Is he the most overrated hack alive today?

His delivery is calm, his ideas are usually poignant. I trust his wisdom more than people on Veeky Forums, whose main technique of argumentation seems to be burdensome strawmen.

As for Oikophobia... what? Fear of the home? If anything one might accuse him of sitting around too much and doing too little but oikophobia?

>"x is a big, smelly poo and I hate him".

thats basically what Noam did to Sam Harris though when the topic of a debate with him came up. Noam brushed him off as a racist who did nothing but call people names (lol) all because Sam is critical of Islam, which is a sacred cow to Noam, since it is a brown people religion.

>His delivery is calm

So what? How does this make him right?

>As for Oikophobia... what? Fear of the home?

yeah, he very clearly is oikophobic, as are his sophomoric followers. His entire ideology is just 'blame america for it." Im sure thats really profound for highschool kids, but its pedantic drivel to everyone else.

Lets not forget that Noam is a denier of the cambodian genocide and thinks America just made the whole thing up.

I can't remember Chomsky calling Harris a racist anywhere in that email exchange.

Also, Harris, who I do actually like and agree with on some things, gets the same on Veeky Forums. Start a Harris thread and see how many posters pop up who aren't able to articulate anything other than "Harris is [insert lame insult]"

>tfw no supple mid 20s house wife gf that will never divorce you because she considers it shameful

why live

>Lets not forget that Noam is a denier of the cambodian genocide and thinks America just made the whole thing up.

I thought he criticised coverage of the genocide at the time thinking it was overblown but later admitted he had been wrong?

no. He, along with all the other leftist academics at the time (cultural marxist) downplayed the genocide as nothing but American propaganda, even calling survivors of it CIA agents. Then after it was all revealed to be true, chomsky doubled down on his bullshit of "i-it wasnt even that bad!"

youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2959030709&feature=iv&src_vid=idy8m5V8uLI&v=UuQ8Qb0ej38

you should also look up who Malcolm Caldwell was. He was a marxist academic who went to Cambodia on some propaganda mission to say "see you silly westerners, they dindu nuffin!" and was brought on some bullshit regulated tour by Pol Pot. So his own guards murdered the guy so the other reporters would be forced to write about the horrors of the regime. They didnt want some stupid western leftist dick suck to contribute to their suffering and wanted to force the truth out.

Pretty sure he has spent more time being a social critic than a linguist
That if he is speaking on it, it's his field.

>no. He, along with all the other leftist academics at the time (cultural marxist) downplayed the genocide as nothing but American propaganda, even calling survivors of it CIA agents. Then after it was all revealed to be true, chomsky doubled down on his bullshit of "i-it wasnt even that bad!"

That doesn't disagree with what I said though.

you said he admitted to being wrong about it and I said he never admitted he was wrong but doubled down on his original position. That it very much disagreeing with you

learn how to read

You originally claimed he is currently a denier of the Cambodian genocide, which is non-factual. Stop talking shit.

yeah because he is a denier of it, as you yourself have already admitted. You said he later admitted he was wrong, I pointed out how he didnt, and then you somehow took this to be me not disagreeing with you.

You are trying to turn this into a pissy argument over semantics instead of just admitting you were wrong. I guess you learned that trick from your hero Noam, huh? lol

>yeah because he is a denier of it, as you yourself have already admitted. You said he later admitted he was wrong, I pointed out how he didnt, and then you somehow took this to be me not disagreeing with you.

You responded by pointing out he doubled down on his position decades ago. Post a citation from the last 20 years showing he denies the Cambodian genocide or stop lying.

>You responded by pointing out he doubled down on his position decades ago.

>back tracking, moving the goalpost, and changing the criteria after you realize how wrong you were

better yet, post anything of him admitting he was wrong about it or stop making excuses for speaking out of your ass on a topic you clearly know nothing about. Im done with you shitting up the thread already

Not really, as far as the left wing goes his views are pretty well rounded and robust. I say this as an insufferable neoliberal "free market fanatic".

