This may be the closest I have ever seen Chomsky to being genuinely angry.

@spindlecitysister

3 жыл бұрын

Actually I think that debate he had with BU’s John Silber Noam is even angrier. A beautiful sight to see.

@waterfall5024

3 жыл бұрын

@@spindlecitysister do you have a link?

@Mrnoddingdonkey

2 жыл бұрын

Evan Solomon is always trying to be such a tough journalist. A big devils advocate guy and I’m glad to see him get roasted.

@nambochimbanskeyold

2 жыл бұрын

There's one video of him arguing about Cambodia which gets very heated

@fletcherjax5078

2 жыл бұрын

instablaster.

Don't you just love Noam? I wish he could live a thousand years.

@user-ky4bm9dn5c

2 жыл бұрын

Me too, and anyone like him😊.

@damianotommassi3378

Жыл бұрын

One perk of being a philosopher is that your words will live for thousand(s) year....it's only a matter of what we do with them.

@fredbazoo

Жыл бұрын

@@damianotommassi3378 Well said..

@maxonmendel5757

Жыл бұрын

hes getting there

Chomsky is one of the most mentally fluid person I've ever witnessed. He just has an amazing answer to every single answer.

@michaelsmith8665

3 жыл бұрын

And he has a much more impressive memory than those who have photographic memories. Photographic memory overwhelms with irrelevant detail. Chomsky SELECTS just what is appropriate to recall for a given question, tailoring his response to a questioner's exact concern. Question after question after question. I've seen him answer questions for hours at a time, without screening. He always has an illuminating response.

@seanmoriarty3412

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelsmith8665 Absolutely! He has a view and really knows how to defend/answer to it...there's little, if any, of his kind these days who can take a position and defend it against anyone (even a deity, lol)...he's one of a kind intellect who has been consistent for decades and it all holds up pretty well over that time. Unfortunately we now have social media whores who basically have nothing to say except whatever is catering to their audience rather than creating an audience from the sheer value of intellect and considering 'issues' seriously.

@Mattdotnfo

Жыл бұрын

I’ve watched so many videos and never seen him stumped. Every time someone tries to get him with an example from history he already knows much more and begins spouting facts with dates etc. his knowledge of history and his ability to examine it rationally is insane.

@MrZZsharka

22 күн бұрын

He’s a Professor of Linguistics at MIT.

"what are the just causes?" Interviewers life flashes before his eyes.

"Elementary moral standards " = Common Sense.

@ahsanabbas5178

3 жыл бұрын

Common sense ain’t so common

@saskk2290

3 жыл бұрын

Everyone thinks they have "common sense". The word is meaningless. Like "progressive" or "far-left" I trust you have it, but beware that sense is now in the minority

@vicoilsteems9764

3 жыл бұрын

Many words, definitions , life and reality end up becoming meaningless under fascism .

''We (USA) don't rise to the minimal moral level''. He said it all.

Noam chomsky speaks the Truth

@joedenathan4775

3 жыл бұрын

He's wrong.

@saskk2290

3 жыл бұрын

@@joedenathan4775 lol

chomsky in the 90s and early 2000s was BRUTAL.

I bet this guy is not liked alot in america. He is unbiased and straight forward

@KingdomRepublic

Жыл бұрын

Yep Most Americans call him a commie lmao

The interviewer was way in over his head 😂😂😂

It's amazing that despite how simple and obvious the points he makes are the interviewer refuses to accept them.

@midapita

3 жыл бұрын

The interviewer isn't simply refusing to accept them, he's bringing about the opinions of those who refuse to accept them so that Chomsky has the opportunity to speak on it. He's a journalist, it'swhat they do.

@leftalonetalking991

3 жыл бұрын

@@midapita It's not something I can prove but I'm sure that if Chomsky was bringing up standard neoliberal orthodox views on foreign policy the interviewer wouldn't be challenging him with the dissenting views that Chomsky actually has. He'll only play the role of 'dogged reporter' when he's defending power

@midapita

3 жыл бұрын

@@leftalonetalking991 true but it’s still his job especially since Chomsky holds not-so-mainstream views

@MarmaladeSally

Жыл бұрын

Because what Noam says is ultra over-simplified nonsense. He either takes issues completely out of context, or gives no context. If only the world were as simple as the way Noam sees it.

@epicphailure88

Жыл бұрын

@@MarmaladeSally No it's not. He's basically saying that the US can get away with any crime because it has made itself the world's police force. The US it the greatest threat to world peace.

