“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, then we don’t believe in it at all” - Noam Chomsky

@SandhillCrane42

5 жыл бұрын

I don't want people waving the Swastika in our country, I think some forms of censorship are warranted, but I do like Chomsky. Send all them fascists to a labor camp!

@benl2140

5 жыл бұрын

@@SandhillCrane42 The first people the Nazis sent to concentration camps were political dissidents, mainly communists and some social democrats, on the basis that they supposedly were a danger to state security. So, sending people to forced labour camps based on their political opinions, and the danger that those opinions sopposedly represent is, quite literally, a fascist policy.

@anneother6224

5 жыл бұрын

@@benl2140 Nicely put but I suspect Barrett was being ironic. It's a besetting failing of our times.

@SandhillCrane42

5 жыл бұрын

@@benl2140 I know, if you hate fascism too much you become a fascist. Everybody should be free.

@khurramqasir6815

5 жыл бұрын

my belief is that we shouldn't hate our enemies to the point where we cant even do justice.

Beautiful mind, appreciate his talks, always informative and thought provoking 🇦🇺

I really like that Chomsky speaks about the history of censorship, and it's failures. It's not like societies haven't tried it, and the consequences were horrendous. We need to be thoughtful, and nuanced when dealing with such important issues. It appears that many just want a quick fix, and they've taken very little time to reflect on the effects.

@naveed210

3 жыл бұрын

I don’t think Chomsky’s take or many others who hold the similar views is nuanced. The consequences of allowing someone (like Trump) to say absolutely anything they want without widespread condemnation was horrendous too. You just had an attempted coup the other week! 🤣 We know Twitter aren’t sincere in terms of WHEN or WHY they cancelled Trump, his baseless election claims weren’t his first misdemeanour and as the sociopathic society we live in, he was only cancelled because it was damaging the image of the POTUS’ office. Nevertheless he should have been removed from Twitter years ago when he told Ilhan Omar to go back to S***hole she came from. Where do you draw the line if everything is on the table and anyone is fair game?

@collinsmcrae

3 жыл бұрын

@@naveed210 The history is quite clear on this matter. Trump, and the attempted coup, were all clearly worth having to endure in order to maintain freedom of speech, if these were the two choices. The same governing body given the power to silence Trump, would be a governing body that has the power to silence Martin Luther King. There is no way to guarantee that bad actors will never again attain power in this country, or even people with good intentions that make grave errors, so why would you want to give the government more power over your speech?

Yet again, when I am feeling lost morally, historically, and intellectually, Chomsky brings me home. I must wonder, if Chomsky were 30 years old right now and brimming with energy and charisma, what would his stance and actions be? I think I know.

@azisokleftis

3 жыл бұрын

He has been pretty consistent.

I'm really going to miss this guy when he passes..

Voice of the reason as always...

As a Lefty/leftist/leftard I am becoming increasingly worried with this tendency to shut down opinions that are not liked and refusal to enter into debate when we hear something "offensive".

@bradliano1

5 жыл бұрын

@Paranoia Agent I actually think the opposite is true. By shutting stuff down they can cry attacks on free speech and it appeals further to fellow far-right. I would argue that Trump, Brexit etc came about because stuff wasn't debated properly.

@YodasPapa

5 жыл бұрын

@Paranoia Agent Objection overruled.

@MP-db9sw

5 жыл бұрын

Paranoia Agent: exactly what is hate speech? The radical left has abandoned science on gender issues, claiming that gender has no biological basis and is socially constructed. This is in total contradiction to what numerous branches of science tell us. Is it hate speech to say that gender has a biological basis and that there are differences between men and women? What about affirmative action? Is it hate speech to argue against affirmative action? What about the BLM narrative that police are randomly killing innocent black people? Is it hate speech to defend the police when their shootings are justified by the circumstances (as they very often are)? Is it hate speech to point out the racial differences in crime rates? There are also some racial differences in IQ, is it hate speech to talk about them? I have been liberal for almost 30 years and todays leftists are the least rational ive ever seen. It used to be the conservatives who had poor critical thinking skills but todays crazy lefties are driving rational people away from the left, and their support for the suppression of free speech is one of the issues thats doing it.

