Perhaps, but Buckley is so full of bloated sophistry (not to mention full of himself) that it's an annoying debate. WB's posturing is no better--in effect--than, say, Paul Ryan's or Marco Rubio's, notwithstanding their apparent differences in style and education.
True, the level of discourse was vastly superior to what’s on offer these days, but Buckley was a smug, loathsome windbag. Still, even he would have been disturbed by the cringeworthy brand of ‘journalism’ on FOX News - not to mention the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones (yikes)!
Noam Chomsky maniacal? I can only aspire to such maniacal thinking and speaking. I am certainly one of these maniacs who is not guilty at all about the US, but have the same critique as Chomsky, and proudly dissociate myself from the US government and State Department!
Buckley's voice, posture and vocabulary are so fucking glorious that I don't even mind his sophistry. I wish this was the level of dicussion today, we don't even put intellectuals on TV anymore. Now instead of Chomskies and Foucaults, TV just sends some angry teenage girl to talk nonsense about boys and associate that with the left (who can't deny association because it needs votes).
It would be hilarious if he very slowly slid further and further down over the 20 minutes, until for the last few minutes, he's debating him from the floor
Richard B Anyone who can say Chomsky’s mind is mediocre must be an intellectual giant. I’m humbled by your presence and apologies for any offense. Dropping the Dunning-Kruger on me was very humiliating. (And so creative! Certainly something no one ever sees on the internets!). I look forward to you sharing your works with us, I’m assuming you have a long resume of works that crushes Chomsky.
Wrong! If you constantly interrupt someone you don’t allow them to make their points whilst at the same time making your own. It’s a tactic I use all the time when debating more intelligent/knowledgeable people than me.
Buckley was CIA and purposefully fuzzing up the debate and blurring/confusing the historical narrative to ensure consistency with the approved version of events when faced with someone aquainted with the actual historical record. Common disinformation technique at the time. Less used today we mostly just repeat a lie enough till it becomes familiar to enough people to capture the zeitgeist.
@onelove also... don't feel like an asshole. He was NOT a nice person. Given his role in the Intel community he was almost certainly a war criminal and psychopath or inhumanely negligent and dishonest. The only time you grieve the passing of a monster is when you consider how LONG it took some other monster to catch and devour him. He like many evolutionary throwbacks probably did much worse than was done to him and ENJOYED it.
One of the strangest, most surreal experiences a person can go through is to eat 3 or more grams psilocybin mushrooms and simply observe William Buckley's face.
That's probably when Chomsky formed the Deep Structure of grammar. "May I complete a sentence? *Sentence.... completeness... I.... hmm. Interesting...*"
It makes me sick what kind of cheap tricks these so called intellectuals use in debates (interrupt, switch to topics when the first one failed or ask trick question) simply to win the debate in the eyes of the viewer. To them its not about learning something new and coming to a more clear conclusion they just simply want to be right and assert dominance. How Prof. Chomsky keeps his composure while handling vast amount of historical facts is remarkable.
+Lint Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
He's just trying to iron out Chomsky's ideas here. Chomsky moves a mile a minute and it's unclear how much of what he says is actually practical vs some abstract special rule he follows for that one particular instance. Buckley's style had always been to grill people about their stances and get them to entrench their positions, that was literally his job on Firing Line.
@@Spardeous I am into this video about 6 minutes and chomsky won't let Buckley finish his viewpoint before chomsky redirects. Chomsky so far is cherry picking and won't concede the difference between regimes and interests. So far I am getting that communist regime is ok and nothing should be done to help the defenseless people who are losing their freedom. All because a company has interest in creating wealth is his reasoning. Well chomsky south Korea/north Korea is the only measure you need to look at. He doesn't believe in obvious pre measure, he needs a complete invasion to warrant military intervention. I believe in peace, and the way to ensure it is consequences.
There is a point at which discourse is of no further use, and that point is when one side or other demonstrates the intention to hold to the point despite evidence and logic, for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it."
The word for these people is "obstinate". Octavia Butler has a good quote about them too. " Beware: All too often, We say What we hear others say. We think What we’re told that we think. We see What we’re permitted to see. Worse! We see what we’re told that we see. Repetition and pride are the keys to this. To hear and to see Even an obvious lie Again And again and again May be to say it, Almost by reflex Then to defend it Because we’ve said it And at last to embrace it Because we’ve defended it And because we cannot admit That we’ve embraced and defended An obvious lie. Thus, without thought, Without intent, We make Mere echoes Of ourselves- And we say What we hear others say."
@Cliff Hanley Except that Buckley doesn't resort to ad hominem. He may at times be a bit sarcastic, and people love to point to his attitude as arrogant and holier than though. But the man still resorted to reason and facts as he understood them. That is light years away from "the O'Reillys and Hannitys" of the world. We need this sort of intellect more than ever. That doesn't mean Buckley is right and Chomsky is wrong. It does mean that there is a valid and different perspective that has a right to be aired. But the inheritors of Buckley are cheap imitators at best, and hucksters at worst.
@@j.criquette3334 But his manner is bullying and obstinate. He doesn't listen or allow his opponent a complete response, he spends the majority of this exchange interrupting or talking over Chomsky. I don't know if he did this because he felt his own arguments couldn't stand on their own against Chomsky's or not, but knowing how intelligent Mr. Buckley was, I have my own opinion of his motivation.
Buckley had a "mid-Atlantic" accent that many theater people and movie actors had at one time. Vincent Price, Katherine Hepburn and many other actors talked like that. It wasn't a fake accent. It was how they were raised to speak, especially with upper class types in New England.
@@FrankCoffman yeah I wasn't saying it was fake just from a certain social class at a certain time. you're right about actors. the most obvious modern example I can think of is Kelsey Grammar from Frasier who also speaks in a very proper mid atlantic-ish dialect. it sounds interesting, a relic from a different time.
@@HoyaSaxaSD ~ Yes, he was a charming gentleman, not like so-called "con-servatives" now. I didn't usually agree with his politics (nor with Chomsky's obsessive anti-Americanism), but I like Buckley personally.
And his comment on Guatemala is amazing. The US in the 1950s overthrew a democratically elected government, leading to decades of repression and civil war. I'm amazed Chomsky is able to stay so cool, while being continually interrupted by one bogus cold war talking point after another.
thucy2 I was thinking something similar. But that is exactly the way to go. He would not have done anyone a favor, certainly not himself, getting upset. Instead, he stayed calm and destroyed Buckley very calmly with facts and reason. I have listened to this a few times now, and I feel Buckley himself realized that we as in a debate with someone that he could not compete with. In my book, Buckley got utterly destroyed and, best of all, very very clearly realized that.
HM MOB I have never seen Chomsky, or Buckley for that matter, get really upset or loud. I hope everyone has seen the debates between Buckley and Gore Vidal. Gore is every bit as pompous as Buckley, but much smarter. If you guys like this, you will love that. I think most intelligent people can argue without getting angry, or at least are able to manage the anger in the moment. I enjoy a heated debate that doesn't include Jerry Springer behavior.
So what? The USA was fighting the spread of global communism. Would the people of Guatemala been better off with communist death camps and door to door purges? This simple minded fault finding is an excuse for critical thinking. Chomsky continuously spit out half-learned factoids of questionable veracity. I think intellectual honesty is important, but Chomsky is more of snake oil salesman than an actual scholar.
Being "pompous" or "pretentious" is always an insult thrown at people you disagree with who are also more educated than you. Chomsky is a guy who's spent his whole life in the Ivy League, why isn't he pompous? You don't like Buckley's mid Atlantic accent? Have you listened to Baldwin or the over the top preacherly style of mlk?
Black Sheep Chomsky’s not pompous because he’s not pompous. It doesn’t matter what “league” you’re from. An ass is an ass in any setting, as Buckley so amply proves. The outward presentation of Buckley is so shallow that it almost comes off as a parody. The sad thing is that it wasn’t.
This interview is one of only two I can recall in which Mr Buckley's guest simply reduces him to veritable mincemeat. Who was that other guest? James Baldwin, of course, during a Cambridge Union meeting in 1965. Baldwin is superb.
Yeah James Baldwin is my favourite in the 'Buckley is the only intellectual on the right therefore he must debate everyone' genre. Gore Vidal is fun but as you say Baldwin literally put him in the ground.
I'm not on mushrooms but the guy is really a trip. So full of himself. Is he giving an interview? He is talking endlessly and I dont perceive any questions.
Oh, brother, this "argument" is about as "real" as the Scopes "trial." This was simply round two between the two "limited hangouts" meant to be the "archetypes" for their two camps.
Buckley was the intellectual heavyweight of the conservative movement. There is no one like him today. However, as is very apparent here the entire movement is baseless. Chomsky destroyed him not because he is a liberal but because he is a true intellectual with a command of the facts and the moral clarity to interpret the facts.
+Frank Soos - clearly his command of history is far stronger...and his ability to navigate Buckley's manipulation of the English language is fascinating.
Chomsky is more intelligent and has the benefit of facts and a moral compass. It's not even easy for me to watch because I know there's a whole lot of people who bought into the propaganda that video was selling. I love it when Buckley starts looking agitated though. There's enough war in our history for him to jump between for another 6 hours I'm sure if you let him. Not once making a factual point or distinction.
@@ampark09 Actually Buckley did....There are way more reputable right wingers that could have given Chomsky a better debate. Honestly, at that point in time, Buckley to me had fallen from his glory days and was just a poster boy. Friedman for example would have been a better equal. Also note, many of this high profile and prominent figures of political ideas come from many varying backgrounds of expertise far and wide. I truly believe political expertise to be the most complex and troubling of all due to its scope and impact. This is why you barely see any political experts without heavy bias and full scope of "understanding"
@@ampark09 By points, you must mean your unsupported assertion that Chomsky lost? Just curious why you think Chomsky lost... I'm guessing it's because Buckley looked and sounded very snarky when he got the last word in. I find no substantive argument to conclude that Buckley did anything but dodge and deflect while interrupting Chomsky every time he was about to make a point. So please, clarify to me what about Buckley's position you found compelling. Be specific now!
@@JonathanCarterAny right-winger who can string two thoughts together is considered an intellectual giant by today’s conservatives (Shapiro and Jordan Peterson come to mind)
Yes. What's beautiful is that wherever Buckley took the discussion, Chomsky had the superior, deeper knowledge on the topic. Jumping topics is a sneaky tactic when you're losing a point. And then, when your "opponent" trips up on just one of the topics, it is used to discredit him. That was the beauty of this episode. Chomsky's knowledge across all topics was so strong. He was so kind to Buckley : "Your history is quite confused."
I think, I admire Mr Chomsky in this conversation more for his patience, he is superior to his opponent in every possible way, he is constantly being distracted by that clown, but still stay calm and present his arguments with class and with elegance.
I used to watch Buckley years ago. Then he sounded so knowledgeable that he got away with his debates with others. He just kept pushing and made his points against weaker debaters. In this case he is dealing with a master of history , language and knowledge. His inept attempts to change directions without answering is sad. Buckley is so outclassed but, because of his ego likely never realized it or just avoided watching this debate ever again so he wouldn't have to see himself in the mirror of this debate!
Watch his debate with James Baldwin at Cambridge, when he became so flustered he started making fun of Baldwin's accent. It's so bad you'll have to replay it to make sure it really happened.
The composure that Mr. Chomsky keeps during this interview is legendary. We need more shows like this, especially now. Where there is an actual educational discussion about important issues.
Not sure I would like a show where one party just can't finish a sentence... Agreed we are so illiterate on television these days that anything would be better but that's not an ideal debate by any means. Proof? What did you learn about the geopolitical situation back then eventually? Nothing. The only thing that you (or anyone) remember of this is how Buckley was arrogant and Chomsky was brave and consistent. That is pretty much the definition of a clash, not a debate. And in that regard it's very 2020 already. That kind of show would be the 2020 television status quo with a twist: people invited happen to be smart.
@@bachirmessaouri4772 ugh. so true. but...the level of vocabulary alone would've already raised the intelligence of any modern network tv viewer, by several IQ points...
podcasts... and it's only for niche audiences that are already fairly well-informed so their utility in fixing this anti-intellectual problem is maybe limited.
Chomsky is giving a masterclass on how to deal with dishonest debate tactics here. It can be difficult to maintain your composure when someone you're speaking with is constantly interrupting you, mischaracterizing what you say, and jumping around from topic to topic. Chomsky handled all of this well and calmly dressed down Buckley.
Sadly these tactics still exist today and people are still falling for it. Just look at every “debate bro” in twitch popularising the same garbage all over again
A master linguist like Chomsky just isn't going to let any sloppiness slide. Amazing to watch. Knowledge, language, and logic seldom co-exist in human beings as they do in Chomsky.
