Chomsky is the perpetual stickler for relevance. Ergonomic rational argument is one of his most defining attributes though it should not be. Everyone should practice it.
No, though in retrospect I probably worded what I wanted to say wrongly (or at least not clearly).
Actually, I was pointing out the opposite, that he speaks plainly (i.e. without jargon) but not in a bad way. He expresses his thoughts in an articulate manner that allows people to see his logic in a simple and efficient way and I feel that this should not be unique to him because everyone should practice it. Its a tragedy they don't.
The governemnt becomes the corporations in socialism, they control the means of production in the same way that fascism regulates and controls the interests of the corporations with a slight amount of freedom. In such a way that Oskar Schindler can privately free thousands of jews but were there more government control that would not have been as possible.
Someone should make an argument about Chomsky's assertions, not just his character. Thats all his critics can seem to derive for themselves as ammunition. And no, thats not a personal attack, but merely an empirical observation gleaned from reading anti-Chomskyan arguments.
Buckley, being a linguist himself, was initially very pleased to invite Chomsky, who was re-known, even then, for his theoretical advancements in that field. Buckley did not realize Chomsky's real motive.
The bottom line is that in the discussion, Buckley is clearly taking the wrong position. It is just unfortunate that, unlike Sagan years later, Chomsky doesn't assert a valid counter argument; he basically just compares the American government to criminals and tries to piss off Buckley.
Since you are an idiot, and incapable of guessing the obvious motive....
...it was to humiliate one of the foremost conservative intellectuals on national television, under the pretense of an enlightened debate that Chomsky had not real interest in honestly participating in.
I'm not going to be polite to you. Your first comment was a personal attack and it was as stupid as it was disrespectful. Do the world a favor and turn on a gas oven and put your head in it and take a nap.
Buckley was rude, divisive, and uncivil. If you call waiting for someone to say something, then cutting them off and creating a straw man to quickly defeat, then yes, Buckley won the debate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, it is the reverse. Buckley invited this snob onto the show in good faith and Chomsky tried to turn it into an assault on America. Chomsky has also accused the United States and Israel of being terrorist countries in specific terms. You probably believe that as well.
According to the prevailing US definition, something along the lines of "the use of force for political, economic, or ideological gains"... there are innumerable illustrations of this. From Iran 53, Guatemala 54, to Chile 73, to Nicaragua 80s, to Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq now. All illustrations of US terrorism; the world's leading terrorist state, verified empirically.
Please, make an argument and stop slinging mud. Where has Chomsky been wrong, specifically?
wow i guess majestic is not describing your political knowledge haha .Terrorists have learned to do what they do our mistakes,...oh and not that we trained them or anything hahaha
It seems your consent has been brilliantly manufactured. Fear the invisible enemy, fear the alien threat. Forget the conditions that you actually live in and what constitutes the meaning of the word slavery. Forget that you create more terrorists by the day with each innocent man woman and child slain in the name of the Holy American Empire. Drift away in your opiate of choice, be it alcohol heroin or irrationality.
Yup. Raining indiscriminate weapons in populated areas is terrorism, clearly. I mean if you want to kill one person in one building why would you use cluster bombs that rain over the surrounding suburb block of houses as well? The only reason could possibly be to maximise the kill to send a message to the neighbours they shouldn't oppose the US invasion, esp. not the ground forces advancing behind the air force. Well that's killing civilians for political purposes; terrorism more commonly called
Take a specific example. Proving Chomsky wrong is quite the challenge, so please present something tenable, and provide evidence. Otherwise, politely shut the fuck up.
@majesticlizard hey, I looked it up, and it appears Chomsky lacks a true comprehension of what life was comprised of in Eastern Europe under the Soviet regime . That said, he does, on the other hand, have a good grasp of what the US regimes put in place in their 3rd world satellites and the means the US will go to to achieve their ends (financial superiority, monopoly, etc). He knows his shit when talking about America, but his relativistic comparisons are lacking.
Chomsky DOES not cite concrete facts. He uses specious analogies and distortions of history and outright lies. The sad truth is that while Buckley WAS in the wrong, Chomsky did NOT offer an intelligent argument to refute him. He just acted like an arrogant prick and completely violated every rule in having a civil discussion.
I understand that it is not easy to face up to the wrong that one's country has done. It takes courage and humility. But ultimately Chomsky is citing facts. He offers clear, concrete examples of American acts of aggression. Is it not honorable and moral to face up to the misdeeds of one's country? Shouldn't all people care what their nation does and how it affects other people? I personally find this to be one of the main teachings of the prophets, such as Jeremiah and Isaiah.
Early in his career, Buckley was an overt racist. However, he changed his position on the issue very publicly in the 1970's, even endorsing the NAACP. He was not remotely a fascist, however. He was a fiscal conservative like Barry Goldwater. He also believed that while academic institutions should be secular, the should not actually mock religious beliefs. People make the guy out to be a demon. If he was, he was an honest demon.
The sad thing is that there were valid reasons that Vietnam was not an example of honorable intervention on the part of the US as Buckley was suggesting. Yet, Chomsky used none of those reasons in his argument, he simply stooped to splitting semantic hairs and making up a fictional account of history.
Chomsky was rude, divisive, and uncivil. If you call waiting for someone to say something, then cutting them off and creating a straw man to quickly defeat, then yes, Chomsky won the debate.
Buckley was a bit of a douche and endorsed racism and fascism in his early "works", but I still wish he was around to bash the Sarah Palins of the world ...
The reality of american intervention (shall we call it world or foreign policy) is really genial.
Someone has been thinking very well on how to organize all this perfectly organized work some "one night" somewhere in the middle of "no boredom anymore" land.
To fuck us forever with was it good or was it bad...
Chomsky said something right somewhere else :
the only just cause was : "we did it!".
"We have carved the rod faster than you, from now on discuss forever! Who cares..."
Chomsky doesn't let Buckley finish a statement during the entire interview without interrupting him to debate irrelevant semantics, then Chomsky is outraged toward the end that Buckley finally interrupted him as well. Chomsky was just rude and arrogant.
Part 2of2: I am, first and foremost, responsible for my own actions, and had better remember that before taking too self-righteous of a stand when condemning the actions of others. Given human imperfection, it is not only right, but a duty, to be self-critical; and it is both love towards others and a generosity of spirit which compels us to be at least as critical of ourselves as we are of others. What happens if we lose the ability to criticize ourselves and can only see the faults in others?
NC's point: WE are uniquely responsible for actions done in our name, for actions undertaken by our own government, in a way that we are not with regards to the actions of some African government. As such, we have a special moral responsibility, due to our situatedness as Americans, to speak up when we (or our government) does things that are morally questionable that is different from the moral responsibilities we have to speak out against the actions of others who are not us.
@greenscenenow : So would you rather I came over to your house and told you what to do all day, and smack you when you do something I don't approve of? How about I worry about my OWN actions, and let YOU worry about yours? This is all Chomsky is saying, at the bottom of it. It's just standard human decency and respect. Not revolutionary.. or shouldn't have to be anyway.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky in effect just said, I don't really care if there is evil in the world elsewhere, what the amounts are, etc. I want to limit myself to discussing how America is singularly evil.
That is what makes him an asshat. He was then, he is now, and he will be until he is a rotting corpse, which can't come soon enough.