@sta292

5 жыл бұрын

@@bradliano1 I have to disagree. To tell you the truth, with or without the stigma, I believe phenomena like Trump and Brexit would have done just fine. It's very easy to be of either opinion, even on most college campuses. And especially on the internet. I just don't see how the actions of student activism have affected this. The effect and reach of things like "safe spaces" I think are overblown. A more accurate description, in my experience, would be polarization. It's socially taboo to say one thing in the Humanities Hall and socially taboo to say another thing in the Business School. Rather than one side forcing it on the other, I think people are isolating themselves. And because liberals do outnumber conservatives on most campuses (not so much on mine) it appears to be the larger group pushing down the other. I think this is promoting conflict because neither side is particularly willing to engage in discussion, rather than one side in particular. Maybe if all liberal students came together tomorrow and said "let's very calmly approach these people and show we'd like to talk it over in good faith" we would see people stand down. However I think the other side could do this as well and get largely the same results. This, however, is practically impossible and not at all the most common outcome of combative situations, like the one we see here. Either the winds of change will call both sides back from the brink, or it will push them both into conflict. I struggle to blame either side.

@johnnonamegibbon3580

5 жыл бұрын

Chomsky doesn't mention that a big reason people claim to be "less racist" today is because a lot of academics have been lying about race for the last few decades now. There actually is a lot of evidence that there are differences not just between men and women but between races as well. So using terms like "racist/sexist" is a bit pointless. And thanks to the 1965 Immigration Act, that was pushed by Emmanuel Celler against the will of the population, the demographics are very different now. And opinions besides love of diversity are not kosher in most colleges or institutions. So take those polls with a block of salt. I suspect people are more ethno centric than that.

An outstanding defense of free speech on campus by Prof, Chomsky, who supplies the appropriate historical perspective for understanding the issue!!

Long live Mr. Chomsky live on....live on....live on wise man....I wish half our politicians were as wise as you are sir

@65minimom

5 жыл бұрын

Mobb deeper - wisdom is like wine - good wine becomes finewith age, bad wine becomes vinegar - Bernie vs Trump

I loved that Mr. Chomsky spoke out about this. He's old school and has perspective that many younger, more zealous people do not. It's not just about fighting "extremists" because that same suppression can affect honest, sincere people who are curious about controversial subjects.

Great video. He's 100% right. Grand master of philosophy & economics. Thanks, Noam Chomsky.💡🎧👍

Brilliant.

Yep, I graduated from college in 1967, "Times they are achanging..." and we did.

Great perspective from a true intellect. Aside the safe space idea, one could consider how much time and effort is involved in developing evidence based discussion and have someone, who didn't get the memo, demand time to reopen the discussion on whether climate change is really occurring. Unless they can offer clear reason for reopening, they shouldn't have a voice.

One of the major dangers of trying to regulate “hateful” speech, is that whoever’s in charge can arbitrarily dictate what speech is “hateful” or not.

I agree with Professor Chomsky on both counts. IMO, free speech means not silencing the speech you hate the most, and silencing them really does backfire and give these hateful people more exposure. As I see it, censoring/silencing gives them the opportunity to scream from the mountain tops that their right to free speech at a public university was denied. This can give them a seeming moral high ground, if only on the issue of free speech.

@MP-db9sw

5 жыл бұрын

Not to mention that the best way to defeat a flawed idea is to expose why its flawed.

@DavidByrne85

5 жыл бұрын

It also gives them underdog status, sets them in opposition to 'elites'/the powers that be and thus feeds into right wing faux-populism.

I enjoyed his informed perspective. A lot of ppl talk about "safe spaces" and the agendas of colleges, but the ones I see have never even attended a college. I prefer a perspective that seeks more than to feel superior based on assumptions, but also seeks to state ideas based on evidence

Even on campus we couldn’t talk about what’s going Right or wrong about political where’s ever for us and the truth for the next generations, to discuss the ways of life and freedom freely 🙏🏼. It’s the way of thoughts talking.

Free Speech on Campus can enhance continuations of good work from legends of peace making can make a difference if they want in terms of enhancing soft science respecting metaphysical glocalism and encouraging proactive sociology with integrity

That some peak Chomsky right here.

