a lot of people and issues.
@@ActionAlligator On the point of Sam Harris, Harris lacked knowledge about the particular case he used as a sign of Chomsky's moral confusion (the Al-shifa bombing) and so has no recourse but to basically prove Chomsky's accusation by assuming that Clinton wouldn't do something so heinous rather than arguing with historical argument, like Chomsky (whether he was right, or wrong or slanting facts) was doing. And this is the case he used to attack Chomsky in his bestselling book and had years to brush up on before talking to Chomsky.
He saw Chomsky criticize Clinton then apparently just went and wrote a book assuming that Chomsky was prima facie wrong and confused. He had one job...
*No 1: Don't Only Hope On Government For Income,*
*No 2: As An Individual Look For Different Self Income Not Only Waiting on Monthly Wages,*
*No 3: Always Save The Little You Can And Think Of What To Do With It When It Become Good For Capital.*
*It's 100% Good To Have Different Ways To Gain Income*
*Because Government have failed us so therefore let's try and survive*
Yes ! For real It is very important to have different streams of income and a diversified portfolio as for me I have already invested in crypto which is very profitable and easy to gain
Exactly I'm also happy to start investing too than to have my money sleeping in bank
Stocks are good but we have to make the right plans
Yes Stocks are good but they are alot of businesses more convenient than stocks
That’s the fact well I only invested in stocks and will love to know a better investment too
Why your channel hasn’t blown up, I’ll never understand. Great video as usual!
Have faith and tell as many people as you can. I may be overly optimistic but I believe a guy like Coleman can help pull our society out of this hate-fueled divide we are experiencing.
Unfortunately being logical and level headed isn’t that sexy for the vast majority of the RUclips users.
Spent my 20s unlearning Chomsky, initially learned, of course, in my privileged campus bubble. Live in other parts of the world. It really will instruct one as to how morally absurd his monocausal, relativist, U.S. fixated views of history and current affairs are. To read Chomsky on the 20th Century for example, one would have absolutely no sense that the Soviet Union even existed as both a nuclear military threat and a hideous, powerful political alternative to liberal democracies and their influence on the world. Have a walk around the prison cells of Phnom Penh. Monsters are real Dr. Chomsky, we do not create them. Real activists are dead or perhaps nearing death by the hour in a Russian prison cell. They're not tenured MIT professors.
He doesn't criticize other nations as much because he believes you cannot criticize others while your own nation is the leading terrorist state in the world. He sees it as hypocritical to finger wag at Russia or China when our own country has been doing worse for decades. "Pay attention to your own crimes first". Its basic elementary level morality. Although he has on many occasions criticized other nations. Including Russia and China.
This, so much. I'd love to give the ghost of Boris Nimsova a shot at Chomsky.
Chomsky is a fucking poseur. He's the biggest enduring cancer of the New Left's switch from Reformism to a culture of postering and "being good people."
He's the shambling, wheezing avatar of 50 years of Whataboutism that prefers to keep clean hands over getting dirty filling stomachs and particularly of those "poor exploited victims of Imperialism" and their delusional beliefs that they _are not_ in fact forever the victims of all-corrupting "Whiteness." What fat, hot tears the New Left shed "the exploited peoples of the world" before deciding a global order of sweatshops and corporate hegemony was actually just fine after all.
Christopher Hitchens is dead and Noam Chomsky and Henry Kissenger are still alive -and lauded as gurus and statesmen, of course! What a fucking despicable Lefty world. Will the Boomers _ever fucking finally die?_
@@paintedhorse6880 Christ your a foaming at the mouth tool. America is not funding terrorism, we are not genocidially exterminating anyone, or trying to conquer Europe. All you did here is prove the OP's point.
Chomsky is Michael Moore for people who can read.
I'll still listen anyway because Coleman is a boss.
not really. moore and chomsky have little in common, even if there is some overlap in their political positions. they also have many political differences. be that as it may, chomsky is insanely educated, exceptionally smart, someone who has made significant contributions to many academic disciplines (unlike moore and unlike most intellectuals). in my experience, a lot of the anti-chomsky sentiment, perhaps even most of it, is based on people reading all kinds of nonsense about his ostensible views, written not by chomsky but his detractors. there's a lot of fabrication and straw man claims about his stances. even if you are far from chomsky politically, i guarantee you can get a lot out of his analysis. he is a serious thinker.
@@zkandinawia For him the wars the US prosecutes are strictly measured by body count. He gives zero thought to intentions. Sam Harris has said as much as well. Its ridiculous. Anything he may have done was completely overshadowed by his stance on the liberation of the Iraqi people from a totalitarian and brutal crime family.
Alot of my opinion about Chomsky is formed around a detractor. You are right about that. The detractor was Christopher Hitchens. Not exactly a mental slouch.
Again, I'm going to listen. I rarely miss a Coleman episode.
@@fleekwoodmac3705 I've also found that Chomsky has an above average understanding on certain topics, then makes wholesale conclusions on them, like his iraq stances for instance. My opinion is formed on my analysis of Chomsky's work and not his detractors.