You are amazingly immature for being 36 years old. How is someone to take you seriously when you use terms like "asshat" and wish for an extremely peaceful person (i.e. Chomsky) to become a "rotting corpse?"
That aside, you are misunderstanding Chomsky's methods. He does not argue that the U.S. is "singularly evil," he just points out the evil things the U.S. does to its own citizens so that we can stop those evil actions. In other words, he is being constructive. Going on about other states' crimes to an audience of US citizens would be a complete waste of time, since we have relatively little control over what those states do (in comparison to our own state).
he does not explicitly make that point often enough. in linguistics there is a concept known as 'pragmatics', which roughly describes what are our expectations of relevant information in given circumstances. If you write a book about something and use inflammatory rhetoric like 'sadistic', etc then it is expected that what your talking about is exceptional
I'm not sure what "often enough" means for you. However, I listen to Chomsky's talks on a regular basis, and when confronted with the argument that he only criticizes the US, he does often bring up the point that I made below. See for example his MIT talk on Afghanistan, his CBC interview with Canadian journalists, and this very interview where he talks about his "single standard" (criticizing criminal actions for which one shares some responsibility). I do not understand the rest of your post.
no doubt.. our speculation is that it is quite an intriguing parallel between buckley and our current society to be completely honest and chomsky plays the part in our little charade of richard stallman...
It's interesting how ignorant someone can be to lump "the left" into a single group when it is more a broad affiliation. Would the World Socialist Movement or any of it's member parties sanctify violence if they thought it served "leftist ends." Probably not. Also, that's rich considering that the right in fact sanctifies violence which serves its ends as a very general (but almost infallible) rule.
The ignorance is mostly on the college educated in this country who get a one-sided education and wear iconic shirts of their messiah, Che. I should know, I was one of those for 25 years until I started to read books banned by the church of liberals.
I don't think Noam sanctified violence. I think his words were, "Personally, I'm against all kinds of terror, no question." And then he goes on to try to *understand* the reasons for the terrorism.
Understanding =/= Sanctification. (I think that inequality is something the left groks pretty well.)
This is the mark of an American Patriot: hold America accountable when it fails to live up to it's highest CODIFIED, STATED, and CLAIMED ideals.
Were Noam a Russian, and had the Russians claimed some sort of moral high ground, Noam would undoubtedly argue in opposition there, at the expense of his own life.
Chom's response about Pike is offbase--the vietcong responded not because of the specific US intervention but because of a change in the situation- read Poole's books about insurgents and u'll understand why they do the things they do- it's a response to a situation, not a response to the US!
The 'State' must always find ways of justifying its existence. After all, the original conception of the State was to provide security for all involved, to protect us from ourselves (as it were), but inevitably the major trade-off would be the seizure of decision-making power away from the masses and onto the hands of a few. So while we bask in the false security of the State, let us take a minute or two to ask ourselves if the trade-off has paid any dividends.
The original concept of the US was to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic as stated in the president's oath and military oaths. we now live in an oligarchy, governed by a few sweet talking idiots who would love to take away any freedoms they can so we cant fight back and depose them from their capitol thrones. we have little securityand now few freedoms and they are being wittled away as fast as posible. throw out all incumbents and get new blood into WASH. term limits now!!!!!!
I actually found it refreshing how much actual talking took place, without interruption, at least compared to most semi-retarded mainstream media interviews nowadays. Buckley sure is grasping though.
"...the "quarrel" in Vietnam". Buckley's description of the murder of millions, the incineration of children. Glad the prick is dead. Sorry he enjoyed so much notoriety.
Lol, let me assume that you're an open minded liberal who doesn't like labeling mass groups of people. Idiot. Go out and explore the world. Just because your mom makes you meat loaf every night doesn't mean you have to live with her.
Why is being liberal a bad thing? Why is it wrong to be upset when our rights are getting eroded? Why is it wrong to want justice and fairness in the world? People stand up for these rights and get flamed for doing so. However, the day we are left with no rights and people realise we were correct it is going to be too late.
Because Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and other tactful aristocrats have put out one of the largest and most successful disinformation campaigns of fear, hatred, and bigotory the U.S. has ever seen. They promote only fear and lies and if you question these tactics and false claims you are labled a "liberal" (aka socialist, freedom hater, anti-american, blah blah blah). They are all multi millionaires who have one mission: To promote and insure their aristocracy and power.
You are going to have a hard time defending your position about who controls the means of propaganda when the Mainstream Media is predominantly Liberal.Pointing out FOXnews,and ignoring all the others who promote their own agenda is dishonest to say the least; and crying out"fear and lies"doesn't rob it of its vacuousness.
If the people from the left would've at least been consistent in this regard and labaled ALL news outlets as biased,they would have maintained the least amount of credibility
I suppose, to stay relevant to the video, Chomsky contends that the question is not if a media outlet is liberal or conservative. It is far more a prominent question to ask if the outlet is allowed to say what it needs to. Puppets such as Billo, or olbermann, are in these positions because it is easier to lie-by-omission by extorting their inherent biased beliefs to elicit a response. However, It is comical to watch Foxnews boast about their rating right after they blame liberal media.
And I'm glad you at least contend that Olbermaan is just as slimy.
That was the objection I was getting at. The same people who bash conservative news outlets are the ones who support the most biased/mallicious/ propagandistic fools without utter a peep about their own bias.
I simply can't gloss over double standards---that's my only beef with people like Chomsky.
regelemihai, the elite use the corporate media to fool the public into believing that we actually have a democracy. The two party system is a myth. There is simply no opposition to capitalism. None. From my point of view all the corporate networks are voices of propaganda.
To be honest Chomsky does not really get the opportuity to deal with any particular issue as Buckley keeps changing the topic of conversation and is controlling the topics being discussed. He is very good at deflecting but it is clearly obvious that CHomsky would own him and has a much greater knowledge on the topics being discussed. There are times Buckley clearly does not have a clue and evades the issue.
I agree I found this whole interview hard to follow because anytime Chomsky made a point Buckey would move on or compare his point to a fake situation.
I don't know what you guys thought, but it seems to me that Buckley wants to debate abstract ideas rather than address Chomsky's concrete observations.
I've read a few of Chomsky's books; his arguments are based entirely on tangible observations. I certainly don't agree with everything Noam has to say, but I appreciate his straightforward approach.
When it comes to policy, I'm not a big fan of throwing around abstract ideas.
I certenly dosent agree with many of his moral judgements, but Interlektualy he is very clear and to the point, and is anything but dumb..
As for wheter he is vile... I just have no idear of what you could possibly mean by that, he allways seem to go out of his way to be as objetive as possible. If you know any vids that you think could make me understand better, then please send me some urls...
I guess Bush and the CIA took some inspiration from those so called "heroic torture" method ideas from the Nazis and Viatnamese and were using them at will in Guantanamo.
Buckley tries to find fault in Chomsky's logic without having a clue as how to discuss the issues. And he's a hypocryt in saying that Chomsky tries to compare unrelated things. Chomskys tries to talk about Vietnam, and Buckly counters with Nazis,
Wow! Chomsky is Brilliant! I don't know much about him, but I thought he really made great distinctions and held his concentration against Buckley exceptionally well... Great points...
Chomsky argues that the West was felt threatened by the economic success of USSR. USSR made great economic strides only at the expense of enormous human capital. Under Stalin, 1/3 of the population was in Gulags. The other 2/3 worked just above slave wages. Stalin sent millions of German POW to rebuild the country. The Soviet Union had vast natural resources that the US, Germany and Japan never possessed. These facts are inconvenient truths to his demented interpretation of the world.
