***** Which part of "leave your email address out of your correspondence with Chomsky" am I failing to explain??? Please, I really *do* care about communicating clearly!
***** And other folks who've met Chomsky in person say he's among the friendliest people - much less major intellectuals - they've ever met. I'll take their word over yours. In closing, here's a phrase you can take with you from this conversation: *PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!*
"The left has moved too far left and the right has moved too far right." - From a European perspective there is no political left in America. There is only 2 flavors of political right.
_You said I blame America. That is false. I blame you, I blame me, and I blame the rest of us who are allowing this to happen right in front of our eyes. That's not blaming America._ Noam refuting the _anti-American_ slur beautifully.
+BollocksUtwat noam is the type of person that would of blamed america for not doing anything and then when we do he blames them for that. i can sit here and criticize nations too when i just sit back and wait to see. i wonder if noam would have been upset that germany was blockaded during ww 2 considering we were breaking down walls to auschwitz. kinda like we are trying to kill an oppressive regime.
Jacie Kelley So you just look for a chance to jam the anti-Islam thing in there as quick as possible? Is that how you get on top of a discussion, red herring the fuck out of it til someone gets upset and starts attacking your position on something totally unrelated to the original topic?
BollocksUtwat and the only thin you said was i broke godwins law well when they both hate jews its not that hard its not like a leap from nowhere if i said i hate jews you could say hitler said that> in fact its thought it was an arab muslim who called for the holocaust
@@mattwooten7421 More like trying to beat the rap in a Stalinist show trial. Chomsky stumped for the Khmer Rouge and Hezbollah, and still his Left fascist fans eat it all up.
Chomsky is spot on. Very accurate analysis of the situation. And ironically most people on the right accuse the left of being 'moral relativists', while their own argument for justifying the invasion of Afghanistan is 'what would you have done under such a situation'.
Chomsky is spot-on bullshit. Everybody is a moral relativist. The problem with Chomsky and the Left is that they use idealistically silly stances that are conveniently appetizing to idealistically silly people to define their own countrymen as the villain, when there are people outside their nation who are just as (or more) threatening to justice. So be a moral relativist... but try not to throw your own country under the bus for no other reason than building a political cult who exchanges nationalism for empty virtue and the resulting baseless ideas of what heroism is.
@@GARY84ROCKS If you think that people (like the US government officials) that murder thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians aren't villains, you need to get your head examined! Yeah there are people outside the US that commit horrible crimes, but the solution to that isn't to bomb the shit out of their victims (which is what the USA usually does).
@@Fluxquark , You are missing the point here: Even If all those accusations were true-and they're not-then the Worse that Chomsky THINKS that our Policy Makers have acted over the years, then the Worse that this makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking a Policy Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do better! Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines!
Mr. Chomsky makes a perfectly valid point about personal responsibility that most people tend to forget : we are responsible for what we can affect, no more, no less. The question is, how far are we willing to dive in to fight for any kind of justice in the world? I love this man : I have learned a great deal from him and keep on learning everytime I read his articles or watch one of his presentation/debate.
American Neocons love these cartoonish analogies but sometimes forget they are only effective for stroking a dim witted audience. They're just a waste of time in rigorous discourse.
@@tbwil So you side with the Saudi Arabians? If Iranian interference in Yemen is such a crime, then the all out devastation unleashed by the Saudis must be an even greater one. Do not forget that it was the US that violated the Iranian nuclear agreement, not Iran.
@@noleftturnunstoned I "side" with American interests, period. "Do not forget that it was the US that violated the Iranian nuclear agreement, not Iran." Yes, thankfully the adults in power now pulled out of the farce that was the Iranian agreement. As was usual modus operandi for him, Obama lied to sell it. Hell in Jan of this year the head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran himself admitted Iran had fooled the 5+1 and IAEA group of foreign ministers. In a perfect world America wouldnt have to keep an eye on world players but we dont live in a perfect world.
"I "side" with American interests, period" suggests that it's just an accident of birth location that stops you from seeing Iran as completely right in the conflict.
@@RatatRatR Taken out of context I guess anything could suggest what you wish it to suggest...and you would still be inaccurate...or dishonest...or disingenuous or...
chomsky would hate the title of this video. what are called conservatives in the US, arent actually conservative in any sense of the intellectual history of conservatism. US conservatives are imperial state capitalists organized around a religious fanatacism, and fear. it has almost nothing to do with traditional conservatism in any historical sense. the intellectual foundations that is conservatism are almost entirely gone from US politics. as chomsky would say, it's a testament to the propaganda systems that people like ronald reagan and george bush can claim to be conservative, and not be laughed out of the country by 300 million people. theyre about as conservative as clinton is liberal.
Jon Michael Walters traditional conservatism is a rejection of the theoretical in favor of the pragmatic. it's the lack of a ideology. political conservatives see traditional institutions as self justifying, and hence reject apriori reasoning, and support the traditional institutions as they are; rejecting revolution and utopian viewpoints, in favor of a gradual, organic evolution of tradition institutions as the culture evolves, while seeking to preserve the institutions, not as they are, but as they evolve in conjunction with society. they view traditions institutions as being the culmination of a system of "survival of the fittest" within social structures, and hence are worth preserving, and self justifying and self improving, though gradually. the term conservative in US politics is what's typically called state reactionary. these people want to bring the country back to the 1950s, reject outright social evolution in favor of a static, highly ideological worldview. this is the antithesis of conservatism. they have a utopian view of the world, and seek to have a social revolution in the oppsosite direction of the evolution. they play on the typical conservativeti sentiment of preserving exisng, traditional institutions (as they are self justifying), but seek to transform the society into a Utopian view of society based on highly ideological fantasies surrounding the same institutions (the church for example). ive not done it justice, see citations for further in depth understanding of conservatism as it once was, not as it is referred to now in our politically illiterate media. for further reading: plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/#ForProVsSubSenConConNeoConLib
+Bernise Anders What a conservative is depends on the place and time. There is no real universal principles that apply to all conservatism. Take for instance conservatives of the American revolution. Who believed in sovereign rule and were against the war and reviled the forefathers of the American revolution. Today many conservatives worship the forefathers. This is not contradictory. It simply means that conservatives are enamoured with "traditional" institutions. Which means that conservative opinion can vary vastly over time and place. Given this students tack he would appear to be politically conservative in the US at the time of this talk.
MrDeadInMyPocket well there are a few. existing institutions being self justifying for example. But largely what you wrote is correct. a conservatives "view" of society is entirely dependent on that society and institutions withing, whereas a socialist for example, will carry the same (or similar) views regardless what society he is in.