Well they're both Marxists morons, so the comparison is apt. Moore is a propagandist for dumb people, Chomsky is a propagandist for people who think they are smart, but in actuality are pretty dumb. That's kind of splitting hairs.
@@khumomatlakane2009 Absolutely, it was great the way he intelligently defended and justified the 9/11 attacks. Allah be praised.
Chomsky explains many angels at the same time like a boss.
Angles perhaps?
Does he really think human rights in the USA are comparable to those in China and in China-supported North Korea or how can he say China and the USA both have domestic problems they need to deal with, as if they are on par?
But the US supports Saudi Arabia, a brutal regime worthy of sanctions and fierce criticism! This is the same regime that had their journalist Jamal Khashoggi killed in their consulate in Turkey.
Look at what happened to US wistleblowers, especially Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowed and Julian Assange.
You'd expect a country that claims to be a democracy, hails freedom of speech and the press and respects human rights to treat these individuals better than China or Russia. But instead they are being persecuted even tortured for telling the truth, exposing the crimes of the state.
Furthermore the US has sanctioned senior ICC officials and their families who are involved in the process of investigating the US for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan. You'd expect cooperation from a democracy, but hey.
The consequences of this is self-censorship.
There are comparative issues between US and China. Both countries have domestic issues and human rights violations. But in the US media, they don't talk about their poor prison system (us is largest in world) and slave prison labour and torture, even crimes against humanity they committed abroad. If they are at all talked about they never get resolved.
China does not claim to be a democracy and does not wish to be held to the standard of the US. But the US has fallen short of it's standards in an appalling way, and yet pursues the goal of delivered the message of democracy to other countries even through sanctions, coups and war. No one can respect that, only a psychopath.
Whats the point of even doing a caparison of the two countries, “Atrocities”, other then to try and paint your own country in a better light? On an individual level the exercise also serves the purpose of chipping away at our own responsibility for these atrocities as citizens of these countries. Ultimately what the fuck is your point? If both countries are doing evil, than both are evil...simple as that. Its this kind of reactionary thinking that people use to justify neoliberalism.
@@revolution475 well, at least you guys can list the names of your whistleblowers and search them online. We can’t. There is a qualitative difference. Please show some respect to the gravity of human right issues in China.
Chomsky is a pretentious fraud. he has no vested interest in the truth rather than just bashing his ideological enemies - the "Patriachal West". Why would he be honest about CCP atrocities? Nothing in it for him or his 'reputation'.
@@powerbite92 Well, he is pretentious and morally questionable, but I don't think he is a fraud. He actually believes what he is talking about. He hates the rich and the powerful for sure, I'm not convinced at all that he cares about the poor. He only talks about the prevalence of power and money, never talks about the prevalence of strength and trust. I suspect that he is actually selling a cooked world view to the blind youth for reasons that are not from a good place.
Wow, this is amazing! Love Chomsky and love you! Thank you, Coleman!
Great interview!!
Is it secret? Is it safe?
YOU SHALL NOT PASS
Fly you fools!
I am thankful that you got to interview Noam Chomsky. I feel he is a half step behind on some topics but then he seems to resolve on a good note. On the topic of A.I. automation. He thinks that a person is better off not doing manual work, be a teacher or a nurse. Wonder if Chomsky is aware that there are automated trucks rolling around in his state? thank you.
SOWELL v CHOMSKY. DO THIS ASAP.
Oh god... I wish.
Yes. 👍👍👍
Sowell is too much of an idiot to debate Chomsky
Why would Chomsky waste his time with a huckster?
@@mochilover7053 Meanwhile in object reality ... Sowell is an economist, social theorist, and senior fellow at Stanford thousands of citations of his works by other writers / intellectuals.
Great content Coleman.
Three Coleman outfits in one vid! Great conversation. Also, sick Coltrane poster.
Chonsky killed it. Such a broad view of the issues.
The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine can be stored in regular GP fridges.
Read more Chomsky before spouting off. He has read more books than you will ever. The best book to look at first is Understanding Power. It is a collection to his Q&A's with activists and other audiences. He is funny and does curse.
Well, have followed Chomsky for 20 years for linguistic reasons, brilliant linguist, tons to learn from him. But when I read his activism words, I got the feeling that he does not know that as much about the real world or the poor people.
Lol. Your feeling is shit
@@rebuz1996 - No , Chai Chu's feelings are correct , Chomsky is not a very good student of human nature . Has he
ever known of a 'socialist' dictator he didn't like ?
@@michaelweber5702 Yes. He massively criticizes dictators of every stripe including Stalin and Lenin. He just doesnt support bombing helpless civilins back to the stone age to get rid of them. And he holds that standard even for right wing dictators.
I wish I could bottle Chomsky's ability to be aware of all the oppression and imperial violence in the world, the gaslighting of the national news media, and still retain optimism for the future. It's a real balm to hear him find glimmers of hopefulness among the bad news (it's a skill I don't have).
you're beyond hope. what the world is facing now is the leftist violence. low life leftists are the most oppressing force in the world now. the danger to the humanity is leftism.
