News reporters generally have their heads screwed on so tightly --and I mean that not as a compliment-- that it irritates me. Still, you need people like that to make the world go round, s'pose.
While the interview is interesting it seems to me to be heavily edited. Whenever Chomsky makes a claim that counteracts a mainstream view on a topic, the arguments for the claim are cut away, leaving him simply stating things like that the election of Obama is revealing of how flawed the current democratic system is. Without a at least somewhat thourough justification, the claim doesn't appear to make much sense, and perhaps that was intentional.
as much as i hate to agree with him, the interviewer has a point about the internet. if it weren't for the internet i wouldn't be listening to chomsky's ideas right now.
I really doubt BBC would do such bad editing that's why. Besides I see no reason why the BBC would want to 'hide' anything that Chomsky said as your are implying.
It was obviously edited. What I'm saying is that I don't think it was the BBC that edited it I think it was Chomskyan. I don't KNOW that but I just don't think BBC would do such a bad editing job,
I have to say that I am a massive supporter of Chomsky work, but i think on this point he is slightly out of touch. The events in the Middle east specifically the use of social networking sites as of avenues of dissent and mobilization; and also the attempts of governments (Egypt, China) to preclude access to the Internet illustrates that those in power do in fact see the internet as a viable threat to entrenched power.
@MrBackdoorable Although because this interview is highly edited i'd expect Chomsky would almost certainly have given a more persuasive and extensive answer.
Really encapsulates how hypocritically the mass media pour scorn over this form of journalism while at the same time they propose it as evidence of an 'information age'. Their attitude towards Wikileaks is similarly disingenuous.
@hammertapping How does opposing the neo-colonial program imply that "he thinks he knows best"? Surely, it's the corporate giants, and not the anarcho-syndicalist academic, who deserves that criticism?
@hammertapping What are you talking about? Liberal Interventionism (a defined school of thought) is something which Chomsky, a self-identified anarcho-syndicalist (hardly "liberal", in either the proper or butchered American sense of the word), opposes explicitly. Have you actually read any of his work, or are you just going on hearsay?
@Traitorfish you pretend to live in words . i live in real world and judge ppl by their actions.
racist chomsky spoken and urged support for various kinds of interventions at un and elsewhere against non west bc we don't comply with his so called values which are basically 'liberal' . i know this especially bc i have documented his actions and words against my country sri lanka . only the worst kind of racist could do what he did there.
@hammertapping Chomsky has supported certain cases of humanitarian intervention, yes, but not the sort of "soft imperialist" imposition you seem to infer. I honestly wonder if you actually know anything about the man, or have just absorbed some second-hand bile from American "libertarians".
And, please, don't use words like "liberal" and "racist" if you don't understand them. You're just making an ass of yourself.
now u admit (what i said from first); that racist chomsky "supported intervention" in "certain cases"(ie non west) on behalf of his interpretation of 'humanitarian' values. ha!
and u think i am making an ass of myself?lol
unlike u, what i say is based on his words;he thinks his values superior;he non west to obey them willing or not.
in sri lankan case,he equated tamils with tamil tigers(who killed& maimed our children).that is purest form of racism.
@Traitorfish scumbag chomsky is a racist based on his own words and actions.
he should be called what he is, esp by ppl like us sri lankans who are at the receiving end of his(literally) bloody disgusting 'liberal' racism
no matter how hard blind ignorant unthinking foolish sycophants like you try to cover him from his own words and actions he will be called and exposed for what he is; worst kind of racist !
and if you continue to defend him you are just as much a racist . your choice!
@Traitorfish what does your ( or anyone's ) ethnicity has to do with racism? do answer!
ur statment only highlights uneducated status.
chomsky is a racist bc he attributed certain qualities to tamils, sinhalese & others in sri lanka without recognizing only few of those groups(such as tamil tigers)deserved those. he then urged intervention based his racist statements & alleged violations of his 'liberal' values here.
he has acted same way about other non western countries.
@hammertapping Racism is a system of ethnic domination, yes? Therefore ethnicity is entirely pertinent. If I happen to be of a South Asian ethnicity, then you claims that I am racist against- as in your case- South Asian people would make no sense. As you don't know what my ethnicity is, your accusations of racism are merely rhetorical, and entirely without substance.
@Traitorfish typical! lost a argument?run off on a tangent. here after u lost on chomsky's support for forcing western values on others,u run off on definition of racism.lol
ur lack of education leads even the tangent down a hole.
racism is more than a system of ethnic domination; use of n word as an insult is racist regardless of power relationship. any person(eg chomsky) equating tamils with bestial tamil tigers(who kill innocents)is a racist. and so on. that is substance.
@hammertapping The idea that I "lost" anything would imply that there was any sort of structured discourse in place, when, in fact, all you've done is ramble incoherently about perceived racism- apparently inverse of any reality, Chomsky having gone on public record as supporting Tamil self-determination- with my responses constituting, in essence, a somewhat wordy response of "um, what"? That's not something that can be "lost" or "won", one way or the other.
@Traitorfish ppl can read & judge who lost & won; who backtracked(eg now one thing about chomsky's support for intervention in non west & then another),who said racism depends on ethnicity of racist etc etc.
u unable to give such specific eg of my backtracking etc. instead u just assert i 'ramble incoherently'. lol
to my specific example among many of chomsky's racism,u refer his 'support' for tamil's 'self determination' but tellingly ignore he equated tamils with tamil tigers then. lol
@Traitorfish oh the you are back for more kicks in your racist butt!
of course you bird brain don't get it.
u shamelessly speak up for racist chomsky even though u cannot counter his own wards & actions that prove his racism.
u think ethnicity of a person protect them from racist tag, whatever they do, say or believe. only a idiotic fanatic follower of a leader will say that. and ur words prove u r one, for chomsky
does ur friends know u are racist? exposure of closet racist is going to be fun!
@Traitorfish racism has nothing to do with racist 's ethnic group, it has to do with racist thinking that certain qualities are inherent on some ethnic group (whether the person thinking this belong to that ethnic group or some others opposed to it does not matter). when racist wants actions based on his racist thoughts he is worse.
chomsky is a racist based on his words and actions as i pointed out before .
u cover for him and his ideas, ie you are a follower of worst kind of racist. agree?
ffs If you wanna hear a Noam Chomsky speech, go listen to Noam Chomsky speech. This is an interview where the intention is to challenge him and put forward critical questions. I know this is genuinely alien to Americans but you have no right to moan about how crap the media is and then complain when it actually gives someone a half hour slot and challenges them. This is normal on Hard Talk with ANY guest of ANY political persuasion. Not everyone is an idiot just because they aren't Chomskians.