Dave Klein A narcissist would not be a narcissist if he didn't try to do the questioning AND the answering because the subject of the interview must always be he himself.
Thank god it was chomsky....He tolerated all the misrepresentation of facts and consiouss diversion of the topic which buckley took in the first place and last of all not allowing to finish a sentence...woof....😤😤I would have puched buckley's face a dozen time
Buckley is a terrible interviewer. I was interested to hear Noam Chomsky's argument but all I hear Buckley interrupting with his arrogant hubris crap. I swtiched off half way through cos it was getting frustrating.
Joseph Poirier true and nowhere in the video did Chomsky say, explicitly, that "western imperialism is the root of all ills" so do you conclude that Chomsky wasn't against western imperialism? Simpleton!
@@mattkierkegaard9403 what a stupid uneducated comment. Chomsky is openly critical of Marx. Why did you chose such a distinguished name as your internet handle? To stress how ignorant you are?
@@tiborosz1825Reality is a stranger to you. Either you don't understand the history of points made where it's clear that Chomsky is correct factually, historically and yes the moral points may be debated but issue by issue Buckley pivots every time Chomsky exposes his factually incorrect claims. Again this isn't who is correct in terms of ideology simply who clearly knows the facts of each situation.
@@markhiggins8315 well what is fact in a historical perspective? One might argue there was never a communist state in existence since neither a hívek íz through socialism. Now all arguments against the ideology is null and void because there is no control of the experiment? Bullshit. Chomsky is nitpicking.
@@evanstj5 that is a matter of opinion. Most of his points are based on his views and assumptions. His analysis on the intentions of the thrird reich is way off and highly debateable. His onvious nitpicking in semantics just shows he is here for a brawl not a discussion.fuck him and his ilk.
@Doug Bevins these kinds of discussions are readily available if you look .. Buckley's mannerisms and perspectives went to the grave with him, however, for better or worse
I live on the other side of the planet and have watched Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS for maybe 25 years... reasoned, logical viewpoints argued with civility, clarity and thoughtfulness. I believe your current "administration" is attacking PBS in the same way RWNJs in power (a ubiquitous and unfortunate US export to the world) are in UK, Australia, NZ, Philippines, Brazil and another few dozen countries. Enjoy it while it's still around because the avaricious bastards will dismantle public broadcasting worldwide. Closer and closer to George Orwell's travails we march...
Our masters do not want an educated public. Everything needs to be dumbed down lest the commoners begin to wake up and realize how bad they are getting screwed over. That's just my take...
I'm so glad these Third World banana republics come begging us for help and these hard lefties call Americans imperialists. You know Bosnia has a race war America has to go over and stop these assholes and some hippie chants where some Cal-Berkeley professor of Peace Studies craps on the country that got his asshole a job. "Well, I think you mean of course you know I mean I know America is a nippiyty imperialist nation" Well go to Honduras asshole. See how much money you make
Who is this “us” that are supposedly being begged for help? I seriously doubt that anybody with actual political power in America is shitposting and LARPing as a country in the comments of a 50-year-old debate.
y2m you sound like an angry man, see your doctor tell him how you feel princess...........PS.. America is a continent did you mean the US? most of your sentence does'nt make a whole lot of sense only saying! Byeeee now remember dont be afraid to ask for help!
@@2010woodcutter Well I assume it's America because everytime someone from a Latin country comes fleeing into this awful place, they'll be the first ones to say Me me Meri-kahn. Also you'll hear some great fucking anger the minute my tax dollars doesn't go to foreign aid or the fact that Americans send the Red Cross and doctors all over the world but hey you have American created social media platforms to shit on America excuse the United States of America
@@2010woodcutter well, it is called the United States of America, and other nations do call north Americans, Americans. Just food for thought, that's all.
@Jwamer Jalal lmfao, bro the pictures are literally cherry picked, depending on what youre watching, Fox would pick pictures of the better looking ones, where cnn would pick the ugliest pictures. Just like every picture of Trump on CNN is bad and every picture of Obama on Fox is bad.
6:40 Chomsky: “Your history is quite confused here” 20th Century Buckley: ”this is a matter of nomenclature” 21st Century Buckley: ”this is *my* truth”
20th Century Chomsky: (Echoes one communist scholar while everyone else, left or right disagrees) Those Vietnamese boat people are a myth. 21st Century Chomsky: How was I supposed to know they weren't a myth? This guy *sounds* convincing and knowledgable, but all he did was uncritically echo any US-critical source while minimising what the USSR and Chinese were doing.
@@SeanusAurelius This is the kind of generalizations we get. What *specifically* did he say that was not true? He makes very *specific* arguments and yet the rebuttals are always of a nebulous general quality.
He actually said something even more inane: "This _is not_ a nomenclature." Buckley's implication, obviously, is that Chomsky is somehow being pedantic by insisting on semantic clarity when drawing nontrivial distinctions, but this is just a desperate attempt at obfuscatory evasion on Buckley's part.
@Johnny West Not true. Chomsky said he was never invited back on Firing Line. I believe him. Now, if you say he was invited back many times, why would Chomsky refuse the invitations? Buckley was angry after the show was aired and with good reason: Chomsky made him look bad. Chomsky's ability to construct an argument and his command of the facts -Greece, the Philippines, colonialism, etc. - you'd have to admit is impressive.
@Johnny West How did western (USA) intervention work out for the people of Vietnam and Cambodia during the period 1962-1975? In the case of Vietnam, 2,500,00 Vietnamese were killed (58,000 Americans), and more are dying today from cancers as a result of chemical defoliants (agent orange). The number of Vietnamese deaths is a figure agreed upon by both the left and right.
what you and your love-it-or-leave-it style psuedo patriots refuse to recognize is that the US IS wrong. It has been wrong way back to when the Monroe Doctrine was adopted. Imperialism is wrong and it never lasts. The US empire will fall too, like Rome. But Rome left civilization and roads and bridges in its wake. The Anglo/Zionist Empire leaves only chaos and destruction.
@@proletariatprincess1 While we're not always right we're not always wrong either. If people like you run this country it will certainly fall. Actually the world could use some imperialism. Instead of ruthless dictators ruining countries and forcing emigration to safe haven WESTERN countries, the one's you despise, Imperialist nations could exert more control on backward nations. Ever since nations were freed from imperialism there's been one war after another. Look at the Middle East after Britain left. And who needs Israel to cause wars. There's plenty of animosity between Arab states. Do you have any sense at all?
You are WRONG because you did not OBSERVE. Buckley is host and Chomsky guest. Buckley began quite courteously, but let Chomsky's rudeness poison the atmosphere so that some of the time both talked simultaneously. Chomsky is a superficial soul, Buckley oddly hat a moderator when Groucho Marx was guest, but Groucho Marx is a gentleman, as is Christopher Hitchens. Buckley's power of reflection is far superior to Chomsky's, one sees how Buckley's mood is influenced by the demeanor and intelligence of the guest. Chomsky would have been silenced or asked to leave at Oxbridge.
Both Buckley and Chomsky are not what they appear to be. Buckley's CIA affiliation is known, who financed Chomsky's MIT - USG. Both Buckley and Chomsky are part of a puppet theater, Buckley and Chomsky put on a show for the populace. By the way, was Buckley Bonesman?
I seem to remember that many impressionistists and standup comedians of Buckley's day, up to and including Robin Williams, used to imitate and satirize his odd, supercilious manner of speaking. Bill Buckley was always good for a laugh. Here he tries to deal with a very learned and highly skilled rhetorician and debater (Chomsky) by talking over him, interrupting every point he tries to make, and deflecting every response with pomposity and condescension. Pomposity and condescension were0 Buckley's refuge. They must have worked brilliantly for him in the seminar rooms of Yale and the offices of National Review. When confronted by someone as able and articulate as Chomsky, Buckley comes off as brittle, reactionary, petty - and the loser of the debate.
Buckley is a classic case of it's not what you say but how you say it. This type of affectation wouldn't fly now I don't think, which shows we are progressing. Although I suppose a different type of bullying exists now, nowhere near as cunning as Buckley.
I think Chomsky made Buckley nervous! Buckley realizes early on that Chomsky was crisp and on point in his responses. He wasn't expecting to have a debate with someone who was well prepared. You can see Buckley shift in his chair and he was sweating(metaphorically).
@@mileshall9235 the only possible way I can guess that you made this take is if you're either entirely judging victory by word count, or that this is bait
Yeah, Buckley as the imperialist US and its military and Chomsky as the indigenous people trying to achieve some peace and freedom rather than suffering in the role of pawn in a proxy war.
Imagine if Chomsky was a Greek man living in Greece and in fact that country had succumbed to communism. As a university professor he would be one of the first to be lined up against the wall and shot . Does anybody see the irony in that ? People think that during the Cold War the KGB’s psychological warfare and ideological subversion was limited to third world countries! On the contrary their major target was the United States, and what a wonderful job they did.
@@roughhabit9085 somewhat disagree, if he had been a communist professor he would be one of the first to line people up against a wall and then shoot them. That type of thinking is unfortunately still with us, maybe always will be.
He face didn’t do shit you liar. Buckley outwitted him
5 ปีที่แล้ว +12
@@thegoodguywins1 You're talking about something that we've all seen, you fool. It was a clearvictory for Chomsky. Buckley was outmatched, a fact that ive heard honest right-wingers concede.
He wasnt talking about anything, he was getting his proverbial verbosity kicked in. Had no chance to talk about anything because all of his moves...were erroneous and the wonderfully polite Chomsky continued to lather his face layer after layer with humble pie. 🎉
This was from the year I was born and yet shockingly I, like my forebears, was sucked in by the rhetoric of "necessary war" again and again. Chomsky knew so much. If only he'd been listened to. (from the UK)
This behavior has been simplified today, Innuendo Studios has a great video on the way postmodern conservatives argue. It's way too fitting for this video, Buckley says something short quippy and wrong only for Chomsky to correct him.
Actually, I think Chomsky is the one who's being obtuse - he keeps changing the subject and trying to get them caught up in semantics so that he doesn't have to actually address Buckley's points. He basically comes off as a Communist sympathizer/propagandist.
buckley is using class debating technique, arguing the anecdote, switching apples with oranges, dissembling, etc. all he’s got is that lazy, sonorous seemingly erudite style that he uses to smother chomsky’s fact-based argument. this philosophical-sounding rhetoric is has one goal-to win. yet another example of “the end justifies the means”. compounding humankind’s struggle with greed,hate, and delusion, and fear if his inevitable demise, i.e. death...
exactly! And you can see his forehead get a bit sweaty and a bit red as well as that twitchy eye thing he does. The problem with Buckley is he didn't seem to even want to understand things. He just wants to project an opinion, as opposed to learn.
@@CrasterFamily Chomsky exposed Buckley again and again for being dead wrong historically, factually, and just plain making up BS, then dodging his extemporized falsehoods by talking over Chomsky. Buckley projects an act that signifies intellectual verbalizing to some people, but it is dismantled easily and unavoidably by someone with the ability to follow a logical train of thought, in this case, Chomsky.
Chomsky has a lot of tension in his body language. His voice is calm when he can keep his hands crossed in his lap. When he feels defensive, he opens his hands, his voice pitch rises, and his tempo speeds up. He was clearly scrambling to get away from his France analogy. By the final bell, Chomsky was running very hard.
All of chomsky arguments are anti American presuming n not with any proof that we are imperialist. Alot of countries want to associate with us for prosperity, safety n leadership which we incur with financial help more than any nation.
Buckley cuts Chomsky off relentlessly. Chomsky is rarely allowed to speak for more than 10 seconds without interruption. Chomsky is a man of infinite patience.
@@ingregulous3141 Yep...the decades long capacity to help his fellow Americans shake off the stupor of all the imperialist propaganda we've been fed, plus brilliant research in linguistics. If we want to have a future for our country, we need to come to terms with reality
@Foggy's Friend All Buckley did was put words in Chomsky's mouth before changing the topic. Under these conditions Chomsky is absolutely right to clarify his stance. If the purpose of this interview/debate is to enable us to compare their respective stances we cannot have people putting words in other people's mouths. That is even more important given Chomsky barely provides an opinion at all and bases his stance on facts. You don't have to believe the facts, instead you are given the ability to check them for yourself: something you can't do with opinions. Buckley also primarily relied on opinions and conjecture. That's a fact for anyone who watches this video, honestly.