He scolds the US a lot, but then the US is the most powerful country and he lives in it so that is not a huge hypocrisy. His socialism leans towards the utopian, but then it has to be because that is the only way he can be consistent with such an unrealistic ideology. He seems to hold the position that both individual rights and other goals like ending poverty are morally important and makes a effort to reconcile them where they contradict.

Not many people get that far and this makes him a special snowflake.

Who moved goalposts or backtracked? Certainly not me. You claimed he is currently a denier of the Cambodian genocide. I said my understanding was he denied it at the time and later admitted he was wrong. I haven't changed that to a different position and since you did make me bother looking it up to double check I was right........

>"I mean the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978

Noam Chomsky

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#cite_note-Wrong_answers-7

mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

I await your admission you were wrong or a citation from the last 20 years from Chomsky denying the Cambodian Genocide.

>no response

kek

> criticize foreign policy

> no counterfactual analysis of how his prescriptions would realistically change outcomes

Into the trash it goes.

i like the part when he said America should have allied with other jihadists against osama after 9/11

lmao

>cultural marxist
>>>reddit

>Who moved goalposts or backtracked?

you did when you said he admitted he was wrong and then complained that I didnt disagree with you when I clearly did.

>How did a man who describes the Khmer Rouge regime as "the great act of genocide of the modern period" come to be vilified as a vocal supporter of Pol Pot?

because he did just that, as did every other cultural marxist intellectual at the time.

What l dislike about Chomsky is how he puts winning a debate above all else, regardless of how irrelevant the topic may be. One second he's ready to defend the Khmer Rouge, and the next he's dehumanizing his opponent over petty shit.

>islamic terrorist are just poor victims of circumstance fighting the evil american imperialist!

>but noam, arent they massacreing civilians in the name of their religion? Doesnt their religion itself call for such acts of violence?"

>"Y-YOURE ISLAMPHOBIC!"

wow, noam is so smart! upvoted!

was his debate against molymeme worth watching

What are you even talking about?

Where is your citation from the last 20 years where Chomsky denies the Cambodian Genocide?

Just to be clear I'm not some general "Chomsky supporter". I disagree with him on virtually everything. I queried you on a specific point because I am the sort of person that likes to separate facts from bullshit.

It turns out you weren't being honest and he doesn't deny the Cambodian Genocide.

Learn to make good arguments rather than bad ones.

I like how noam chomsky shilled like a mad man for obama, outright trying to shame people for even considering voting for a third party, and then he started to bitch non stop about Obama in an arrogant "lol I told you so!" way

>Where is your citation from the last 20 years where Chomsky denies the Cambodian Genocide?

this is what Im talking about. I proved you wrong with a source of Chomsky himself saying it and then you bitched on some arbitrary criteria about how its "omg 20 years old!"

even when your source was 20+ years old.

you were wrong, you are making excuses, deal with it.

Y'know, part of me can't help but admire the guy for winning a lot of arguments just by getting under people's skin and getting them faught up in semantics even though he's wrong most of the time.

Has anyone succesfully called Noam out on his shit?

Chomsky is based because he was popular enough to shed light on the mass media propaganda machine and actually be taken somewhat seriously.

Right-wingers hate Chomsky because they think NY Times-reading liberals like Chomsky. Liberals like Chomsky the way that conservatives like Evola - there's just no intellectual or ideological connection.

Chomsky is just more of a realist that many self-proclaimed "realists". Saying that you understand the Middle East while admitting that you think that Islam is a death cult proves that you're no realist.

But you claimed that Chomsky /still/ denies the Cambodian genocide when he clearly and explicitly doesn't, and shown by the sources listed by that other user.

You said "Noam is a denier of the cambodian genocide" You do understand what the present tense is in English, right?

That's actually a good advice

I think he's underrated since I mostly see detractors talking about him, simply because in their mind he represents the leftist intellectual, and see very little praise given to him and few supporters.