@MichelSainteClaire .lol witless wonder? wheter you like chomsky or not,that comment is pathetic.His biggest critics give in him credit and admiration for his intelligence, and some random nobody on youtube who has done nothing for any cause calls him witless?.The internet is perfect for mouth breathers.
Sackur is extremely intelligent. Probably them most intelligent person with the BBC. This show is called "Hard Talk". He has to disagree with Chomsky. Please get that through your thick skulls you morons.
Indeed. Some seem to think that the sun shone out of Churchill's arse, but I'm not one of them.
I have several relatives that were around during the Churchill era, and they don't speak highly of him at all. So, I'll take their word for it over anyone else's.
Hitler and Stalin were, are and will remain rightly hated, but Churchill was hardly a paragon of virtue for the reasons you've detailed.
the internet is just an extension of power imposed upon us as much as we think the power is on our side now .. everything you put on facebook or youtube goes to government and existing powerful political or economic institutions.
This interview is so unfair. The hardtalk guy talks more then chomsky and Mr chomskys answers are being edited. Sometimes it feels like half of hes answers are simply gone and this is not Fox it is the BBC. Media sucks !!
come on, admit it; you have a thing for chomsky... maybe he's the central figure on your sex fantasies, who knows, but you wouldnt have replied TWICE to my comments if he wasnt an important role model in your reality. psychology 101.
@bazodee2 actually, psychology 101 would explain my behaviour towards YOU, not Chomsky. The fact that I think Chomsky is a pretty smart guy doesn't make him my messiah or my role model, he's just a guy whose opinions I listen to sometimes. Not always, though: I don't agree with his theories on anarchism, for example, but I really liked his analysis of the Israel/Palestine conflict in Fateful Triangle.
This reporter is an idiot and clearly has very little clue what he is taking about. He also seems unable to be quiet and let Noam speak, doenst seem to understand that people watching this want to see what Chomsky thinks, not what he thinks...
@MrAnarchistuk you're an idiot, and the guy is a capable journalist who has interviewed countless famous people in a very lucid and informed way. that's called HARDTALK dude. it's a talk show with its own rules. if you participate in it you expect being interrupted to elucidate your points AND being challenged.. oh, but maybe you're american.. then stick to fox news that might suit you better
@deplo I understand the nature of the program thanks. I just felt that he didnt give Chomsky enough time to elaborate fully on his points. My name is mr anarchist UK, does that suggest to you that maybe I am not American? By that and your reference to me as 'dude' I would contend that you are the idiot.
@deplo i think the fact that the guy's name is: MrAnarchist"uk" kinda gives it away that he is not from america... and the fact that he agrees with chomsky means that he certainly doesnt regard foxnews as a suitable news channel...
@MrAnarchistuk no no, it's the stile of this program, the journalist has to be confrontational and ask difficult questions, that's why it's called "hardtalk". I tusuallly work very well
@Ilikelink It used to work well, when the previous host actually did substantive research. This guy, to BBC's shame, seems to do a very basic Google search, finds the most used grievance by fake conservative right wingers, presents it without bothering to find out whether it's a valid grievance or just a smear to discredit, and runs with it.
It's a pathetic and classic example of lazy research.
I think that's unfair. Hardtalk is a good program and Sackur does a good job of interviewing many interesting people like Chomsky and David Harvey that you would rarely if ever see on American television. He interviews a different person every show and does show exhibiting a good degree of knowledge given the generality of the program. He let him talk as much as anyone on the program talks and listened to him politely. It's not meant to be a monologue.
Well his defense, it is necessary for him to at least play devils advocate in order to force a response to a potential question. Unless viewers at home hear a response to a question they might have had, they will start to close-off their minds.
I'm yet to start this video, but I just watched this man's interview of Richard Dawkins and many times I was annoyed with need to interrupt Dawkins. Also many of the questions were pretty lame...
Chomsky can hardly get a few words in before he is interrupted by Mr Sackur who seems to have made up his mind about Chomsky and seems to not want him to voice too many of his views."I put to you" he says but then invariably hardly lets Chomsky respond
I'm only 30 seconds in and i'm already laughing. I don't think it matters if you're the gentlest pussy cat in the world, if you challenge mainstream opinion you're always "raging", an angry dangerous militant. "Controversial" is like that as well. The end sentence in the introduction is complete howler, the presenter effectively says "he should have changed his opinions about bombing natives of other countries since vietnam, and if he hasn't he's a dinosaur!" Trust good old BBC impartiality...
Does anyone think, from looking back over this discussion, that Soloman has come anywhere close to winning it? All the way through he has dodged answering the question, tried to distort the issue, accuse me of things I didn't type and indulge in name calling and slander. At the end he seems to have convinced himself that he won by pretending that giving definitions of two different political systems equates to proof that Chomsky is a communist sympathizer!
That's Soloman - he does this all the time, and he's been hanging around on that Galloway for over a year (he's so lifeless, I wouldn't be surprised if he's still be there in 10 years!), trying to pick arguments with anyone who takes Galloway's side in any way - even if it has nothing to do with the clip in question.
I don't know why he does it - he doesn't lie well, he doesn't argue well, and practically everyone who responds to his comments very quickly get bored with him.
And yet you appear to be obessessed..HAHA!! What did you say your point was again? What are you, a known Galloway arse kisser doing here on a Chompsky video, Oh, hang on, its the Communism Connection again. HAHA!!
Write in down and take it to your mosque, see if they can help you, ask your family, your neighbours, see if they can figure out the conundrum, ask people what they think it might mean you total Dunce. But dont bother asking BBOYMAHONI because he is almost as much of a moron as you are.
Sounds like you're pretty 'obessessed' yourself, whatever 'obessessed' may mean. Or you could just admit that you type up inarticulate, repetitive crap, but I somehow doubt that you will.
And that is because obsessed (not 'obesessed') Nazi bigots like yourself never admit they're in the wrong, even when utterly cornered.
No, I won't bother asking BBOYMONI, because he's as bored with you as I am.
Funny because i remember your name from the Galloway videos, which you have also mentioned yourself. I couldn't possibly imagine why you, the Galloway the Communist sympathizer would be commenting here on a Chompsky video, it just defies logic and the powers of deductive reasoning to imagine that you are here purely by coincidence..LOL!
And why shouldn't I be commenting on a Chomsky (not 'Chompsky') video? I can comment on which clips I like, even if it does include calling you a Nazi bigot.