@Klaa2What? Lmao Nah. Overall, conservatives are the biggest history nerds out there ..and consistently have been throughout history. Conservatives want to "conserve", so they're bound to the past by default. It's fundamental to their identities/ideology.. Just like looking to the future, criticizing tradition, and trying to constantly progress is fundamentally liberal. Save for intellectuals like Chomsky, the modern left simply cherry picks and highlights the parts of history that help further whatever particular narrative they're pushing. (Some of which are totally legitimate narratives.. such as the military industrial complex and its warmongering or the humanitarian crisis in Israel..) But increasingly, universities and even public schools are politicizing (and sometimes downright rewriting) history. ..which has led to the left becoming overwhelmingly fixated on just the last century of history in their own countries. Conservatives study history as a whole. Important difference. Another important difference between the right and left is that in general, the left doesn't really practice the art of "knowing thy enemy". (Which is why you think conservatives are ignorant about history, for example. ..and that couldn't actually be further from the truth. ..Or the old trope that conservatives want to "control women's bodies" with abortion legislation. ..or that Jordan Peterson is "alt right".
I used to watch this program regularly. But I'm embarrassed to see it now. How in blazes did I fail to notice, or even suspect, that Buckley was a neurotic explosion of theatrical affectations? How could I have imagined that he was genuine? It's humbling.
Bluebarons comment 'A neurotic explosion of theatrical affectations' fits perfectly. Just so darn weird was Buckley, he oozed creepyness. Now watching at 70 it is as though there is subliminal messaging going on. So phoney though. Was he a Bircher.
The only real fact mention here was Dresden getting bombed Most of the time Chomsky is speaking opinions, not facts. Things like "rights" "obligations" and "justice" are opinion based only. For example, watch a Bin Laden interview and you'll hear Bin Laden talk about the rights of slavery, the obligation to martyr and the justice of terrorism because those are his opinions.
@@jude999. Well they force feed Chomsky to hungry university students, at college. So it's the easy thing for many young "intellectuals" to do - to be impressed by Chomsky and defend him as if his words/views have credence. To get Buckley, one has to have the mental strength to go and find him, explore him and be challenged by him. You know most university kids are overweight, yeah? 😆
"Here to fore...," "In such ways as..." "To which we and in such case as..." "Except in so for, we are in a position to..." - Buckley was merely a frustrated actor: All Shakespearean performance...but with zero actual substance.
You obviously haven't watched many of his debates. chomsky is a difficult conversationalist in the way he weaves his arguments in specific points in time but the entire timeline is off course. Buckley had literally hundreds of award winning conversations over the years where he outclassed many speakers. This was not one of them but is not demonstrative of his abilities.
Chomsky on his conversation with Buckley "It was of no particular significance as far as I was concerned" "Buckley was quite mad by the end of the interview"
@@jamesanthony5681 Buckley wouldn't invite anyone who could articulate the true nature of his (Buckley's) intentions and beliefs, directly or indirectly. His whole shtick was belittling people who disagreed with him, so yeah, Chomsky wouldn't be invited back.
TV talk-shows have gone downhill so much since this came out. It's a breath of fresh air to watch. No shouting or name-calling. Just focusing on the rational points. Plenty of time to talk without restricted soundbites. Bring this style back!
It won't come back. People minds have been dumbed down by corporate interests. Look at how media outlets have been swallowed and absorbed by big corporations. Nowadays we are only told what the 1% want to tell us.
It's interesting how Chomsky at this point, an activist, but also a linguistic scholar of historical importance, is engaged with a post-War conservative pamphleteer, and Mr. Buckley was a very good one. You see that Mr. Chomsky, trained in linguistics, has no problem whatsoever deflecting all of Buckley's college debate rhetorical devices, including his odd postures and facial expressions. At this point, Buckley's shtick was well known. It's interesting the renowned linguist is always prodding Buckley back to the "real world." Buckley literally can only deflect, accept Mr. Chomsky's clarifications / corrections, then quickly change tact and when that failed speak over his guest. I think it's true that Mr. Buckley refused to engage Mr. Chomsky again and for an obvious reason: the shtick didn't work.
@@zoephin6205 you gotta cite your sources to back up your claims. Anyway, chomsky did not deny the atrocities as such but expressed skepticism about reports being made about them by certain journalists. I am not a fan of noam chomsky though.
@@hououinkyouma5033 Chomsky is the type to know the conclusions he desires ahead of time. Then he cherrypicks authors and facts that show he was right. He's a lefty. The goal always outweighs integrity.
COLUMBO: “Professor Buckley, you're so smart! I really admire what you people do... my wife's a big fan...” PROFESSOR BUCKLEY: “Well I, in turn, admire what you people do! After all, it takes a different kind of intellect to trudge through a heap of clues and come up with a solution to a petty little case like the one you're involved in now - a more pedestrian intellect, perhaps, but we can't all rise to the genius level, can we?” COLUMBO: “Now you told me that you recorded your lecture onto a Dictaphone - a great little machine, by the way - and you gave the tape to the late Mrs Gray to type up...” PROFESSOR BUCKLEY: “What of it, Mr Columbo? You'll appreciate that I'm a very busy man and I - ” COLUMBO: “The thing is, Professor Buckley, I took a look at your Dictaphone...”
@@Gigantic_homo It is hard to imagine a single person on the left today that has anything close to the intellect Buckley had. They constantly fall flat in debate. Sounds like you are having trouble coping.
Chomsky is a man who speaks with the soul of weathered experience. Buckley drones on like a typical out-of-touch Republican, firmly ensconced behind lifeless dogma and pretence.
nationwidebw I think history clearly shows that American military intervention is/was most often preceded by overt actions of American Imperialistic Capitalism. Instead of being the heroes you envision, they were the instigators of the problems and then propagandised their heroics after the fact. I once had a friend who fancied himself a divinely ordained preacher-the voice of God. His delusion was fuelled by two or three people shaking his hand each Sunday and politely offering isolated praise and encouragement. The reality that his ego missed, was the acrimony of the majority who saw him as a pompous, insecure and Ill-informed bigot. Small political factions who’ve been bought (America’s primary motivational tactic) do not speak for the majority. The reality is that Americans are blind. They are, in fact, despised and barely tolerated globally. Chomsky has a view and understanding of this reality that men like Buckley and the GOP were/are entirely oblivious to.
@@Hyperbolika Chomsky is an arrogant academic, who thinks he knows everything and enforces his ideology as objectivity. I mean look at what he said about the Mass Rape in Bosnia and how he pussied out of a debate when he was challenged by Bosnian academics
@NightMayer Wah I thought we were talking about Chomsky and you’re rambling on about a preacher you knew . I’d like to make a reasoned reply but all that you’ve written is inscrutable.
This journalist has clearly NO idea of what happened in Greece and Chomsky simply destroys him. I'm Greek and what Chomsky says about greek history is 100% accurate.
Chomsky again tries to spin history. (1) He argues that helping Greece stand against the KKE Communists and the Yugoslavia influences were bad because the very Communists trying to overthrow the government via force were arrested. Buckley points out the drivel of that suggestion. It's akin to saying the assassination of Bin Laden was bad because AlQueda might not like it. Then (2) Chomsky tries to argue he doesn't know what would have risen had the coup been allowed to succeed. As if Yugoslavia and the KKE might have had some democratic change of mind once they achieved power. What Buckley does get wrong is the mention of communists insurgency prior to the Nazis. I think he meant the three phase civil war that was going on that the communists were trying to over throw the UN recognized government. Britian tried to stabilize the region but eventually asked for US aid.
Buckley has a great mind but his argument style is self-interested and pompous...he asks leading questions and then attempts to interrupt the answers. He is far more interested in his own opinions than the opinions of those he interviews.
The breadth and depth of knowledge of Noam Chomsky is just mind-blowing - not simply his familiarity with historical fact, but his ability to summarize and contextualize the information so it becomes rhetorically poignant and discursively relevant. In awe of this man.
No Buckley know it better tham Chomsky. Chomsky is just slimy and tries to make everything confusing to make it seem like any counties intervention unto another power and colonization. Chomsky dosent care how communist have brought suffering and death to North Korea, Vietnam, China, and anywhere else it really touched.
Most impressive trait of Chomsky for me is his emotional equanimity. Many have his depth of intellect but few integrate it so well or calmly in service of Socratic understanding as he
@@jimosborne2 yeah, those two are a great juxtaposition actually. McKenna makes more and more sense to me as I get older, bless his optimistic generosity
Why is Buckley smiling when he knows he's proven wrong and proven wrong time and again throughout this discussion? He tries to talk over Chomsky in ongoing, failed attempts to hide Chomsky's constant upstaging of him.
Tucker/Ben Shapiro/Trump etc follow the same old trick: Attempt to SOUND correct and keep speaking until the opponent cannot possibly reply to all the insane points and cannot possibly follow the train of thought.
That is the same smile a person uses when they want to appear unphazed by a badly loosing argument. He leans back further when he is getting frustrated.
I liked it when Chomsky quotes Bernard Fall and in the next sentence tells Buckley he should live in the real world, and yet Buckley went to Vietnam three times and actually met up with Fall .
Buckley's arguments and the arguments that those that were in favor of our involvement in Vietnam were proven moot when the Pentagon Papers were released. It was all nonsense and they new it.
john noe Buckley was quite adept at rhetoric, I would say. A lot of Buckley’s schtick was pure rhetoric, with no substance/precise formulation of ideas behind it. It’s amazing to see people that skilled at it because these days, if you’re educated you use less rhetoric and talk more like Chomsky does here. So people who resort to purely rhetorical debate tactics these days usually don’t need to be that good at it.
It is amazing how Buckley did not manage to choke on his own BS. Whenever he would lose a point of discussion, his first most reliable tactic was to redefine the words his spoke or those of his opponent to suit his argument. As a rhetorician, he should have cared more about words. If not for his eloquence of style, he would not never garnered his position based on the content of his arguments.
Amazing what a fast talker Chomsky was. Also how he has instantaneous recall of facts and can pull quotes from obscure documents out and cite them verbatim. He speaks very slowly and methodically now, but it is fun to imagine how he would have dispatched fast-talking BS artists like Ben Shapiro like swatting a fly.
@@jakemcclintock8696 You don't need to be a blind follower of Chomsky to realise that he'd beat Shapiro in a debate. Unless you are a Shapiro fanboi yourself and you only made that comment because someone said something mean about your CoOl KiDs PhIlOsOpHeR
@@conantheseptuagenarian3824 Wasn't meant to be 'cute'. Please explain how it was cute, how Buckley is an intellectual and/or how Chomsky isn't completely independent-minded (more so than just about anyone in the mainstream I can think of).
@@joshuajosephson7313 chomsky is a subversive, commie jew who, even when he gets something right, says everything he can to undermine tradition and decency. he argues in bad faith at nearly all points, buckley be damned.
He's a machine. Dude is 93 and several friends of mine have emailed him some philosophical or political question and he responded immediately. Just questions from random people, not media inquiries or anything from which he'd have anything to gain.
That's also redundant and an example of how shallow Buckley was. His speaking style depended on his ability to impress people by always adding extraneous and unnecessary words as well as interrupting his counter part every 10 seconds.Not only was Buckley a pompous ass he was also very condescending in they way he spoke. Chomsky ate his lunch here.
Every time Chomsky tried to discuss details of specific events, Buckley just spoke over him with another question. Many interviewers i.e. Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, still follow this tactic and it's painful to watch/listen. Even Alex Jones gets a little too excited and talks over his guests.
N. Presley They have a bias, absolutely, but at least InfoWars are willing to talk about very controversial subjects. Unlike CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc etc. It doesn't mean you have to believe their reporting. It just means that there is more to the story than what was previously released. That's what journalism should always be about, no? Talking about difficult, yet, pertinent issues i.e. Federal Reserve Banking practices and how it hurts the US and International economy.
@NotJo Oh sweet heart I am late again for I have just chanced upon your witty reply but the people here are so unkind with all name calling even if you do deserve it ..bye
Sure he did, his argument about a post industrial, post world war 2 American imperialism was well rehearsed. And has history has proven completely wrong. The EU rose on it's own. Greece went from communism to socialism and never really recovered from bad policy. We helped Europe with soldiers and then the Marshal plan and every time since then whenever they needed funds. We helped our allies, nothing Imperial about that.
@@golfer5636 yes his own - and cuts Chomsky's short - but to echo Ryan N: it's still so much more intelligent and enlightening than present day equivalents.
Let’s be fair, although Buckley was really dragging and reaching (or flatly wrong) on basically every point, you and I would KILL to have this level of open discourse about american imperialism today here in America
I dont see much of a difference to be honest. The left trying to explain basic principles and the right getting irrationally and violently upset. Just look at mask wearing for instance.
True, and yet such discourse is out there (Abby Martin, Richard Wolff etc.)---whether or not Americans are allowed to see it is another thing. Now as a nation occupied by parasites, we have to go get it ourselves.