He is a Jew.

Jews are driven by a single desire, the enslavement of gentiles, specially white gentiles. Every single word written by a Jew, every single song they sing, every single film they make, is done with that purpose.

A gentile reading Chomsky without that knowledge will be fooled and that's exclusively his fault.

The Zizek-Chomsky petty rivalry is one of my favorites

really made me think

>Chomsky is just more of a realist that many self-proclaimed "realists"

What? He is constantly criticizing the foreign policy of the United States for beign amoral. A political realist would never do something like that.

He does offer a realist defense of that however.

His thinking is that he is an American Citizen and taxpayer and voter and it is morally incumbent on him to criticize and try to change the things the US government is doing wrong.

It's not so much that he claims no one else ever does anything wrong as that he holds a responsibility to his own society to hold it to the highest standards.

He clearly means percentage of population in that context when he uses the word 'scale'.

Lmao, anti-chomskytards are so funny, I don't even regard him that highly but this is just strawmanning.

Objectively the best intellectual alive.

>anti chomskyites spreading lies as always
I'll never understand you faggots.

>cultural marxist
Ah, now i understand why you feel the need to lie about chomsky. You are a retarded memester from /pol/.

>its a "chomskyteen bitches about semantics that are obviously not even correct to hide the disgusting and abhorrent nature of his beliefs" episode

>DUDE IT DOESNT EXIST BECAUSE I DONT LIKE PEOPLE CALLING IT THAT LMAO!

>Has anyone succesfully called Noam out on his shit?

this literally who

youtube.com/watch?v=lgTX-c8aJ4c

Indeed, it doesn't exist. Quoting people like a retard and using all caps may be considered an argument on /pol/ but it isn't here.

In any case, chomsky is an anti-postmodern analytical philosopher who also isn't a marxist, he couldn't be further away from your frankfurt spooks.

>Chomsky is just more of a realist that many self-proclaimed "realists"

>this is what chomskyfags actually believe

> Saying that you understand the Middle East while admitting that you think that Islam is a death cult proves that you're no realist.

your cowardice at calling out a horrible religion like islam from fear of being labelled a racist proves what an idiot you are though. Islam is literally a death cult no matter what you cuck apologist say

>Indeed, it doesn't exist.

Herbert Marcuse existed. The "New Left" existed. Repressive Tolerance and the teachings within it exist. SJW exist now.

People who say cultural marxism doesnt exist are simply basic bitch leftist reactionaries who dont want to acknowledged what retarded end their meme philosophy came to.

educate yourself newfag

youtube.com/watch?v=vm3euZS5nLo

First, chomsky has nothing to do with marcuse, who's work he considers worthless (as the rest of the postmodernists). You are wrong regardless of the existence of your retarded conspiracy, so you might as well give up at this point of the post. Second, "cultural marxism" is an oxymoron, which by definition can't exist. Third, "cultural marxism" implies much more than the existence of marcuse's work, namely a conspiracy related to how that a couple of irrelevant postmoderns managed to subvert the entire western culture. Fourth, nobody gives a fuck about marcuse, and you'll have trouble finding a single "swj" that knows who he is, let alone one who has read him.

>educate yourself newfag
Lel, you haven't read shit. Be honest, you haven't read marx, nor chomsky, nor marcuse. You are repeating stormfag propaganda like a drone. This is how brainwashed you are.

>Repressive Tolerance
literal newspeak

>First, chomsky has nothing to do with marcuse,

AND THE AWARD FOR BIGGEST STRAWMAN ARGUMENT EVER USED GOES TO user!

lol I never mentioned anything like that. We are discussing cultural marxism and if it exist, so you needlessly bringing up chomsky is not an argument.