AndroidPolitician that would depend on what said society had been - that is to say if the society had traditionally liberal leanings or if the liberalism had been instituted by more revolutionary means. this passage from my quoted article may help, as it explains the two types of conservatism, relativistic, and non relativistic conservatism: (1) relativistic conservatism holds that if socialism, feudalism or fascism works well in some country, one should try to make it run better through minor improvements based on experience and accumulated wisdom. The judgement of whether something is broken or runs reasonably well appeals to values accepted in the relevant society. Thus conservatives in reasonably functioning socialist, feudal and fascist countries advocate different modes of social organisation and gradual improvement, according to prevailing values. On this view, conservative particularism is relativistic. (2) non-relativistic conservatism rejects views such as socialism, libertarianism and fascism that aim to structure society around a single rationally articulated organising principle. On this interpretation, particularism does not imply relativism. Revolutionary systems, and autocratic systems with no possibility of incremental change-societies that do not exhibit living traditions-are not amenable to a conservative outlook. Conservatism is situational, but some situations do not permit conservative responses. source: plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/#ForProVsSubSenConConNeoConLib you can see then that in some societies, mainly those who've undergone revolutions and/or been stripped of traditional institutions, may not have any conservatives within, at least no non-relativistic conservatives, as there are no traditions for which organic, gradual societal growth can occur. you may be more insightful than you know, as you've arrived at a very crucial point regarding conservatism seemingly all on your own. im quite impressed.
Chomsky is a rather sound, empirical, evidence-based arguer. Conservatives in almost knee-jerk reaction label him anti-American and pit him in some group. It's kind of like George Bush's, "You are either for us or against us." Well, no. What conservatives don't understand is that no nation, class, race, and religion is more important than the human being. That's rather important to understand. Unfortunately, those who despise Chomsky yet have no counterargument commit a dangerous sin. Chomsky has no team. When he sees injustice, he calls it out. When he sees the flourishing of humanity, he levies just praise. People need to have principles, but too many root for certain teams.
Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 love the name and avatar haha…Very well said about Chomsky, a unique bur accurate summary. I like to think of him as like a God amongst men.
"If we're serious, we should be concerned with what we do, and what we can do. If there's an elementary moral truism, that's it. People don't understand that, they're just not in the moral universe."
And imagine IF Chomsky did more with his life than merely recite past data about fields that he has never actually worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics! SMH
often times i feel hopeless for the future of this country. hopeless for the state of education, specifically. Chomsky remains a light of hope. thank you professor.
I did not hear in this recording where the questioner ever actually identified himself as a, ' Conservative '. But even if he did, ALL of Chomsky's, ' facts ', have the great luxury of exploiting 20/20 Hindsight-which renders them essentially worthless!
Chomsky has no integrity. WALTER LIPPMAN created the phrase "Manufacturing Consent" and Chomsky stole it. Edward Bernays had another word for it, "Engineering Consent". Chomsky CO-WROTE 'Manufacturing Consent' and then went on to take credit for all of it. Lipman and Bernays wrote about it years before Chomsky stole it.
@@luciuspaullus1948 Absolutely right. This is an article from 2011, long before the Venezuelan collapse. www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/07/noam_chomsky_gets_half_a_clue.html
This was at MIT, and it was directly after the September 11th attacks. That is why the student said 6000 dead from the attack rather than 3000, as the figure was not yet known. Right after "spitball" boy, just after Chomsky said he didn't blame America, a woman starts screaming at Chomsky calling him anti-American. I haven't decided if I'm going to upload it or not, but I think I'd title it Noam Chomsky vs Crazy lady. I plan to upload some of the other Q/A session.
Glorious example of clear rational thinking unloading on the flabby received opinion that fills the minds of so many people. Quite simply there are way too few Chomskys around, and that of course is how the powerful want it. To not understand that is to exhibit a truly wilful ignorance.
I am at a loss, I have never, ever seen Chomsky lose an argument and I have looked everywhere. The guy is just on a whole other level as any interlocutor they throw at him.
"Professor Chomsky, thank you for coming tonight, and I know we're all honored to have you here." Acculturated in the language of newspeak, young Winston here, of course, says the exact opposite of what he meant to say.
I love your detailed and sophisticated analysis. You clearly proved your point. No way people could say the same about you using your same in-depth reasoning.
Lol schooled. The difference usually between Chomskey and his opposition is that Chomsky has done his research and has evidence to back it up that isn't full of confirmation bias. Guy got fuckin owned
What I find impressive about Chomsky, aside from his humanist viewpoint and mastery of facts, is that he never loses his temper in debate, maintaining civil discourse throughout, despite whatever challenges his opponents toss his way. You hear no inflammatory rhetoric, no name-calling. When he states that the U.S. acts as a rogue nation, he uses our own govt.'s very criterion and facts to substantiate.
I think the Red Army would have tamed the Islamic resistance if it wasn't for the US's intervention. Unlike the present American occupation that has achieved nothing - the USSR had something to offer in terms of infrastructure, education and health etc. I believe this would have eventually won hearts and minds of the ordinary people - as in other Islamo/socialist states of the Soviet Union.
I love the tentative clap at the beginning at what rhetorically might seem prima facie like a good point, at least to americans... but the crowd knows what's coming lmao
While I don't agree with the question asker, I do find it refreshing to hear someone able to articulate a question without stuttering as is so often the case in these situations
This isn't in any way, shape or form his sharpest or harshest rebuttal but goddammit how I love it whenever the infinitely patient, humble and kind professor lets his moral indignation and righteous anger shine though.
I only wish I had an eighth of the debating skills and reasoning of Chomsky. When he goes I'll feel so much regret, but thanks to the wealth of videos available at least we can all admire his legacy.
can anyone think of one person, in the public eye as Chomsky is , that can approach Noam's level of integrity? What a treasure this man is , we are blessed
@@mrwalkway4740 Really? I've listened to a few of his podcasts and have found the opposite - he seems to be opposed to, for example, war, Trumpism, and all the worst aspects of religion and the violence associated with it. Can you give an example?
TheLapaEsquire mobile.twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1112829995167215617 I hate twitter with a passion but Hasan has done a pretty good job compiling the sort of shit that made me stop listening to Sam’s podcast a while back
His whole exchange with Chomsky, which he published in 2015, was based on Harris insisting that it was important to go through thought experiments like "but what if there was a Taliban that just wanted to sell us all Girl Scout cookies? How would that change the moral implications?" and Chomsky reacting like "that isn't even interesting, and I don't want to talk about it." Also, even in his subsequent post mortems of the exchange, Harris continued to act like it was reasonable to just take the U.S. leadership at their word about having the best of intentions at wartime, and therefore moral until proven otherwise. He basically came off as unfit to comment on the real world.
Chomsky really loves america. That's why he critizise america. If you love someone, you critizice him/her when they do wrong (including yourself). A real patriot and humanitarian.