@JOONYERful

5 жыл бұрын

Darren Ronard the point is to make both sides able to speak out on campus. It’s not some trivial power game.

@JOONYERful

5 жыл бұрын

Darren Ronard I would say Julian Asante is an enemy of elites on both sides of the isle, but I see your point. Also, I have been struggling with the contradiction that the right and left have regarding the idea of safe spaces. Conservatives say they’re against “safe spaces” but are adamant about the need for borders between nations, for the safety of natural citizens. Likewise, most liberals support the idea of safe spaces from harmful ideas, but then they push for open borders between nations, even if it lets people with bad ideas into the country.

@JOONYERful

5 жыл бұрын

Also, regarding Milo yiannopoulos, he is literally a joke now. The reason being he was given the change to speak which allowed everyone to come to a consensus that he should not be taken seriously.

@testacer5101

4 жыл бұрын

Darren Ronard Chomsky hates liberals

@naveed210

3 жыл бұрын

@@JOONYERful for some it is a trivial power game, the idea which you and Noam seem to be supporting of allowing people to say whatever they want and then respond accordingly in proving that person to be mistaken is based on the assumption that the one holding vulgar views believes in them sincerely or that the power which the 2 sides hold is equal. It’s not nuanced at all.

RIGHT ON TOPUC WELL ARTICULATED

So Chomsky is Kyle kulinski’s influence on his free speech absolutist philosophy

@upublic

5 жыл бұрын

yes, but i wouldn't call it absolutist. For instance slander and defamation laws, should still be present, just have a very high bar, be very hard to prove, to safeguard against any slight abuse.

@jimmaotibia

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, but Chomsky is not a free speech absolutist.

@ellcally508

5 жыл бұрын

@@jimmaotibia He is definitely not.

@jimmaotibia

5 жыл бұрын

@@ellcally508 ...that's what I just said :p

@imhoisntworthmuch5441

5 жыл бұрын

appropriate to circumstances? free speech absolutism could be in anyones' self interest or without limits. but who doesn't know this so why? well.. free speech! and the choice. but is it really free speech or perhaps not so subtle 'editing'.

Brilliant! Nailed it in a sarcophagus

Spot the fuck on, as per usual. Especially on free speech and academic freedom.

No idea should be banned!

Is the full talk available anywhere?

@tarnopol

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/qKtpra2Coq2edLA.html

You know, one could quote here many examples: for one, a certain retreat by the older generation, yielding their intellectual leadership to the younger generation. It is against the natural order of things for those who are youngest, with the least experience of life, to have the greatest influence in directing the life of society. One can say then that this is what forms the spirit of the age, the current of public opinion, when people in authority, well known professors and scientists, are reluctant to enter into an argument even when they hold a different opinion. It is considered embarrassing to put forward one's counterarguments, lest one become involved. And so there is a certain abdication of responsibility, which is typical here where there is complete freedom....There is now a universal adulation of revolutionaries, the more so the more extreme they are! Similarly, before the revolution, we had in Russia, if not a cult of terror, then a fierce defense of terrorists. People in good positions-intellectuals, professors, liberals-spent a great deal of effort, anger, and indignation in defending terrorists.” ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Even the best among us can't escape boomerism in old age

What did he say?

I'd like to know what chomsky has to say about karl popper's paradox of tolerance. surely there must be certain views so heinous and damaging and directly tied to physical violence that they cannot be given free rein. chomsky says we need to address the root causes of this language and i completely agree with that. but i think he's not addressing the issue of microaggressions, and the persistent low level forms of prejudice that take place all the time in spoken and written communications and workplace interactions that perpetuate the remnants of racism and prejudice. the question is how do we eradicate hatred and inequality from public places when the ideology of hatred doesn't compete fairly in the marketplace of ideas? fascists and white supremacists have never fought fairly. they've never been held back by the fear of hypocrisy. I'm curious what the most effective alternatives to censorship or nowadays "canceling" would be.

When you censor someone it is because you don't have arguments.