@@nolives yh of course. I guess the peril "the left" has recently faced in elections across the globe is somewhat due to same arrogance you seem to carry. Assuming, quite wrongfully and ignorantly, that they have all the intellectual points on their side and then being morally smug about it. Sorry bro not a 'rightist' P.S.: Buckley was out of his element. Not good enough that's for sure.
@@nolives More like the reverse. The right trying to explain basic principles like sovereignty and border security while the left gets irrationally and violently upset.
12:28 is a really good example of how a person, in the face of sound reason and linear logic, will rationalize their irrational position. That was a perfect opportunity for Buckley to say, "Well, you know, that's a good point." but he stuck with his convictions.
@@MadScientist267No, you are apparently either ignorant or willfully blind. It is beyond obvious that an exchange like this could never occur on many campuses due to immature goons' disruptions; nor would any mainstream media outlet put it together. The hatred and vitriol for conservatives has been fully exposed and is openly practiced; it is without a doubt that the left are responsible for this.
When I first heard this debate, I was always fascinated by that little trap Chomsky planted at 3:48. Minutes later Buckley falls into that so seemingly. This was certainly not intended by Chomsky, but it played out so perfectly for him.
True. Bill Buckley didn't give a rat's ass what was being said, as long as that TV camera was pointed at **HIM, HIM, HIM!!!** Like his arch-enemy Gore Vidal, all he wanted was attention...
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
Man, to think this was the level of political discourse in our country at one point.
Perhaps, but Buckley is so full of bloated sophistry (not to mention full of himself) that it's an annoying debate. WB's posturing is no better--in effect--than, say, Paul Ryan's or Marco Rubio's, notwithstanding their apparent differences in style and education.
True, the level of discourse was vastly superior to what’s on offer these days, but Buckley was a smug, loathsome windbag. Still, even he would have been disturbed by the cringeworthy brand of ‘journalism’ on FOX News - not to mention the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones (yikes)!
Noam Chomsky maniacal? I can only aspire to such maniacal thinking and speaking. I am certainly one of these maniacs who is not guilty at all about the US, but have the same critique as Chomsky, and proudly dissociate myself from the US government and State Department!
Bachagaloop Jones - If Chomsky is maniacal, the ‘libertarian’ neocons are downright sparagmatic.
Buckley's voice, posture and vocabulary are so fucking glorious that I don't even mind his sophistry. I wish this was the level of dicussion today, we don't even put intellectuals on TV anymore. Now instead of Chomskies and Foucaults, TV just sends some angry teenage girl to talk nonsense about boys and associate that with the left (who can't deny association because it needs votes).
Buckley always tried to look so casual that I expected him to slide onto the floor by the end of a show
Yes but he did sit bolt upright for the great man Friedrich Hayek .
@@roughhabit9085 who
Slink like a snake
It would be hilarious if he very slowly slid further and further down over the 20 minutes, until for the last few minutes, he's debating him from the floor
@@Nantosuelta Richard Dreyfuss came VERY close to doing exactly that on Bill Maher.
th-cam.com/video/jZDYrYdMOm8/w-d-xo.html
I like how Buckley was desperately trying to find a historical event that he knew more about than Chomsky. Lol
Richard B I’m a raging libertarian, haha. Even I could see Buckley got steamrolled. Chomsky was a force, no shame in that. Maybe you are the bias one?
Richard B Anyone who can say Chomsky’s mind is mediocre must be an intellectual giant. I’m humbled by your presence and apologies for any offense. Dropping the Dunning-Kruger on me was very humiliating. (And so creative! Certainly something no one ever sees on the internets!). I look forward to you sharing your works with us, I’m assuming you have a long resume of works that crushes Chomsky.
Exactly. Buckley's $10 words were no match for Chomsky.
@Richard B It's pretty obvious that on this subject, Buckley was either uninformed compared to Chomsky, or taking him for an idiot.
@@whitedog510 Yea....sure you are.
Constantly interrupting someone is not the same as winning an argument. Just thought I'd mention it because it doesn't seem to be clear to some.
Wrong! If you constantly interrupt someone you don’t allow them to make their points whilst at the same time making your own. It’s a tactic I use all the time when debating more intelligent/knowledgeable people than me.
Buckley can't stop jumping around, preventing Chomsky from talking about anything deeply. Mind boggling amount of goal post shifting
Buckley was CIA and purposefully fuzzing up the debate and blurring/confusing the historical narrative to ensure consistency with the approved version of events when faced with someone aquainted with the actual historical record. Common disinformation technique at the time. Less used today we mostly just repeat a lie enough till it becomes familiar to enough people to capture the zeitgeist.
@onelove he definitely got that. He was literally captured and tortured to death by terrorists in Lebanon in 1985. He was a high ranking CIA officer.
@onelove lol. George Hebert Walker a bush CIA officer and CIA Director! Take that jerry Lewis!
@onelove welcome to mirror world: The Farm edition.
@onelove also... don't feel like an asshole. He was NOT a nice person. Given his role in the Intel community he was almost certainly a war criminal and psychopath or inhumanely negligent and dishonest. The only time you grieve the passing of a monster is when you consider how LONG it took some other monster to catch and devour him. He like many evolutionary throwbacks probably did much worse than was done to him and ENJOYED it.
One of the strangest, most surreal experiences a person can go through is to eat 3 or more grams psilocybin mushrooms and simply observe William Buckley's face.
You win, this is the best comment.
It’s strange enough even without the drugs.
That's a good idea
@@hunter-xp3nu Are you sure about that?
I haven't dropped any and it's surreal all right.
"May I complete a sentence"
Noam Chomsky.
"May I complete a sentence or idea Mr chompsky without being interrupted?"...
That's probably when Chomsky formed the Deep Structure of grammar. "May I complete a sentence? *Sentence.... completeness... I.... hmm. Interesting...*"
Really, I heard Chumpsky doing precisely that to Buckley.
yes it drove me madd
@@jakemcclintock8696 of course you did, dumbass
One of Graham Chapman's best bits.
Kudos
And…he’s not the messiah! He’s a very naughty boy;)
Chapeau
It makes me sick what kind of cheap tricks these so called intellectuals use in debates (interrupt, switch to topics when the first one failed or ask trick question) simply to win the debate in the eyes of the viewer. To them its not about learning something new and coming to a more clear conclusion they just simply want to be right and assert dominance.
How Prof. Chomsky keeps his composure while handling vast amount of historical facts is remarkable.
+Gabrijel Anic I agree wholeheartedly, but have you heard of Huey Lewis and The News?
+Lint Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
Gabrijel Anic You've taken the words right our of my mouth.
+Gabrijel Anic Very good.I suppose you like Phil Collins too,huh?
This is "Sussudio", a great, great song, a personal favourite.
Chomsky: "What about in 1951 where.."
Buckley: "Suppose you are a farmer.."
Buckley: "suppose you ask me for fertilizer "
Chomsky (thinking): "of course, you are full of sh*t"
LOL, good one. True! Good thing I wasn't in the middle of swallowing some food or drink.
@@euphoricatheist6694 Homophobe
He's just trying to iron out Chomsky's ideas here. Chomsky moves a mile a minute and it's unclear how much of what he says is actually practical vs some abstract special rule he follows for that one particular instance. Buckley's style had always been to grill people about their stances and get them to entrench their positions, that was literally his job on Firing Line.
@@Spardeous I am into this video about 6 minutes and chomsky won't let Buckley finish his viewpoint before chomsky redirects. Chomsky so far is cherry picking and won't concede the difference between regimes and interests. So far I am getting that communist regime is ok and nothing should be done to help the defenseless people who are losing their freedom. All because a company has interest in creating wealth is his reasoning. Well chomsky south Korea/north Korea is the only measure you need to look at. He doesn't believe in obvious pre measure, he needs a complete invasion to warrant military intervention. I believe in peace, and the way to ensure it is consequences.
There is a point at which discourse is of no further use, and that point is when one side or other demonstrates the intention to hold to the point despite evidence and logic, for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it."
Sounds like the living of some people: defending ideas and values without knowing anything about them or about anything.
The word for these people is "obstinate". Octavia Butler has a good quote about them too. " Beware:
All too often,
We say
What we hear others say.
We think
What we’re told that we think.
We see
What we’re permitted to see.
Worse!
We see what we’re told that we see.
Repetition and pride are the keys to this.
To hear and to see
Even an obvious lie
Again
And again and again
May be to say it,
Almost by reflex
Then to defend it
Because we’ve said it
And at last to embrace it
Because we’ve defended it
And because we cannot admit
That we’ve embraced and defended
An obvious lie.
Thus, without thought,
Without intent,
We make
Mere echoes
Of ourselves-
And we say
What we hear others say."
Thank you for your response, brother.
@Cliff Hanley Except that Buckley doesn't resort to ad hominem. He may at times be a bit sarcastic, and people love to point to his attitude as arrogant and holier than though. But the man still resorted to reason and facts as he understood them. That is light years away from "the O'Reillys and Hannitys" of the world. We need this sort of intellect more than ever. That doesn't mean Buckley is right and Chomsky is wrong. It does mean that there is a valid and different perspective that has a right to be aired. But the inheritors of Buckley are cheap imitators at best, and hucksters at worst.
@@j.criquette3334 But his manner is bullying and obstinate. He doesn't listen or allow his opponent a complete response, he spends the majority of this exchange interrupting or talking over Chomsky. I don't know if he did this because he felt his own arguments couldn't stand on their own against Chomsky's or not, but knowing how intelligent Mr. Buckley was, I have my own opinion of his motivation.
Buckley's WASPy Yale accent kills me lol. Sounds like he's gargling a martini and getting richer as he speaks.
lol his accent is so beautiful. i could listen to him read a telephone directory. shame he never became a satnav voice
Buckley had a "mid-Atlantic" accent that many theater people and movie actors had at one time. Vincent Price, Katherine Hepburn and many other actors talked like that. It wasn't a fake accent. It was how they were raised to speak, especially with upper class types in New England.
@@FrankCoffman yeah I wasn't saying it was fake just from a certain social class at a certain time. you're right about actors. the most obvious modern example I can think of is Kelsey Grammar from Frasier who also speaks in a very proper mid atlantic-ish dialect. it sounds interesting, a relic from a different time.
Hey, he loved his sailboat and playing his harpsichord.
@@HoyaSaxaSD ~ Yes, he was a charming gentleman, not like so-called "con-servatives" now. I didn't usually agree with his politics (nor with Chomsky's obsessive anti-Americanism), but I like Buckley personally.
And his comment on Guatemala is amazing. The US in the 1950s overthrew a democratically elected government, leading to decades of repression and civil war.
I'm amazed Chomsky is able to stay so cool, while being continually interrupted by one bogus cold war talking point after another.
thucy2 I was thinking something similar. But that is exactly the way to go. He would not have done anyone a favor, certainly not himself, getting upset. Instead, he stayed calm and destroyed Buckley very calmly with facts and reason. I have listened to this a few times now, and I feel Buckley himself realized that we as in a debate with someone that he could not compete with. In my book, Buckley got utterly destroyed and, best of all, very very clearly realized that.
HM MOB I have never seen Chomsky, or Buckley for that matter, get really upset or loud. I hope everyone has seen the debates between Buckley and Gore Vidal. Gore is every bit as pompous as Buckley, but much smarter. If you guys like this, you will love that.
I think most intelligent people can argue without getting angry, or at least are able to manage the anger in the moment. I enjoy a heated debate that doesn't include Jerry Springer behavior.
So what? The USA was fighting the spread of global communism. Would the people of Guatemala been better off with communist death camps and door to door purges? This simple minded fault finding is an excuse for critical thinking. Chomsky continuously spit out half-learned factoids of questionable veracity. I think intellectual honesty is important, but Chomsky is more of snake oil salesman than an actual scholar.
That Guy Are you actually arguing the people of Guatemala can't vote for themselves? Because that is what I'm reading here.
@@procinctu1 baha yeah because that was totally gonna happen 😂
16:02 his face just screams "how the hell do i get out of this i can't trip him up on anything!"
I must admit, I admire how Buckley is taking such a pounding and yet maintains his pompous style.
Stiff upper lip old chat... Very Brits
Reminds me of Huckabee Sanders in that respect
Being "pompous" or "pretentious" is always an insult thrown at people you disagree with who are also more educated than you. Chomsky is a guy who's spent his whole life in the Ivy League, why isn't he pompous? You don't like Buckley's mid Atlantic accent? Have you listened to Baldwin or the over the top preacherly style of mlk?
vsimoul LOL!
Black Sheep Chomsky’s not pompous because he’s not pompous. It doesn’t matter what “league” you’re from. An ass is an ass in any setting, as Buckley so amply proves. The outward presentation of Buckley is so shallow that it almost comes off as a parody. The sad thing is that it wasn’t.