I love Noam Chomsky

This interviewer got absolutely vaporized.

@buzifalus

Жыл бұрын

But not the ideology he represented. That one is still kicking

@sp-dm8ej

6 ай бұрын

​@@buzifalus The old generation is dying, soon we will unite

@gerryboudreaultboudreault2608

Ай бұрын

I could be wrong, but the interviewer is Canadian, no? If so, shame on him.

Is anyone more well-read than Chomsky? I think not.

Noam's brilliance is impressive & uplifting.❤❤ I get irritated talking to dense people. Bless Noam.

0:25 favourite philosopher 😂😂😂

god bless this great man

"You read that in the Nazi archives too", oohhh!!😊, the knockout!!! 😆😆.

"We have a massively subservient intellectual class, which he is an illustration, who will support US atrocities no matter how awful they are." He got clobbered.

I'm from Romania, and today Romania is an obedient colony of the US and the EU(in our entire history we've been ruled by one nation or another, mostly by force, today we are ruled by illusions: of freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law), you the outside people(and I might add also the people in my country, some of them) have no idea about the bullshit things and abuses that are going on in my country, because the reality has been distorted to such an extent that facts don't matter anymore. After the shift of geopolitics in 1989, Romania, came under the governance of the Western KGB, US and the EU, I'm saying this because the SRI(security service) in collaboration with DNA(anti-corruption agency) and other power structures, lock a lot of people under "corruption" charges, are involved and meddle in the political process, etc., things they used to do before under Eastern KGB. We have only changed our masters! That's why I don't agree with intervention in other countries internal affairs, because it's always about control, influence, money and power, not about people, nobody gives a fuck about people, democracy, human rights, the US government will profit of every opportunity of political unrest to install their puppet governments. I'm a realist when it comes to politics, and I'll leave you with this quote about how the world works: "The strong do what they want, the meek suffer what they must!"

Chomsky completely ripped this guy a new one.

@rawleydavis8881

2 жыл бұрын

Lol, well put.

Damn he's good. Hes really done his homework. No wonder msm doesn't want to know him. I get to see him every now and then on Democracy Now though.

Chomsky is often soft-spoken. He got angry only when the interviewer cited Kaplan's "just cause" excuse in US foreign policy and atrocities.

Chomsky on the strong defensive here providing many examples of USA supported terrorism throughout the world during the 20th century. Our definitions of terrorism vary, depending upon who's the perpetrator and who's the victim. Chomsky quickly cuts to the core to expose hypocrisy.

@knightsonofjack

5 жыл бұрын

What a mature response with well thought out rebuttals, I'm swayed!

@kayleebeam9711

5 жыл бұрын

Miles Jackson haha...you took the words right out of my mouth

@sp-dm8ej

6 ай бұрын

The official definition of terrorism is the use of violence to spread fear amongst a population.

Damn

Best video

Chomsky 2020

rekt.

Hello from 2021, the Taliban is still in power and still hard at work.

@randominternetguy8735

Жыл бұрын

Wouldn't be a problem if the US didn't fund them in the first place.

@sixmillionaccountssilenced6721

17 күн бұрын

Sure. Hitchens, Kaplin, Harris were all wrong.... which is... not surprising? hahaha At least Hitch admitted it and even undergone waterboarding to realize it's indeed a torture.

I just wanted to jump in and tell this kiddo to stop even trying to argue with Noam

Pure moralism

Anyone know the interview title?

You cannot argue with Chomsky. It's like hurling rocks to an approaching tank.

Chomsky continues to be the smartest person ever.

Damn son

Chomsky's opponent couldn't imagine a scenario were genecide wasn't justified..! But he tried...

@waffleman-

3 жыл бұрын

it's not his opponent. he's an interviewer posing predictable opposing views

Not to mention the fact that the US supported the Pinochet dictatorship too.

This guy got absolutely shat on

And with that last sentence from Chomsky the interviewer is hopefully silent forever.

brutal

Didn't know Joaquin Phoenix was an interview before hehe

king Chomsky goes sicko mode

So the way American foreign policy is justified there is, "A good guy with a gun" 😆

It's just common sense and reason that is what the elementary morals Noam speaks of

We know he'll never be invited to the white house for dinner, that's for sure!

7:05

It took me weeks to fully comprehend Noam message. I guess that means now I will have no right to complain next time, when couriers will be late

Who is the interviewer?