@seanmatthewking

5 жыл бұрын

That's actually not true. The people on the left who like to deplatform do it because they believe ideas don't become popular purely on merit (which is obviously true), and so it's better to push down toxic speech than giving it another opportunity to spread.

@alexc773

5 жыл бұрын

That's a nice platitude, but it does not hold water. In fact, most of the time, the censor is operating under the auspices of a compelling argument. The only reason the censor has any power to begin with is because that power has been given to it.

@crazymusicman13

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexc773 no I don't think so. Deplatforming today is not done through existing power structures. It is done through mass action.

@ELRamunde69

5 жыл бұрын

@@seanmatthewking If the speech is so toxic then you shouldn't have a problem of debunking it.

@seanmatthewking

5 жыл бұрын

@@ELRamunde69 That depends what you mean by debunking it. If you mean expressing what's wrong with the statements, then sure. If you mean persuading everyone who is listening that what you're saying is correct, then non necessarily. It's well known to any thinking person that humans are persuaded by a lot more than facts and reason. Even people like Ben Shapiro who have a whole "facts not feelings" gimmick going are constantly appealing to emotion. "Facts not feelings" is itself a marketing tactic in the same way that Fox News's "Fair and Balanced" slogan was. There are many ways that people on the wrong side of an argument can get the upper hand. To win debates, it helps to be on the right side, but it's more important to have the requisite tools. I mostly support discussions as much as possible, but not always.

100% right. Not a fan of Chomsky but he is thinking clearly here.

@SEAL341

5 жыл бұрын

Pearls before swine. Go back to Molynuts and Shapiro then, you vacuous pinhead.

I mostly agree with Chomsky here with regards to censoring/banning people from campus who have different or even hateful viewpoints, but his characterization of safe spaces is off. The goal of safe spaces is more just to give marginalized groups of people (LGBT for example) a temporary area where they can go and not have to deal with the stuff that they may already have to deal with in their day-to-day lives with regards to harassment and discrimination, etc. The goal is not to coddle people or shield people from dissenting views, but to weed out bad faith actors or people whose goal is to just smear their shit all over the walls. To compare the safe spaces of marginalized groups to the "safe spaces" of those in power trying to squash dissent seems like a massive false equivalency that usually someone like Chomsky would be smart enough not to make. Additionally, with regards to the "principles of free speech" (so, not just the government intervention part), one very important principle of free speech is the freedom of association. If certain student groups decide that they don't want their school to be associated with speakers that they view as hateful, aren't they within their right to protest that or vote on whether that person is invited, should they not have a right to say "I would not like this person or these sets of views here"?

@Lordemus

5 жыл бұрын

you say you mostly agree but your 2nd paragraph goes to show that in fact you have no idea what you are talking about. freedom of association allows you to form groups, leave groups, allows a group to manage an internal hierarchy, invite / expel members as it sees fit. it DOESN'T allow a group to enforce a certain ideology on members which aren't part of the group. this is precisely the kind of elitism that leads to tyranny. if the entire school agrees or perhaps even a vast majority (say 90%?) then your points holds, otherwise it completely nonsensical.

@Dinobot2

5 жыл бұрын

@@Lordemus I say mostly agree with him, I guess, mainly on pragmatic grounds, that trying to remove certain types of speech or people from campus can be problematic as similar actions have been used against civil rights groups, socialists, environmentalists, etc. I just think he's off with regards to the "principle" of opposing types of views and wanting to be associated with that. It becomes even more confusing when he makes his argument on principle grounds, and then brings up safe spaces which are used in the context of forming and managing groups that you concede are acceptable.

@Sam-gs2wq

5 жыл бұрын

Who decides who is bad faith actor/shit smearer/etc and on what authority?

@Dinobot2

5 жыл бұрын

@@Sam-gs2wq The students when they decide to protest?

Around 8:55 That's a hell of an indictment. We had anti-interracial couples laws that the NAZI's thought were too much.

@johnnonamegibbon3580

5 жыл бұрын

He's a bit off here. Nazi Germany wanted not just whites but whites from specific regions to only marry themselves. Which is more extreme than the US. And it's important not to take what people say too literally as in reality way more people probably don't like mixed marriages than they let on. They aren't going to just say it, though. As the demographics have changed thanks to the 1965 Celler Immigration Act. So they can't really say "Nah, it doesn't really work." out loud. It's too taboo in our current climate.