Yes and who better qualified to judge America is, ' wrong', then a Linguistics Professor, with ZERO Real World Experience in ANY other area, and whose criticisms of others all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! This makes perfect sense-Right??? smh
@@mck1972 What qualification do you have to be evaluating Chomsky's qualifications? Are you a qualification expert? See the sad thing about that line of argument is that it just leads nowhere. Ultimately I can always find a way to dismiss you as unfit to comment on any topic and we end up with a whole lot of people who aren't qualified to say anything. Instead of trying to dismiss him based on authority/lack thereof, how about you actually tackle any of the points he's making in this clip? Well I've got an interesting theory about that: you can't.
@@furiousmat , Well, YES-Actually I CAN, and since you asked so nicely, I will. Now pls pay attention, so you can learn something here: You seem to miss the salient distinction between the Freedom to criticize something, vs the Credibility to do so: Under the 1st Amendment, Chomsky has the Freedom to criticize anything he wants, whether it’s our Government, or Lebron James's Basketball playing. Yet Chomsky has ZERO Real World Experience in EITHER Government, nor Professional Basketball, that would grant him the Credibility to criticize others in those fields. Real World Experience is defined as a documented history of Training, Practice, Achievement, and Responsibility, in a given field, and that is held to the same accepted Standards as others in that field. A person needs to have requisite Real World Experience in a given field-BEFORE they possess the Credibility to judge the quality of work of others in that same field. This is the Standard that everyone in our society is held to: I.e. Law, Science, Medicine, Finance, Sports, Etc. And so therefore Chomsky has ZERO Credibility to judge others in ANY field outside of Linguistics! BUT-You Chomsky fans will certainly claim-His facts & figures are accurate! I never stated that they were not. HOWEVER-This is ONLY because Chomsky’s criticisms of others all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! To use another fitting sports analogy, this is the forensic equivalent of Chomsky watching video of Last Week's NFL game, pointing out the losing team's mistakes, and using that knowledge to judge the performance of the players & coaches on the field! Which makes Chomsky no more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially worthless! And so the WORSE that Chomsky believes that our Government has behaved over the years, then the WORSE this makes Chomsky himself look, for NEVER having the guts to seek a Policy-Making Position, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do a better job! -INSTEAD of spending his ENTIRE career merely criticizing everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight-Like the worthless cowardly Monday-Morning-Quarterback that he is! THIS is the reality about Chomsky! So now that I have explained this reality for you- -You’re Welcome! ;-)
@marksuave25 Already read Hegemony or Survival and I agree with Chomsky 100% and with you. True Americans like Noam Chomsky need to be heard by everyone in our nation. God bless Chomsky for his common sense and humanity.
Shapiro's expertise is defeating uneducated, inexperienced and nervous college kids with sophism easily spotted by any experienced debater. There's a reason you'll never see him debate Chomsky, Greenwald, Scahill, Finkelstein, etc.. He just can't. If he ever found himself pinned in a debate against someone who was able to spot his tricks on the spot, which any of the 4 I suggested here would, he'd be completely resourceless.
What I like about the young conservative's analogy is that something very like it actually happened in real life, on American soil. Armed religious fundie, holed up with loads of people. The state attacked in full force, supposedly to get the bad guy and save the kids. Turned out rather badly, as I recall. Happened in a place called Waco, Texas.
I find it dishonest to say that Russia "destroyed the place" in Afghanistan. If you actually look into the Soviet occupied territories of Afghanistan at the time, they were was a full socialist infrastructure being installed with public participation. It wasn't until after the US initiated the Taliban to oppose the socialist construction of Afghanistan that the place was being destroyed in order to sabotage the development of the implementation of Soviet-assisted socialism.
Both of you need to get your facts right. The U.S. did NOT ever, at any time, support, nor supplied weapons to, the Taliban-Ever! Anyone who says different does not know what they are talking about! smh
hislord1 " And people who talk about Libertarian socialism haven't understood what socialism and Libertarianism are. The old Libertarianism had massive emphasis on private property and of course the left co-opted it and now you have the travesty known as Libertarian Socialism." Apparently YOU are the one who does not understand libertarianism. Real libertarians NEVER advocated private property. They advocated possession, including personal possessions. Do some real studying on libertarian history. You can start off by reading "What is Property" by Proudhon and by learning who is the first person to call himself a libertarian. I'll give you a hint, it's not a capitalist. It's also funny how even rothbard, a pioneer of "old libertarianism," admitted that capitalists were the ones that "co-opted" it, not leftist libertarians. "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertarians” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over" "that we are not anarchists (libertarians), and that those who call us anarchists (libertarians) are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical" "Libertarian" capitalism is the travesty
No, that's not a travesty. Producers' right to the produce is one of the reasons individuals become socialist, since socialism may be about the rejection of economic exploitation.
Thanks for the response. There is a sense in which "The US" is an abstract concept, but there also exist specific human agents controlling what the state does, even if the majority of the population would prefer that they didn't. These people are supported by wealthy interest groups. Sure, if *everyone* at once stopped believing in the state, they'd lose power, but how does that make any given person responsible for their actions? Even if I reject the state I cant make everyone else do the same.
I have JUST been thinking about that. I never understood Hitchens point of view and would have loved to have seen him debate it out with Chomsky, alas now that will never happen.
There are too many secrets in this world that keep honest men from being the kind of leaders we all demand. When was the last time any president told the country exactly what a foreign leader said in a diplomatic meeting? All we ever get is assurance that "they're working on things". Is that enough, in the name of peace?
a good point chomsky makes is how he clarifies that one should not - indeed, CANNOT - hate (judge) 'America', but can only hate or judge the people or citizens of the country of America for allowing certain activites to go on . Recall Pete Seeger's song about the train cars of material to promote a war all of which is paid for by the citizens money.
Libertarian has its emphasis on personal liberty. Its antithesis is authoritarianism or fascism (which is authoritarianism with a nationalistic aim). Socialism has its emphasis on collective ownership of means of production, environmental resources, and management. Its antithesis might be capitalism (which pushes private ownership of everything, including things such as air and water in its extreme forms). Chomsky leans more anarchist than socialist, but that's another story.
agreed. I am a conservative and I am embarrassed by how we throw out terms like "socialist" and fascist to anyone who disagrees with us. The socialist party of America doesn't consider Obama to be a socialist, that's a fact. Moreover, I think he is better classified as a "Democrat centrist" which means he's definitely still a believer in the market economy.
@fatmeteor Just for the record. Im glad Im living under the "capitalist terrorism" of America instead of the "Islamonazi terrorism" of Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on and so forth. Im as well glad we (over here) have managed to get rid of the Soviet occupation and Soviet oriented system in general. Our country has started blossoming once again. America has a key share in that endeavor. Thanks a lot...
His point is we have a moral responsibility to hold our govt accountable for its actions. If we do and say nothing about crimes we are aware of, we are giving tacit consent for those crimes to continue.