Chomsky is way out of his league. He uses tricks than more than logic to debate. Buckley exposes this fraud through his analogy of Greece. Listen carefully to that exchange. What Chomsky does is take the examples where the US or the capitalist system has failed and uses these to prove his arguments. He is very good at this. He knows the failures to the utmost detail. He uses the details to discredit his opposition.
your examples of chomskys tricks are the very essence of logic, you fool. Chomsky uses valid inference to make conclusions that obviously you and buckley are blind to regarding imperialism - the underlying subcommunication of this entire debate is buckley's obvious intellectual inferiority complex in the presence of a man of such intellectual integrity.
Gallagher, is it too much to ask for you libs to simply have a little class and show some respect for the dead? Apparently not. If it doesn't fall in line with your perverted viewpoints, isolate, smear & destroy.
I keep hearing that Dems are the party of exeptance and tolerance, yet are completely intollerant of different view points. You idiots will be the down fall of America as we know it. Wich I'm sure is exactly the whole purpose of your existance.
Does anybody else notice that conservatives and liberals argue on and on about a wide variety of details, but so rarely address the fact that the United States is all but flat broke. From the world's greatest creditor nation in 1945 to the world's greatest debtor nation today, and it seems like pundits talk about everything EXCEPT that fact.
Borrowing a billion dollars every 24hrs to fund the military and bail out wall street.
Actually it's 3 billion a day for the bailout, 2 billion a day for welfare and "only" 1 billion a day for the military.
BTW at the end of WW2 we were still the world's greatest debtor nation, because of the federal reserve system, so not much has changed that much. Our politicians were screwing us then , and they are doing the same today.
just viewed the documentary IOUSA, plotting the history of the us national debt against gdp. very interesting, and yes, scary as hell, particularily when they projected the cost of social security for retiring baby boomers. every american voter should view that program.
That is a problem, yes, but how does eliminating that eliminate corporations from buying conformity from our elected officials? Also, since when are corporations supposed to be tools of governments? Aren't they supposed to be tools of the people i.e. instruments of the FREE market?
Well it was of my understanding that in a democracy, the government represents the people. Granted in reality this is far from the truth, but then the problem lies in how the government is organized. A more direct form of democracy is then perhaps a necessity (lke in switzerland perhaps).
Orginally corporations were temporary constructs, created to fulfill a particular function. But all that matters to them now is the bottom line. Its incompatible with democracy in a very real sense.
just an note on my previous post: just because a corporation would lose its right as a legal person wouldnt mean it was in the hands of the government. The govmnt wud issue the charter as it does now, but what it would do would make the owners of that corporation legally responsible for any misdeeds ( which are currently merely seen as cost benefit decisions in regrds to any penalties it mite receive). The corporation would therefore have to be truly profitable
buckley is clear in his prejudice on every point discussed here, whether genuine or contrived. i think chomsky does well to retain his composure... im not sure i could in dealing with such a smarmy interviewer
Chomksy says at one point that the depraved action of the vietnamese resistance, during the discussion of heroism vs depravity, is marginal. And that "there is perfect unanimity about this among those who have studied it." This is something I have seen many times among liberal ideologues. They rhetoricaly suggest that ALL the "experts" think just like them. This is nothing but rheotric and an orwellian attempt to persuade opposition that they are alone or in the minority of thought. Untrue.
timleebee. If you want to dispute Chomsky on what appears to be an overstatement, you should do so with evidence, not with another overstatement. That is, if you want anyone to take your comments seriously.
Yes, i think generalization is a more apt description. And I'm sure you believe it to be true. However, i'm interested in whether you have evidence for your belief. If you do not, then i am not interested in your belief, nor should anyone else be.
Alright I'll give you an example. Of course, looking at it the way I do is a matter of choice. Nonetheless here it is. Let's start with a premise - that many liberals come down on the side of Darwinism, macro-evolution, big-bang and so on. During Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debates I have heard a Darwinist say, and I loosely quote, that "Such matters are agreed upon by the majority of scientists" regarding some "fact" of evolution. This is deceiving.
The man did not lie. But the facts are that about 55 percent of scientists come down on the side of Darwinism or macro-evolution. But the often repeated rhetoric and common thought on the matter among the masses is that almost all scientists are macro-evolutionists and only a few even dare to question it. If you say something loud and long enough people will believe it.
The sheer number of textbooks agreeing with evolution and the lack of any textbooks which question it supports my thinking on this matter. The textbooks are out there but not chosen by most if any public schools. If all the textbooks say it, then all textbook writers (scientists) must believe it.
I was wondering if you had evidence for your belief that there is not perfect unanimity among experts regarding viet kong terrorism. note - Chomsky qualifies his overstatement at 2:45 in the clip, and mentions Dennis Warner, Bernard Fall, Douglass Pike, and pacification manuals/aid documents quoted in his book to support his statement.
timleebee. You wrote "...about 55 percent of scientists come down on the side of Darwinism or macro-evolution." Could you provide me with your authority for this statement? Do you mean all scientists or U.S. scientists? What kind of scientists are included in the study?
Hey timleebee; once you sequestrate yourself from [science], and connote a group of people with a pejorative tone [liberals], it sort of gives people a quick glimpse at how anit-intellectual you are, not to mention, smug and bias towards "liberal." That reflect poorly on you.
That by it's own merit will be received very strongly among the rationalist who do —by great majority— adhere to the principles of science.
Chomsky owns him. but there must be a part 4 somewhere because this isn't the "complete" interview. I've seen footage of Buckely in panic mode, hitting his commercial buzzer as Chomsky is putting him in his place. But 1-3 didn't show that part of the interview.
there's a part 4 and 5 i think, but not from this user, these segments were in edited form on youtube, these are unedited, but 4 and 5 were already there unedited.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Chomsky is a good debater ill give you that. But like a good debater, he does not know when to say "i made a mistake" the use of the word "heroic" was misused.
Final comment: you seem obsessed with the Netherlands vs Radical Islam. Are you dissapointed that Geert Wilders' long awaited anti-Islamic film "Fitna" has NOT caused the bloody riots they were predicting? Because 99% of Dutch Muslims are NOT yihadists? Sorry to dissapoint you and your apocalyptic view of the world. I guess you can still pray the US foreign policy keeps making Radical Islam so popular, maybe you'll get your wish some day.
Kloten you win! Talking to you sickens me. Absolutley sickens me. History Fate and Karma will prevail. I'm sure we both feel differently about how, but they will. Again, you win! I no longer have the desire to listen to your lies and hate and propaganda disguised as polemics. Claim your victory, But I cannot talk with you. When I think of you I see Yassar Arafat's face. But. You may retort but I will not read it. I value my time too much to use it in this manner. Fare well then Die.
This is your rebuttal? You admit you have no arguments, you admit you only have slander to offer...And you counterattack by saying "You're just jealous!" ? L O L .You should ask Bush if McClellan's job has already been taken. He can sure use a village idiot like you in his hour of need.
vjames: "Suppose I say your country hid them (Saddams WMD), prove me wrong. That is just as realistic." Did you really just say that?
Have you thought that one out before typing?