Also, the rest of your post is reactionary childish shit you are just making up. "nobody gives a fuck about marcuse" why? because you say so?

new left black panther/communist party member Anegla Davis disagrees with you on that one

youtube.com/watch?v=zqMG_iZF50

Dont get mad at me for correcting you on a topic you clearly know nothing about. Its pretty obvious you didnt even bother doing 5 min of google research on this, you just parrot "culural marxism isnt real!"

fucked up the link, here it is

youtube.com/watch?v=zqMG_iZF50c

>lol I never mentioned anything like that. We are discussing cultural marxism and if it exist, so you needlessly bringing up chomsky is not an argument.
What thread is this? What post did i respond to?

>Also, the rest of your post is reactionary childish shit you are just making up. "nobody gives a fuck about marcuse" why? because you say so?
Because he isn't usually taught in universities nor cited in papers. It's extremely rare to find him in curricula or a journal that isn't specifically about critical theory. He's literally irrelevant to everyone but stormfags.

>new left black panther/communist party member Anegla Davis disagrees with you on that one
Ah, yes a video of a disciple of marcuse talking about marcuse proves the vast and deep influence of marcuse and the existence of a conspiracy to subvert culture. I'm sure you also think that a video of a jew saying shit about whites proves a worldwide jewish conspiracy.

>Dont get mad at me for correcting you on a topic you clearly know nothing about. Its pretty obvious you didnt even bother doing 5 min of google research on this, you just parrot "culural marxism isnt real!"
I read chomsky, marx, and marcuse. Can you honestly say the same? Are you honestly not repeating what you read in some retarded infopic?

>What post did i respond to?

a post about cultural marxism. you are the one who brought up chomsky and strawmanned me

>Because he isn't usually taught in universities nor cited in papers.

your ignorance of the man doesnt mean he never existed user, or that he had no influence. Why do you think he is refereed to as "the father of the new left" ?

>Ah, yes a video of a disciple of marcuse talking about marcuse proves the vast and deep influence of marcuse and the existence of a conspiracy to subvert culture

what the video does is prove you wrong on you uneducated assertion that Marcuse had no influence on anyone. If thats true, then why did Angela Davis talk about how much she liked him?

>I'm sure you also think that a video of a jew saying shit about whites proves a worldwide jewish conspiracy.

more strawmanning

>I read chomsky, marx, and marcuse.

you clearly havent because you have no idea who marcuse is.

heres another documentary on him

youtube.com/watch?v=gbzhmMDFcFQ

if you would just acknowledge that you dont know anything about this at all and just watch the interview with Marcuse I posted, you might actually learn something.

you arent even forming an argument user, you are just strawmanning me and calling me a neo-nazi lol

>tfw my sister is one of those pretentious college "art" girls that talks about him.

but he made very real contributions to theoretical computer science, despite beeing an linguist

>a post about cultural marxism. you are the one who brought up chomsky and strawmanned me
No, you are the one who initially responded to a post that responded to a post that discussed chomsky. I was following the initial point.

>your ignorance of the man doesnt mean he never existed user, or that he had no influence. Why do you think he is refereed to as "the father of the new left" ?
>what the video does is prove you wrong on you uneducated assertion that Marcuse had no influence on anyone
As i said, he isn't taught nor cited. Anyone with a minimum level of intelligence would realize that posting a video of a person talking about marcuse doesn't prove a wide influence, much less a conspiracy. Also, i'm still waiting for you to explain how an oxymoron exists irl.

>you clearly havent because you have no idea who marcuse is.
>if you would just acknowledge that you dont know anything about this at all and just watch the interview with Marcuse I posted, you might actually learn something.
What do you want, a photo holding a marcuse book? Meanwhile, i take your silence as admitting that you haven't read anyone involved in the discussion.

No, he's an ingenious polymath

He's not really much of a celebrity, to be honest. To a lunch table of co-workers (all college educated young 20-somethings at the time), I once casually mentioned a Noam Chomsky talk that I saw advertised in a newspaper. Every single one blinked and shrugged, not recognizing the name. One girl thought he was a Hollywood producer of some kind.