@jones1351

5 жыл бұрын

@@johnnonamegibbon3580 The operative word was laws. Long after NAZI Germany was a bad memory we (U.S.) still had laws on the books making 'interracial marriage' verbotten. As for the current climate, people can feel however they want about who other adults choose to love. That's, whatever. But to make it illegal is another bucket of worms, altogether.

@johnnonamegibbon3580

5 жыл бұрын

@@jones1351 Eh, I agree. I will say, my hopes for the US aren't too good. Something people don't understand about the country is that it relies on an ethnic majority to glue it all together, As Europeans become a minority, I'm not so sure if this country will exist. lol I think it's just going to be a bunch of Asians, blacks, and Mexicans living around each other like Brazil. I'm pretty hopeless there, as many, even Chomsky, seem to forget that multicultural countries don't really exist upon closer inspection. I personally give the US 50 more years.

@jones1351

5 жыл бұрын

@@johnnonamegibbon3580 Wow - dude - that didn't take long. But, still not sure if you're serious or just trolling; trying to trigger somebody. Maybe you've forgotten - but I remember - being a kid playing with other kids. Before a certain age (that is, before the 'adults' poisoned our minds with racist bullshit) 'ethnicity' didn't matter. We didn't even know what it was. None of us came here with that disease - not even you - it has to be taught.

@johnnonamegibbon3580

5 жыл бұрын

@@jones1351 No, no, no. You misunderstand me. I'm not shitting on anyone. I'm saying that that's the way nations actually function. I'm Latin American. That's what happened in Brasil.

Political Correctness is a pro corporate stance. It is a language that makes it easier to sell things to people, because no one will be offended. Since the US lets big businesses get away with anything they want, political correctness has spread fast, because it benefits them.

Peak centrism. Nice.

Huh, I thought Coddling of the American Mind was a Nazi book?

Chomsky is not the most inspiring speaker, but maybe the most somnolent.

Noam works is corporate speaking head

The problem with free speech on campus is that any hate speech directed towards target demographics would make members of those demographics not feel safe on campus... This is a problem for universities, since it would decrease their profits from enrolment and degree completions

The university is a private buisness. It relies on the logic of the market and therefore answers to the demands of its customers.

@MP-db9sw

5 жыл бұрын

Many campuses recieve federal funding and are legally bound to constitutional laws, including protections for frees speech.

@inhumanhyena

5 жыл бұрын

@@MP-db9sw many private buisnesses recieve federal funding though. They still serve customers and operate on market logic, which the federal government also apparently protects (property). Free speech exists on campuses regardless, with the caveat that such speech doesn't lead to "imminent violence".

@inhumanhyena

5 жыл бұрын

@@MP-db9sw I don't really disagree with Chomsky here btw.

What anti-sjws don't know is that Chomsky is low-key the ultimate anti-sjw.

THAT CHOMSKY LOATHES JORDAN PETERSON IS ENTIRELY TO HIS DISCREDIT

Hey could u guys share your thoughts and feelings about my progressive content? I hope to be the next generation of progressive activist and it would mean a lot to me if you guys could critique my thoughts.

@Ruthlessfish

5 жыл бұрын

I would suggest to focus more on explaining systematic problems rather than problematic individuals. Some branches of sociology can help you with that. I suggest "Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity" by Loïc Wacquant.

@aaliadoesanarchy6277

5 жыл бұрын

@@Ruthlessfish I analyze things from both perspectives in my channel.

8:14 TFW you realise America was more Nazi than the Nazi's.

No platform for fascists.

What do Noam Chomsky and George Soros both have in common? They are both very intelligent, old white males, who take an hour to make a point that could have been made in 10 minutes, to the point where, by the end, you have either fallen asleep or forgotten what the question was that precipitated the monologue.

@boatman6865

5 жыл бұрын

This clip is only 10 minutes long so I am not sure what your point is? I didn’t know that being old and white was something to be despised?