@@eliamerican8879 Last time I checked, nobody left-leaning stormed the white house. It's not left-leaning parties that have sought to increase restrictions on voting with explicit targeting of minorities, it's not left-leaning people who supported concentration camps on the southern border, it wasn't left-leaning people who murdered an activist in Charlottesville while shouting conspiracies about Jews and minorities, and it wasn't left-leaning people who support restricting the right of a person to determine what they do with their body. You're attempting to create an innocuous 'Left Boogeyman' that is wholly divorced from reality. Your ideology inherently ignores fact and is in favor of fiction because they're convenient to latch onto.
@@GuyShōtō "it wasn't left leaning people who support restricting the right of someone to determine what they do with their own body" - except for the vaccine mandate handed down from the king
@@matthawthorn3461 You're aware that mandating vaccination for a pandemic isn't new to the US, the US has done this several times even at the country's founding, so that statement falls apart. Also requiring the general public to vaccinate for a highly infectious virus for the safety of the general public isn't analogous to passing legislation to enforce your morality on a particular sex.
@@GuyShōtō Special pleading much?
RUclips Comments in a nutshell:
"THE PERSON I AGREE WITH IS THE SMARTEST"
"NO, THE PERSON I AGREE WITH IS THE SMARTEST."
"THE PERSON YOU AGREE WITH IS STUPID."
"NO, THE PERSON YOU AGREE WITH IS STUPID."
The problem is, likely one of the two is actually stupid and we need to accept that fact and not give bad ideas the same leeway as good ideas.
@@IntegralBif I tend to assume the person I'm speaking with is intelligent until they give me reason to believe otherwise.
@@IntegralBif u wouldn't happen to be a woke ideologue would u? they think that every single time.
This was brilliant. Thank you !
Wish Coleman had a follow up segment where he talks about his opinions of what Chomsky had to say, after some consideration. It was pretty much just him asking questions and moving on to the next question as soon as Chomsky was finished answering.
Coleman did the right thing. Noam is a great intellectual who thinks and talks well and he has transmitted very many great ideas into the world even though he has been very wrong about a great many things.. Unfortunately he never showed much interest in actual conversations and he can be absolutely vicious to anybody that questions his perspectives. Best to just let him go on monologues cause that's his thing. And best to just listen and then challenge outselves and one another to parse his great thoughts from his terrible thoughts. I like to think of it like reading a Greek Philosopher casue those guys are awesome anfd they just kind of make statements without a ton of support--and some of the ideas are amazing and somem turn out in thousands of years of hindsight to be rather silly. For an example of the futility of coversation with Noam just check out the brutal "conversation" he had with Sam Harris.
@@1pointt21gW I’ll add to that and say that I have emailed Chomsky many, many times over the years. When I started to lean more center-right in my politics I would challenge Chomsky a bit more and then I saw how big of a dick Chomsky is to people who disagree. He doesn’t know how to grant anyone he disagrees with the benefit of the doubt.
@@1pointt21gW Spot on.
Sowell and Chomsky!!!! the talk that needs to happen. they are so alike in so many ways , independent thinkers, well researched and always use real world examples not some made up hypotheticals to discuss issues. would love to see them have a podcast length talk/debate. i respect both their opinions a lot.
Sowell is amazing , Chomsky not nearly as much ...
Truckers are now going to be creative...school teachers, healthcare workers. He’s never talked to a trucker has he?
It's silly to say no truckers can move into different and more creative jobs, once displaced. BUT to think they all could or even a significant percentage... What kind of fallacy is that? Assuming all people or even most, have enough creativity to contribute significantly enough to society, to justify their needs being met?
I'm a fairly creative person, I can support myself, just barely, making things. It's not scalable, it's particularly
dependent on inspiration and drive (both of which I often lack)... I'm very realistic about my creativity, it's mediocre. It's also above the level of creativity of a large percentage of the population.
Now you look at people in mundane jobs, and realize most of them take those jobs because they lack the creativity, in the first place.
BTW, I'm not necessarily arguing against the idea that ai taking over trucking is necessarily a bad thing... but not because I think truckers will become screen writers and inventors.
@@prybarknives different sense of creative
He’s referring to visiting the sick and the elderly as “creative” in the sense that it’s a useful task for a human that’s impossible for a robot. Many other such examples in the realm of social services but that’s the one he mentioned
I guess your caveat could rule out such “social workers” if you don’t think that kind of work justifies a decent existence, food n shelter etc, but we just disagree there
It’s unlikely that all trucker jobs will disappear overnight. You can often see these things coming. It’s more probable that fewer people will enter the truck driving world while ‘natural wastage’ will occur and the number of drivers will decline without any jolt to demographics or the economy. When did the last stage coach driver finish work? Were there thousands of stage coach drivers suddenly made redundant owing to the internal combustion engine? I doubt it. Abrupt change and shock are the tough things for economies and people to deal with.