Any reasonable person would take that as a logical argument AGAINST preventive attacks. But you mean it. Anyways, it does not apply, it is OBVIOUS that the Bush regime did not care about the TRUTH- they just wanted to invade using any pretext (9/11 conection/WMD/overthrowing a dictator) they could.
Correct. How can you debate with someone like you. Why don't argue with me that the moon landing was fake, LBJ shot JFK, FDR was involved in Pearl Harbor...That is the shit your kind were harping about prior to Iraq. You are so jealous of America. You think you are so smart, but dumbass's like you percipitated teh death of 70 million people in WW2 becuase you were such cowards.
Ok. I'm a New Dealer but, I think the evidence is quite clear that the Roosevelt administration didn't do as much as it could to stop an attack they knew was going to happen sooner or later.
Fifth Amendment Threats. Suspected terrorists (domestic or foreign) are not protected from self-incrimination. They do not have Miranda Rights and can be interrogated WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY being present. Everything they say can and will be held against them. Under the domestic terrorism clause (Section 802) it also specifies that a citizen or non-citizen who belonged to or solicited funds for a group that later is declared a domestic terrorist group can be prosecuted.
Sixth Amendment Threats. The Attorney General can essentially throw anyone in jail he wants. All he has to do is point his finger at someone and say the magic words, 'terrorist,' or threat to national security,' and the suspect is detained. The Attorney General need give no reasons or explanation. He can do this on 'evidence' he never reveals. Such evidence could be mere implication or hearsay without proof or corroboration.
a fascist, a communist and a feudalist all deserve the results of their system, people who love freedom int hose systesm deserve freedom
aweiss 1 year ago
Buckley does well in this section
aweiss 1 year ago
Chomsky is the perpetual stickler for relevance. Ergonomic rational argument is one of his most defining attributes though it should not be. Everyone should practice it.
DrunkOnInk 2 years ago
@DrunkOnInk
Is "Ergonomic rational argument," jargon?
If so, care to define it?
"When fascism comes to America, it will not be a monster
wearing jack boots and swastikas, but wearing Nike sneakers and
a smiley tee-shirt. Smiley-smiley!" -- George Carlin
- Political Economics:
- Socialism: The government/people own the corporations.
- Fascism: The corporations/government own the people.
dugbalaserstream 2 years ago 2
@dugbalaserstream
"Is "Ergonomic rational argument," jargon?"
No, though in retrospect I probably worded what I wanted to say wrongly (or at least not clearly).
Actually, I was pointing out the opposite, that he speaks plainly (i.e. without jargon) but not in a bad way. He expresses his thoughts in an articulate manner that allows people to see his logic in a simple and efficient way and I feel that this should not be unique to him because everyone should practice it. Its a tragedy they don't.
DrunkOnInk 2 years ago
The governemnt becomes the corporations in socialism, they control the means of production in the same way that fascism regulates and controls the interests of the corporations with a slight amount of freedom. In such a way that Oskar Schindler can privately free thousands of jews but were there more government control that would not have been as possible.
aweiss 1 year ago
Someone should make an argument about Chomsky's assertions, not just his character. Thats all his critics can seem to derive for themselves as ammunition. And no, thats not a personal attack, but merely an empirical observation gleaned from reading anti-Chomskyan arguments.
thickredwater 2 years ago 2
Buckley, being a linguist himself, was initially very pleased to invite Chomsky, who was re-known, even then, for his theoretical advancements in that field. Buckley did not realize Chomsky's real motive.
The bottom line is that in the discussion, Buckley is clearly taking the wrong position. It is just unfortunate that, unlike Sagan years later, Chomsky doesn't assert a valid counter argument; he basically just compares the American government to criminals and tries to piss off Buckley.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
hahaha pre tell what was chompsky's "real motive'
FaithhopeloveGod 2 years ago
Ha ha ha, you have the intellect of six year old and every time you post a comment you let the entire world know it. Fool.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Since you are an idiot, and incapable of guessing the obvious motive....
...it was to humiliate one of the foremost conservative intellectuals on national television, under the pretense of an enlightened debate that Chomsky had not real interest in honestly participating in.
I'm not going to be polite to you. Your first comment was a personal attack and it was as stupid as it was disrespectful. Do the world a favor and turn on a gas oven and put your head in it and take a nap.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Uhhh... strawman?
WSidis 2 years ago
Buckley was rude, divisive, and uncivil. If you call waiting for someone to say something, then cutting them off and creating a straw man to quickly defeat, then yes, Buckley won the debate.
acapeson 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, it is the reverse. Buckley invited this snob onto the show in good faith and Chomsky tried to turn it into an assault on America. Chomsky has also accused the United States and Israel of being terrorist countries in specific terms. You probably believe that as well.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
According to the prevailing US definition, something along the lines of "the use of force for political, economic, or ideological gains"... there are innumerable illustrations of this. From Iran 53, Guatemala 54, to Chile 73, to Nicaragua 80s, to Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq now. All illustrations of US terrorism; the world's leading terrorist state, verified empirically.
Please, make an argument and stop slinging mud. Where has Chomsky been wrong, specifically?
mdoob11 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
acapeson 2 years ago
wow i guess majestic is not describing your political knowledge haha .Terrorists have learned to do what they do our mistakes,...oh and not that we trained them or anything hahaha
FaithhopeloveGod 2 years ago
Invading Iraq was an act of international terrorism.
Drone strikes in Pakistan are a form of terrorism.
Israel has held a tyrannical and practically genocidal policy against Palestinians for over sixty years.
D0g63rt 1 year ago 3
Islamofascism must be defeated at any cost, living under it would be worse than death, it would be slavery.
aweiss 1 year ago 2
It seems your consent has been brilliantly manufactured. Fear the invisible enemy, fear the alien threat. Forget the conditions that you actually live in and what constitutes the meaning of the word slavery. Forget that you create more terrorists by the day with each innocent man woman and child slain in the name of the Holy American Empire. Drift away in your opiate of choice, be it alcohol heroin or irrationality.
D0g63rt 1 year ago
the condition i live in is relative freedom, the same cannot be said for the great majority of the Middle East still not yet liberated
I would rather be dead than live my entire life in an Islamofascistic country, those who prize life over freedom are cowards who deserve a master.
aweiss 1 year ago 2
Yup. Raining indiscriminate weapons in populated areas is terrorism, clearly. I mean if you want to kill one person in one building why would you use cluster bombs that rain over the surrounding suburb block of houses as well? The only reason could possibly be to maximise the kill to send a message to the neighbours they shouldn't oppose the US invasion, esp. not the ground forces advancing behind the air force. Well that's killing civilians for political purposes; terrorism more commonly called
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
"Perhaps you could point out a couple of the distortions and lies?"
200 good enough for you?
Google 200 Chomsky lies. Of course, we know won't look for any information you don't want to read.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Take a specific example. Proving Chomsky wrong is quite the challenge, so please present something tenable, and provide evidence. Otherwise, politely shut the fuck up.
mdoob11 2 years ago
Surprise, surprise. The child stoops to attacking people because he doesn't have the attention span required to read an entire document.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
@majesticlizard hey, I looked it up, and it appears Chomsky lacks a true comprehension of what life was comprised of in Eastern Europe under the Soviet regime . That said, he does, on the other hand, have a good grasp of what the US regimes put in place in their 3rd world satellites and the means the US will go to to achieve their ends (financial superiority, monopoly, etc). He knows his shit when talking about America, but his relativistic comparisons are lacking.