Lets put it this way, if you and i walked out into the street i would make a bet with you for 10,000 pounds that someone would be able to Substantiate what 'Obessessed' means sooner than Substantiate you calling me a Nazi Bigot, i would bet my house and my car on it..LOL!
Then I'm sure that you can figure out what I mean by Nazi bigot, and educate yourself in deductive reasoning. Though somehow, I very much that you have that capability...HAHAHAHA!!
No because that is just ridiculous, there id no deduction or reasoning its an absurd thing to say. Like i said we can wander into the street to prove my theory..LOL! 10,000 pounds on the table, that would shut your ridiculous mouth wouldn't it..YES!
@Soloman1001 You seem to think that because 2 different ideologies both use the word "stateless" in their wikipedia definitions that this qualifies as proof that they are the same (the very fact that there are two different definitions is missed on Soloman's low intellect) and further more, this somehow means Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer (something you have still not been able to prove).
No, we can't wander into any street to prove anything because we are sitting in two different areas of the country, behind monitor screens, and neither of us has a clue where the other is.
You also don't have 10 grand, and my mouth is already shut - we're typing, not talking. Tool!
@Soloman1001 Now let's turn to your inability to spell basic english. Articulacy and grammar are a direct measure of someone's intellect. Judging by how much time you spend on the internet typing away I think it demonstrates, yet again, how stupid you are and really how you have no right to call anyone else a moron.
@Soloman1001 Any one can check back through the comments to see how soloman has attempted to distort the issue when I engaged him. First he accused me of making an analogy. Except I didn't. Then he stated that I gave an example. I didn't. Then he said I made an argument. Still I didn't. In each case I asked him to point out where I had done each of these things but he just tried to change the subject yet again. Please check and see for yourself everyone.
@Soloman1001 The difference is I can point to examples right here on this web page of your stupidity. Anyone can check (and please do) to see how you dodged the issue with me for about two weeks then convinced yourself that you had won when you still haven't provided any proof. Explain to us all one more time the logic behind your comment that Chomsky was barred from the USSR because his beliefs were too similar to their own! Except we know you'll just ignore that and keep proclaiming you won.
@Soloman1001 "Lose with Dignity." Except I didn't lose anything. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks either. Funny, I don't see anyone here backing up the illiterate drivel you type all over youtube.
@Soloman1001 "House about our bet to see who loses" More spelling at the level of an 8 year old! Looks like I was right about Soloman dodging the issue I mentioned a few posts ago as well. Now he's getting so desperate he is resorting to threats! Dear oh dear!
Is this a Spelling contest? I am debating with people in 3 different languages and you want a spelling contest because you have lost the debate, what a sad pair of twerps you are. YOU LOST get over it and LOSE with DIGNITY, TWERP!
@Soloman1001 "I am debating with people in 3 different languages". That is irrelevant to the issue, but it's what I have come to expect from you. Dodging the issue once again. What exactly did I lose at Soloman?
@Soloman1001 Kidding yourself you won does not mean you actually did. You seem to think that because 2 different ideologies both use the word "stateless" in their wikipedia definitions that this qualifies as proof that they are the same (the very fact that there are two different definitions is missed on Soloman's low intellect) and further more, this somehow means Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer. (something you have still not been able to prove and therefore have not won anything)
@dcamaggots He is a keyboard warrior! He would never speak like that to our faces. That would require a spine. Along with intelligence, that is something Soloman does not posses.
Stop ya babbling and whinging, you lost, arent you used to losing, i would have thought you would have been a professional at that by now, you must live a very isolated existence. Accept that you lost, you have no argument at all, i explained the principle very clearly to you and yet you still dont understand it, botton of the class and you wear the dunces hat.
@Soloman1001 "i explained the principle very clearly to you and yet you still dont understand it, botton of the class and you wear the dunces hat." You explained nothing. All you did was copy and paste a couple of definitions from Wikipedia (hardly the most reliable source!). This just another one of your attempts at filling up the comments section while dodging the issue. You seem to think that claiming you won without being able to back up your claim with any proof equates to winning.
@Soloman1001 First Point - Yet again, you seem to think that because 2 different ideologies both use the word "stateless" in their wikipedia definitions that this qualifies as proof that they are the same (the very fact that there are two different definitions is missed on Soloman's low intellect) and further more, this somehow means Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer. (something you have still not been able to prove and therefore have not won anything)
@Soloman1001 2nd point - the closest you have come to answering my question (prove Noam Chomsky is a Communist sympathizer) was when I asked you why the USSR would ban him if he shares their beliefs. Your response: they banned him because his beliefs are too similar to their own! Eh??? You have avoided explaining this each time I ask you therefore confirming your low intellect and inability to form a logical argument.
@Soloman1001 I see you're back to name calling. What does this say about the strength of your argument? "Explain how Stateless, can be anything other than Pure Communism, Anarchism or Libertarian Socialism?" You made the claim, not me. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up your claims. See my 3rd point. I have outlined my thoughts below to which you have avoided answering any of them yet again. Looks like I'm going to have retype my points until you stop dodging answering them!
It is also upto you to try and refute it, which you cant..LOL!
Your best effort is to say that Stateless has 2 meanings, Not in this discussion it doesnt because we are talking about Communist, Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism.
@Soloman1001 "It is also upto you to try and refute it," So now you have abandoned all logic and are just making up anything. You made the claim, not me so the burden proof is on you to justify your claim. "Your best effort is to say that Stateless has 2 meanings". Another lie. I never said the word "Stateless" had two meanings. Once again you demonstrate your stupidity and willingness to lie.
@Soloman1001 "Not in this discussion it doesnt because we are talking about Communist, Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism. " Wrong again. I asked you to prove your accusation that Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer. You couldn't actually back up your lies so instead you tried to pretend his preferred political ideology is the same thing as communism when it is not. I offered you a challenge to which you have avoided.
@Soloman1001 If it was true that Libertarian Socialism was the same thing as Communism , then find me a professor of political science who would agree with this assessment. Conveniently you have avoided taking up my challenge. So what does that say?
It says that you're desperate. So now you are saying that i have to comply with your Parameters in order to prove the blatantly obvious, are you serious?
@Soloman1001 "So now you are saying that i have to comply with your Parameters". No, not my parameters just common sense (try it some time). If you make a statement, as you did, then it is up to you to prove it objectively. You have not done that. I came up with a way to prove it objectively but you keep dodging the issue and pretending instead that wikipedia definitions = Chomsky's guilt.
@Soloman1001 "It says that you're desperate". Bearing in mind I do not make lies to suit myself, unlike you, I think that shows quite clearly who is desperate. Your latest lie - "Your best effort is to say that Stateless has 2 meanings". I never said that, so if you have to make up lies, as you have all through this, I think that tells anyone reading this who is the desperate one.