This interview is one of only two I can recall in which Mr Buckley's guest simply reduces him to veritable mincemeat. Who was that other guest? James Baldwin, of course, during a Cambridge Union meeting in 1965. Baldwin is superb.
I believe Gore Vidal also ripped him one.
Yeah James Baldwin is my favourite in the 'Buckley is the only intellectual on the right therefore he must debate everyone' genre. Gore Vidal is fun but as you say Baldwin literally put him in the ground.
I'm not on mushrooms but the guy is really a trip. So full of himself. Is he giving an interview? He is talking endlessly and I dont perceive any questions.
And a drunk Kerouac. Kerouac was a conservative but he didn’t go along with Buckley with the whole Vietnam thing.
Oh, brother, this "argument" is about as "real" as the Scopes "trial." This was simply round two between the two "limited hangouts" meant to be the "archetypes" for their two camps.
Buckley was the intellectual heavyweight of the conservative movement. There is no one like him today. However, as is very apparent here the entire movement is baseless. Chomsky destroyed him not because he is a liberal but because he is a true intellectual with a command of the facts and the moral clarity to interpret the facts.
bravo!
+Frank Soos - clearly his command of history is far stronger...and his ability to navigate Buckley's manipulation of the English language is fascinating.
The whole conservative movement is baseless? I don't think Chomsky would agree with that, even if he doesn't like the movement
Chomsky is more intelligent and has the benefit of facts and a moral compass. It's not even easy for me to watch because I know there's a whole lot of people who bought into the propaganda that video was selling. I love it when Buckley starts looking agitated though. There's enough war in our history for him to jump between for another 6 hours I'm sure if you let him. Not once making a factual point or distinction.
Chomsky is not a liberal.
this Chomsky guy has read a book or two, hasn't he?
Chomskys written 100 books or so. There realy good. Buckleys not that smart is he
***** you're one of those nearly extinct, outdated, backward-thinking creatures they call a "Republican" aren't you?
Richard Longmore Buckley is kind of thick headed yes. I get the feeling he thinks he's clever though
***** You sound like a troubled individual who has trouble maintaining relationships with other people
***** that explains your deluded self view and inability to understand anything other than the simplest view of anything .
"If I just keep talking in a smug condescending manner no will notice Im getting my ass kicked"
Chomsky. You're talking about Chomsky right? Bc he lost the argument.
@@ampark09 congratulations on being a moron.
@@notthisnotthat congrats on not replying to my points at all.
@@ampark09 Actually Buckley did....There are way more reputable right wingers that could have given Chomsky a better debate. Honestly, at that point in time, Buckley to me had fallen from his glory days and was just a poster boy. Friedman for example would have been a better equal.
Also note, many of this high profile and prominent figures of political ideas come from many varying backgrounds of expertise far and wide. I truly believe political expertise to be the most complex and troubling of all due to its scope and impact. This is why you barely see any political experts without heavy bias and full scope of "understanding"
@@ampark09 By points, you must mean your unsupported assertion that Chomsky lost?
Just curious why you think Chomsky lost...
I'm guessing it's because Buckley looked and sounded very snarky when he got the last word in.
I find no substantive argument to conclude that Buckley did anything but dodge and deflect while interrupting Chomsky every time he was about to make a point.
So please, clarify to me what about Buckley's position you found compelling. Be specific now!
Buckley does that thing people always do when they can't argue a point, keep the discussion superficial and keep moving to one point after another.
Ben Shapiro does that.
Noam is straight forward, Buckley is very conscious of the image he projects (i.e., acting).
@@JonathanCarterAny right-winger who can string two thoughts together is considered an intellectual giant by today’s conservatives (Shapiro and Jordan Peterson come to mind)
Yes. What's beautiful is that wherever Buckley took the discussion, Chomsky had the superior, deeper knowledge on the topic.
Jumping topics is a sneaky tactic when you're losing a point. And then, when your "opponent" trips up on just one of the topics, it is used to discredit him.
That was the beauty of this episode. Chomsky's knowledge across all topics was so strong.
He was so kind to Buckley : "Your history is quite confused."
Buckley sure does love the sound of his own voice.
I would too, if I had it. But I think Chomsky turned out correct when the time settled.
@Art Deco I guess so, I think his mother is Irish or something, but yea, if you're American, you have no reason to sound like that.
pattherealist - Pushing up daisies my friend, he died back in February 2008 aged 82.
And the smell of his own farts, I'm sure.
so does every english man
So glad he had that pencil, it was the only thing left that made him slightly in control.
I think, I admire Mr Chomsky in this conversation more for his patience, he is superior to his opponent in every possible way, he is constantly being distracted by that clown, but still stay calm and present his arguments with class and with elegance.
so you love jews...ain't that cute.
@@khav11 it doesnt matter
17:32 "May I complete a sentence?" That sums up this whole discussion.
when your throwing out platitutdes and infactual information the entire discussion, its kinda hard to stay still....
@@FM-dm8xj or just a motivated interviewer
I used to watch Buckley years ago. Then he sounded so knowledgeable that he got away with his debates with others. He just kept pushing and made his points against weaker debaters. In this case he is dealing with a master of history , language and knowledge. His inept attempts to change directions without answering is sad. Buckley is so outclassed but, because of his ego likely never realized it or just avoided watching this debate ever again so he wouldn't have to see himself in the mirror of this debate!
He sounded knowledgable because of his faux British accent. But he wasn't stupid either like some of the talking heads on Faux today.
Watch his debate with James Baldwin at Cambridge, when he became so flustered he started making fun of Baldwin's accent. It's so bad you'll have to replay it to make sure it really happened.
@@l.w.paradis2108 the vote was in Baldwin's favor.
@@smotnick Yes, of course! But Buckley took it hard when it dawned on him that his usual tricks were not working. ;)
@@smotnick The accent is New Englandish, and is fast disappearing.
The composure that Mr. Chomsky keeps during this interview is legendary.
We need more shows like this, especially now. Where there is an actual educational discussion about important issues.
Not sure I would like a show where one party just can't finish a sentence...
Agreed we are so illiterate on television these days that anything would be better but that's not an ideal debate by any means.
Proof? What did you learn about the geopolitical situation back then eventually? Nothing.
The only thing that you (or anyone) remember of this is how Buckley was arrogant and Chomsky was brave and consistent.
That is pretty much the definition of a clash, not a debate. And in that regard it's very 2020 already.
That kind of show would be the 2020 television status quo with a twist: people invited happen to be smart.
@@bachirmessaouri4772 ugh. so true. but...the level of vocabulary alone would've already raised the intelligence of any modern network tv viewer, by several IQ points...
I totally agree!
@Jay James
I'd bet your life that an 8 year old Chomsky could've easily run intellectual circles around you
podcasts... and it's only for niche audiences that are already fairly well-informed so their utility in fixing this anti-intellectual problem is maybe limited.
Chomsky is giving a masterclass on how to deal with dishonest debate tactics here. It can be difficult to maintain your composure when someone you're speaking with is constantly interrupting you, mischaracterizing what you say, and jumping around from topic to topic. Chomsky handled all of this well and calmly dressed down Buckley.
indeed
Sadly these tactics still exist today and people are still falling for it. Just look at every “debate bro” in twitch popularising the same garbage all over again
Rightwingers continue to do it today.
Buckley hit the bottle hard that night.
@@monotech20.14 If you're not right wing you should be ashamed of yourself.
A master linguist like Chomsky just isn't going to let any sloppiness slide. Amazing to watch. Knowledge, language, and logic seldom co-exist in human beings as they do in Chomsky.
He’s a brilliant linguist and an absurdity on politics.
@@therainman7777 And you're an absurdist on reality, apparently.
@@myclocktowermansion Or he just can't refute Chomsky on politics, that's all.
Buckley would have made the interview more interesting if he talked less...way less.
Dave Klein
A narcissist would not be a narcissist if he didn't try to do the questioning AND the answering because the subject of the interview must always be he himself.
Thank god it was chomsky....He tolerated all the misrepresentation of facts and consiouss diversion of the topic which buckley took in the first place and last of all not allowing to finish a sentence...woof....😤😤I would have puched buckley's face a dozen time
its not an interview. its a debate. this is from firing line-a debate program. he's not interviewing chomsky.
Thats a very common critique you could make of Buckley
I’m not sure, but do I detect in some of Buckley’s responses the beginning of today’s “what about-ism”?
Buckley is a terrible interviewer. I was interested to hear Noam Chomsky's argument but all I hear Buckley interrupting with his arrogant hubris crap. I swtiched off half way through cos it was getting frustrating.
You didn't miss much...as basically all Chomsky had to say was that western imperialism is the root of all ills and that marxism is the "answer" lol.
It wasn't an interview, it was a debate, herp.
Matt Kierkegaard Nowhere in the video did Chomsky state that Marxism “is the answer”.
Joseph Poirier true and nowhere in the video did Chomsky say, explicitly, that "western imperialism is the root of all ills" so do you conclude that Chomsky wasn't against western imperialism?
Simpleton!
@@mattkierkegaard9403 what a stupid uneducated comment. Chomsky is openly critical of Marx. Why did you chose such a distinguished name as your internet handle? To stress how ignorant you are?
He's smart enough to know Chomsky is leagues above him but arrogant enough to keep on with his irrelevant points .
@TheBrabon1 the half wit of You Tube talks shit again .
Well said, Ripped Torn. So true...
Ripped Torn Absolutely right really showed really arrogant bad attitude .
@Jonathan Froger i don't get you ?
Chomsky, an excellent linguist, a horrible political analyst. He needs to stick to writing.
it's funny to see how quickly Buckley backs off each specific example when he realizes Chomsky knows way more about it than he does
Except he doesn't..Chomsky just bombards with semantics and doesn't let WFB to even finish a sentence.
@@tiborosz1825Reality is a stranger to you. Either you don't understand the history of points made where it's clear that Chomsky is correct factually, historically and yes the moral points may be debated but issue by issue Buckley pivots every time Chomsky exposes his factually incorrect claims. Again this isn't who is correct in terms of ideology simply who clearly knows the facts of each situation.
@@markhiggins8315 well what is fact in a historical perspective? One might argue there was never a communist state in existence since neither a hívek íz through socialism. Now all arguments against the ideology is null and void because there is no control of the experiment? Bullshit. Chomsky is nitpicking.
Chomsky clearly is more informed of the issues and has the better analysis.
@@evanstj5 that is a matter of opinion. Most of his points are based on his views and assumptions. His analysis on the intentions of the thrird reich is way off and highly debateable. His onvious nitpicking in semantics just shows he is here for a brawl not a discussion.fuck him and his ilk.
Notice how they don’t put this kind of stuff on air anymore, everyone now retreats to their own bubbles
@Doug Bevins these kinds of discussions are readily available if you look .. Buckley's mannerisms and perspectives went to the grave with him, however, for better or worse
They do retreat to their own bubbles.
They do still have "Firing Line" though it's hosted by a woman whose name I forget. Don't know if she's conservative or liberal.
I live on the other side of the planet and have watched Mark Shields and David Brooks on PBS for maybe 25 years... reasoned, logical viewpoints argued with civility, clarity and thoughtfulness. I believe your current "administration" is attacking PBS in the same way RWNJs in power (a ubiquitous and unfortunate US export to the world) are in UK, Australia, NZ, Philippines, Brazil and another few dozen countries. Enjoy it while it's still around because the avaricious bastards will dismantle public broadcasting worldwide. Closer and closer to George Orwell's travails we march...
Our masters do not want an educated public. Everything needs to be dumbed down lest the commoners begin to wake up and realize how bad they are getting screwed over. That's just my take...
Buckley: We never occupied the Dominican Republic.
Chomsky: uh yes we did
Buckley: You're being evasive!
I'm so glad these Third World banana republics come begging us for help and these hard lefties call Americans imperialists. You know Bosnia has a race war America has to go over and stop these assholes and some hippie chants where some Cal-Berkeley professor of Peace Studies craps on the country that got his asshole a job. "Well, I think you mean of course you know I mean I know America is a nippiyty imperialist nation" Well go to Honduras asshole. See how much money you make
Who is this “us” that are supposedly being begged for help? I seriously doubt that anybody with actual political power in America is shitposting and LARPing as a country in the comments of a 50-year-old debate.
y2m you sound like an angry man, see your doctor tell him how you feel princess...........PS.. America is a continent did you mean the US? most of your sentence does'nt make a whole lot of sense only saying! Byeeee now remember dont be afraid to ask for help!
@@2010woodcutter Well I assume it's America because everytime someone from a Latin country comes fleeing into this awful place, they'll be the first ones to say Me me Meri-kahn. Also you'll hear some great fucking anger the minute my tax dollars doesn't go to foreign aid or the fact that Americans send the Red Cross and doctors all over the world but hey you have American created social media platforms to shit on America excuse the United States of America
@@2010woodcutter well, it is called the United States of America, and other nations do call north Americans, Americans. Just food for thought, that's all.