"Classical libertarianism" focused on effort to increase personal liberty by limiting government influence on personal affairs "as much as possible". Chomsky promotes this. Classical theory gave little theoretical "emphasis" about private property. Eventually the theory split down two streams, social liberalism and market liberalism. I think what you call "old libertarianism" is actually market liberalism, which is actually the youngest form.
The problem with the kid's analogy is that while Prof.Chomsky's original analogy was meant to illustrate the a moral issue, the questioner's analogy inadvertently brings up the issue of property rights, which is irrelevant in international relations (unless ofcourse the guy assumes America rules the world).
@MMDC2001 Yeah. That would definitely be horrible. But I do believe that competition within the solar market is slightly different in the sense that the technology gets continuously better, so to patent one type of solar material that becomes outdated later on is a little silly. The technology also gets more and more nano-sized as time goes on, so that addresses scarcity of materials somewhat. I also wonder if war would be profitable without fossil fuels around causing scarcity/desperation.
@MMDC2001 You are absolutely right, poverty did exist before capitalism. But in a post-scarcity society such as ours, there is absolutely no reason for poverty to exist now, unless somehow the top 1% of the population manged to get a hold of the vast majority of all wealth. Not only that, but every day the ruling class acquires more and more. It's as if the whole purpose of an economy, (which should be to provide for people's needs) was sacrificed on the altar of capitalism.
I actually think that the discussion would be either: very confused because they could discuss the various causes of war, or discuss the morality of war, in both cases, I think personally that Noam Chomsky is a much greater authority, with much stronger arguments to support his case ... the debate could have been interesting to see, but I think the outcome would be a foregone conclusion
@GiantSandles Ironically, I've absolutely no doubt this is precisely why Chomsky is *not* engaged in debate more often. He who wins invariably, effortlessly, everywhere and at all times, soon finds himself without willing opponents.
@SFOtter It's hard to argue with someone when they point out the same information you use and the standards in which you use them. Great comment. I couldn't have said it better.
the power of government has been increasing though, not decreasing. We haven't been "giving up democratic control," we've been expanding it! I would argue that the whole "government needs to help and organize society" argument is the one that sounds good on a soundbite, but not in reality. in most of the areas the government tries to intervene in, it does more harm than good.
@hydin1 I've never been a fan of anyone. As the ancient saying goes "Reverence is greater from a distance". But i do respect his work, i have read, and listened to hours of lectures of him and had a brief e-mail correspondance as well. I have read history for 15-16 years. And i still haven't read half as much as he has, and i have to keep reminding myself of that. He has read things that i haven't, so i can only agree on things i have been able to draw similar conclutions of, or verified.
Notice how Noam Chomsky never attacked or insulted the questioner. That is some *Class* right there.
***** Post the email.
***** Not your personal info, just the text.
***** Please post Prof. Chomsky's reply with your email address redacted.
***** Which part of "leave your email address out of your correspondence with Chomsky" am I failing to explain??? Please, I really *do* care about communicating clearly!
***** And other folks who've met Chomsky in person say he's among the friendliest people - much less major intellectuals - they've ever met. I'll take their word over yours. In closing, here's a phrase you can take with you from this conversation: *PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!*
"The left has moved too far left and the right has moved too far right."
-
From a European perspective there is no political left in America. There is only 2 flavors of political right.
How times have changed
bernie sanders has created a left-wing finally, god bless that man and the young people who've followed his lead
@TheDuck I didn't think I would describe it as a "fascist" country by any means; but it does have a sort of authoritarian impulse.
A.Plosky
Or as chomsky puts it:
America is a one-party stat, which is the money party, and it has two flavors, a right wing and an extreme right wing.
"America is a also one party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere, First President of Tanzania
Some strong cognition there: recalling each part of a compound question and delivering a verbal essay on each part.
Chomsky is brilliant.
One of the greatest minds in modern history
And therefore constantly derided by people who would look like absolute children if they ever tried to argue with him.
That’s the most impressive part of this, certainly.
Oh wait, you guys, there's new information in -- apparently he had access to a pen and a notepad. As you can tell, that completely changes everything.
Kudos on the title. Versus is much better then DESTROYED or something silly.
id rather it say Zionist schmuck gets destroyed
Oh my God I hate when terms like destroys, or smashes, or embarreses...
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS libtards
noam "real talk" chomsky seperates atoms of young conservative
"Noam Chomsky versus" implies "Noam Chomsky destroys"
_You said I blame America. That is false. I blame you, I blame me, and I blame the rest of us who are allowing this to happen right in front of our eyes. That's not blaming America._
Noam refuting the _anti-American_ slur beautifully.
+BollocksUtwat noam is the type of person that would of blamed america for not doing anything and then when we do he blames them for that. i can sit here and criticize nations too when i just sit back and wait to see. i wonder if noam would have been upset that germany was blockaded during ww 2 considering we were breaking down walls to auschwitz. kinda like we are trying to kill an oppressive regime.
Jacie Kelley Well Jacie you just broke Godwin's law by making an absurd comparison to the Holocaust.
Jacie Kelley So you just look for a chance to jam the anti-Islam thing in there as quick as possible? Is that how you get on top of a discussion, red herring the fuck out of it til someone gets upset and starts attacking your position on something totally unrelated to the original topic?
BollocksUtwat
you mean the anti jew thing
BollocksUtwat
and the only thin you said was i broke godwins law well when they both hate jews its not that hard its not like a leap from nowhere if i said i hate jews you could say hitler said that> in fact its thought it was an arab muslim who called for the holocaust
Young conservative brings a knife to a gun fight.
And wins against an armed gunman
@@wm6789 Yeah, except that he didn't win.
*indoctrination to a gate keeping reality
More like bringing a toothpick to a nuclear arms race.
@@mattwooten7421 More like trying to beat the rap in a Stalinist show trial. Chomsky stumped for the Khmer Rouge and Hezbollah, and still his Left fascist fans eat it all up.
Chomsky is spot on. Very accurate analysis of the situation. And ironically most people on the right accuse the left of being 'moral relativists', while their own argument for justifying the invasion of Afghanistan is 'what would you have done under such a situation'.
Ms Sandhu Wow. That is exactly right. I never thought about it like that.
Chomsky is spot-on bullshit. Everybody is a moral relativist. The problem with Chomsky and the Left is that they use idealistically silly stances that are conveniently appetizing to idealistically silly people to define their own countrymen as the villain, when there are people outside their nation who are just as (or more) threatening to justice. So be a moral relativist... but try not to throw your own country under the bus for no other reason than building a political cult who exchanges nationalism for empty virtue and the resulting baseless ideas of what heroism is.