Too edited.
munderlarkst 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
drzyklon06 1 month ago
mass immigration is destroying the west. Noam seems to like it. oo bad he looses credibility with me.
knightschwartz 2 months ago
News reporters generally have their heads screwed on so tightly --and I mean that not as a compliment-- that it irritates me. Still, you need people like that to make the world go round, s'pose.
tomsega 2 months ago
Noam Chomsky, amazing person!
Please come to New Zealand!!!
Drsmithnz 3 months ago
Comment removed
Drsmithnz 3 months ago
It is so remarkably enlightening and humbling to watch this after 2 years into Obama's presidency.
armanika 3 months ago
I laughed at the intro. Chomsky is really raging, there must have been armed security for this interview.
SmogHouseTradingCo 5 months ago
I can not catch Dr Chomsky on any untruths, whatsoever.
DrMerkwuerdichliebe 5 months ago
While the interview is interesting it seems to me to be heavily edited. Whenever Chomsky makes a claim that counteracts a mainstream view on a topic, the arguments for the claim are cut away, leaving him simply stating things like that the election of Obama is revealing of how flawed the current democratic system is. Without a at least somewhat thourough justification, the claim doesn't appear to make much sense, and perhaps that was intentional.
kakkuaa 5 months ago
I'm not a huge fan of Chomsky, but have sympathy for him here, having to deal with such braindead questioning.
DancinJim 6 months ago
When internet becomes a threat, it will be stopped just like mainstream media.
FarhadTv 7 months ago
This editing of Chomsky is unbearable!
Ermal8711 7 months ago
This interview was clearly heavily edited. Chomsky never answers questions as tersely as he does here.
fromis111 7 months ago
@fromis111 CONCISION!!!!!
Ermal8711 7 months ago
as much as i hate to agree with him, the interviewer has a point about the internet. if it weren't for the internet i wouldn't be listening to chomsky's ideas right now.
ienjoyapples 7 months ago
"The internet is a cult generator. Anybody can put up anything they like. That's nice".
Cut.
Over -the-shoulder shot to cover clumsy edit to next question.
What an appalling abuse of Chomsky's wisdom.
I don't know which particular brain-dead monkey put together this programme but he/she needs a serious arse-kicking!
Cabronosidad 7 months ago
@Cabronosidad
I really doubt the BBC would have done that, I think it was probably Chomskyan.
TheSorrow1O1 6 months ago
@TheSorrow1O1 Do you think that the BBC is there for the objective truth?
PrometheanRunGood 5 months ago
@PrometheanRunGood
I really doubt BBC would do such bad editing that's why. Besides I see no reason why the BBC would want to 'hide' anything that Chomsky said as your are implying.
TheSorrow1O1 5 months ago
@TheSorrow1O1 It's definitely edited, there's no way Chomsky would ever not go into the details on why the interviewer was mistaken.
RakshasaCat 3 months ago
@RakshasaCat
It was obviously edited. What I'm saying is that I don't think it was the BBC that edited it I think it was Chomskyan. I don't KNOW that but I just don't think BBC would do such a bad editing job,
TheSorrow1O1 3 months ago
@TheSorrow1O1 I just downloaded the files and uploaded it in 3 parts. whatever editing was done was before I got it. Check other versions too.
Chomskyan 3 months ago
@Chomskyan
Alright thanks for clearing that up, I can't believe the BBC would edit it like that.
TheSorrow1O1 3 months ago
God I havent watched the whole vid yet but I cant stand the new host of hardtalk.
Hes a right pompous idiot who always seems out of his depth and is blatantly being a rhetorical mouth piece.
Tim Sebastian had more presence than this pretentious Tory Toff
wiqid 9 months ago
I think BBC edited something Chomsky said out at 4:52, as someone with a video and sound editing background.
Bouchon211 9 months ago
I have to say that I am a massive supporter of Chomsky work, but i think on this point he is slightly out of touch. The events in the Middle east specifically the use of social networking sites as of avenues of dissent and mobilization; and also the attempts of governments (Egypt, China) to preclude access to the Internet illustrates that those in power do in fact see the internet as a viable threat to entrenched power.
MrBackdoorable 10 months ago
@MrBackdoorable Although because this interview is highly edited i'd expect Chomsky would almost certainly have given a more persuasive and extensive answer.
MrBackdoorable 10 months ago
@MrBackdoorable This was made before the events in the middle east. Look at the date.
brownie1982ad 5 months ago
Steven......Steven.....Come ere lad, I wanna have a word for a second......
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
BenNCM 11 months ago 5
lol, a few seconds into it he says chomsky is one of the worlds most controversial, that is simply not true.lol
RipTheJackR 11 months ago
@RipTheJackR the 'controversial' tag is really an enabler allowing people sitting on the fence about Chomsky to dismiss him.
PrometheanRunGood 5 months ago
Editing all but ruins this interview. It would have been nice to see him actually respond to the follow up questions.
Lastwaltz55 11 months ago
"... quote unquote citizen journalism ..."
Really encapsulates how hypocritically the mass media pour scorn over this form of journalism while at the same time they propose it as evidence of an 'information age'. Their attitude towards Wikileaks is similarly disingenuous.
bobbybobson2003 1 year ago
chomsky is a vile idiotic racist who thinks he knows what is best for us natives in non west .
hammertapping 1 year ago
@hammertapping How does opposing the neo-colonial program imply that "he thinks he knows best"? Surely, it's the corporate giants, and not the anarcho-syndicalist academic, who deserves that criticism?
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish what world do you live in ? this piece of crap racist chomsky is a neo- colonial of the western left
that he opposes west's right wing neo colonials is beside the point
he supports western interventions on other countries to impose west's so called 'liberal' values.
he is no different from despicable missionaries who wanted to bring civilization to non west and helped genocidal imperialists.
if you support this vile racist you are a racist too. are you one ? dare to answer !
hammertapping 11 months ago 2
@hammertapping What are you talking about? Liberal Interventionism (a defined school of thought) is something which Chomsky, a self-identified anarcho-syndicalist (hardly "liberal", in either the proper or butchered American sense of the word), opposes explicitly. Have you actually read any of his work, or are you just going on hearsay?