@@zakgreenberg1615 I don't think we disagree. Doing social work competently, viewed objectively (at least imho) is certainly worth a living wage. The issue though isn't how the average person objectively, but theoretically values a particular job, but instead what people are willing to pay for it. There's a reason people who do many of these services now are supported by charity based organizations (at a loss) or outright volunteer to do them.
Taking someone (many someones) out of jobs that people pay them good wages to do, because it's needed... Then flooding an already underpaid sector with people who have questionable motivation, is a math problem with an unsatisfactory answer.... btw, in saying: questionable motivation, I don't mean anything nefarious, just that they wouldn't necessarily come to the work in the same way someone driven to do it, would.
Sorry to bother Mr. Chomsky, but can you proof read my English paper really quickly?
They got robots for that shit now.
Thomas Sowell needs to be on your show.
I would do anything to have Chomsky's attention span lol
Email him. Pretty sure. He responds to many folks.
@@OrionP4 Why would I email him?
@@MrDeyzel He thought you were asking for Chomsky's _attention_ . He needs Chomsky's reading comprehension.
Finally we get Coleman and Chomsky
I respect Chomsky's long career and admit I have not study him a lot, but there were a few things in this interview that seemed very disconnected from reality. The biggest one for example was automation 50:30 . Chomsky's reply was in essence, "Well now the truck driver can learn to code." An employer who pays money for a robot is not going to say, "Well now I can have this person do other duties." 2 out of 3 times, they are going to let that person go because they could not take on the expense of a robot & keeping a human on both. Also, it is ignorant of the fact most truck drives cannot learn to code, because it is just not in them. The fact is technology is outpacing the majority of the population's capability, which is a lot of why you have the widening disparities.
Also, he got UBI very, very wrong, at least in Andrew Yang's version. UBI would be a choice! So if a person with a disabled child got more money in welfare than what UBI would give, they could keep their welfare and not have UBI forced on them. If UBI happened to pay more than what they received in welfare, or if they wanted more choice in their life, then yes they could opt for UBI in lieu of welfare.
I think Chomsky's age is preventing him from keeping up with the nuances of the positions.
chomsky did not say anything like that. you completely misinterpreted his position. to start off by reducing his point about truck drivers having freedom to spend the majority of their waking hours how they want instead of driving a truck for an employer is no where NEAR saying "learn to code"
Boring, Chomsky spews socialist dribble that we've heard a thousand times from out of touch intellectuals
UBI doesn’t change ownership in America. Worker ownership is far more preferable to an allowance from our masters.
50:30 @@bluemiles7860 , I was not making an literal analogy, just a figurative one. Most of those truck drivers that are out of a job driving trucks will have freedom from having job, but what good is that? Chomsky says there's not enough teachers. A truck driver is going to work as a teacher? There's not enough teachers now because society doesn't want to budget hiring enough. So what is he suggesting? That these out of work truck drivers will suddenly be working as teachers that pays better in some respects that they didn't qualify for that before? That's what I mean by the meme, learn it code. It's the ignorance perpetuated by both the Right and the Left. There are many people who just do not have the intellectual and emotional ability to do the jobs left over by automation. Technology is far outpacing the capabilities of most of the unskilled and low skilled working class. So what are these people going to do for money to live? Chomsky says the drivers will be "free to do something creative", but that's without a job. If they were qualified to do those "creative" and innovative jobs of value, they likely would have already been doing it.
Great conversation! I'm hoping that Chomsky and Harris can finally get together and speak on the current state of western culture and the future of democracy.
Chomsky will never talk with harris.
That would be a waste of Chomskys time.
Chomsky is a "do as I say not as I do" hypocrite
I'd love Harris' views on the underpinnings of consciousness; the issue of death; and the possibility of redemption via birth in this and the next dimension.
@@sirherbert6953 Having your views challenged by an intelligent person is never a waste of time, no matter how wrong you think they are.
Two of my favorite thinkers
Dear Coleman, a debate between Sowell and Chomsky would be the biggest debate of both Chomsky’s and Sowell’s career. No better match up. The people want this!
Fantastic idea, i second that!
@M C Ever read any of his books? Ever actually studied him? Come on your ignorance is showing. You are dismissing one of the GOATs without even giving him a chance.
@M C I actually agree with most of what you said there (except that he is a nut job.) I find myself in opposition to him when it comes to many things, but i still admire him.
You know it's odd, when it comes to the welfare state for example i tend to disagree with him, but then when i read or listen to his points about it, i can't really find many flaws. The same goes with many other things. Maybe he is just so good at convincing me that i ignore the flaws of his arguments or maybe his arguments are right but i forget them when i stop listening to them.
Either way, he is very smart and definitely not a nut job. I feel like his quote that "There are no solutions, only trade-offs" is really true. That's why I tend to be skeptical of any over-the-counter solutions on either side.
This is from his 2015 article just to demonstrate his capability to deconstruct/critique (which i really admire)
As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present.
What about ghetto riots, crimes in general and murder in particular? What about low levels of labor force participation and high levels of welfare dependency? None of those things was as bad in the first 100 years after slavery as they became in the wake of the policies and notions of the 1960s.