@@GARY84ROCKS ,
You Sir, Are Spot-On! :-)
@@GARY84ROCKS If you think that people (like the US government officials) that murder thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians aren't villains, you need to get your head examined! Yeah there are people outside the US that commit horrible crimes, but the solution to that isn't to bomb the shit out of their victims (which is what the USA usually does).
@@Fluxquark ,
You are missing the point here:
Even If all those accusations were true-and they're not-then the Worse that Chomsky THINKS that our Policy Makers have acted over the years, then the Worse that this makes Chomsky himself look, for never seeking a Policy Making Position Himself, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do better!
Instead of spending his life merely complaining from the sidelines!
Mr. Chomsky makes a perfectly valid point about personal responsibility that most people tend to forget : we are responsible for what we can affect, no more, no less. The question is, how far are we willing to dive in to fight for any kind of justice in the world?
I love this man : I have learned a great deal from him and keep on learning everytime I read his articles or watch one of his presentation/debate.
American Neocons love these cartoonish analogies but sometimes forget they are only effective for stroking a dim witted audience. They're just a waste of time in rigorous discourse.
Sadly this dim witted audience has grown so much. Sad days we are living.
@@tbwil So you side with the Saudi Arabians? If Iranian interference in Yemen is such a crime, then the all out devastation unleashed by the Saudis must be an even greater one. Do not forget that it was the US that violated the Iranian nuclear agreement, not Iran.
@@noleftturnunstoned I "side" with American interests, period.
"Do not forget that it was the US that violated the Iranian nuclear agreement, not Iran." Yes, thankfully the adults in power now pulled out of the farce that was the Iranian agreement. As was usual modus operandi for him, Obama lied to sell it. Hell in Jan of this year the head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran himself admitted Iran had fooled the 5+1 and IAEA group of foreign ministers. In a perfect world America wouldnt have to keep an eye on world players but we dont live in a perfect world.
"I "side" with American interests, period" suggests that it's just an accident of birth location that stops you from seeing Iran as completely right in the conflict.
@@RatatRatR Taken out of context I guess anything could suggest what you wish it to suggest...and you would still be inaccurate...or dishonest...or disingenuous or...
chomsky would hate the title of this video. what are called conservatives in the US, arent actually conservative in any sense of the intellectual history of conservatism. US conservatives are imperial state capitalists organized around a religious fanatacism, and fear. it has almost nothing to do with traditional conservatism in any historical sense. the intellectual foundations that is conservatism are almost entirely gone from US politics. as chomsky would say, it's a testament to the propaganda systems that people like ronald reagan and george bush can claim to be conservative, and not be laughed out of the country by 300 million people. theyre about as conservative as clinton is liberal.
+Bernise Anders what is traditional conservatism?
Jon Michael Walters traditional conservatism is a rejection of the theoretical in favor of the pragmatic. it's the lack of a ideology. political conservatives see traditional institutions as self justifying, and hence reject apriori reasoning, and support the traditional institutions as they are; rejecting revolution and utopian viewpoints, in favor of a gradual, organic evolution of tradition institutions as the culture evolves, while seeking to preserve the institutions, not as they are, but as they evolve in conjunction with society. they view traditions institutions as being the culmination of a system of "survival of the fittest" within social structures, and hence are worth preserving, and self justifying and self improving, though gradually.
the term conservative in US politics is what's typically called state reactionary. these people want to bring the country back to the 1950s, reject outright social evolution in favor of a static, highly ideological worldview. this is the antithesis of conservatism. they have a utopian view of the world, and seek to have a social revolution in the oppsosite direction of the evolution. they play on the typical conservativeti sentiment of preserving exisng, traditional institutions (as they are self justifying), but seek to transform the society into a Utopian view of society based on highly ideological fantasies surrounding the same institutions (the church for example).
ive not done it justice, see citations for further in depth understanding of conservatism as it once was, not as it is referred to now in our politically illiterate media.
for further reading: plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/#ForProVsSubSenConConNeoConLib
+Bernise Anders
What a conservative is depends on the place and time. There is no real universal principles that apply to all conservatism.
Take for instance conservatives of the American revolution. Who believed in sovereign rule and were against the war and reviled the forefathers of the American revolution. Today many conservatives worship the forefathers.
This is not contradictory. It simply means that conservatives are enamoured with "traditional" institutions. Which means that conservative opinion can vary vastly over time and place.
Given this students tack he would appear to be politically conservative in the US at the time of this talk.
MrDeadInMyPocket well there are a few. existing institutions being self justifying for example. But largely what you wrote is correct. a conservatives "view" of society is entirely dependent on that society and institutions withing, whereas a socialist for example, will carry the same (or similar) views regardless what society he is in.
AndroidPolitician that would depend on what said society had been - that is to say if the society had traditionally liberal leanings or if the liberalism had been instituted by more revolutionary means. this passage from my quoted article may help, as it explains the two types of conservatism, relativistic, and non relativistic conservatism:
(1) relativistic conservatism holds that if socialism, feudalism or fascism works well in some country, one should try to make it run better through minor improvements based on experience and accumulated wisdom. The judgement of whether something is broken or runs reasonably well appeals to values accepted in the relevant society. Thus conservatives in reasonably functioning socialist, feudal and fascist countries advocate different modes of social organisation and gradual improvement, according to prevailing values. On this view, conservative particularism is relativistic.
(2) non-relativistic conservatism rejects views such as socialism, libertarianism and fascism that aim to structure society around a single rationally articulated organising principle. On this interpretation, particularism does not imply relativism. Revolutionary systems, and autocratic systems with no possibility of incremental change-societies that do not exhibit living traditions-are not amenable to a conservative outlook. Conservatism is situational, but some situations do not permit conservative responses.
source:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/#ForProVsSubSenConConNeoConLib
you can see then that in some societies, mainly those who've undergone revolutions and/or been stripped of traditional institutions, may not have any conservatives within, at least no non-relativistic conservatives, as there are no traditions for which organic, gradual societal growth can occur.
you may be more insightful than you know, as you've arrived at a very crucial point regarding conservatism seemingly all on your own. im quite impressed.
Chomsky is a rather sound, empirical, evidence-based arguer. Conservatives in almost knee-jerk reaction label him anti-American and pit him in some group. It's kind of like George Bush's, "You are either for us or against us." Well, no. What conservatives don't understand is that no nation, class, race, and religion is more important than the human being. That's rather important to understand. Unfortunately, those who despise Chomsky yet have no counterargument commit a dangerous sin. Chomsky has no team. When he sees injustice, he calls it out. When he sees the flourishing of humanity, he levies just praise. People need to have principles, but too many root for certain teams.
Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 love the name and avatar haha…Very well said about Chomsky, a unique bur accurate summary. I like to think of him as like a God amongst men.
+Heisenberg-SchrodingerEmc2 You really can't be an intellectual if you put "nationalism" over realism and sanity.