MikeT19 1 year ago
Is this not allowing me to post?
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Chomsky DOES not cite concrete facts. He uses specious analogies and distortions of history and outright lies. The sad truth is that while Buckley WAS in the wrong, Chomsky did NOT offer an intelligent argument to refute him. He just acted like an arrogant prick and completely violated every rule in having a civil discussion.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Perhaps you could point out a couple of the distortions and lies?
TheHarlequin13 2 years ago
I understand that it is not easy to face up to the wrong that one's country has done. It takes courage and humility. But ultimately Chomsky is citing facts. He offers clear, concrete examples of American acts of aggression. Is it not honorable and moral to face up to the misdeeds of one's country? Shouldn't all people care what their nation does and how it affects other people? I personally find this to be one of the main teachings of the prophets, such as Jeremiah and Isaiah.
LilleGeneva 2 years ago
Early in his career, Buckley was an overt racist. However, he changed his position on the issue very publicly in the 1970's, even endorsing the NAACP. He was not remotely a fascist, however. He was a fiscal conservative like Barry Goldwater. He also believed that while academic institutions should be secular, the should not actually mock religious beliefs. People make the guy out to be a demon. If he was, he was an honest demon.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
The sad thing is that there were valid reasons that Vietnam was not an example of honorable intervention on the part of the US as Buckley was suggesting. Yet, Chomsky used none of those reasons in his argument, he simply stooped to splitting semantic hairs and making up a fictional account of history.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Chomsky is a linguistic professor... philosopher a distant second interest. This is in my opinion what makes him great.
chrisrhudy02 2 years ago
Chomsky was rude, divisive, and uncivil. If you call waiting for someone to say something, then cutting them off and creating a straw man to quickly defeat, then yes, Chomsky won the debate.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Buckley was a bit of a douche and endorsed racism and fascism in his early "works", but I still wish he was around to bash the Sarah Palins of the world ...
semigotbanned 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
chomsky needs to be beaten with a stick and forced to work a field for no pay, like anyone else living in the utopia he espouses
msqtube 2 years ago
small words...
MajNorberg 2 years ago
soft icecream..
msqtube 2 years ago
The reality of american intervention (shall we call it world or foreign policy) is really genial.
Someone has been thinking very well on how to organize all this perfectly organized work some "one night" somewhere in the middle of "no boredom anymore" land.
To fuck us forever with was it good or was it bad...
Chomsky said something right somewhere else :
the only just cause was : "we did it!".
"We have carved the rod faster than you, from now on discuss forever! Who cares..."
klett69 2 years ago
Chomsky doesn't let Buckley finish a statement during the entire interview without interrupting him to debate irrelevant semantics, then Chomsky is outraged toward the end that Buckley finally interrupted him as well. Chomsky was just rude and arrogant.
majesticlizard 2 years ago
Buckley lost...resorted to "punching you in the face" statement within the video.
MajNorberg 2 years ago
buckley is definatly outwitted here
gaterzick 2 years ago
Part 2of2: I am, first and foremost, responsible for my own actions, and had better remember that before taking too self-righteous of a stand when condemning the actions of others. Given human imperfection, it is not only right, but a duty, to be self-critical; and it is both love towards others and a generosity of spirit which compels us to be at least as critical of ourselves as we are of others. What happens if we lose the ability to criticize ourselves and can only see the faults in others?
ksmoker27 2 years ago
NC's point: WE are uniquely responsible for actions done in our name, for actions undertaken by our own government, in a way that we are not with regards to the actions of some African government. As such, we have a special moral responsibility, due to our situatedness as Americans, to speak up when we (or our government) does things that are morally questionable that is different from the moral responsibilities we have to speak out against the actions of others who are not us.
ksmoker27 2 years ago
@greenscenenow : So would you rather I came over to your house and told you what to do all day, and smack you when you do something I don't approve of? How about I worry about my OWN actions, and let YOU worry about yours? This is all Chomsky is saying, at the bottom of it. It's just standard human decency and respect. Not revolutionary.. or shouldn't have to be anyway.
secretprocess 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky in effect just said, I don't really care if there is evil in the world elsewhere, what the amounts are, etc. I want to limit myself to discussing how America is singularly evil.
That is what makes him an asshat. He was then, he is now, and he will be until he is a rotting corpse, which can't come soon enough.
greenscenenow 2 years ago
You are amazingly immature for being 36 years old. How is someone to take you seriously when you use terms like "asshat" and wish for an extremely peaceful person (i.e. Chomsky) to become a "rotting corpse?"
drainey32798 2 years ago 2
That aside, you are misunderstanding Chomsky's methods. He does not argue that the U.S. is "singularly evil," he just points out the evil things the U.S. does to its own citizens so that we can stop those evil actions. In other words, he is being constructive. Going on about other states' crimes to an audience of US citizens would be a complete waste of time, since we have relatively little control over what those states do (in comparison to our own state).
drainey32798 2 years ago 6
he does not explicitly make that point often enough. in linguistics there is a concept known as 'pragmatics', which roughly describes what are our expectations of relevant information in given circumstances. If you write a book about something and use inflammatory rhetoric like 'sadistic', etc then it is expected that what your talking about is exceptional
bullbunnies 2 years ago
I'm not sure what "often enough" means for you. However, I listen to Chomsky's talks on a regular basis, and when confronted with the argument that he only criticizes the US, he does often bring up the point that I made below. See for example his MIT talk on Afghanistan, his CBC interview with Canadian journalists, and this very interview where he talks about his "single standard" (criticizing criminal actions for which one shares some responsibility). I do not understand the rest of your post.
drainey32798 2 years ago
Buckley is a good rhetorician. Rhetoric is not what a discussion should be about. Often misunderstood.
BuQdu 2 years ago 2
wow. this buckley fag is a retard
bewlaybrutha 2 years ago
lol
walrusgh 2 years ago
no doubt.. our speculation is that it is quite an intriguing parallel between buckley and our current society to be completely honest and chomsky plays the part in our little charade of richard stallman...
reganjeremy 2 years ago
It's interesting how the left always sanctifies violence they think serves the ends of the left.
beau5375 2 years ago
It's interesting how ignorant someone can be to lump "the left" into a single group when it is more a broad affiliation. Would the World Socialist Movement or any of it's member parties sanctify violence if they thought it served "leftist ends." Probably not. Also, that's rich considering that the right in fact sanctifies violence which serves its ends as a very general (but almost infallible) rule.
SamWicks515 2 years ago
The ignorance is mostly on the college educated in this country who get a one-sided education and wear iconic shirts of their messiah, Che. I should know, I was one of those for 25 years until I started to read books banned by the church of liberals.
beau5375 2 years ago
The most damming thing one can do to arguments like this one is to underline them.
Furthermore; using miopic tags such as "liberal", and basing an argument upon the shirts your ideological opponents wear is the staple of a fool.
The liberal cause is much served by your desertion.
Perhaps a list of the "banned books" you mention might help some poor mislead youngster, not to mention your credibility, rise above their station?
edadrift 2 years ago
Are you suggesting there is an inverse relationship between education and ignorance?
JeffWilsonMusic 2 years ago
Like what Mein Kampf? Cretin...
onesy1 2 years ago
I don't think Noam sanctified violence. I think his words were, "Personally, I'm against all kinds of terror, no question." And then he goes on to try to *understand* the reasons for the terrorism.