@camellia_black

5 жыл бұрын

For one, free speech is (regrettably) a point of contention among the left. So this is a talk worth having. Second, that's the job of intellectuals. You present an opinion, and support it with evidence, examples, etc. It takes a little bit of thinking on the part of the listener.

Calling people racist fascists phobia does not make it so.

Wow chomsky is becoming right wing ;)

@GreatAwakeningE

5 жыл бұрын

or present day Liberals are becoming Fascists ;)

@SEAL341

5 жыл бұрын

BAT you completely missed the point. Listen again.

@BatAtBat

5 жыл бұрын

@@SEAL341 I was kidding. But he is right that debate is absolutely necessary to understand each other. Shutting down debates is sad, and very, very dangerous for a society.

@SEAL341

5 жыл бұрын

@@BatAtBat People like Ben Shapiro etc have no real solid argument anyway, so they should be debated.

@Littlespooby

5 жыл бұрын

You have never heard anything from this many beyond this clip huh?

Ivory tower liberal point of view. Imagine slaves in america had this approach. Or groups going through a revolution. It has been proven on and on that silencing works and doesn't amplify.

@ellcally508

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Some people's ideas are too powerful to ever be given a stage.

@johnnonamegibbon3580

5 жыл бұрын

Then just let the "racists" break away and you can live in multicultural country like Brazil? Why not?

@Sam-gs2wq

5 жыл бұрын

College students are not slaves holy shit

@stuartshadwell7249

5 жыл бұрын

Abolition was a unpopular opinion

@collinsmcrae

3 жыл бұрын

What protected, and allowed the messages of the civilian rights movement to propagate? Freedom of speech. In China, revolutions go nowhere fast. Ya know why?

I wish I didn't know this I have less respect for noam now. just like you can't discriminate or harass protected classes at the workplace you can't do the same at school because you can think of school as a workplace.

@SrChoppers

5 жыл бұрын

That has almost nothing to do with the point that Prof. Chomsky was making.

@toobnoobify

5 жыл бұрын

Oh wow, just wait until you see the videos of Chomsky making fun of your Russiagate conspiracy theory. Your head is going to explode.

@smooa1889

5 жыл бұрын

@@SrChoppers he didnt even talk about free speech on campus

@smooa1889

5 жыл бұрын

@@toobnoobify im not that person

Let me give some push back: Something Chomsky doesn't mention is that this shift in opinion wasn't accidental. Following the second world war a large amount of Jewish academics flooded US schools fleeing the Nazis in Germany. Chomsky being one of them. And they actually had a huge affect on the teachings of said schools and media. Shifting everything far, far to the left wing according to studies. They even changed immigration to their liking. As we know that in the 1965 Immigration Act was forced through secretly by Emmanuel Celler, against the wishes of most Americans who wanted the US to remain a white country. Polling showed that 90% of Americans didn't want Civil Rights and would "rather have lost the war". As the Civil Rights movement was actually another way of saying "no freedom of association for whites". As that's the actual consequence of that movement. Which I think is misguided. So while Americans were always anti-war, the pro immigration stuff and shift in views of mixed marriages was actually the result of a pretty coordinated propaganda campaign suggesting race was "a social construct" , which science doesn't actually support. There are actual differences between races. Which Chomsky has acknowledged in the past, oddly. So, while what Chomsky says is interesting, he doesn't explain what "racism" or "sexism" really is. So a lot of the speech is sort of pointless. Akin to saying "badness". We know that there's reason to suspect races differ in traits, we know that men and women aren't the same. So, that doesn't mean much.

someone needs to call this what it is: incoherent rambling of an old man. He is trying to contextualize "Free Speech" on campuses, and rambles on about the massacre Indians and with some subtext of moral finger wagging...like "ha, ha..."....none of this elucidates modern free speech debate in the least. Also, critiques of western expansion that don't contextualize the last couple 100 years of history by reconciling that every single group of people have fought at their borders throughout history is just completely lame. Typical Chomsky crap. By the way there are more Native Americans in North America than ever--if you want to know who killed the Indians....uh, its the Spanish.

@johnbrownsahero315

4 жыл бұрын

In your own little fantasy world.