To many on the left, the 1960s were the glory days of their movements, and for some the days of their youth as well. They have a heavy emotional investment and ego investment in the ideas, aspirations, and policies of the 1960s.
It might never occur to many of them to check their beliefs against some hard facts about what actually happened after their ideas and policies were put into effect. It certainly would not be pleasant to admit, even to yourself, that after promising progress toward “social justice,” what you actually delivered was a retrogression toward barbarism.
The principal victims of these retrogressions are the decent, law-abiding members of black communities across the country who are prey to hoodlums and criminals.
I don't think that's true. Steven Pinker isn't on the right and seens to think highly of him, though they disagree.
@@just_another32 He doesn’t think highly of his politics, they conversed on issues relating to psychology.
the fact that the corporate sector is deeply involved in propaganda and public relations is at least indicative of one good thing - that we live in a society where they need the public on their side. it definitely doesn't justify lying, but public relations on their own aren't unexpected in a society where the public matters.
What a fantastic interview and discussion. This was really cool!
Thank you Coleman for doing this.
Noam Chomsky looks like Santa Clause if he was addicted to cooming
Lmao
The thing I found with Chomsky over the years is that he usually has some kind of Pat semi-cryptic answer to most questions he receives because he gets them often, and It’s usually up to you to kind of decipher what he means... unless you prod and dig a little further. Then he usually expands upon what he means, and it can be quite illuminating. Occasionally he will even unleash a new anecdote
Looks like side stepping and obfuscation to me.
God DAMN Chomsky is brilliant. I really wish he would debate some of the mouthpieces on the right, these people are highly influential
Who remembers when the Dixie Chicks got canceled for criticizing W?
You mean The Chicks? Or maybe you are unaware that they were cancelled due to their name not long ago...
@@RyanOManchester exactly right. The difference between grassroots boycotting and massively powerful institutions bearing down on your livelihood with the support of a cheering ideological mob.
I remember when Michael Moore was booed at the Oscars. If social media existed at that time he would have been cancelled for his conspiracys about the 2000 elections and the Iraq war.
@@RyanOManchester
Good point. My theory was really born from the reaction of the audience of actors most of whom are around to today and supposedly progressive (by public perception at least). They are the gatekeepers of the court of public opinion in my opinion. Hollywood. And at that time Hollywood was rather more conservative
@@RyanOManchester
ruclips.net/video/M7Is43K6lrg/видео.html
Good lookin out Noomski ✊🏾💪🏽
you'd think an intellectual like chomsky would be very sensitive to any subtle anti-intellectual, anti-science signal bouncing around in mainstream rhetoric (regardless of the political party involved). every time the left-wing censorship subject has come up, he's been quick to go "ya but the right did it in the 60s, so whatever". this is the first time i've seen him go a little further with criticizing this behavior. has he been in an echo chamber to not see what we've all been seeing for the past 7 or 8 years? not interfacing with mainstream media or social media at all to understand the landscape? or maybe he's set his tent posts so deep into the democratic party, that he has to turn his head the other way when the left is becoming increasingly anti-intellectual, authoritarian, and powerful.
Better late than never, I guess?
Whilst Chomsky's day job in linguistics is work of the highest order. His moonlighting as a social commentator has been nothing more than preaching to the choir.
He was the last guy to get off the train when it became obvious to everyone else that Pol Pot had been engaging in genocide in Cambodia, and the first guy in line to provide cover for Al Qaeda after 9-11. He has published no serious work on political theory, he doesn't debate only polemicizes, and routinely fails to hold brutal regimes to the same scrutiny as he does the US or Israel.
So the idea that Chomsky would criticise today's radical Left, when it has literally been built in his own image, fails to see him for who he really is. Which is nothing more than an articulate and enigmatic prototype of the green haired woke warriors you saw hysterically pulling down statues of Frederick Douglas this past summer.
@@oksolo4058 Jeremy Corbyn did enough to assassinate his own character, he really didn't need much help from the British press. Sure he didn't get softball after softball like Biden will. But he was the leader of the Labour Party. He had all the tools in the world to control his own narrative. The fact he failed to do so proves he just wasn't a good politician.
@@adtastic1533 , Well Chomsky likes left wing dictators , that's for sure ...
Well to be fair the dudes primary source of info isnt twitter or Instagram or FB. He doesnt spend any time on these sites so how would he know what its like at all? Also, censorship doesnt just affect the right. The left gets hit too. Its just that the right want to be victims so bad they fill every retort with what-aboutisms.
I like his light swag at the end
"No problem, sorry I have to take another one"
I disagree alot with his views, but he has been a1 in general and is alot more intelligent than me
what do you disagree with?
@@hugoscott972 Hi Hugh, his interpretation of the slogan ‘defund the police’ was rather wooly. Any slogan that clearly states intent shouldn’t have to be interpreted to mean something else.
Someone screaming "black power!" during a riot is clearly being "anti racist".
Bruh.
Look up what black power means
What do you mean "look up" it's people screaming for racial power. At least when the alt right starts throwing roman salutes and chanting "white power" there is no double speak about what it means.
