Chomsky looks like he is not long for this world.... I've gotta make it a point to take in any and all wisdom he will share in the time he's got left. Dude is brilliant and he does not mince words. A rare gem
@@amandasylvester8624 Agreed, Amanda. He is 96 years old and has not given an interview since 2023. This year he was hospitalized and is now virtually unable to communicate. It's a slow, painful path to ashes. But, as you rightly said, we must appreciate that he graced this Earth in the first place. He really is a gem, and thank you for honoring his legacy.
You're very right, Steven. Chomsky continued to perform lectures and attend interviews until his mid-nineties, which few of us could ever hope to do. Sadly, last year, he fell victim to a severe stroke and is now unable to talk. Up until that point, he was still speaking with such acuity that few of us could claim to possess.
🙏🏻🙏🏽🙏 Hope he's no more in full capacity of following the news after his stroke. Knowing all that has been happening on this doomed planet of ours in the meantime, and being unable to express himself about it would be just unbearable in his such an exceptionally brilliant mind's very case.
Sadly, he is still able to read, but can no longer comment on what he reads. This is taken from the Independent: "The famed intellectual is still following the news and his wife confirmed that he raises his left arm in a gesture of lament and anger when he sees images of the war in Gaza."
Who remembers when Noam was downplaying and running cover for the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia when he was a young man? I do. You were complicit!
I shall reiterate my reply to a similar comment regarding this matter. This is perhaps the greatest bane to Chomsky's career and teachings, although it does not strike with much accuracy. He did not support Pol Pot, but he did indeed downplay reports about Cambodian genocide. I maintain that he did this not out of an affinity to Pot, but a deep skepticism of the American media. Just like it had dampened atrocities during the Vietnam War and the fall of Sri Lanka to brainwash citizens into believing the moral superiority of the West, he supposed that it had inflated atrocities under Pot to brainwash citizens into believing the moral inferiority of "communism." Chomsky just let his skepticism run loose and blind him to reality.
@DanielRochester800 true i stayed up all night and have been dreading to read this math book ive been meaning to reading during semester break chomsky must have a rigorous bed time schedule need that in ym life so badly
I respected him until he started saying things like russia is more humane in their invasion of Ukraine and started making factual errors about death counts underplaying russia's civilian killings
Chomsky did not regard Russia's invasion as humane; he does not regard any invasion as humane. All he said, as far as my understanding allows me, is that NATO's expansionism in Eastern Europe gave Putin the "justification" he needed to conduct the invasion. Again, this does not make the invasion just.
@DanielRochester800 No, he also sometimes alluded to that argument. That's one of the mainstream apologetic arguments of many of the left, which is one of the key few narratives spread through russian propaganda but that's a different discussion. He actually said exactly what I said. He said that russia is far more humane than US in which he compared the US invasion of Iraq with the russian invasion in terms of numbers. So not only did he compare the "humane"ness of two invasions which I find silly to put it in light terms but he also based it on civilian casualties, which were incorrect, simply untrue. It's actually still reachable. He repeated it multiple times but one version of this happened when he gave an interview to New Statesman, they themselves needed to correct him on the error.
@DanielRochester800 "Noam Chomsky: Russia is fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq" is the title of the article, you can google it. He obviously makes some fair points but it's mixed with incorrect information and also frankly a biased view. To me it shows that his critique of US's military terror upon the world came to a point where he started to lose his sense of fair judgement or let's say objectivist approach when assessing data.
@@qualiatv I'll agree on the last point, yes. But the reality is that us Westerners will never really know the scale of US atrocities in Iraq due to the media whitewashing the war.
Chomsky looks like he is not long for this world.... I've gotta make it a point to take in any and all wisdom he will share in the time he's got left.
Dude is brilliant and he does not mince words. A rare gem
@@amandasylvester8624 Agreed, Amanda. He is 96 years old and has not given an interview since 2023. This year he was hospitalized and is now virtually unable to communicate. It's a slow, painful path to ashes. But, as you rightly said, we must appreciate that he graced this Earth in the first place. He really is a gem, and thank you for honoring his legacy.