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish you pretend to live in words . i live in real world and judge ppl by their actions.
racist chomsky spoken and urged support for various kinds of interventions at un and elsewhere against non west bc we don't comply with his so called values which are basically 'liberal' . i know this especially bc i have documented his actions and words against my country sri lanka . only the worst kind of racist could do what he did there.
only other racists defend him. r u one?
hammertapping 11 months ago
@hammertapping Chomsky has supported certain cases of humanitarian intervention, yes, but not the sort of "soft imperialist" imposition you seem to infer. I honestly wonder if you actually know anything about the man, or have just absorbed some second-hand bile from American "libertarians".
And, please, don't use words like "liberal" and "racist" if you don't understand them. You're just making an ass of yourself.
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish who is backtracking now? u!
now u admit (what i said from first); that racist chomsky "supported intervention" in "certain cases"(ie non west) on behalf of his interpretation of 'humanitarian' values. ha!
and u think i am making an ass of myself?lol
unlike u, what i say is based on his words;he thinks his values superior;he non west to obey them willing or not.
in sri lankan case,he equated tamils with tamil tigers(who killed& maimed our children).that is purest form of racism.
hammertapping 11 months ago
@Traitorfish scumbag chomsky is a racist based on his own words and actions.
he should be called what he is, esp by ppl like us sri lankans who are at the receiving end of his(literally) bloody disgusting 'liberal' racism
no matter how hard blind ignorant unthinking foolish sycophants like you try to cover him from his own words and actions he will be called and exposed for what he is; worst kind of racist !
and if you continue to defend him you are just as much a racist . your choice!
hammertapping 11 months ago
@hammertapping You really like the word "racist", don't you? Even though you have absolutely no idea what ethnicity I am. Hm.
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish what does your ( or anyone's ) ethnicity has to do with racism? do answer!
ur statment only highlights uneducated status.
chomsky is a racist bc he attributed certain qualities to tamils, sinhalese & others in sri lanka without recognizing only few of those groups(such as tamil tigers)deserved those. he then urged intervention based his racist statements & alleged violations of his 'liberal' values here.
he has acted same way about other non western countries.
u cover for racist.
hammertapping 11 months ago
@hammertapping Racism is a system of ethnic domination, yes? Therefore ethnicity is entirely pertinent. If I happen to be of a South Asian ethnicity, then you claims that I am racist against- as in your case- South Asian people would make no sense. As you don't know what my ethnicity is, your accusations of racism are merely rhetorical, and entirely without substance.
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish typical! lost a argument?run off on a tangent. here after u lost on chomsky's support for forcing western values on others,u run off on definition of racism.lol
ur lack of education leads even the tangent down a hole.
racism is more than a system of ethnic domination; use of n word as an insult is racist regardless of power relationship. any person(eg chomsky) equating tamils with bestial tamil tigers(who kill innocents)is a racist. and so on. that is substance.
u cover racist.
hammertapping 11 months ago
@hammertapping The idea that I "lost" anything would imply that there was any sort of structured discourse in place, when, in fact, all you've done is ramble incoherently about perceived racism- apparently inverse of any reality, Chomsky having gone on public record as supporting Tamil self-determination- with my responses constituting, in essence, a somewhat wordy response of "um, what"? That's not something that can be "lost" or "won", one way or the other.
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish ppl can read & judge who lost & won; who backtracked(eg now one thing about chomsky's support for intervention in non west & then another),who said racism depends on ethnicity of racist etc etc.
u unable to give such specific eg of my backtracking etc. instead u just assert i 'ramble incoherently'. lol
to my specific example among many of chomsky's racism,u refer his 'support' for tamil's 'self determination' but tellingly ignore he equated tamils with tamil tigers then. lol
hammertapping 11 months ago
@hammertapping Don't care.
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish yes do run .
if you really did not care u would not have made comment after comment defending the racist chomsky here . lol
you now run away with that comment bc your ignorant uneducated bottom got the kicking it deserved and you can't stand it anymore .
lol@ racist dog of scumbag chomsky running away from reason and facts . i want to give him some more
hammertapping 11 months ago
@hammertapping You are *quite* mad, aren't you?
Traitorfish 11 months ago
Comment removed
hammertapping 11 months ago
@Traitorfish of course i am mad at racists like chomsky and their defenders. you obviously like to defend racists.
but i love exposing racists and their absurd arguments as i did with you .
so do come back with more silly arguments so that i can enjoy kicking your racist bottom further with reason and facts mixed with deserved insults .
lol
hammertapping 11 months ago
@hammertapping You still haven't really fleshed out that "racism" comment,
Traitorfish 11 months ago
@Traitorfish oh the you are back for more kicks in your racist butt!
of course you bird brain don't get it.
u shamelessly speak up for racist chomsky even though u cannot counter his own wards & actions that prove his racism.
u think ethnicity of a person protect them from racist tag, whatever they do, say or believe. only a idiotic fanatic follower of a leader will say that. and ur words prove u r one, for chomsky
does ur friends know u are racist? exposure of closet racist is going to be fun!
hammertapping 11 months ago
@Traitorfish racism has nothing to do with racist 's ethnic group, it has to do with racist thinking that certain qualities are inherent on some ethnic group (whether the person thinking this belong to that ethnic group or some others opposed to it does not matter). when racist wants actions based on his racist thoughts he is worse.
chomsky is a racist based on his words and actions as i pointed out before .
u cover for him and his ideas, ie you are a follower of worst kind of racist. agree?
hammertapping 11 months ago
ffs If you wanna hear a Noam Chomsky speech, go listen to Noam Chomsky speech. This is an interview where the intention is to challenge him and put forward critical questions. I know this is genuinely alien to Americans but you have no right to moan about how crap the media is and then complain when it actually gives someone a half hour slot and challenges them. This is normal on Hard Talk with ANY guest of ANY political persuasion. Not everyone is an idiot just because they aren't Chomskians.
nomis101uk 1 year ago
@nomis101uk
Great comment.
ExtremeBogom 11 months ago
let the man talk!
stop cutting him off!
fibra 1 year ago
manipulative editing......let the man talk.....please!!!!!
louchas1 1 year ago
What a waste. Steven Sackur should be taken to barrymore's.
pengo2007 1 year ago
Chomsky is naive. He was fooled by Sasha Baron Cohen. If this witless wonder can't read people how can I trust he can read the world.
MichelSainteClaire 1 year ago
@MichelSainteClaire .lol witless wonder? wheter you like chomsky or not,that comment is pathetic.His biggest critics give in him credit and admiration for his intelligence, and some random nobody on youtube who has done nothing for any cause calls him witless?.The internet is perfect for mouth breathers.
laudrup90 7 months ago
@laudrup90 I'm still proud of my comment! I hit the target on the bullseye.