@devinheinzekehoe8042

8 жыл бұрын

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Solomon

The interviewer is posing as the opponent in this piece but does not necessarily hold these views. We should be disappointed in the interviewer because he could not articulate a stronger argument and was clearly not as well prepared as Chomsky on these issues since that would allow a more thorough refutation. That said, it's Noam Chomsky so that's a fairly high bar.

He feels angry... because he feels he is wasting his time talking to an idiot

So many atrocities!

Ladies and gentleman, may the slaughter begin!! 9:01

Even Soloman just got chewed up by a angry lingual lion.

How cute, imagine if China had this mentality when they rise to power. I wonder if he would still preach the necessity of the order keeping hegemony then.

@codyvandal2860

3 жыл бұрын

In fairness, the approach he has adopted accepts as an inevitable fact that there *will* be hegemonic military power and the singular question is *who* will exercise it. From this perspective why wouldn't he prefer his own society (with all its flaws) to that of the Chinese Communist Party which he presumably opposes?

@the1onlynoob

3 жыл бұрын

@@codyvandal2860 Is there no room between the pragmatic pessimism in accepting the inevitability of a hegemony, and the automatic preference based on xenophobia and racism? After all, the second choice is a choice of the individual, and if we are committed to democracy, then surely China, with more than 20% of humanity would be preferable?

@codyvandal2860

3 жыл бұрын

@@the1onlynoob I feel like that's a strange way to characterize the question. Conflating a preference for one's own society with an irrational fear and prejudice amounts to an indictment of humanity as a whole - since this is far and away the default point of view for the vast majority of human beings on earth. The contrary conception is almost exclusively the domain of Westerners with a misguided and patronizing posture of "inclusion." Moreover, favoring the Chinese on the basis of demography makes right and wrong a question of arithmetic. Chinese society is far more repressive than the United States even if their foreign policy is ostensibly less aggressive (i.e they do no export revolution).

@the1onlynoob

3 жыл бұрын

@@codyvandal2860 If your preference of what is familiar can be excused merely because it is familiar, but holds no other basis for it, then why should it not be characterised as a irrational fear and prejudice when it achieves the same effect of being nationalist, racism and lack of external curiosity? After all, this preference for what is familiar is the first step to building the logics of exceptionalism that dominates the west. On the point of being progressive and regressive. Im afraid, in humanist terms, progress accounts for far more than absolutes. I do not wish to sit here and defend the CPC, but know that in the 70 years since they rose to power, they have produced the greatest economic development of human history. But more controversially, they have also produced a similar level of civil development, least we forget that China practiced polygamy, servitude and had emperors not 100 years ago. Like the caste system of India, it takes time to be freed of it, but the progress is unmistakable. In a similar vein, i note the west’s regressive tendencies to not inspire great confidence in this regard. To put it bluntly, china is lacking but moving in the correct direction, while the west may be an open society but has moved in the wrong direction since neoliberalism for the last half century. On the point of algorithms, it is the point of democracy. If we are committed to its principles then we must also be committed to the results should they are no favourable to us. To continue a global hegemony that does not account for the Chinese and Indian perspective, is the same as purging the vote of the two most populated blocks of humanity.