You aren't going to see Richard Spencer on TV, "Umm actually sweaty, it's about racial justice, empowerment, and equity. We aren't saying other races don't have power, but we are talking about white lived experiences right now. And you need to say 'white power' or you are a bigot!"
@@somerando8615 Bruh. That is exactly what white nationalists do. "Look, we're not saying that there shouldn't be black people just that they shouldn't be in our country and should go back where they are from because racial homogeneity is really the best for everyone. Look at Japan or the Nordic countries. Racial homogeneity is the key to a good society."
@@jojodelacroix yeah they do say that
FYI, black lives matter is far more radical than the black panthers were on race issues. The panthers took a lot of heat for hiring white lawyers and Newton, Seal, and Cleaver were explicitly not anti-racists. In fact they did condemn black racism and even some forms of affirmative action. They came after Malcolm X, and were critical of his racism.
The panthers were self-proclaimed communists though, and were more extremist left wing than BLM.
Are we all required to compliment this emperor's clothes?
wait what?
Do you have a criticism? Feel free to share it.
Let us praise almighty Wizard Chomsky.
Chomsky is misinformed about the vaccines. The Oxford Astra Zenecca vaccine doesn't require sub zero temperature storage. I'm sure there are others too. Enjoyed this but I wish he would have let coleman talk a bit more.
You have Noam Chomsky, and wish Coleman would talk more...
Judging by the way Chomsky mischaracterized Milton Freedman's intentions concerning the negative income tax, which is not the same as UBI, and would benefit the women on welfare, with the money of the more wealthy. I'd guess he doesn't like Sowell, and I already know, Sowell respects Chomsky as a linguist but not as a political thinker, and certainly not as an economist. Look up Sowell on Chomsky.
@@buttereggmanandtheketones4868 I have already. He was talking about Friedman who had his own idea of UBI that would exclude welfare payments, he wasn't talking about negative income taxing the later bit you're referring to. It doesn't matter what the intentions are, what is the policy going to do... If I was going to say I'm going to shoot my son to stop a nuclear war my intentions would be honourable and correct but it doesn't make any sense. It's the same with Sam Harris' argument, how does intention detract away from the disastrous consequences the Iraq war had, consequences they knew could occur if they went through with the invasion. I'll do a more extreme example, the Nazis thought they were slaughtering the jews for the 'greater good', does it make it morally right or correct. Excusing something for their intentions is a stupid argument. Intentions are also better deduced from consequences when it the situation is left left ambiguous. Also Friedman's explicit goal via negative income tax was to make the rich richer and let it trickle down while the poor are 'incentivised' to work, so it Chomsky didn't even engage in a mischaracterisation in the first place.
That's a pretty huge compliment in Coleman direction!
@@Berzerk-cr2cy Friedman's goal was to simplify the redistribution mechanism and avoid what we have now, a super complicated tax code, with plenty of exceptions, tax breaks etc that is unfair and unmanageable. His theories were not all perfect, but there is no need to vilify him by saying his intent was to make the system more unfair than it already is.
Trump didn't threaten democracy. He did make a big, stupid, substanceless stink about fraud. But he was an exemplar of democracy in winning an election as an outsider. Let's see if anyone else has the substance and charisma to do that in the future. Let's hope so. I'd like to see a succession of outsiders winning office, and marginalizing career politicians.
In actual fact it’s closer to 80 years on the left... Which is just insane
US Left: “Your action has unintended consequences! You are responsible! Do it my way!” People:“This s**t happened after we do it your way.” US left: “It was just an unintended consequence of my action. Too bad”
Agree with the urgent need to co host Chomsky and Sowell
Did Chomsky ever consider asking the North Vietnamese to stop their war on the South Vietnamese? Or, was his concern less anti-war and more anti-American?
@Morricium Magnum All states are artificial, including North Vietnam. What is your point?
I'm not sure this accurately reprises the history. There had been a referendum to unify the country -- north and south. The US disavowed the results, set up a puppet leader in the south, and then launched and assault. That view is not exclusive to Chomsky. Christopher Hitchens, whose disagreements with NC are quite public, has said the same...
@@jayxavier6930 When did this initial assault occur? The referendum of 1955 was to choose a form of government, either republic or monarchy, for the already partitioned South Vietnam. Diem drove the creation of South Vietnam more than the U.S. The U.S. backed Diem, often reluctantly. The North declared war on South Vietnam in 1959.
@@glennmitchell9107 Thanks for your comment. I have few illusions about Ho Chi Minh, as do most critics of the war today (and as did Chomsky at the time). I also agree with critics (Kolko, Hitchens, Chomsky, among them...) who think it was wrong, not just a tactical error, but morally wrong, to support Diem -- "reluctantly" or otherwise. We might have to agree to disagree on that one... Though I also think you frame the issues in a way that is misleading -- you use absolute (albeit opaque) terms or labels for critics of the war ("anti-American"), and qualifications to defend actions of the U.S. government at the time ("reluctantly"). So, again, maybe agree to disagree, as we're standing on the edge of a semantic rabbit hole...