MichelSainteClaire 6 months ago
08:35
GrigolConservative 1 year ago
Sackur is extremely intelligent. Probably them most intelligent person with the BBC. This show is called "Hard Talk". He has to disagree with Chomsky. Please get that through your thick skulls you morons.
bahramf 1 year ago
nobody wants to know what you think you stupid moron, stop articulating stupid incoherent thoughts, and let chomsky speak!
harishd 1 year ago
Stephen Sackur
CyberspacedLoner 1 year ago
dis guy interviewing a completey a idiot
timetochilli 1 year ago
@something9313
Indeed. Some seem to think that the sun shone out of Churchill's arse, but I'm not one of them.
I have several relatives that were around during the Churchill era, and they don't speak highly of him at all. So, I'll take their word for it over anyone else's.
Hitler and Stalin were, are and will remain rightly hated, but Churchill was hardly a paragon of virtue for the reasons you've detailed.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
the internet is just an extension of power imposed upon us as much as we think the power is on our side now .. everything you put on facebook or youtube goes to government and existing powerful political or economic institutions.
mavishill 1 year ago
This interview is so unfair. The hardtalk guy talks more then chomsky and Mr chomskys answers are being edited. Sometimes it feels like half of hes answers are simply gone and this is not Fox it is the BBC. Media sucks !!
TinyArts 1 year ago
This reporter is like a tired old whore who only tells you what you want to hear...see Doug Stanhope for details...
3laz3r 1 year ago
this is edited to shit...
lukekendall 1 year ago 35
@lukekendall
Absolutely right Luke. Chomsky always gives fuller answers than on this video
Shinkicker64 1 year ago
chomsky is a moron
bazodee2 1 year ago
@bazodee2 Succinct and accurate criticism. Well done!
trallala 1 year ago
@trallala
lol, did i insult your messiah?
bazodee2 1 year ago
@bazodee2 chomsky isn't my messiah, and I think the only person you made look bad with your comment was yourself.
trallala 1 year ago
@trallala
come on, admit it; you have a thing for chomsky... maybe he's the central figure on your sex fantasies, who knows, but you wouldnt have replied TWICE to my comments if he wasnt an important role model in your reality. psychology 101.
bazodee2 1 year ago
@bazodee2 actually, psychology 101 would explain my behaviour towards YOU, not Chomsky. The fact that I think Chomsky is a pretty smart guy doesn't make him my messiah or my role model, he's just a guy whose opinions I listen to sometimes. Not always, though: I don't agree with his theories on anarchism, for example, but I really liked his analysis of the Israel/Palestine conflict in Fateful Triangle.
trallala 1 year ago
Journo-putz! Chomsky "raging"? This is obviously the first the "reporter" has heard of "No-Ahm"....
Dionysos37 1 year ago
This reporter is an idiot and clearly has very little clue what he is taking about. He also seems unable to be quiet and let Noam speak, doenst seem to understand that people watching this want to see what Chomsky thinks, not what he thinks...
MrAnarchistuk 1 year ago 55
@MrAnarchistuk It's called Hardtalk, the interviewer is supposed to play 'devil's advocate'.
dazzagazza6969 1 year ago
@MrAnarchistuk you're an idiot, and the guy is a capable journalist who has interviewed countless famous people in a very lucid and informed way. that's called HARDTALK dude. it's a talk show with its own rules. if you participate in it you expect being interrupted to elucidate your points AND being challenged.. oh, but maybe you're american.. then stick to fox news that might suit you better
deplo 1 year ago
@deplo I understand the nature of the program thanks. I just felt that he didnt give Chomsky enough time to elaborate fully on his points. My name is mr anarchist UK, does that suggest to you that maybe I am not American? By that and your reference to me as 'dude' I would contend that you are the idiot.
MrAnarchistuk 1 year ago
@deplo Te hard talk interview with Tim Sebastian (&Chomsky) was a way better interview (on youtube)
justicelevi 1 year ago
@deplo i think the fact that the guy's name is: MrAnarchist"uk" kinda gives it away that he is not from america... and the fact that he agrees with chomsky means that he certainly doesnt regard foxnews as a suitable news channel...
hailantifa 1 year ago
@MrAnarchistuk That's because the "journalist" is a retarded British twit.
buzzin1975 1 year ago
@MrAnarchistuk no no, it's the stile of this program, the journalist has to be confrontational and ask difficult questions, that's why it's called "hardtalk". I tusuallly work very well
Ilikelink 1 year ago
@Ilikelink It used to work well, when the previous host actually did substantive research. This guy, to BBC's shame, seems to do a very basic Google search, finds the most used grievance by fake conservative right wingers, presents it without bothering to find out whether it's a valid grievance or just a smear to discredit, and runs with it.
It's a pathetic and classic example of lazy research.
cinesimonj 1 year ago
@MrAnarchistuk rite said fred !!!!!!!!!!!!
akisgr8101 1 year ago
@MrAnarchistuk I know
i hate this guy he's obnoxious, smug, he doesn't listen to people and he's always smirking.
bullbunnies 1 year ago
@MrAnarchistuk
I think that's unfair. Hardtalk is a good program and Sackur does a good job of interviewing many interesting people like Chomsky and David Harvey that you would rarely if ever see on American television. He interviews a different person every show and does show exhibiting a good degree of knowledge given the generality of the program. He let him talk as much as anyone on the program talks and listened to him politely. It's not meant to be a monologue.
borjon23 1 year ago 2
@MrAnarchistuk The fact that he's a brainwashed idiot is the very reason he was hired.
freedomthrough 11 months ago
@MrAnarchistuk
Yes, this is because HARDtalk has become basically a grilling machine. At least since Sackur took over.
Whoever is being interviewed MUST be grilled. No matter who they are, or what there views are.
Personally I'm not keen on this style of interviewing, but it's the name of the game I'm afraid.
ExtremeBogom 11 months ago
@MrAnarchistuk the reporter is a real journalist. no one is left alone, everyone is prodded with a stick to defend their views.
halflifeproductionz 8 months ago 4
@MrAnarchistuk This guy may be an idiot, but he's a lot better than the idiots over at FOX News.
carioca56 7 months ago
@MrAnarchistuk
Well his defense, it is necessary for him to at least play devils advocate in order to force a response to a potential question. Unless viewers at home hear a response to a question they might have had, they will start to close-off their minds.