Chomsky: may i... complete a sentence?
sums up the video.
chomsy appeals to neckbeard losers like you
@@khav11 you triggered, snowflake?
@@JoeSchmo69420 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@Jwamer Jalal lmfao, bro the pictures are literally cherry picked, depending on what youre watching, Fox would pick pictures of the better looking ones, where cnn would pick the ugliest pictures. Just like every picture of Trump on CNN is bad and every picture of Obama on Fox is bad.
It is mostly stuttering nonsense so we aren't missing much.
6:40 Chomsky: “Your history is quite confused here”
20th Century Buckley: ”this is a matter of nomenclature”
21st Century Buckley: ”this is *my* truth”
Actual translation: I’m chatting bollocks but I don’t care that you know
20th Century Chomsky: (Echoes one communist scholar while everyone else, left or right disagrees) Those Vietnamese boat people are a myth.
21st Century Chomsky: How was I supposed to know they weren't a myth?
This guy *sounds* convincing and knowledgable, but all he did was uncritically echo any US-critical source while minimising what the USSR and Chinese were doing.
shush, this is social media, you're supposed to worship Chomsky.@@SeanusAurelius
@@SeanusAurelius This is the kind of generalizations we get. What *specifically* did he say that was not true? He makes very *specific* arguments and yet the rebuttals are always of a nebulous general quality.
He actually said something even more inane: "This _is not_ a nomenclature."
Buckley's implication, obviously, is that Chomsky is somehow being pedantic by insisting on semantic clarity when drawing nontrivial distinctions, but this is just a desperate attempt at obfuscatory evasion on Buckley's part.
it's obvious why buckley never invited chompsky back on his show.
@Johnny West Not true. Chomsky said he was never invited back on Firing Line. I believe him. Now, if you say he was invited back many times, why would Chomsky refuse the invitations? Buckley was angry after the show was aired and with good reason: Chomsky made him look bad. Chomsky's ability to construct an argument and his command of the facts -Greece, the Philippines, colonialism, etc. - you'd have to admit is impressive.
@Johnny West How did western (USA) intervention work out for the people of Vietnam and Cambodia during the period 1962-1975? In the case of Vietnam, 2,500,00 Vietnamese were killed (58,000 Americans), and more are dying today from cancers as a result of chemical defoliants (agent orange). The number of Vietnamese deaths is a figure agreed upon by both the left and right.
what you and your love-it-or-leave-it style psuedo patriots refuse to recognize is that the US IS wrong. It has been wrong way back to when the Monroe Doctrine was adopted. Imperialism is wrong and it never lasts. The US empire will fall too, like Rome.
But Rome left civilization and roads and bridges in its wake. The Anglo/Zionist Empire leaves only chaos and destruction.
@@proletariatprincess1 While we're not always right we're not always wrong either. If people like you run this country it will certainly fall. Actually the world could use some imperialism. Instead of ruthless dictators ruining countries and forcing emigration to safe haven WESTERN countries, the one's you despise, Imperialist nations could exert more control on backward nations. Ever since nations were freed from imperialism there's been one war after another. Look at the Middle East after Britain left. And who needs Israel to cause wars. There's plenty of animosity between Arab states. Do you have any sense at all?
Too humiliating a rout.
9:42 Buckley: "I interrupted you, I'm sorry" .... just not for the other 75 times
bwahahahahaha yep, only because THE COMMERCIAL BREAK interrupted him....that time. lolol
You are WRONG because you did not OBSERVE. Buckley is host and Chomsky guest. Buckley began quite courteously, but let Chomsky's rudeness poison the atmosphere so that some of the time both talked simultaneously. Chomsky is a superficial soul, Buckley oddly hat a moderator when Groucho Marx was guest, but Groucho Marx is a gentleman, as is Christopher Hitchens. Buckley's power of reflection is far superior to Chomsky's, one sees how Buckley's mood is influenced by the demeanor and intelligence of the guest. Chomsky would have been silenced or asked to leave at Oxbridge.
Both Buckley and Chomsky are not what they appear to be. Buckley's CIA affiliation is known, who financed Chomsky's MIT - USG. Both Buckley and Chomsky are part of a puppet theater, Buckley and Chomsky put on a show for the populace. By the way, was Buckley Bonesman?
WRONG! Chomsky interrupted Buckley countless times. He refused to let him complete a thought.
I seem to remember that many impressionistists and standup comedians of Buckley's day, up to and including Robin Williams, used to imitate and satirize his odd, supercilious manner of speaking. Bill Buckley was always good for a laugh.
Here he tries to deal with a very learned and highly skilled rhetorician and debater (Chomsky) by talking over him, interrupting every point he tries to make, and deflecting every response with pomposity and condescension.
Pomposity and condescension were0 Buckley's refuge. They must have worked brilliantly for him in the seminar rooms of Yale and the offices of National Review. When confronted by someone as able and articulate as Chomsky, Buckley comes off as brittle, reactionary, petty - and the loser of the debate.
Buckley is a classic case of it's not what you say but how you say it. This type of affectation wouldn't fly now I don't think, which shows we are progressing. Although I suppose a different type of bullying exists now, nowhere near as cunning as Buckley.
@@orangesurfboard2238 have you not seen jordan peterson?
@@ince55ant true, yes I have. A bit different though. I don't think Peterson is nearly as cunning as Buckley
ben sha P word w intelligence
Buckley, sounds like he could have been a BBC announcer.
I think Chomsky made Buckley nervous! Buckley realizes early on that Chomsky was crisp and on point in his responses. He wasn't expecting to have a debate with someone who was well prepared. You can see Buckley shift in his chair and he was sweating(metaphorically).
Yeah Buckley realised he forgot to do his homework and was going to wing it. He came off real bad.
LOL. Buckley always shifted in his chair.
Sorry, Chomsky got destroyed.
@@mileshall9235 you must have been watching it on mute to come out with that opinion. No way Buckley even competed never mind won.
@@mileshall9235 the only possible way I can guess that you made this take is if you're either entirely judging victory by word count, or that this is bait
Prime example of how words can be used as a weapon. This was equivalent to the Vietnam war of words.
Fancy seeing you here! Love your videos Arvin!
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Kids used to know that.
AND LIKE VIETNAM, BUCKLEY DIDN'T KNOW WHEN TO PULL OUT, NOR, I SUSPECT, DID HIS FATHER
Whoah! Great to see you here! Best physics channel on TH-cam
Yeah, Buckley as the imperialist US and its military and Chomsky as the indigenous people trying to achieve some peace and freedom rather than suffering in the role of pawn in a proxy war.
Buckley: Imagine a world where my premises aren't imaginary.
Chomsky: No.
Sums up the whole debate!
Good one!
Imagine if Chomsky was a Greek man living in Greece and in fact that country had succumbed to communism. As a university professor he would be one of the first to be lined up against the wall and shot . Does anybody see the irony in that ?
People think that during the Cold War the KGB’s psychological warfare and ideological subversion was limited to third world countries! On the contrary their major target was the United States, and what a wonderful job they did.
@@roughhabit9085 somewhat disagree, if he had been a communist professor he would be one of the first to line people up against a wall and then shoot them. That type of thinking is unfortunately still with us, maybe always will be.
@@jopalolive he said, “as a university professor” not “as a communist university professor” loll
Notice how Mr. Buckley's face reddens as he realizes he is out of his element with this studious and articulate fellow Noam Chomsky.
I absolutely loved that!
Karl Marx called him a young girl, in reference to how often he blushes.
He face didn’t do shit you liar. Buckley outwitted him
@@thegoodguywins1
You're talking about something that we've all seen, you fool. It was a clearvictory for Chomsky. Buckley was outmatched, a fact that ive heard honest right-wingers concede.
@@thegoodguywins1 huh? What are you watching bro?
And I still don't know what Buckley was ever talking about
Its gish gallop. Not a lot of actual facts in what he is saying, just what ifs and opinion.
Same. Thought it was just me.
He wasnt talking about anything, he was getting his proverbial verbosity kicked in. Had no chance to talk about anything because all of his moves...were erroneous and the wonderfully polite Chomsky continued to lather his face layer after layer with humble pie. 🎉
This was from the year I was born and yet shockingly I, like my forebears, was sucked in by the rhetoric of "necessary war" again and again.
Chomsky knew so much. If only he'd been listened to.
(from the UK)
A debating technique of languidly changing the subject is a little frustrating.
+jcp7777 It's also more than a little dishonest.
The technique has been reappropriated by Mehdi Hassan & his semi-automatic style of asking questions.
Buckley seems to be deeply in love with himself.
Would you be, if you were William F. Buckley Jr.?
@@DMG118 Not necessarily. There have been a lot more brilliant people than him and often a lot more humble self sarcastic even.
He simply loved the sound of his own voice. There was nothing else there but naked ideology pretending to be rationale.
I thought that was any garden variety American, blissfully unaware of the rest
HE SEEMS ON THE VERGE OF CONSUMATING THAT RELATIONSHIP RIGHT ON CAMERA IN FROUNT OF GOD AND EVERYBODY
2:46 Why can’t something so simple and entertaining as his particular mannerisms here be found anywhere on any television station today?
I think its normal on British TV
Being argumentative is not debate.
Chomsky has to break down every thing he says to address Buckley's obtuse, and oversimplified interruptions.
This behavior has been simplified today, Innuendo Studios has a great video on the way postmodern conservatives argue. It's way too fitting for this video, Buckley says something short quippy and wrong only for Chomsky to correct him.
@@hoagielamp6543 It reminds me of the Gish Gallup. Just throw out enough crap and hope it sticks.
Actually, I think Chomsky is the one who's being obtuse - he keeps changing the subject and trying to get them caught up in semantics so that he doesn't have to actually address Buckley's points.
He basically comes off as a Communist sympathizer/propagandist.
@@x0rn312 He is an Anarchist, and you are a moron
buckley is using class debating technique, arguing the anecdote, switching apples with oranges, dissembling,
etc. all he’s got is that lazy, sonorous seemingly erudite style that he uses to smother chomsky’s fact-based
argument. this philosophical-sounding rhetoric is has one goal-to win. yet another example of “the end justifies
the means”. compounding humankind’s struggle with greed,hate, and delusion, and fear if his inevitable demise,
i.e. death...
this is like watching an architect (chom) discus structural engineering with a salesman (buck)
very succinct.
Daniel A Guajardo Thank you ! A salesman who wants to get rid of some highly defective material .
lol. Brilliant.
yes! very well said
... and a year after this was posted, America voted for a real estate salesman ....
18:04 -- the look Buckley gives says it all. "This guy just has the right answer to everything, and he is intellectually embarrassing me".
exactly! And you can see his forehead get a bit sweaty and a bit red as well as that twitchy eye thing he does. The problem with Buckley is he didn't seem to even want to understand things. He just wants to project an opinion, as opposed to learn.
absolutely...
Chomsky: can I say something?
Buckley: WHY
this is like watching a 4th grader repeatedly try to score on michael jordan 1 on 1
A really fucking smug 4th grader
David Barnes dude Chomsky destroyed that fucking twat
@@CrasterFamily are you an idiot or are you being as willfully obtuse as buckley?
@@CrasterFamily Ha! Trolling bitch right here!
@@CrasterFamily Chomsky exposed Buckley again and again for being dead wrong historically, factually, and just plain making up BS, then dodging his extemporized falsehoods by talking over Chomsky. Buckley projects an act that signifies intellectual verbalizing to some people, but it is dismantled easily and unavoidably by someone with the ability to follow a logical train of thought, in this case, Chomsky.
This is how you politely take apart your counterpart's arguments. Gotta admire Chomsky for his calmness in the face of Buckley's jumpiness.
Chomsky has a lot of tension in his body language. His voice is calm when he can keep his hands crossed in his lap. When he feels defensive, he opens his hands, his voice pitch rises, and his tempo speeds up. He was clearly scrambling to get away from his France analogy. By the final bell, Chomsky was running very hard.
It was so simple for Chomsky. Buckley was truly an immature fool
All of chomsky arguments are anti American presuming n not with any proof that we are imperialist. Alot of countries want to associate with us for prosperity, safety n leadership which we incur with financial help more than any nation.
It is really impressive. True
@@bouzoukiman5000 It is not simple to try to have conversations with idiots or those that are not willing to have one but try to impress.
Buckley cuts Chomsky off relentlessly. Chomsky is rarely allowed to speak for more than 10 seconds without interruption. Chomsky is a man of infinite patience.
i agree. buckley is so full of himself.
@@The93ssfd . . . and Chomsky full of something else.