@@jayxavier6930 I agree. The Vietnam war was lost (or won) a while ago. I've just never considered Chomsky a useful critic of U.S. foreign policy. Moralistic finger wagging rarely, if ever, wins arguments or friends, much less changes a super power's foreign policy. The only people he seemed to convince were his fellow lefties, who would have opposed establishment policies with or without Chomsky's input.
I gotta say, Chomsky of old was at least thought provoking, but this is just lazy rationalizing. I don't think he's bringing any clarity here, just pontificating about tangentially related nonsense. You should be challenging his assumptions here Coleman, not just letting him run in circles on his own.
Well he is 92 fucking years old LOL
I haven't listened to this interview yet, but I had pretty much the same reaction to Chomsky's email exchange with Sam Harris a few years ago. Chomsky didn't really engage with any of the points Harris was raising. I was a huge Chomsky fan back then, so I was rooting for Noam, but it was obvious even to my leftist former self that his mind has slipped quite a bit. (I thought to myself back then, "Now, he's only about twice as smart as the rest of us, instead of 5 times as smart.")
In Chomsky's defense, he IS older than God.
He is 92 years old! When you are 92 you'll be lucky to be able to make a sentence.
Examples?
^They don’t have any
Russia is also giving licenses to produce and distribute its vaccine in other developing countries, including Turkey and Brazil among others, just fyi
Please get chomskys views on Thomas sowell!
Indeed, since Sowell once was as delusional as Chomsky. Why did Sowell change his mind? Facts!
Why is it that important? Sowell is a man that made huge contributions in the fields of economics, philosophy and political science. Except within his field of linguistics there’s nothing interesting produced by Chomsky. Delusional person fully basing himself on his feelings.
@@larreye8451 I sympathize much more deeply with Sowell on most issues, but Noam's contribution to Linguistics blows anything Sowell's ever done out of the water.
Chomsky essentially created the field of Linguistics, revolutionized Cognitive Science and was one of the forefathers of Artificial Intelligence, as well as producing fantastic work on politics and philosophy. Sowell is great, but pales in comparison to Chomsky.
@@mgm8075 His work on philosophy and politics has been abysmal. The rest of it, I'll take your word for.
Kudos for the China question brother
Who said that China's vaccine has 90% effectiveness? I read that in Brazil it's only about 50%.
@MotoIncognito And Chomsky has an unimpeachable record of recognizing & condemning the lies of communist dictatorships.
The issue isn't China's vaccine, it is the different variants of the virus in different places. The Western vaccines have also been shown to be far less effective on some other strains like the South African one. They're working on boosters and improvements to improve the coverage. It's gonna be a real challenge because of all of the anti-Vaxxers who are allowing their bodies to become hosts to the virus, incubating its mutations to be passed on to others
Chagrin does not mean dismay, which is often the word people mean.
He’s still sharp as a tack and still batshit crazy.
Chomsky’s last statement on freeing truck drivers is essentially a libertarian argument for opportunity cost
... and describes their work with utter disdain. Most truck drivers are temporarily far more suited to physical work than nursing or creative work, hence why they chose such work
@@jamesbeesley2767 There is other physical work that is more fulfilling. Humanity has eliminated plenty of crappy occupation that used to grind some of us mercilessly. Driving truck will be just another such occupation. Would you still want to walk to a river to bring water ? We solved it. Yet, for thousands of years people had to do this every day.
19:55 Noam Chomsky doesn't want to involve police in instances of domestic abuse...👀
Yeah, I side-eyed this. It's certainly social problem that needs more than police, but it's also one of the most dangerous calls police go on.
@@ashleygraham1011 ALAKABLAM!
They don't resolve the vast majority of domestic violence disputes. They're also the most common demographic to engage in those acts as well (according to studies conducted in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s.)
@@themaltesesailor9774 you clearly have no experience with or knowledge of domestic abuse. If you are a woman or a child being terrorised and held captive by an aggressive male (the typical scenario) in your home yeah, yeah you're going to want the police to come.
@@MrFrostedtips you are Absolutely Correct on all counts! It’s tragic that domestic violence has gone on for so many decades, tearing apart bodies, families, & souls, and there are still so many people who are naive and/or totally ignorant on the subject.
As one who knows, Thank God for the police who have saved lives!
You had me at Coltrane
I saw the movie "Sleeping with the Enemy" once when I was little. Julia Roberts gives a great performance. It also contains the hit-song "Brown Eyed Girl".
does anyone challenge him?
At 29 min Noam talks about wealth concentration. I think Noam Chomsky is ignorant of power laws.. Pareto Principle/Prices law.. Matthew principle...
You obviously haven’t read the studies he’s referencing b/c this was quite a shallow rebuttal
@@nickw4128 um no. he wouldnt be saying those things in attempt to shock people if he knew about the matthew principle/pareto laws/ zipfs law..