He's so mentally sharp for a man of 96. He talks, we very much need to listen and record!!
You're very right, Steven. Chomsky continued to perform lectures and attend interviews until his mid-nineties, which few of us could ever hope to do. Sadly, last year, he fell victim to a severe stroke and is now unable to talk. Up until that point, he was still speaking with such acuity that few of us could claim to possess.
🙏🏻🙏🏽🙏 Hope he's no more in full capacity of following the news after his stroke. Knowing all that has been happening on this doomed planet of ours in the meantime, and being unable to express himself about it would be just unbearable in his such an exceptionally brilliant mind's very case.
Sadly, he is still able to read, but can no longer comment on what he reads. This is taken from the Independent: "The famed intellectual is still following the news and his wife confirmed that he raises his left arm in a gesture of lament and anger when he sees images of the war in Gaza."
@DanielRochester800Thanks for the source as well.
Who remembers when Noam was downplaying and running cover for the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia when he was a young man? I do. You were complicit!
I shall reiterate my reply to a similar comment regarding this matter. This is perhaps the greatest bane to Chomsky's career and teachings, although it does not strike with much accuracy. He did not support Pol Pot, but he did indeed downplay reports about Cambodian genocide. I maintain that he did this not out of an affinity to Pot, but a deep skepticism of the American media. Just like it had dampened atrocities during the Vietnam War and the fall of Sri Lanka to brainwash citizens into believing the moral superiority of the West, he supposed that it had inflated atrocities under Pot to brainwash citizens into believing the moral inferiority of "communism." Chomsky just let his skepticism run loose and blind him to reality.
how tf r u still alive chomsky
@@chrisangel6833 He was mentally active throughout his entire life. A healthy mind is a healthy man.
@DanielRochester800 true i stayed up all night and have been dreading to read this math book ive been meaning to reading during semester break chomsky must have a rigorous bed time schedule need that in ym life so badly
@@chrisangel6833 Reading indeed does you great good.
Jeez, Chomsky must be about 120 years old now. Don't make him talk about US presidents anymore. Let the man be with his grandkids...
@@tarjeigaare I understand what you're saying, but how about we let Chomsky decide what he wants? It's his life, after all.
has he changed his mind on khmer rouge and the combodian genocide denial yet?
I have already replied to your accusation.
I respected him until he started saying things like russia is more humane in their invasion of Ukraine and started making factual errors about death counts underplaying russia's civilian killings
Chomsky did not regard Russia's invasion as humane; he does not regard any invasion as humane. All he said, as far as my understanding allows me, is that NATO's expansionism in Eastern Europe gave Putin the "justification" he needed to conduct the invasion. Again, this does not make the invasion just.
The simple math of needless deaths in Iraq (U.S.) and in Ukraine (Russia) proves him correct.
@DanielRochester800 No, he also sometimes alluded to that argument. That's one of the mainstream apologetic arguments of many of the left, which is one of the key few narratives spread through russian propaganda but that's a different discussion. He actually said exactly what I said. He said that russia is far more humane than US in which he compared the US invasion of Iraq with the russian invasion in terms of numbers. So not only did he compare the "humane"ness of two invasions which I find silly to put it in light terms but he also based it on civilian casualties, which were incorrect, simply untrue. It's actually still reachable. He repeated it multiple times but one version of this happened when he gave an interview to New Statesman, they themselves needed to correct him on the error.
@DanielRochester800 "Noam Chomsky: Russia is fighting more humanely than the US did in Iraq" is the title of the article, you can google it. He obviously makes some fair points but it's mixed with incorrect information and also frankly a biased view. To me it shows that his critique of US's military terror upon the world came to a point where he started to lose his sense of fair judgement or let's say objectivist approach when assessing data.
@@qualiatv I'll agree on the last point, yes. But the reality is that us Westerners will never really know the scale of US atrocities in Iraq due to the media whitewashing the war.