I'm yet to start this video, but I just watched this man's interview of Richard Dawkins and many times I was annoyed with need to interrupt Dawkins. Also many of the questions were pretty lame...
mellamosean 7 months ago
Chomsky can hardly get a few words in before he is interrupted by Mr Sackur who seems to have made up his mind about Chomsky and seems to not want him to voice too many of his views."I put to you" he says but then invariably hardly lets Chomsky respond
billj14 1 year ago
The reporter is only a good set of hair teeth and face> He should not be direspectfull to a real intellectual
joyd 1 year ago
I'm only 30 seconds in and i'm already laughing. I don't think it matters if you're the gentlest pussy cat in the world, if you challenge mainstream opinion you're always "raging", an angry dangerous militant. "Controversial" is like that as well. The end sentence in the introduction is complete howler, the presenter effectively says "he should have changed his opinions about bombing natives of other countries since vietnam, and if he hasn't he's a dinosaur!" Trust good old BBC impartiality...
HolyCows154 1 year ago
fuck the bbc edits of this interview are annoying as fuck!
tzarjez 1 year ago
@tzarjez See all you say is fuvk the bbc fuck. you have no class. Go watch tv zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
MJJacksonQueen777 1 year ago
@MJJacksonQueen777 and you're following me around on youtube gg little buddy
tzarjez 1 year ago
Does anyone think, from looking back over this discussion, that Soloman has come anywhere close to winning it? All the way through he has dodged answering the question, tried to distort the issue, accuse me of things I didn't type and indulge in name calling and slander. At the end he seems to have convinced himself that he won by pretending that giving definitions of two different political systems equates to proof that Chomsky is a communist sympathizer!
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
That's Soloman - he does this all the time, and he's been hanging around on that Galloway for over a year (he's so lifeless, I wouldn't be surprised if he's still be there in 10 years!), trying to pick arguments with anyone who takes Galloway's side in any way - even if it has nothing to do with the clip in question.
I don't know why he does it - he doesn't lie well, he doesn't argue well, and practically everyone who responds to his comments very quickly get bored with him.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
And yet you appear to be obessessed..HAHA!! What did you say your point was again? What are you, a known Galloway arse kisser doing here on a Chompsky video, Oh, hang on, its the Communism Connection again. HAHA!!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
What does obessessed mean?
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
I think you know..HAHA!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
No, I don't know. What does 'obessessed' mean? It's not a word I can find in the dictionary.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dcamaggots
Type it into google, see what happens. If you are really that thick then its no wonder you are clueless.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Google it, see what you find..LOL!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
Oh, I can find 'obsessed', but not 'obesessed', which is what you originally said.
So, what does 'obessessed' mean?
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
You are more of an Imbecile than i thought..LOL!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Write in down and take it to your mosque, see if they can help you, ask your family, your neighbours, see if they can figure out the conundrum, ask people what they think it might mean you total Dunce. But dont bother asking BBOYMAHONI because he is almost as much of a moron as you are.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
Sounds like you're pretty 'obessessed' yourself, whatever 'obessessed' may mean. Or you could just admit that you type up inarticulate, repetitive crap, but I somehow doubt that you will.
And that is because obsessed (not 'obesessed') Nazi bigots like yourself never admit they're in the wrong, even when utterly cornered.
No, I won't bother asking BBOYMONI, because he's as bored with you as I am.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Explain your Nazi Bigot comment?..this will be good.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
Well, explain what 'obesessed' means.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
HAHA!! You know what it means fart in a thunderstorm because you have just called me it, so therefore you must understand what it means.
So you cant answer then, thats what i thought.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soloman1001
Explain what 'obesessed' means, and then I'll tell you what I mean by Nazi bigot, which you are.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soloman1001
Explain what 'obesessed' means, and then I'll you what I mean by Nazi bigot - which you are.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Funny because i remember your name from the Galloway videos, which you have also mentioned yourself. I couldn't possibly imagine why you, the Galloway the Communist sympathizer would be commenting here on a Chompsky video, it just defies logic and the powers of deductive reasoning to imagine that you are here purely by coincidence..LOL!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
And why shouldn't I be commenting on a Chomsky (not 'Chompsky') video? I can comment on which clips I like, even if it does include calling you a Nazi bigot.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
But you cant substantiate your Nazi Bigot comment can you?..Noo!
So thats what makes you ridiculous.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
But you can't substantiate what 'obessessed' means, can you? Noo!
Once you tell me what 'obessessed' means, I'll happily clarify why you;re a Nazi bigot.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Lets put it this way, if you and i walked out into the street i would make a bet with you for 10,000 pounds that someone would be able to Substantiate what 'Obessessed' means sooner than Substantiate you calling me a Nazi Bigot, i would bet my house and my car on it..LOL!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
So, if 'obessessed' is so easily substantiated, what does it mean, then? You've only been asked at least six times.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
You can ask me a million times it makes no difference, i am telling you to go figure it out by using any other means at your disposal ..HAHA!!
Its time you started educating yourself in the art of deductive reasoning..LOL!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
Then I'm sure that you can figure out what I mean by Nazi bigot, and educate yourself in deductive reasoning. Though somehow, I very much that you have that capability...HAHAHAHA!!
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
No because that is just ridiculous, there id no deduction or reasoning its an absurd thing to say. Like i said we can wander into the street to prove my theory..LOL! 10,000 pounds on the table, that would shut your ridiculous mouth wouldn't it..YES!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soloman1001 You seem to think that because 2 different ideologies both use the word "stateless" in their wikipedia definitions that this qualifies as proof that they are the same (the very fact that there are two different definitions is missed on Soloman's low intellect) and further more, this somehow means Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer (something you have still not been able to prove).
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
No, we can't wander into any street to prove anything because we are sitting in two different areas of the country, behind monitor screens, and neither of us has a clue where the other is.
You also don't have 10 grand, and my mouth is already shut - we're typing, not talking. Tool!
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Ok, So we shall bet on your fingers then, you lose your fingers if you're wrong..LOL!
You'll have to type your crap with your toes or your nose..LOL!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 Now let's turn to your inability to spell basic english. Articulacy and grammar are a direct measure of someone's intellect. Judging by how much time you spend on the internet typing away I think it demonstrates, yet again, how stupid you are and really how you have no right to call anyone else a moron.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 Any one can check back through the comments to see how soloman has attempted to distort the issue when I engaged him. First he accused me of making an analogy. Except I didn't. Then he stated that I gave an example. I didn't. Then he said I made an argument. Still I didn't. In each case I asked him to point out where I had done each of these things but he just tried to change the subject yet again. Please check and see for yourself everyone.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
Not you again, you lost, learn to lose with Dignity.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 The difference is I can point to examples right here on this web page of your stupidity. Anyone can check (and please do) to see how you dodged the issue with me for about two weeks then convinced yourself that you had won when you still haven't provided any proof. Explain to us all one more time the logic behind your comment that Chomsky was barred from the USSR because his beliefs were too similar to their own! Except we know you'll just ignore that and keep proclaiming you won.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
Lose with Dignity.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soloman1001 "Lose with Dignity." Except I didn't lose anything. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks either. Funny, I don't see anyone here backing up the illiterate drivel you type all over youtube.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
Except he didn't lose - you did.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
With your spelling and grasp of grammar, aren't you already victim to all of that?