Not just conservatives. Some left-libertarians and so-called centrists too.
What an excellent post. The very same thought has been frustrating me for some time. Thank you for articulating this important point.
Yeah he has no team, that's why he denied the Khmer Rouge genocide for decades lol
I can almost swear that this still picture of Naom is slowly grinning wider. Is this just me lol?
+ConcludedFever9 I just imagine him getting slightly annoyed at the guy
+ConcludedFever9 Total creepypasta material right here
your not the only one bruh. I see it.
😂😂😂
Maybe it's from the stroke.
"If we're serious, we should be concerned with what we do, and what we can do. If there's an elementary moral truism, that's it. People don't understand that, they're just not in the moral universe."
Imagine thinking you could get the better of Noam Chomsky as a young college student.
Debating Noam Chompsky on politics would be like debating Albert Einstein on physics.
Well the kid is exactly the type who thinks he is not only fit to but destined to rule others.
Supremacist ideologies sure do clog cognitive function, don't they.
Imagine thinking you could get the better of Noam Chomsky as a Right Winger.
And imagine IF Chomsky did more with his life than merely recite past data about fields that he has never actually worked in himself-Which is everything outside Linguistics! SMH
When reason and logic destroys dogma and jingoism. Chomsky is a master.
Yes Chomsky is certainly a Master of dogma, who gets destroyed by reason and logic! :-)
@@mck1972 By whom stupid?
@@Baron-nv1ez ,
By all of us who realize that Chomsky's, ' facts ', all exploit Hindsight, rendering them worthless, ' dogma '!
So You're Welcome! :-)
@@mck1972 Give me examples.
@@Baron-nv1ez ,
Glad to Oblige:
th-cam.com/video/6mhj-j0z-fk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/qyLg-isaGhk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yXrshqYkTbA/w-d-xo.html
"How would the government react to a home in this situation?"
We know how. It's called Waco.
Chomsky Schools another Reactionary
Brett D
The Left are reactionaries.
Egyptian American Patriot Fuck Off You Stooge ! You don't know your head from your ASS
Of Course I do. My head is where great conservative ideas come from and my ass is where leftist ideas come from.
Egyptian American Patriot Your head is full of shit and your ass is where head is permanently ensconced
calm down commie, mother russia is calling, the gulags, oppression and bread lines are waiting.
often times i feel hopeless for the future of this country. hopeless for the state of education, specifically. Chomsky remains a light of hope. thank you professor.
Conservative says analogy
Chomsky says facts
Chomsky is kind’ve a hypocritical idiot.
@@luciuspaullus1948 Elaborate.
I did not hear in this recording where the questioner ever actually identified himself as a, ' Conservative '.
But even if he did, ALL of Chomsky's, ' facts ', have the great luxury of exploiting 20/20 Hindsight-which renders them essentially worthless!
Chomsky has no integrity. WALTER LIPPMAN created the phrase "Manufacturing Consent" and Chomsky stole it. Edward Bernays had another word for it, "Engineering Consent". Chomsky CO-WROTE 'Manufacturing Consent' and then went on to take credit for all of it. Lipman and Bernays wrote about it years before Chomsky stole it.
@@luciuspaullus1948 Absolutely right. This is an article from 2011, long before the Venezuelan collapse. www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/07/noam_chomsky_gets_half_a_clue.html
I wish more people understood this, or cared to. You are perfectly correct.
simply one of the greatest human beings who ever existed.
I think that young conservative got seriously owned!
“There’s a lot of rotten things in the world”, but on the other hand if someone tries to do something about it they immediately get criticized for it.
or labeled liberal... socialist or better yet comunist
This was at MIT, and it was directly after the September 11th attacks. That is why the student said 6000 dead from the attack rather than 3000, as the figure was not yet known.
Right after "spitball" boy, just after Chomsky said he didn't blame America, a woman starts screaming at Chomsky calling him anti-American. I haven't decided if I'm going to upload it or not, but I think I'd title it Noam Chomsky vs Crazy lady. I plan to upload some of the other Q/A session.
dude just got CHOMped
Glorious example of clear rational thinking unloading on the flabby received opinion that fills the minds of so many people.
Quite simply there are way too few Chomskys around, and that of course is how the powerful want it. To not understand that is to exhibit a truly wilful ignorance.
The man's words can be copied and pasted for the escalation towards war in Iran
I am at a loss, I have never, ever seen Chomsky lose an argument and I have looked everywhere. The guy is just on a whole other level as any interlocutor they throw at him.
"Professor Chomsky, thank you for coming tonight, and I know we're all honored to have you here."
Acculturated in the language of newspeak, young Winston here, of course, says the exact opposite of what he meant to say.
I love your detailed and sophisticated analysis. You clearly proved your point. No way people could say the same about you using your same in-depth reasoning.
Damn, a response without ad hominem? Haven’t heard a clap back of this magnitude in years.
Prof Chomsky is brilliant. Wisdom few possess.
Lol schooled. The difference usually between Chomskey and his opposition is that Chomsky has done his research and has evidence to back it up that isn't full of confirmation bias. Guy got fuckin owned
What I find impressive about Chomsky, aside from his humanist viewpoint and mastery of facts, is that he never loses his temper in debate, maintaining civil discourse throughout, despite whatever challenges his opponents toss his way. You hear no inflammatory rhetoric, no name-calling. When he states that the U.S. acts as a rogue nation, he uses our own govt.'s very criterion and facts to substantiate.
Great response.
I think the Red Army would have tamed the Islamic resistance if it wasn't for the US's intervention. Unlike the present American occupation that has achieved nothing - the USSR had something to offer in terms of infrastructure, education and health etc. I believe this would have eventually won hearts and minds of the ordinary people - as in other Islamo/socialist states of the Soviet Union.
Chomsky is too good
And tax dollars can't imply moral culpability since they are not voluntarily surrendered, but are violently coerced at the point of a gun.
I love the tentative clap at the beginning at what rhetorically might seem prima facie like a good point, at least to americans... but the crowd knows what's coming lmao
Why couldn’t Chomsky have been our president . Can’t think of a better person
Chompsky is to smart you have to have your logic together
That's the longest question I've ever heard.
Love his emphasis on "we" being responsible for the crimes of our government by not doing anything about it.
but how can you take on the United States government?
While I don't agree with the question asker, I do find it refreshing to hear someone able to articulate a question without stuttering as is so often the case in these situations
This isn't in any way, shape or form his sharpest or harshest rebuttal but goddammit how I love it whenever the infinitely patient, humble and kind professor lets his moral indignation and righteous anger shine though.
I only wish I had an eighth of the debating skills and reasoning of Chomsky. When he goes I'll feel so much regret, but thanks to the wealth of videos available at least we can all admire his legacy.
can anyone think of one person, in the public eye as Chomsky is , that can approach Noam's level of integrity?