@@ingregulous3141 knowledge ? :D
@@ingregulous3141 Yep...the decades long capacity to help his fellow Americans shake off the stupor of all the imperialist propaganda we've been fed, plus brilliant research in linguistics. If we want to have a future for our country, we need to come to terms with reality
@@ingregulous3141 "Chomsky full of something else." . . . Yes, facts and logic and honesty.
Buckley gets constantly caught in inaccuracies by Chomsky and his defense is to change the direction and point of view of the conversation.
@vibratingstringOf course, Buckley was so stubbornly mired in his mistaken opinions that he never realized he’d been defeated.
@vibratingstring 🖖
@vibratingstringThis is a tour de force by Chomsky in showing why he's a linguist, and not an intellectual.
Just like most rightwingers.
Ben Shapiro does that.
Everytime that guy Buckley winks, I feel somewhat violated....
For all his pomposity, Buckley is shown to be no more than a poseur. Chomsky is the knowledgeable and brilliant intellect.
@Foggy's Friend All Buckley did was put words in Chomsky's mouth before changing the topic. Under these conditions Chomsky is absolutely right to clarify his stance. If the purpose of this interview/debate is to enable us to compare their respective stances we cannot have people putting words in other people's mouths. That is even more important given Chomsky barely provides an opinion at all and bases his stance on facts. You don't have to believe the facts, instead you are given the ability to check them for yourself: something you can't do with opinions. Buckley also primarily relied on opinions and conjecture. That's a fact for anyone who watches this video, honestly.
If released within the past couple of years, this video would've been titled sth like: 'William F. Buckley DESTROYS political dilettante Chomsky'
Buckley is a poseur, but compared to the nitwit hosting the latest version of "Firing Line" (Margaret Hoover), he seems positively erudite
@Klaa2What? Lmao Nah. Overall, conservatives are the biggest history nerds out there ..and consistently have been throughout history. Conservatives want to "conserve", so they're bound to the past by default. It's fundamental to their identities/ideology.. Just like looking to the future, criticizing tradition, and trying to constantly progress is fundamentally liberal. Save for intellectuals like Chomsky, the modern left simply cherry picks and highlights the parts of history that help further whatever particular narrative they're pushing. (Some of which are totally legitimate narratives.. such as the military industrial complex and its warmongering or the humanitarian crisis in Israel..) But increasingly, universities and even public schools are politicizing (and sometimes downright rewriting) history. ..which has led to the left becoming overwhelmingly fixated on just the last century of history in their own countries. Conservatives study history as a whole. Important difference. Another important difference between the right and left is that in general, the left doesn't really practice the art of "knowing thy enemy". (Which is why you think conservatives are ignorant about history, for example. ..and that couldn't actually be further from the truth. ..Or the old trope that conservatives want to "control women's bodies" with abortion legislation. ..or that Jordan Peterson is "alt right".
@Johnny West like you actually watched this video. too funny!
I used to watch this program regularly. But I'm embarrassed to see it now. How in blazes did I fail to notice, or even suspect, that Buckley was a neurotic explosion of theatrical affectations? How could I have imagined that he was genuine? It's humbling.
Hes pretty gross.. i must say. So fake and demeaning
i think the word you're looking for is 'affectations'
Bluebarons comment 'A neurotic explosion of theatrical affectations' fits perfectly. Just so darn weird was Buckley, he oozed creepyness. Now watching at 70 it is as though there is subliminal messaging going on. So phoney though. Was he a Bircher.
*affectations
@@eugeniewaldteufel7915 Actually Buckley, as editor in chief of The National Review, denounced the John Birch Society as too far right wing.
It would had been nice to hear one of Chomsky's full sentences developed to the end without been interrupted.
Chomsky interrupts every tine Buckley is making a point. It is all in one's perspective.
Right? Buckley displays such arrogance and if Chomsky made a legitimate point, then he ridiculed his point.
This is how you debate in a free country, with amiable men. No knives, no guns, no bloodshed, just an exchange of ideas, wonderful.
trha2222 HAHAHA yes, once we have your guns you will be powerless to stop our bath salt fueled aggression. Your White women WILL. BE. OURS.
I've enjoyed the tour of your page.
One more invitation and I'll not mention it again ;- )
politicalbullpen(dot)come
I'd hardly have called Buckley amiable. He's angry and pissed that Chomsky bests him at every turn.
Hardly a wonderful exchange of ideas. One man is an arrogant imbecile dribbling prejudice, the other humbly offering clarity and facts.
@@User0resU-1 what a sterling, unbiased, and evidence-filled comment! Free of infantile name-calling and unproved conclusory statements! Bravo!
Wow! Naom Chomsky's debate skills are simply unmatched. His command of the facts is incredible.
The only real fact mention here was Dresden getting bombed
Most of the time Chomsky is speaking opinions, not facts. Things like "rights" "obligations" and "justice" are opinion based only. For example, watch a Bin Laden interview and you'll hear Bin Laden talk about the rights of slavery, the obligation to martyr and the justice of terrorism because those are his opinions.
@Matt - I have to agree with the other commentators. You are clearly either deluded, or deliberately lying.
Sure fooled you, didn't he. Dumbass!
@@mattkierkegaard9403 I think people are impressed with him because they are so ignorant they assume his smug self assurance equates with facts.
@@jude999. Well they force feed Chomsky to hungry university students, at college. So it's the easy thing for many young "intellectuals" to do - to be impressed by Chomsky and defend him as if his words/views have credence.
To get Buckley, one has to have the mental strength to go and find him, explore him and be challenged by him.
You know most university kids are overweight, yeah? 😆
"Here to fore...," "In such ways as..." "To which we and in such case as..." "Except in so for, we are in a position to..." - Buckley was merely a frustrated actor: All Shakespearean performance...but with zero actual substance.
Kristian Nelson an absolute Polonius. Pompous, pretentious, over-promoted, superficial, foolish.
You obviously haven't watched many of his debates. chomsky is a difficult conversationalist in the way he weaves his arguments in specific points in time but the entire timeline is off course. Buckley had literally hundreds of award winning conversations over the years where he outclassed many speakers. This was not one of them but is not demonstrative of his abilities.
Clearly you hate the people who made our language
This level of debating has completely disappeared from the face of the earth. I mean WOW!
Chomsky on his conversation with Buckley "It was of no particular significance as far as I was concerned" "Buckley was quite mad by the end of the interview"
He must have been. He never invited Chomsky back.
@@jamesanthony5681 Buckley wouldn't invite anyone who could articulate the true nature of his (Buckley's) intentions and beliefs, directly or indirectly. His whole shtick was belittling people who disagreed with him, so yeah, Chomsky wouldn't be invited back.
Maybe because he disproves a negative and makes assumptions to find his voice.
@@FakingANerve so basically that time’s tucker Carlson or any other fox host...
@@harry2smart Hey now! Don't make me not disagree with you! 😉🍻
I love how Chomsky confronts Buckley on his Greek history
TV talk-shows have gone downhill so much since this came out. It's a breath of fresh air to watch. No shouting or name-calling. Just focusing on the rational points. Plenty of time to talk without restricted soundbites. Bring this style back!
Like who would like watch it ,like?
'Rational' doesn't hold any interest for the masses in America!! 🤣
Both Buckley and CHOMSKY are being paid for this, and at a time before the total moral media breakdown
It won't come back. People minds have been dumbed down by corporate interests. Look at how media outlets have been swallowed and absorbed by big corporations. Nowadays we are only told what the 1% want to tell us.
They did. They are called podcasts now.
Buckley is the perfect example of convoluted prose that Orwell talked about - pure air.
pure pretense
🗣Facts!
@@sekenamcmurren2217 BUt nontheless entertaining to watch.
nah, that would be democrats - inadequate in any field and undereducated, unsosphisticated
Yes I imagine it would sound like nonsense to the simple mind.
It's interesting how Chomsky at this point, an activist, but also a linguistic scholar of historical importance, is engaged with a post-War conservative pamphleteer, and Mr. Buckley was a very good one. You see that Mr. Chomsky, trained in linguistics, has no problem whatsoever deflecting all of Buckley's college debate rhetorical devices, including his odd postures and facial expressions. At this point, Buckley's shtick was well known. It's interesting the renowned linguist is always prodding Buckley back to the "real world." Buckley literally can only deflect, accept Mr. Chomsky's clarifications / corrections, then quickly change tact and when that failed speak over his guest. I think it's true that Mr. Buckley refused to engage Mr. Chomsky again and for an obvious reason: the shtick didn't work.
Mark Lane kicks Buckley’s Arse too , Chomsky and Lane hammer Buckley at length with ease
Chomsky defended Pol Pot and north Vietnam. Now that those despicable regimes have been overturned, Chomsky is silent. Chomsky supporters are filth.
@@zoephin6205 you gotta cite your sources to back up your claims. Anyway, chomsky did not deny the atrocities as such but expressed skepticism about reports being made about them by certain journalists. I am not a fan of noam chomsky though.
@@hououinkyouma5033
Chomsky is the type to know the conclusions he desires ahead of time. Then he cherrypicks authors and facts that show he was right. He's a lefty. The goal always outweighs integrity.
8:24
"Look the world is a complex place"
This is one of my favorite Chomsky-quotes.
And we haste to make it ever more complex- to make it easier for the Tyrants to Hijack it...
@onelove no there not, read the 5 lessons: www.thecommentator.com/article/646/does_socialism_work_a_classroom_experiment
@@lemonsarebitter2069 the experiment conducted in this article isn't even close to a proper representation of democratic socialism.
The problem is that almost anything can be justified by that logic.
Buckley looks like the murderer in an episode of Columbo.
COLUMBO: “Professor Buckley, you're so smart! I really admire what you people do... my wife's a big fan...”
PROFESSOR BUCKLEY: “Well I, in turn, admire what you people do! After all, it takes a different kind of intellect to trudge through a heap of clues and come up with a solution to a petty little case like the one you're involved in now - a more pedestrian intellect, perhaps, but we can't all rise to the genius level, can we?”
COLUMBO: “Now you told me that you recorded your lecture onto a Dictaphone - a great little machine, by the way - and you gave the tape to the late Mrs Gray to type up...”
PROFESSOR BUCKLEY: “What of it, Mr Columbo? You'll appreciate that I'm a very busy man and I - ”
COLUMBO: “The thing is, Professor Buckley, I took a look at your Dictaphone...”
@Neil Harrison I liked that. A very good comedy pastiche. Thumbs up.
@@DCI-Frank-Burnside Thank you. Your comment made me laugh out loud!
@ Peter Boyle. Fucking Hilarious!
@@mixolydian "One more thing, professor..."
Buckley tries to get away with saying something insipid. Chomsky comes back with dates, times, citations and GPS coordinates. 😂
Except Chomsky is a consistent apologist for Stalinist tyranny. Here as throughout his career he is a supporter of evil and an opponent of freedom.
Even in that suit and with that haircut, Buckley still slithers. Sends shivers up my spine.
Great man, William F. Should have been President. With this snake man in power, we could have nuked our enemies many years ago.
That drawl of his is really creepy.
@@dinahnicest6525 pseudo-intellectual mid-atlantic accents are great to make people think you know what youre talking about
@@Gigantic_homo It is hard to imagine a single person on the left today that has anything close to the intellect Buckley had. They constantly fall flat in debate. Sounds like you are having trouble coping.
Very few academics could undermine Chomsky in his points of view.
Grifters can tho, all day long!
Chomsky is a man who speaks with the soul of weathered experience. Buckley drones on like a typical out-of-touch Republican, firmly ensconced behind lifeless dogma and pretence.
nationwidebw I think history clearly shows that American military intervention is/was most often preceded by overt actions of American Imperialistic Capitalism. Instead of being the heroes you envision, they were the instigators of the problems and then propagandised their heroics after the fact.
I once had a friend who fancied himself a divinely ordained preacher-the voice of God. His delusion was fuelled by two or three people shaking his hand each Sunday and politely offering isolated praise and encouragement. The reality that his ego missed, was the acrimony of the majority who saw him as a pompous, insecure and Ill-informed bigot.
Small political factions who’ve been bought (America’s primary motivational tactic) do not speak for the majority. The reality is that Americans are blind. They are, in fact, despised and barely tolerated globally. Chomsky has a view and understanding of this reality that men like Buckley and the GOP were/are entirely oblivious to.
@@Hyperbolika Chomsky is an arrogant academic, who thinks he knows everything and enforces his ideology as objectivity. I mean look at what he said about the Mass Rape in Bosnia and how he pussied out of a debate when he was challenged by Bosnian academics
@NightMayer Wah I thought we were talking about Chomsky and you’re rambling on about a preacher you knew . I’d like to make a reasoned reply but all that you’ve written is inscrutable.