He believes in the zero sum game transfer of money from the bottom to the top ideas that may have made sense in Karl Marx’s time but do not make sense in a highly automated, highly educated modern society/economy.
nick w. was right, the mathew nor pareto principle don't answer the point he's making. the automation and exploitation points are positions of people who aren't familiar with his argument. there's a short video where he details most of his position on inequality. This might aid in your understanding. ruclips.net/video/lPBaVcHJtjk/видео.html
Feel free to move closer to mic, deaden the room, and equalize sound, it's painfully bright and distractingly reverberant.
Chompsky, I call him.
I call him Chumpsky
chumpsky
Noam Chomsky? More like NOAH Chomsky
Jesus fuck its Noah, I thought this rain seemed harder than usual
Was his answer to automation just learn to code but in a more articulated way ?
lol yes, it was. Actually, his examples were even more absurd. Out-of-work truck drivers can go into public education & healthcare!!!! It's exactly the type of response you would expect from someone who's spent most of their life in an elite, academic institution insulated from the average American. I'm just sitting here laughing while I think about the guys I know that drive trucks teaching a 5th grade class how to do algebra lol. It's patently absurd
Listening to Chompsky circa 2021 is the intellectual equivalent of going to see Rod Stewart in concert. In 2021.
Except Rod Stewart used to be great
“The question is, what kind of society do we want? What kind of moral values do we have? What are we looking forward for the way people should live?”
I think it’s imperative that we put more time into building what we want, modeling certain behavior for how we want society to function, rather than tearing each other down in order to achieve a false sense of justice.
Poor Coleman, Chomsky's not telling him what I think he wants to hear!😆
Stupid bigot also knows what Coleman thinks.
I would rather just listen to Coleman as I found him waaaay more interesting.
He didn’t ask about his Thomas Sowell “systemic racism isn’t that serious” opinion to Noam. Wonder why?
I am trying to be as fair as I can with someone I disagree with, but the welfare state is crushing the poor in this country. Look at all of the municipalities and States with high poverty rates, they aren't run efficiently and have massive amounts of crime, drug abuse and out of wedlock birth rates. Anyone with any kind of ability to leave that situation does and the rest are stuck there. I can think of no better example than East Saint Louis, Illinois. It had a population of roughly 82,000 in the late 1950's, it now has less than 30,000 people. The tax base evaporated as the industries left Saint Louis, MO. Thus, the infrastructure and society in ESL fell apart and anyone with a modicum of social mobility got the hell out of dodge.
Ever since the Great Society was implemented, we have seen a swift degradation of the quality of life for anyone who is brown and not capable of escaping the inner cities or poor South. I cannot in good conscience think that is a moral or ethical good for society. It is breeding resentment, creating generational poverty and robbing people of their agency before they are even born.
It's easy to spout aphorisms about how the poor need help, but I doubt highly that most of the "good liberals" actually would dare break apart the Federal Welfare system, because it is one of their idols they worship. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work, they must have it as a totem to their piety. Get ready for some more fun as the monetary policies of this nation go haywire (inflation is coming whether you like it or not).
Noam is dusty, maybe he's really smart, but he doesn't care about positive results that aren't tied to some form of Government force (be they incentivized cram downs or the like), merely outcomes that comport with his pinhole sized worldview.
woahhh chomsky turned into santa claus.
I can never understand Chomsky's very accurate articulation of the failures of big government, and the system of incentives that naturally lead to big government being co-opted by the wealthy. And of all the ways that the wealthy can game the system to get around reforms aimed at reducing the corruption of the government. But his conclusion is that the solution is the expand the size and scope of this government.
If that’s what you take away from his writings then it seems like you don’t know very much about him. That’s not even remotely his solution.
@@Supernautiloid I'm willing to entertain the idea that I don't understand his position. From the things I see there's always an appeal to "reforms that will make the government work FOR the people", but when those ideals are implemented in practice they always result in another opaque layer of bureaucracy behind which special interests can continue to spread their influence. As long as governments have influence to sell, there WILL be buyers.
@@VaShthestampede2 I'd be happy to explain his position better, but first let's take a look at yours. If your claim is true, then we have to consider the idea that Abraham Lincoln was wrong when he spoke of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Was he wrong? Was democracy a bad idea? Do you think it's just impossible to have government that serves the interests of the common people? If it's not possible to have a Lincolnian form of government, then should we just give up now and become a dictatorship or monarchy?
@@Supernautiloid In a nation of almost half a billion people? I do not believe a centralized government can serve the interests of that many individuals without succumbing to the corrupting nature of special interests. In that the only way serve is from mostly passive methods of information dissemination(see: publishing of voluntary standards and testing). I would say that a government that enforces contracts would be ideal, but one examination of the state of laws in our country shows that even such a task as that is beyond the consistent capabilities of the federal government.
@@Supernautiloid I will also observe that the ideals of a government that "serves the common people" was the prevailing ideology that has given rise to our current government. It is the notion that every politician starts with, but eventually gives way to the suggestions of special interests. Every new law introducing a new layer of cover behind which more and more corruption can be obscured. That alone gives me quite a pause with respect to my faith that such ideals can even be faithfully executed and sustained. And of course with respect to the government, we are ceding the ultimate power of the violence monopolized by the government into the hands of the special interests who control the government.