@codyvandal2860

3 жыл бұрын

@@the1onlynoob Does your preference for you own children over other people's children simply because they are yours also constitute an irrational prejudice? Of course not. The legacy of CPC is hardly something to boast about considering they came to power after decades of civil war, famine, foreign invasion, and social upheaval. There was nowhere for them to go but up. Not only that but the vast majority of the growth has come since Nixon opened them up in 1979 and accelerated since their introduction to the WTO twenty years ago. More importantly, there was also tremendous economic growth under slavery. Development is not an excuse for repression. If anything the Chinese have been uniquely successful in challenging the Washington consensus that emerged in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. During that period of capitalist triumphalism the foreign policy establishment in the US mostly believed that we had reached the "end of history" and that economically open societies were the only ones capable of being competitive in an increasingly interdependent global order and that as a corollary such societies would lead to robust middle classes who would demand more democratic political representation and thus the whole planet would move more or less towards an American system of government. The Chinese saw what happened with Gorbachev and glasnost and said "No, thank you." Hence, Tiananmen Square and the associated crackdown. The Chinese have offered the world an alternative model that keeps the benefits of economic growth while restricting the political freedom of it's citizens. Not only does this show no signs of changing - if anything it is growing MORE powerful throughout the world as the Chinese increasingly use their influence to coerce other stakeholders into obeisance. As for the direction they are moving? 19th century colonial expansion (Belt and Road Initiative), a greater crackdown on human rights, and the establishment of what Amnesty International calls "concentration camps" where millions of ethnic minorities are detained without trial. The Chinese do not even have the facade of democratic government but the Polish and Hungarians do have democracy - and it should surprise exactly no one how the West regards them when they don't vote the way they are told. "Democratic backsliding, Erosion of institutions," etc. That's the importance of national self determination. India and China and Japan and Poland can structure their societies as they wish ideally without our meddling. One last point: "the first step to building the logics of exceptionalism that dominates the west" by this exact line of reasoning one may say that being concerned with wealthy inequality is the first step to building the logics of Bolshevik massacres and the revolutionary violence of the red terror. The exceptionalism you're talking about is the byproduct of the US being the sole superpower left in the world and it's ruling class being exceptionally greedy and shortsighted. I'll say this for the Chinese; the rulers of their country have gone through a Darwinian selection for competence and cruelty. Life at the Politburo is more Game of Thrones than the Apprentice - just ask Zhou Yongkang.

American atrocities, March 16, 1968 - April 1, 1971 :P

This is what happens when a "journalist" who is ill prepared, not even read up the slightest on his country's history goes up against someone who has spent 30-40 years following events. Spent his time doing research and paid his dues, this is like me arguing with Dr. Niel Degrace Tyson on the subject on how black holes work in the language of mathematics. I got basic school level maths. Quite impressive of Chomsky keeping his cool and no not walking out of the interview. What a waste of the professor's time.

I wonder. Was this journalist waking up even a little bit? He doesn't seem to even be rubbing the sleep out of his eyes.

Hey Solomon, you lost it on that one, no?

The way this interview didn’t age well, because 20 years later, the talibans are back in power in Afghanistan. American foreign policy is literal thrash

The interviewer is horrible But Noam Chomsky is amazing as usual , and very patient Vive Noam 👏👏👏👏👏

Romania??😨😵.

This is a Master teaching a boy, whose trying to be a Grandmaster. Shameful.

Chomsky schooled this boy, But like most young people don't know when to shut their mouth and listen, too interested in talking this boy.shhhhhhhh?

HAHAHAHAHA omg Chomsky is killing this guy and America.

Moron vs genius w/ expected result.

Forget Gospels. lol

His views on the Taliban didn't age well.

Hilarious how the interviewer keeps trying to defend "the honor" of the US, while being continuously bombarded with facts that strip the US of any kind of honor it may, or may not, have ever had... Kudos!

The pinky interviewer talks like Dulles Brothers

this dude is overdosing on redpills

Damn this journalist just wants to see blood

This is basic common sense. Intellectuals murder that as well.

This interviewer is cringeworthy. His existence is an insult on everyones intelligence.

@brianholden7981

6 жыл бұрын

you would have been a nazi if you were born in the right time and place

@kayleebeam9711

5 жыл бұрын

Brian Holden just because you would be doesn't mean everyone else would

This interview is a disgrace to humanity

Just cause my foot you hypocrite.

I'm confused. Should I upvote it because of Prof. Chomsky, or should I downvote this because of the dummy who was wasting Prof.'s precious time with his babbling?

I heard Chomsky, on a Canadian talk show, say that the refugees from Iraq going into other middle east countries are treated better than when they come to America. The comment is so ridiculous that I realized he would stretch any argument to condemn America. When a refuge comes to America, they are at the very least given shelter, medical care and food. Some receive section 8 and a college education...leading to good jobs. In the refuge camps in the middle east they are treated to the most horrible conditions in tents in refuge camps...come on Noam.I agree with a lot of your points but you take your anti-americanism too far.

@rami6067

7 жыл бұрын

Joseph Lemerise I assume he meant in terms of kindness

@heldinahtmlhell

6 жыл бұрын

lol America has hardly taken any refugees. Surrounding countries have taken millions. That's what he's referencing. You're referencing money, resources and technology. Medical care? LOL. Your own citizens don't even have medical care. Unlike every other developed country on the planet.

@adamwajih1054

6 жыл бұрын

That's not what he meant. I think his point is that refugees are better off situated in countries surrounding the Syria (like turkey, KSA, UAE and Jordan) which is very true. Culturally and financially it's a very viable option.