Now, if only 'politicians' were allowed to comment on politics, we'd be even more fucked than we are now. He actually knows what he's talking about. He is one of our era's great thinkers, and I am sure that history will still remember him as such in a couple centuries' time.

t. a degree-holding linguist. (For what it's worth, I'm not a huge fan of his linguistic theories. Not totally wrong, but I think better more convincing answers lie elsewhere)

Chomsky and Zinn were the two most profound thinkers of our time in regards to political discourse.

There will never be another person as great, as heroic, and as intelligent as Noam Chomsky. We should do our best to absorb everything he says, because his time on this earth is coming to an end.

>His entire ideology is just 'blame america for it.
You have obviously never read any Chomsky.

>Lets not forget that Noam is a denier of the cambodian genocide and thinks America just made the whole thing up.
Stop embarrassing yourself. This has been debunked a zillion times already. It's a favourite buzz point of the dogwhistle right blogosphere.

>actually believing the spin on this story
lol

It doesn't really matter what you said, considering you are still factually wrong.

Awww, look at the widdle wounded animal. Can't argue with the big boys with calm intellect, resorts to lashing out and ad hominem, completely sidestepping the requests to prove his arguments.

Fucking pathetic. The only one shitting up this board is you.

He's like Michael Moore. Controlled opposition masqueradeing as anti-establishment

im not sure if im per-disposed to this because ive studied International Relations as a degree in Europe, not as an American but

I just think he's a living meme, he encroaches almost all of my fields of studies from political violence and terrorism to the debate between Realists and Neo-Realists, I dont get it

I spoke with a few American students and professors when I went to the US for a few months and they love him, yet my lecturers, seminar leaders and really smart friends think hes gutter trash, why is this?

>. I was following the initial point.

yeah, and then you strawmanned me.

>As i said, he isn't taught nor cited.

so he isnt influential because you never heard of him? Brilliant.

>What do you want, a photo holding a marcuse book?

knowing even a little bit about him would do. Just be honest user, you have no fucking idea what cultural marxism as a theory even is or who the hell Marcuse was or what he wrote. You are clearly out of your element and making non arguments.

Marcuse existed, his ideas were influential, and are still here today. You saying "no because I dont know who he is!" isnt an argument. The guy was literally called the "father of the new left" and you are seriously trying to pretend no one knew who he was?

> no counterfactual analysis of how his prescriptions would realistically change outcomes
Why should he? No philosophers are ever seriously put to this test. Humanity would be in the bronze age if we stuck to your way of thinking.

>cultural marxist
You keep using this word like it has any actual meaning. Does it make you feel intelligent or big to roll it out in every post, or what?

IR PhD student in America. No one ever even mentions him. He certainly isn't taken seriously as an IR scholar, fair or not.

because the americans you spoke to were cookie cutter limousine liberal retards. Their political views are more of a fashion accessory than anything else.

thats what I dont get, no one considers him to be an IR scholar (because he really isnt) yet loads of pieces I read try to draw from his work or just simple quotes from him

>Does it make you feel intelligent or big to roll it out in every post, or what?

does it make you feel intelligent to spout canned rhetoric on a topic you know nothing about?

Gee, your post is so intelligent and nuanced itself.

Actually, studies show a majority of 'radicalized' militants joining various terrorist groups are not even from particularly religious backgrounds.

The biggest predictor seems to be (pre-existing) tendency to criminality, along with a feeling of nihilism and hopelessness. Between the rock of brutal police states in the middle east (many American-supported, btw), and a hardplace of backwards Islamic culture, young men with no real education (whose numbers have increased exponentially thanks to medicine and modernization) are squeezed and squeezed. Then slick groups with cool shit like AKs and bomb vests promising paradise show up.

In Japan, they just become NEETs. In America, supreme gentleman Trump supporters.

Quod es, fui. Quod sum eris.