Understanding =/= Sanctification. (I think that inequality is something the left groks pretty well.)
JasonMelancon 2 years ago
not a huge buckley fan, but its amazing how much better he is than hannitry or oriley.
I can at least respect Buckley as a thinker, even if I disagree with most of his views.
theREALshafan 2 years ago 6
I agree, but you've got to admit Chomsky took the cake here.
MrSalamander7 2 years ago 2
5:52: We have responsibility for it.
This is the mark of an American Patriot: hold America accountable when it fails to live up to it's highest CODIFIED, STATED, and CLAIMED ideals.
Were Noam a Russian, and had the Russians claimed some sort of moral high ground, Noam would undoubtedly argue in opposition there, at the expense of his own life.
mowriter 2 years ago 7
Long life to the revolutionary movements and the resistence in the Amazonia.
eltraficantedenubes 2 years ago
still a joke
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
love ya noam.
donkey69donkey69 2 years ago 3
Term limts for all. Term limites on every Mayor, Governor, Senator, Representative, Chief, policeman, fireman, alderman.etc....
Sheilamariehoskin 2 years ago
"Personally, I am against all kinds of terror." -Chomsky
LOL
schmaht 2 years ago
what's funny about that? Isn't obvious?
pi05pm3 2 years ago
Chom's response about Pike is offbase--the vietcong responded not because of the specific US intervention but because of a change in the situation- read Poole's books about insurgents and u'll understand why they do the things they do- it's a response to a situation, not a response to the US!
docfin63 2 years ago
Comment removed
mgm8822 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well what was the "situation" that changed?
mgm8822 2 years ago
exactly what kind of response is not a response to a situation?
ehrengm 2 years ago
This one
guts777 2 years ago
Oh, and the US had nothing to do with the change in the situation or creation of situations.
fctchk 2 years ago
The 'State' must always find ways of justifying its existence. After all, the original conception of the State was to provide security for all involved, to protect us from ourselves (as it were), but inevitably the major trade-off would be the seizure of decision-making power away from the masses and onto the hands of a few. So while we bask in the false security of the State, let us take a minute or two to ask ourselves if the trade-off has paid any dividends.
sifjure 2 years ago
The original concept of the US was to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic as stated in the president's oath and military oaths. we now live in an oligarchy, governed by a few sweet talking idiots who would love to take away any freedoms they can so we cant fight back and depose them from their capitol thrones. we have little securityand now few freedoms and they are being wittled away as fast as posible. throw out all incumbents and get new blood into WASH. term limits now!!!!!!
docfin63 2 years ago
I actually found it refreshing how much actual talking took place, without interruption, at least compared to most semi-retarded mainstream media interviews nowadays. Buckley sure is grasping though.
briano8713 2 years ago 4
"...the "quarrel" in Vietnam". Buckley's description of the murder of millions, the incineration of children. Glad the prick is dead. Sorry he enjoyed so much notoriety.
lipsbach 2 years ago
Weren't millions upon millions masscared by the Vietkog also?
Kudos on the heart warming exclamation about his death :-)
regelemihai 2 years ago
Buckley is considered the greatest CONSERVATIVE intellectual.
Conservatism is the philosophy of RICH WHITE MALE IMPERIALISTS who do not even CRINGE at the thought of INCINERATING MILLIONS OF BROWN PEOPLE.
Period.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Lol, let me assume that you're an open minded liberal who doesn't like labeling mass groups of people. Idiot. Go out and explore the world. Just because your mom makes you meat loaf every night doesn't mean you have to live with her.
blackstar1986 2 years ago
Now there is a clever argument! Without any substance, of course.
Typical Republican.
taoofmichael 2 years ago
Both the Dems & Reps throw around "Sraw-men."
ZDWmiamicane 2 years ago 2
Who's the "dem" here? Chomsky has nothing to do with the democratic party...
caelestis356 2 years ago
Why is being liberal a bad thing? Why is it wrong to be upset when our rights are getting eroded? Why is it wrong to want justice and fairness in the world? People stand up for these rights and get flamed for doing so. However, the day we are left with no rights and people realise we were correct it is going to be too late.
sinwow33 2 years ago
Because Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and other tactful aristocrats have put out one of the largest and most successful disinformation campaigns of fear, hatred, and bigotory the U.S. has ever seen. They promote only fear and lies and if you question these tactics and false claims you are labled a "liberal" (aka socialist, freedom hater, anti-american, blah blah blah). They are all multi millionaires who have one mission: To promote and insure their aristocracy and power.
poopaxe666 2 years ago
You are going to have a hard time defending your position about who controls the means of propaganda when the Mainstream Media is predominantly Liberal.Pointing out FOXnews,and ignoring all the others who promote their own agenda is dishonest to say the least; and crying out"fear and lies"doesn't rob it of its vacuousness.
If the people from the left would've at least been consistent in this regard and labaled ALL news outlets as biased,they would have maintained the least amount of credibility
regelemihai 2 years ago
I suppose, to stay relevant to the video, Chomsky contends that the question is not if a media outlet is liberal or conservative. It is far more a prominent question to ask if the outlet is allowed to say what it needs to. Puppets such as Billo, or olbermann, are in these positions because it is easier to lie-by-omission by extorting their inherent biased beliefs to elicit a response. However, It is comical to watch Foxnews boast about their rating right after they blame liberal media.
schnepat 2 years ago 2
Why is that comical?
And I'm glad you at least contend that Olbermaan is just as slimy.
That was the objection I was getting at. The same people who bash conservative news outlets are the ones who support the most biased/mallicious/ propagandistic fools without utter a peep about their own bias.
I simply can't gloss over double standards---that's my only beef with people like Chomsky.
regelemihai 2 years ago
regelemihai, the elite use the corporate media to fool the public into believing that we actually have a democracy. The two party system is a myth. There is simply no opposition to capitalism. None. From my point of view all the corporate networks are voices of propaganda.
hirofan 2 years ago
To be honest Chomsky does not really get the opportuity to deal with any particular issue as Buckley keeps changing the topic of conversation and is controlling the topics being discussed. He is very good at deflecting but it is clearly obvious that CHomsky would own him and has a much greater knowledge on the topics being discussed. There are times Buckley clearly does not have a clue and evades the issue.
sinwow33 2 years ago
I agree I found this whole interview hard to follow because anytime Chomsky made a point Buckey would move on or compare his point to a fake situation.
guidi2005 2 years ago 4
Does Chomsky ever debate with someone who has more facts to hand than he does?
Clem1559 2 years ago
Buckley is a God!
furankuchan 2 years ago
I don't know what you guys thought, but it seems to me that Buckley wants to debate abstract ideas rather than address Chomsky's concrete observations.
I've read a few of Chomsky's books; his arguments are based entirely on tangible observations. I certainly don't agree with everything Noam has to say, but I appreciate his straightforward approach.
When it comes to policy, I'm not a big fan of throwing around abstract ideas.
mastershake99 2 years ago 2
chomsky has always been a vile and dumb idiot...
Winston2004 2 years ago
I certenly dosent agree with many of his moral judgements, but Interlektualy he is very clear and to the point, and is anything but dumb..