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Thats funny coming from a someone with the Debating Capabilities of a Quadriplegic.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
Hmm! Trying to make fun of the afflicted now - that's lovely.
You're making yourself appear more of a bigot and a Nazi with each subsequent post, and you're too stupid to even see it.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
Comment removed
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 "House about our bet to see who loses" More spelling at the level of an 8 year old! Looks like I was right about Soloman dodging the issue I mentioned a few posts ago as well. Now he's getting so desperate he is resorting to threats! Dear oh dear!
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
Is this a Spelling contest? I am debating with people in 3 different languages and you want a spelling contest because you have lost the debate, what a sad pair of twerps you are. YOU LOST get over it and LOSE with DIGNITY, TWERP!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
'Our bet'? I never made a bet with you to begin with - back to the Fuhrerbunker with you.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 "I am debating with people in 3 different languages". That is irrelevant to the issue, but it's what I have come to expect from you. Dodging the issue once again. What exactly did I lose at Soloman?
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 Kidding yourself you won does not mean you actually did. You seem to think that because 2 different ideologies both use the word "stateless" in their wikipedia definitions that this qualifies as proof that they are the same (the very fact that there are two different definitions is missed on Soloman's low intellect) and further more, this somehow means Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer. (something you have still not been able to prove and therefore have not won anything)
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
Hmm. I see Soloman's flounced off, which means he's not just a Nazi bigot - he's a chickenshit Nazi bigot.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots He is a keyboard warrior! He would never speak like that to our faces. That would require a spine. Along with intelligence, that is something Soloman does not posses.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
You forgot to add 'literacy', 'tolerance', 'cohesion', and 'ability to see when he is contradicting himself'.
He's already displayed homophobia, racism, segregation, and mocking the afflicted - is there anyone he hasn't managed to offend yet?
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
You sure are afflicted, that i am sure about, an argument would be good but you have no point do you, Nooo!
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
You don't have an argument, and you certainly don't have any point. Nazi bigots always don't. That I'm definitely sure about.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
Stop ya babbling and whinging, you lost, arent you used to losing, i would have thought you would have been a professional at that by now, you must live a very isolated existence. Accept that you lost, you have no argument at all, i explained the principle very clearly to you and yet you still dont understand it, botton of the class and you wear the dunces hat.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 "i explained the principle very clearly to you and yet you still dont understand it, botton of the class and you wear the dunces hat." You explained nothing. All you did was copy and paste a couple of definitions from Wikipedia (hardly the most reliable source!). This just another one of your attempts at filling up the comments section while dodging the issue. You seem to think that claiming you won without being able to back up your claim with any proof equates to winning.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 First Point - Yet again, you seem to think that because 2 different ideologies both use the word "stateless" in their wikipedia definitions that this qualifies as proof that they are the same (the very fact that there are two different definitions is missed on Soloman's low intellect) and further more, this somehow means Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer. (something you have still not been able to prove and therefore have not won anything)
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 2nd point - the closest you have come to answering my question (prove Noam Chomsky is a Communist sympathizer) was when I asked you why the USSR would ban him if he shares their beliefs. Your response: they banned him because his beliefs are too similar to their own! Eh??? You have avoided explaining this each time I ask you therefore confirming your low intellect and inability to form a logical argument.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
Stateless is the end result you idiot, dont you know that yet?
Quote "Pure communism in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless society''
Explain how Stateless, can be anything other than Pure Communism, Anarchism or Libertarian Socialism?
How many times do i have to explain this to you pea brain.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 I see you're back to name calling. What does this say about the strength of your argument? "Explain how Stateless, can be anything other than Pure Communism, Anarchism or Libertarian Socialism?" You made the claim, not me. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up your claims. See my 3rd point. I have outlined my thoughts below to which you have avoided answering any of them yet again. Looks like I'm going to have retype my points until you stop dodging answering them!
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
You won't get an answer from him - Nazi bigots can never fully explain what they previously say.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@dcamaggots
Hitler was a Quasi Communist, he was a NAZI, that YOU pea brain.
Do you know what the NAZI party stand for cretin?
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001
Well, being a Nazi bigot, you should know.
dcamaggots 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
Yes and i have proved it, sadly you are unwilling t acept defeat gracefully, so you want to repeat your crap for the rest of your life.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
It is also upto you to try and refute it, which you cant..LOL!
Your best effort is to say that Stateless has 2 meanings, Not in this discussion it doesnt because we are talking about Communist, Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 "It is also upto you to try and refute it," So now you have abandoned all logic and are just making up anything. You made the claim, not me so the burden proof is on you to justify your claim. "Your best effort is to say that Stateless has 2 meanings". Another lie. I never said the word "Stateless" had two meanings. Once again you demonstrate your stupidity and willingness to lie.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soloman1001 "Not in this discussion it doesnt because we are talking about Communist, Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism. " Wrong again. I asked you to prove your accusation that Noam Chomsky is a communist sympathizer. You couldn't actually back up your lies so instead you tried to pretend his preferred political ideology is the same thing as communism when it is not. I offered you a challenge to which you have avoided.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 If it was true that Libertarian Socialism was the same thing as Communism , then find me a professor of political science who would agree with this assessment. Conveniently you have avoided taking up my challenge. So what does that say?
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
@BBOYMONI
YAWN!
It says that you're desperate. So now you are saying that i have to comply with your Parameters in order to prove the blatantly obvious, are you serious?
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 "So now you are saying that i have to comply with your Parameters". No, not my parameters just common sense (try it some time). If you make a statement, as you did, then it is up to you to prove it objectively. You have not done that. I came up with a way to prove it objectively but you keep dodging the issue and pretending instead that wikipedia definitions = Chomsky's guilt.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Soloman1001 "It says that you're desperate". Bearing in mind I do not make lies to suit myself, unlike you, I think that shows quite clearly who is desperate. Your latest lie - "Your best effort is to say that Stateless has 2 meanings". I never said that, so if you have to make up lies, as you have all through this, I think that tells anyone reading this who is the desperate one.
BBOYMONI 1 year ago