What a treasure this man is , we are blessed
One of the great intellectuals of all time.
1:11 he is doing a Sam Harris.
No Jesus. No.
Harris does wild ass thought experiments all the time to justify americans murdering, profiling, torturing, and nuking people.
@@mrwalkway4740 Really? I've listened to a few of his podcasts and have found the opposite - he seems to be opposed to, for example, war, Trumpism, and all the worst aspects of religion and the violence associated with it. Can you give an example?
TheLapaEsquire mobile.twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1112829995167215617
I hate twitter with a passion but Hasan has done a pretty good job compiling the sort of shit that made me stop listening to Sam’s podcast a while back
His whole exchange with Chomsky, which he published in 2015, was based on Harris insisting that it was important to go through thought experiments like "but what if there was a Taliban that just wanted to sell us all Girl Scout cookies? How would that change the moral implications?" and Chomsky reacting like "that isn't even interesting, and I don't want to talk about it." Also, even in his subsequent post mortems of the exchange, Harris continued to act like it was reasonable to just take the U.S. leadership at their word about having the best of intentions at wartime, and therefore moral until proven otherwise. He basically came off as unfit to comment on the real world.
Which talk is this from, and when?
Guess what's going on in Afghanistan right....now.
Do you know what talk this was extracted from? It sounds very familiar and I may already have it but I am not sure. Can anyone help me out?
Possibly the best rebuttal I have ever heard. Bravo Mr. Chomsky.
Chomsky intellectual heavyweight vs intellectual featherweight.
Chomsky really loves america. That's why he critizise america. If you love someone, you critizice him/her when they do wrong (including yourself). A real patriot and humanitarian.
Nice analogy.
Endstation He really doesn't.
As an anarchist, he wishes to see the US destroyed.
Yes and who better qualified to judge America is, ' wrong', then a Linguistics Professor, with ZERO Real World Experience in ANY other area, and whose criticisms of others all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight! This makes perfect sense-Right??? smh
@@mck1972
What qualification do you have to be evaluating Chomsky's qualifications? Are you a qualification expert?
See the sad thing about that line of argument is that it just leads nowhere. Ultimately I can always find a way to dismiss you as unfit to comment on any topic and we end up with a whole lot of people who aren't qualified to say anything. Instead of trying to dismiss him based on authority/lack thereof, how about you actually tackle any of the points he's making in this clip?
Well I've got an interesting theory about that: you can't.
@@furiousmat ,
Well, YES-Actually I CAN, and since you asked so nicely, I will. Now pls pay attention, so you can learn something here:
You seem to miss the salient distinction between the Freedom to criticize something, vs the Credibility to do so:
Under the 1st Amendment, Chomsky has the Freedom to criticize anything he wants, whether it’s our Government, or Lebron James's Basketball playing.
Yet Chomsky has ZERO Real World Experience in EITHER Government, nor Professional Basketball, that would grant him the Credibility to criticize others in those fields.
Real World Experience is defined as a documented history of Training, Practice, Achievement, and Responsibility, in a given field, and that is held to the same accepted Standards as others in that field.
A person needs to have requisite Real World Experience in a given field-BEFORE they possess the Credibility to judge the quality of work of others in that same field.
This is the Standard that everyone in our society is held to: I.e. Law, Science, Medicine, Finance, Sports, Etc.
And so therefore Chomsky has ZERO Credibility to judge others in ANY field outside of Linguistics!
BUT-You Chomsky fans will certainly claim-His facts & figures are accurate!
I never stated that they were not.
HOWEVER-This is ONLY because Chomsky’s criticisms of others all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight!
To use another fitting sports analogy, this is the forensic equivalent of Chomsky watching video of Last Week's NFL game, pointing out the losing team's mistakes, and using that knowledge to judge the performance of the players & coaches on the field!
Which makes Chomsky no more than a very intelligent-sounding Monday-Morning-Quarterback, and renders his criticisms of others essentially worthless!
And so the WORSE that Chomsky believes that our Government has behaved over the years, then the WORSE this makes Chomsky himself look, for NEVER having the guts to seek a Policy-Making Position, and-with his superior wisdom-Show he can do a better job!
-INSTEAD of spending his ENTIRE career merely criticizing everyone ELSE from the sidelines, and with the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight-Like the worthless cowardly Monday-Morning-Quarterback that he is!
THIS is the reality about Chomsky!
So now that I have explained this reality for you-
-You’re Welcome! ;-)
@marksuave25 Already read Hegemony or Survival and I agree with Chomsky 100% and with you. True Americans like Noam Chomsky need to be heard by everyone in our nation. God bless Chomsky for his common sense and humanity.
I feel like a debate between Noam Chomsky and Ben Shapiro would be one hell of a throwdown
Matthew Mullany
You are an idiot if you think that
Ben Shapiro would just be wasting Chomsky's time.
Shapiro's expertise is defeating uneducated, inexperienced and nervous college kids with sophism easily spotted by any experienced debater.
There's a reason you'll never see him debate Chomsky, Greenwald, Scahill, Finkelstein, etc.. He just can't. If he ever found himself pinned in a debate against someone who was able to spot his tricks on the spot, which any of the 4 I suggested here would, he'd be completely resourceless.
i feel like a match between Armada and the neighboorhood kid who beats everyone in smash would be one hell of a throwdown
Waste of Chomsky's time. It's a fucking joke.
The way in which this kid metaphorizes Afghanistan as an American property says it all. Unbelievable.
Schooled
Dang! this kid should know better not to bring a knife to a gun fight...
"tali-bahn"
Everyone has a moral responsibility to resist wars.
Smashed the little punk. Go chomsky
Smashed that le petite bourgeoisie
@boing3887
Hello fellow Chomsky fan,
Do you know where I can get that footage?
Cheers,
Josh
“The Taliban could solve a lot of problems by disappearing.”
Boom
What I like about the young conservative's analogy is that something very like it actually happened in real life, on American soil. Armed religious fundie, holed up with loads of people. The state attacked in full force, supposedly to get the bad guy and save the kids. Turned out rather badly, as I recall. Happened in a place called Waco, Texas.
I find it dishonest to say that Russia "destroyed the place" in Afghanistan. If you actually look into the Soviet occupied territories of Afghanistan at the time, they were was a full socialist infrastructure being installed with public participation. It wasn't until after the US initiated the Taliban to oppose the socialist construction of Afghanistan that the place was being destroyed in order to sabotage the development of the implementation of Soviet-assisted socialism.
That is correct if it wasn t for the sidewinder missiles supplied by the US those bunch of Talibans would still be attending to to their camels
Both of you need to get your facts right.
The U.S. did NOT ever, at any time, support, nor supplied weapons to, the Taliban-Ever!