As for wheter he is vile... I just have no idear of what you could possibly mean by that, he allways seem to go out of his way to be as objetive as possible. If you know any vids that you think could make me understand better, then please send me some urls...
dinomand 2 years ago
Comment removed
phoenixwrightson 2 years ago
I guess Bush and the CIA took some inspiration from those so called "heroic torture" method ideas from the Nazis and Viatnamese and were using them at will in Guantanamo.
plutocratarianism 2 years ago
Fuck! Buckley looks sky high! What drug makes your eye's look that way???
OriginalMonster 2 years ago
Chivas Regal, maybe?
XD
robjirasama 2 years ago
Buckley reminds of O´reilly.
chutoduro 2 years ago
Buckley is a lot smarter than O reilly
cdunwood 2 years ago
Yes, but then again O'Reilly and Buckley come from two different ideologies.
jamesk48 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WFB chews up and spits out Chomsky.
Classic.
SierraFaithYT 2 years ago
lol how do you get that out of any of these clips
Jesusplant 2 years ago
Chomsky talks about the issues.
Buckley tries to find fault in Chomsky's logic without having a clue as how to discuss the issues. And he's a hypocryt in saying that Chomsky tries to compare unrelated things. Chomskys tries to talk about Vietnam, and Buckly counters with Nazis,
rpizell 2 years ago 5
exactly dude its bs. this a good look at the format for rightwinger dialog .
theoryac 2 years ago 2
because they can't counter the facts on try to bend the truth kind of and distort what chomsky has said
Jesusplant 2 years ago
YES CHOMSKY
mahyarmohaghegh 2 years ago
Wow! Chomsky is Brilliant! I don't know much about him, but I thought he really made great distinctions and held his concentration against Buckley exceptionally well... Great points...
audiostar21 2 years ago
Chomsky argues that the West was felt threatened by the economic success of USSR. USSR made great economic strides only at the expense of enormous human capital. Under Stalin, 1/3 of the population was in Gulags. The other 2/3 worked just above slave wages. Stalin sent millions of German POW to rebuild the country. The Soviet Union had vast natural resources that the US, Germany and Japan never possessed. These facts are inconvenient truths to his demented interpretation of the world.
zayets 2 years ago
Chomsky is way out of his league. He uses tricks than more than logic to debate. Buckley exposes this fraud through his analogy of Greece. Listen carefully to that exchange. What Chomsky does is take the examples where the US or the capitalist system has failed and uses these to prove his arguments. He is very good at this. He knows the failures to the utmost detail. He uses the details to discredit his opposition.
zayets 2 years ago
your examples of chomskys tricks are the very essence of logic, you fool. Chomsky uses valid inference to make conclusions that obviously you and buckley are blind to regarding imperialism - the underlying subcommunication of this entire debate is buckley's obvious intellectual inferiority complex in the presence of a man of such intellectual integrity.
camaples 2 years ago
Buckley is an ASS. Chomsky is a GENIUS.
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
Gallagher, is it too much to ask for you libs to simply have a little class and show some respect for the dead? Apparently not. If it doesn't fall in line with your perverted viewpoints, isolate, smear & destroy.
I keep hearing that Dems are the party of exeptance and tolerance, yet are completely intollerant of different view points. You idiots will be the down fall of America as we know it. Wich I'm sure is exactly the whole purpose of your existance.
Bodoe9196 2 years ago
"isolate, smear & destroy" -- sounds like out of the playbook of O'Reilly, Cheney, Limbaugh, et al.
bertinotti 2 years ago
Does anybody else notice that conservatives and liberals argue on and on about a wide variety of details, but so rarely address the fact that the United States is all but flat broke. From the world's greatest creditor nation in 1945 to the world's greatest debtor nation today, and it seems like pundits talk about everything EXCEPT that fact.
Borrowing a billion dollars every 24hrs to fund the military and bail out wall street.
This is a looming catastrophe.
dogterd 3 years ago
Which of course leads to the conclusion that government is inherently a flawed premise.
SuperWillHatch 3 years ago
Actually it's 3 billion a day for the bailout, 2 billion a day for welfare and "only" 1 billion a day for the military.
BTW at the end of WW2 we were still the world's greatest debtor nation, because of the federal reserve system, so not much has changed that much. Our politicians were screwing us then , and they are doing the same today.
ferich2001 3 years ago
just viewed the documentary IOUSA, plotting the history of the us national debt against gdp. very interesting, and yes, scary as hell, particularily when they projected the cost of social security for retiring baby boomers. every american voter should view that program.
dogterd 3 years ago
I agree this is why people should have a choice on privatization of their social security to stop the government spending madness
ferich2001 3 years ago
Because government is becoming a tool of corporations, rather than corporation being tools of governments.
TRICAMET 3 years ago
the problem lies in the corporations being legal persons. eliminate that, you eliminate a whole myriad of problems.
blakiplops 3 years ago
That is a problem, yes, but how does eliminating that eliminate corporations from buying conformity from our elected officials? Also, since when are corporations supposed to be tools of governments? Aren't they supposed to be tools of the people i.e. instruments of the FREE market?
ashcroftbrian 2 years ago
Well it was of my understanding that in a democracy, the government represents the people. Granted in reality this is far from the truth, but then the problem lies in how the government is organized. A more direct form of democracy is then perhaps a necessity (lke in switzerland perhaps).
Orginally corporations were temporary constructs, created to fulfill a particular function. But all that matters to them now is the bottom line. Its incompatible with democracy in a very real sense.
blakiplops 2 years ago
just an note on my previous post: just because a corporation would lose its right as a legal person wouldnt mean it was in the hands of the government. The govmnt wud issue the charter as it does now, but what it would do would make the owners of that corporation legally responsible for any misdeeds ( which are currently merely seen as cost benefit decisions in regrds to any penalties it mite receive). The corporation would therefore have to be truly profitable
blakiplops 2 years ago
Whether you believe in evolution or in the fairy god mother of earth, is mere subjection.
viloloco5 3 years ago
buckley is clear in his prejudice on every point discussed here, whether genuine or contrived. i think chomsky does well to retain his composure... im not sure i could in dealing with such a smarmy interviewer
goalposthead79 3 years ago
I wonder to which degree people disagree with Chomsky, because of the implications it might have if he is right.
roninabs 3 years ago
Does Chomsky claim to be right in this debate, or just tell Buckley he is wrong?
timleebee 3 years ago
Chomksy says at one point that the depraved action of the vietnamese resistance, during the discussion of heroism vs depravity, is marginal. And that "there is perfect unanimity about this among those who have studied it." This is something I have seen many times among liberal ideologues. They rhetoricaly suggest that ALL the "experts" think just like them. This is nothing but rheotric and an orwellian attempt to persuade opposition that they are alone or in the minority of thought. Untrue.
timleebee 3 years ago
You obviously weren't listening to a word he said. Try again.
jugganaut26 3 years ago
Many things are obvious. But in most cases, one has to be in a position to observe.
timleebee 3 years ago
timleebee. If you want to dispute Chomsky on what appears to be an overstatement, you should do so with evidence, not with another overstatement. That is, if you want anyone to take your comments seriously.
drainey32798 3 years ago
How by any standard was I making an overstatement? I might have made a generalization and one I believe to be true but not an overstatement.
timleebee 3 years ago
Yes, i think generalization is a more apt description. And I'm sure you believe it to be true. However, i'm interested in whether you have evidence for your belief. If you do not, then i am not interested in your belief, nor should anyone else be.