This journalist has clearly NO idea of what happened in Greece and Chomsky simply destroys him. I'm Greek and what Chomsky says about greek history is 100% accurate.
Are you crazy , that is William Buckley jr. .... the best journalist ever !!
Buckley is a crazy conservatist who is making up things. Look at various of his debates where he makes up stuff.
Chomsky again tries to spin history. (1) He argues that helping Greece stand against the KKE Communists and the Yugoslavia influences were bad because the very Communists trying to overthrow the government via force were arrested. Buckley points out the drivel of that suggestion. It's akin to saying the assassination of Bin Laden was bad because AlQueda might not like it. Then (2) Chomsky tries to argue he doesn't know what would have risen had the coup been allowed to succeed. As if Yugoslavia and the KKE might have had some democratic change of mind once they achieved power. What Buckley does get wrong is the mention of communists insurgency prior to the Nazis. I think he meant the three phase civil war that was going on that the communists were trying to over throw the UN recognized government. Britian tried to stabilize the region but eventually asked for US aid.
+Krunk Classic well nothing new. "Facts" and "conservatism" are not terms that share anything in common.
Buckley has a great mind but his argument style is self-interested and pompous...he asks leading questions and then attempts to interrupt the answers. He is far more interested in his own opinions than the opinions of those he interviews.
The breadth and depth of knowledge of Noam Chomsky is just mind-blowing - not simply his familiarity with historical fact, but his ability to summarize and contextualize the information so it becomes rhetorically poignant and discursively relevant. In awe of this man.
No Buckley know it better tham Chomsky. Chomsky is just slimy and tries to make everything confusing to make it seem like any counties intervention unto another power and colonization. Chomsky dosent care how communist have brought suffering and death to North Korea, Vietnam, China, and anywhere else it really touched.
I was thinking about that, and it certainly helps to have lived through the history you're talking about.
Most impressive trait of Chomsky for me is his emotional equanimity. Many have his depth of intellect but few integrate it so well or calmly in service of Socratic understanding as he
The most fascinating American intellects I have heard in my lifetime are Chomsky and Terrance McKenna.
@@jimosborne2 yeah, those two are a great juxtaposition actually. McKenna makes more and more sense to me as I get older, bless his optimistic generosity
This is an example of an interview where it is the interviewer who actually becomes evasive and slippery.
except it's not an interview, the footage is from "Firing Line", a debate program. It was never intended to be an interview.
If I knew for a certainty that Chomsky was coming to my door with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life
@@roughhabit9085 Well, he's a millionaire while buckley is dead, so I'd rethink that.
buckley was most always dlippery, not to mention mendacious and insufferably supercilious
@@pzbrawl LOL
Why is Buckley smiling when he knows he's proven wrong and proven wrong time and again throughout this discussion? He tries to talk over Chomsky in ongoing, failed attempts to hide Chomsky's constant upstaging of him.
Tucker/Ben Shapiro/Trump etc follow the same old trick: Attempt to SOUND correct and keep speaking until the opponent cannot possibly reply to all the insane points and cannot possibly follow the train of thought.
That is the same smile a person uses when they want to appear unphazed by a badly loosing argument. He leans back further when he is getting frustrated.
I liked it when Chomsky quotes Bernard Fall and in the next sentence tells Buckley he should live in the real world, and yet Buckley went to Vietnam three times and actually met up with Fall .
@Keith1974 prood they are not interested in dialogue. Its only about their team being right. loved chomsky until i found Sowell.
Buckley's arguments and the arguments that those that were in favor of our involvement in Vietnam were proven moot when the Pentagon Papers were released. It was all nonsense and they new it.
I’m old and remember Buckley very well, he liked to hear himself talk.
Yes he did. He was very well spoken but at the same time a pompous, arrogant, ass. He was also almost always wrong.
john noe Buckley was quite adept at rhetoric, I would say. A lot of Buckley’s schtick was pure rhetoric, with no substance/precise formulation of ideas behind it. It’s amazing to see people that skilled at it because these days, if you’re educated you use less rhetoric and talk more like Chomsky does here. So people who resort to purely rhetorical debate tactics these days usually don’t need to be that good at it.
@@BladeRunner-td8be he was extremely fake and a moron
Ouch! Chomsky got BURNED at 12:34 - it’s difficult to watch someone get destroyed the way Chomsky was by Buckley. Necessary, but hard to watch.
@@rrrrrr-kb9sb how so? I know a bit about that time in Greece.
It is amazing how Buckley did not manage to choke on his own BS. Whenever he would lose a point of discussion, his first most reliable tactic was to redefine the words his spoke or those of his opponent to suit his argument. As a rhetorician, he should have cared more about words. If not for his eloquence of style, he would not never garnered his position based on the content of his arguments.
Amazing what a fast talker Chomsky was. Also how he has instantaneous recall of facts and can pull quotes from obscure documents out and cite them verbatim. He speaks very slowly and methodically now, but it is fun to imagine how he would have dispatched fast-talking BS artists like Ben Shapiro like swatting a fly.
Sounds like he has you lock, stock, and barrel. Never trust people who can do that to you. It means your'd kinda gullible.
@@jakemcclintock8696 Atleast someone demonstrably clever did it to him. You got done by a reality tv moron with a fake tan
@@jakemcclintock8696 You don't need to be a blind follower of Chomsky to realise that he'd beat Shapiro in a debate. Unless you are a Shapiro fanboi yourself and you only made that comment because someone said something mean about your CoOl KiDs PhIlOsOpHeR
@@jakemcclintock8696 Any evidence that Chomsky is mistaken?
@@jakemcclintock8696 sorry, which of Chomsky's facts were incorrect?
16:01 Buckley realizes how out of his depth he is, and how wholly inoperable his position is.
Exactly, and you can see Buckley's eyes shift to the side, like "dang this guy is too good too well versed."
16:01 When you realize the guy in front of you actually knows Vietnam’s history
Buckley got owned. I’m a conservative and this is a beat down of epic proportions. Arrogance is a weakness.
Buckley is a pseudo-intellectual. Chomsky is the real deal, because he is independent minded.
@@joshuajosephson7313 cute.
@@conantheseptuagenarian3824 Wasn't meant to be 'cute'. Please explain how it was cute, how Buckley is an intellectual and/or how Chomsky isn't completely independent-minded (more so than just about anyone in the mainstream I can think of).
@@joshuajosephson7313 chomsky is a subversive, commie jew who, even when he gets something right, says everything he can to undermine tradition and decency. he argues in bad faith at nearly all points, buckley be damned.
TwentyOne Five - This was no more a beat down than you are a conservative.
Never understood why Buckley is considered an intelligence giant. His arguments are always weak and bait and switch all the time.
Probably because he is a template for disingenous cheerleading news anchors.
Chomsky is hard core, he was already middle aged 50 years ago and still soldiering on
But not a genocide denier, yet.
@@xyz.928 The Serbian.
@@billyb6001 any more combat terms you know to discredit someone?
He's a machine. Dude is 93 and several friends of mine have emailed him some philosophical or political question and he responded immediately. Just questions from random people, not media inquiries or anything from which he'd have anything to gain.
@@nightmoose Chompbotsky
“Disinterested concern”
That’s a good one...
Special interest and genuine concern is not one in the same
That's also redundant and an example of how shallow Buckley was. His speaking style depended on his ability to impress people by always adding extraneous and unnecessary words as well as interrupting his counter part every 10 seconds.Not only was Buckley a pompous ass he was also very condescending in they way he spoke. Chomsky ate his lunch here.
Adam ikr 😂😂😂
And this, my friends, is where the phrase " saved by the bell " comes from.
Lol admitted. But nevertheless Buckley still schooling decades later
Well I think it's boxing :p
Buckley is so intent on running the show that it totally gets in the way of any intellectual argument that he may or may not have actually had.
Running the show? you mean "firing line" hosted by William Buckley
Every time Chomsky tried to discuss details of specific events, Buckley just spoke over him with another question.
Many interviewers i.e. Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Rachel Maddow, still follow this tactic and it's painful to watch/listen.
Even Alex Jones gets a little too excited and talks over his guests.
Myke Nope
yep, yep... wait, "even" Alex Jones?? like InfoWars is some island of balanced commentary?
N. Presley They have a bias, absolutely, but at least InfoWars are willing to talk about very controversial subjects. Unlike CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc etc. It doesn't mean you have to believe their reporting. It just means that there is more to the story than what was previously released.
That's what journalism should always be about, no? Talking about difficult, yet, pertinent issues i.e. Federal Reserve Banking practices and how it hurts the US and International economy.
Buckley fits the description of an "upper middle class twit" a la Monty Python. Chomsky owns him.
Bobbi Brooks in your imagination.
@NotJo yayayayayayayay OMG take a Valium kid
Spot on
@NotJo Oh sweet heart I am late again for I have just chanced upon your witty reply but the people here are so unkind with all name calling even if you do deserve it ..bye
Noam Chomsky took Buckley's arguments apart and was never invited back again.
Surprise, surprise!?
Very true, but I appreciate Buckley's attempt and the civil discourse taking place.
Sure he did, his argument about a post industrial, post world war 2 American imperialism was well rehearsed. And has history has proven completely wrong. The EU rose on it's own. Greece went from communism to socialism and never really recovered from bad policy. We helped Europe with soldiers and then the Marshal plan and every time since then whenever they needed funds. We helped our allies, nothing Imperial about that.
@@dd-vm1hs you're wrong
@@dd-vm1hs all
Chomsky is clearly both more intelligent and more well-informed - so purely to save face Buckley has to truncate his sentences.
I get your point but it’s the opposite of truncate, he embellishes and lengthens his rhetoric
@@golfer5636 yes his own - and cuts Chomsky's short - but to echo Ryan N: it's still so much more intelligent and enlightening than present day equivalents.
Let’s be fair, although Buckley was really dragging and reaching (or flatly wrong) on basically every point, you and I would KILL to have this level of open discourse about american imperialism today here in America
Totally agree
I dont see much of a difference to be honest. The left trying to explain basic principles and the right getting irrationally and violently upset. Just look at mask wearing for instance.
True, and yet such discourse is out there (Abby Martin, Richard Wolff etc.)---whether or not Americans are allowed to see it is another thing. Now as a nation occupied by parasites, we have to go get it ourselves.
@@nolives yh of course. I guess the peril "the left" has recently faced in elections across the globe is somewhat due to same arrogance you seem to carry. Assuming, quite wrongfully and ignorantly, that they have all the intellectual points on their side and then being morally smug about it. Sorry bro not a 'rightist'
P.S.: Buckley was out of his element. Not good enough that's for sure.
@@nolives More like the reverse. The right trying to explain basic principles like sovereignty and border security while the left gets irrationally and violently upset.
12:28 is a really good example of how a person, in the face of sound reason and linear logic, will rationalize their irrational position. That was a perfect opportunity for Buckley to say, "Well, you know, that's a good point." but he stuck with his convictions.
Yep. And Buckley can only mumble something absurd about "modalities" in response. He was so outmatched by Chomsky.
One of the very few times I've seen Buckley completely unable to keep up with facts.
I’m afraid we will never again see open dialogue like this between people with differing perspective in American politics.
The epitome of privilege. You're using two white men as the rubric for dialogue?
You're in the wrong circles
Well social media doesn't help
@@MadScientist267No, you are apparently either ignorant or willfully blind. It is beyond obvious that an exchange like this could never occur on many campuses due to immature goons' disruptions; nor would any mainstream media outlet put it together.
The hatred and vitriol for conservatives has been fully exposed and is openly practiced; it is without a doubt that the left are responsible for this.
When I first heard this debate, I was always fascinated by that little trap Chomsky planted at 3:48. Minutes later Buckley falls into that so seemingly.
This was certainly not intended by Chomsky, but it played out so perfectly for him.
What was the trap?
@@EyeDriveATruck The exceptions are the _other_ way.
Buckley is Rhetorician, Chomsky is an intellect, and he destroyed him and his web of words.
True. Bill Buckley didn't give a rat's ass what was being said, as long as that TV camera was pointed at **HIM, HIM, HIM!!!** Like his arch-enemy Gore Vidal, all he wanted was attention...
Buckley uses method not substance to support his position making him an intellectual coward.
@@mlight6845 yes a student of debating technique, and semantics.
He’s like a jordan Peterson prototype.
Chomsky alway's takes the moral upper hand though, which takes no courage, he is a charlatan of the highest degree
Damnit, I wanted to hear Buckley explain the difference at the end between the US w/ Guatemala and Soviet Union w/ Prague.
There is a complete video here: th-cam.com/video/9DvmLMUfGss/w-d-xo.html
Buckley clearly realizes he's getting knocked out here and goes for the clinch. Chomsky still easily wins a unanimous decision.