Anyone who says different does not know what they are talking about! smh
Noam Chomsky won American Idol using only sign language. This guy owns.
hislord1
" And people who talk about Libertarian socialism haven't understood what socialism and Libertarianism are. The old Libertarianism had massive emphasis on private property and of course the left co-opted it and now you have the travesty known as Libertarian Socialism."
Apparently YOU are the one who does not understand libertarianism. Real libertarians NEVER advocated private property. They advocated possession, including personal possessions. Do some real studying on libertarian history. You can start off by reading "What is Property" by Proudhon and by learning who is the first person to call himself a libertarian. I'll give you a hint, it's not a capitalist.
It's also funny how even rothbard, a pioneer of "old libertarianism," admitted that capitalists were the ones that "co-opted" it, not leftist libertarians.
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertarians” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over"
"that we are not anarchists (libertarians), and that those who call us anarchists (libertarians) are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical"
"Libertarian" capitalism is the travesty
That comment was made a long time ago, my views have changed since.
Nathan Payne Wanting to keep what you produce is a travesty?
No, that's not a travesty. Producers' right to the produce is one of the reasons individuals become socialist, since socialism may be about the rejection of economic exploitation.
You would rather have the state have a monopoly on economic exploitation?
Nope, I'd rather let the produce go into the hands of the producers. Supporting worker cooperatives, for instance.
Thanks for the response. There is a sense in which "The US" is an abstract concept, but there also exist specific human agents controlling what the state does, even if the majority of the population would prefer that they didn't. These people are supported by wealthy interest groups. Sure, if *everyone* at once stopped believing in the state, they'd lose power, but how does that make any given person responsible for their actions? Even if I reject the state I cant make everyone else do the same.
I have JUST been thinking about that. I never understood Hitchens point of view and would have loved to have seen him debate it out with Chomsky, alas now that will never happen.
dont you have the video?
Can someone link the full speech?
There are too many secrets in this world that keep honest men from being the kind of leaders we all demand. When was the last time any president told the country exactly what a foreign leader said in a diplomatic meeting? All we ever get is assurance that "they're working on things". Is that enough, in the name of peace?
is this discussion from 2001/2002 ?
a good point chomsky makes is how he clarifies that one should not - indeed, CANNOT - hate (judge) 'America', but can only hate or judge the people or citizens of the country of America for allowing certain activites to go on . Recall Pete Seeger's song about the train cars of material to promote a war all of which is paid for by the citizens money.
Libertarian has its emphasis on personal liberty. Its antithesis is authoritarianism or fascism (which is authoritarianism with a nationalistic aim). Socialism has its emphasis on collective ownership of means of production, environmental resources, and management. Its antithesis might be capitalism (which pushes private ownership of everything, including things such as air and water in its extreme forms). Chomsky leans more anarchist than socialist, but that's another story.
What is the name of the paper?
Can you please upload that footage?
I always think about this clip. There is no “America”, only us. Systems can only exist as long as we allow them to exist
Noam was very patient with this guy......He just kept blabbering and blabbering
agreed. I am a conservative and I am embarrassed by how we throw out terms like "socialist" and fascist to anyone who disagrees with us. The socialist party of America doesn't consider Obama to be a socialist, that's a fact. Moreover, I think he is better classified as a "Democrat centrist" which means he's definitely still a believer in the market economy.
The Strongest Men Are Gentle
@fatmeteor
Just for the record. Im glad Im living under the "capitalist terrorism" of America instead of the "Islamonazi terrorism" of Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on and so forth. Im as well glad we (over here) have managed to get rid of the Soviet occupation and Soviet oriented system in general. Our country has started blossoming once again. America has a key share in that endeavor. Thanks a lot...
FORGET US NOT.
NOAM. AVRAHAM CHOMSKY. !
His point is we have a moral responsibility to hold our govt accountable for its actions. If we do and say nothing about crimes we are aware of, we are giving tacit consent for those crimes to continue.
"Classical libertarianism" focused on effort to increase personal liberty by limiting government influence on personal affairs "as much as possible". Chomsky promotes this. Classical theory gave little theoretical "emphasis" about private property. Eventually the theory split down two streams, social liberalism and market liberalism. I think what you call "old libertarianism" is actually market liberalism, which is actually the youngest form.
the title should probably be changed to "Noam Chomsky pwns young conservative"
Why assume this person is a conservative? Maybe he is, but not for anything he says
+Bill Westfall lol, right
The problem with the kid's analogy is that while Prof.Chomsky's original analogy was meant to illustrate the a moral issue, the questioner's analogy inadvertently brings up the issue of property rights, which is irrelevant in international relations (unless ofcourse the guy assumes America rules the world).
@MMDC2001 Yeah. That would definitely be horrible. But I do believe that competition within the solar market is slightly different in the sense that the technology gets continuously better, so to patent one type of solar material that becomes outdated later on is a little silly. The technology also gets more and more nano-sized as time goes on, so that addresses scarcity of materials somewhat. I also wonder if war would be profitable without fossil fuels around causing scarcity/desperation.
@MMDC2001
You are absolutely right, poverty did exist before capitalism. But in a post-scarcity society such as ours, there is absolutely no reason for poverty to exist now, unless somehow the top 1% of the population manged to get a hold of the vast majority of all wealth. Not only that, but every day the ruling class acquires more and more. It's as if the whole purpose of an economy, (which should be to provide for people's needs) was sacrificed on the altar of capitalism.
I actually think that the discussion would be either: very confused because they could discuss the various causes of war, or discuss the morality of war, in both cases, I think personally that Noam Chomsky is a much greater authority, with much stronger arguments to support his case ... the debate could have been interesting to see, but I think the outcome would be a foregone conclusion
He totally evaded the question of blaming america, the answer he gave would be the same one I would give to avoid it
❤
Did he deny he was ascribing blame to America in one sentence, only to blame America in the next??
@GiantSandles Ironically, I've absolutely no doubt this is precisely why Chomsky is *not* engaged in debate more often. He who wins invariably, effortlessly, everywhere and at all times, soon finds himself without willing opponents.
@SFOtter It's hard to argue with someone when they point out the same information you use and the standards in which you use them. Great comment. I couldn't have said it better.
the power of government has been increasing though, not decreasing. We haven't been "giving up democratic control," we've been expanding it! I would argue that the whole "government needs to help and organize society" argument is the one that sounds good on a soundbite, but not in reality. in most of the areas the government tries to intervene in, it does more harm than good.
@hydin1 I've never been a fan of anyone. As the ancient saying goes "Reverence is greater from a distance". But i do respect his work, i have read, and listened to hours of lectures of him and had a brief e-mail correspondance as well. I have read history for 15-16 years. And i still haven't read half as much as he has, and i have to keep reminding myself of that. He has read things that i haven't, so i can only agree on things i have been able to draw similar conclutions of, or verified.