drainey32798 3 years ago
Alright I'll give you an example. Of course, looking at it the way I do is a matter of choice. Nonetheless here it is. Let's start with a premise - that many liberals come down on the side of Darwinism, macro-evolution, big-bang and so on. During Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debates I have heard a Darwinist say, and I loosely quote, that "Such matters are agreed upon by the majority of scientists" regarding some "fact" of evolution. This is deceiving.
timleebee 3 years ago
The man did not lie. But the facts are that about 55 percent of scientists come down on the side of Darwinism or macro-evolution. But the often repeated rhetoric and common thought on the matter among the masses is that almost all scientists are macro-evolutionists and only a few even dare to question it. If you say something loud and long enough people will believe it.
timleebee 3 years ago
The sheer number of textbooks agreeing with evolution and the lack of any textbooks which question it supports my thinking on this matter. The textbooks are out there but not chosen by most if any public schools. If all the textbooks say it, then all textbook writers (scientists) must believe it.
timleebee 3 years ago
I was wondering if you had evidence for your belief that there is not perfect unanimity among experts regarding viet kong terrorism. note - Chomsky qualifies his overstatement at 2:45 in the clip, and mentions Dennis Warner, Bernard Fall, Douglass Pike, and pacification manuals/aid documents quoted in his book to support his statement.
drainey32798 3 years ago
timleebee. You wrote "...about 55 percent of scientists come down on the side of Darwinism or macro-evolution." Could you provide me with your authority for this statement? Do you mean all scientists or U.S. scientists? What kind of scientists are included in the study?
drainey32798 3 years ago
Hey timleebee; once you sequestrate yourself from [science], and connote a group of people with a pejorative tone [liberals], it sort of gives people a quick glimpse at how anit-intellectual you are, not to mention, smug and bias towards "liberal." That reflect poorly on you.
That by it's own merit will be received very strongly among the rationalist who do —by great majority— adhere to the principles of science.
viloloco5 3 years ago
Buckley is an enigma of the butt.
ludachris475 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
chomsky...as usual...is so in love with himself and so hates his country...he is incapable of logic. poor idiot.
ssturtlebay 3 years ago
Chomsky owns him. but there must be a part 4 somewhere because this isn't the "complete" interview. I've seen footage of Buckely in panic mode, hitting his commercial buzzer as Chomsky is putting him in his place. But 1-3 didn't show that part of the interview.
rohaynes1 3 years ago 7
there's a part 4 and 5 i think, but not from this user, these segments were in edited form on youtube, these are unedited, but 4 and 5 were already there unedited.
I think...
pietzsche 3 years ago
funny the effort the try to *understand* the situation of the north vietnamese vs not trying to *understand* the american situation.
postfundie 3 years ago
Well, he explains why this is his focus from 5:30 and on.
YuriKenobi 3 years ago 3
If you gave Buckley an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox!!!
GallagherXXX 3 years ago 6
now THAT's comedy! :)
intrepgun 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chomsky is a good debater ill give you that. But like a good debater, he does not know when to say "i made a mistake" the use of the word "heroic" was misused.
Man, i wish there were programs like these again.
republican02 3 years ago
there are, check out some of charlie rose' interviews. really smart guy, excellent interviewer.
iacherman 3 years ago
That seems like a typically dumb criticism to make when one has no actual criticism left.
razedemon 3 years ago 6
Buckley tries to play gotcha, but he can't get him.
oracleofaltoona 3 years ago 5
Noam is a credit to the jewish race. He is a meek, mild, and gentle hero.
a truly great american now forbidden from entry into israel.
bassfishers 3 years ago 7
Why?
richardrichard07 3 years ago
If you want to know the true history you should read "The Unseen Hand" by ralph epperson
Wiseinvestor777 3 years ago
Noam really made Buckley look ignorant, and I didn't consider Buckley a mental midget.
That says a lot about Noam.
I wish I had listened more closely to Noam sooner.
I wish everyone would start.
war would come to an end.
gjsterp 3 years ago 2
Final comment: you seem obsessed with the Netherlands vs Radical Islam. Are you dissapointed that Geert Wilders' long awaited anti-Islamic film "Fitna" has NOT caused the bloody riots they were predicting? Because 99% of Dutch Muslims are NOT yihadists? Sorry to dissapoint you and your apocalyptic view of the world. I guess you can still pray the US foreign policy keeps making Radical Islam so popular, maybe you'll get your wish some day.
kloten 3 years ago
Kloten you win! Talking to you sickens me. Absolutley sickens me. History Fate and Karma will prevail. I'm sure we both feel differently about how, but they will. Again, you win! I no longer have the desire to listen to your lies and hate and propaganda disguised as polemics. Claim your victory, But I cannot talk with you. When I think of you I see Yassar Arafat's face. But. You may retort but I will not read it. I value my time too much to use it in this manner. Fare well then Die.
vjames314 3 years ago
Love you too dear.
kloten 3 years ago 3
This is your rebuttal? You admit you have no arguments, you admit you only have slander to offer...And you counterattack by saying "You're just jealous!" ? L O L .You should ask Bush if McClellan's job has already been taken. He can sure use a village idiot like you in his hour of need.
kloten 3 years ago 4
vjames: "Suppose I say your country hid them (Saddams WMD), prove me wrong. That is just as realistic." Did you really just say that?
Have you thought that one out before typing?
Any reasonable person would take that as a logical argument AGAINST preventive attacks. But you mean it. Anyways, it does not apply, it is OBVIOUS that the Bush regime did not care about the TRUTH- they just wanted to invade using any pretext (9/11 conection/WMD/overthrowing a dictator) they could.
kloten 3 years ago
By the way, your performance has been-
0% counter arguments of your own
10% challenging me to back up my claims
90% slander.
YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS.
(no surprises there)
That being the case, why don't you let me argue your side of the argument as well?
That will make this more interesting.
kloten 3 years ago
0% counter arguments of your own
10% challenging me to back up my claims
90% slander.
Correct. How can you debate with someone like you. Why don't argue with me that the moon landing was fake, LBJ shot JFK, FDR was involved in Pearl Harbor...That is the shit your kind were harping about prior to Iraq. You are so jealous of America. You think you are so smart, but dumbass's like you percipitated teh death of 70 million people in WW2 becuase you were such cowards.
vjames314 3 years ago
and idiots like you get sent out to fight for oil and territory and think it is for a different reason.
kloten 3 years ago 3
Ok. I'm a New Dealer but, I think the evidence is quite clear that the Roosevelt administration didn't do as much as it could to stop an attack they knew was going to happen sooner or later.
Pskapompos 3 years ago
Fifth Amendment Threats. Suspected terrorists (domestic or foreign) are not protected from self-incrimination. They do not have Miranda Rights and can be interrogated WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY being present. Everything they say can and will be held against them. Under the domestic terrorism clause (Section 802) it also specifies that a citizen or non-citizen who belonged to or solicited funds for a group that later is declared a domestic terrorist group can be prosecuted.
kloten 3 years ago
(Under this Act, according to the INS, over 700 unnamed people have been detained and ONLY FIVE are being held on charges related to terrorism!)
kloten 3 years ago
Sixth Amendment Threats. The Attorney General can essentially throw anyone in jail he wants. All he has to do is point his finger at someone and say the magic words, 'terrorist,' or threat to national security,' and the suspect is detained. The Attorney General need give no reasons or explanation. He can do this on 'evidence' he never reveals. Such evidence could be mere implication or hearsay without proof or corroboration.
kloten 3 years ago