>Actually, studies show

weasel words

>In America, supreme gentleman Trump supporters.

oh, so youre a leftypol retard, I get it now. No wonder you are such a cucked apologist.

Hoffman and other early researchers actually found that most early Jihadis in Afghanistan and those involved in international terrorism in the 1990s were middle class, educated, and had experience living in the West.

The studies you are referring to focus on radicalization of second generation immigrants in the West, not the radicalization of MENA residents.

Not an argument. And I'm not sure what leftypol is supposed to mean.

>yeah, and then you strawmanned me.
No.

>so he isnt influential because you never heard of him? Brilliant.
>You saying "no because I dont know who he is!" isnt an argument.
Now, that's a straw man. And a very infantile one.

>knowing even a little bit about him would do. Just be honest user, you have no fucking idea what cultural marxism as a theory even is or who the hell Marcuse was or what he wrote. You are clearly out of your element and making non arguments.
"Cultural marxism" isn't a theory. It means nothing outside of a retarded conspiracy, and marxism is by definition materialist so "cultural marxism" can't exist.
Here's a short paper explaining the stupidity of the conspiracy that even someone like you who's never read marx nor marcuse can understand:
academia.edu/10149049/The_Origins_and_Ideological_Function_of_Cultural_Marxism

>The guy was literally called the "father of the new left" and you are seriously trying to pretend no one knew who he was?
I'm not pretending anything, he isn't taught, he isn't cited, and he certainly isn't discussed among "swj", and the only reason you know him is because you're a /pol/tard, and you haven't even read him. The documentary you posted has barely 20k views. He didn't magically manage to subvert western culture with his magical postmodern powers. He's just a useful retard that stormfags use because he says what they want to caricature their opponents with.

Well, he certainly plays IR theorist in his books. He doesn't pretend to be a part of that academic community. He doesn't present papers or original research (likely because he'd get torn apart). However, he is more than happy to criticize others like he is an expert.

Grade A douche imo.

This is like the 8th Chomsky thread I've seen with seemingly one person arguing for him and constantly bitching about semantics. All of these threads also have "different" people claiming that no one understands or has read Noam, since if they had, they'd know he is a towering genius. "Great minds of the century."

Chomsky, is that you? Jesus man, get off Veeky Forums and enjoy your last few years on Earth.

>"Cultural marxism" isn't a theory. It means nothing outside of a retarded conspiracy

I find that 'cultural marxism' is basically the right-wing version of the 'neoliberalism' boogyman. No one actually calls themselves a neoliberal/cultural marxist, it's usually the other side calling them that. They are both always defined by the same people who critique the ideas, sort of like a one-two punch.

Why does everyone try their hardest to look like a cunt

>Now, that's a straw man. And a very infantile one.

Since you did the same shit to me, I dont care. This also isnt a strawman anyway.

> and marxism is by definition materialist so "cultural marxism" can't exist.

marxist believe marxism isnt rising around the world because of cultural reasons, therefore, they try to take control of culture and direct it torwards marxism, hence the name "cultural marxism" your autistic adherence to marxist dogma isnt an argument and this idea that marxist culture is impossible doesnt even make sense.

>I'm not pretending anything

yeah, you clearly are pretending no one likes him because you dont like him. The guy is called the father of the new left, stop pretending he had no influence.

>He didn't magically manage to subvert western culture with his magical postmodern powers

the fact that you actually write shit like this shows what a little pea brain you are user.

>Here's a short paper explaining the stupidity of the conspiracy that even someone like you who's never read marx nor marcuse can understand:
academia.edu/10149049/The_Origins_and_Ideological_Function_of_Cultural_Marxism

wow, did you really fucking link me to your highschool english report as if it was some badass appeal to authority? So I posted Marcuse himself, and a famous commie saying how much she looked up to him, and your response is "yeah, well this blog post says its not real!" ? You are really horrible at this user

I think neoliberal is someone who adheres to neoclassical economics and/or the washington consensus. At least i've been using it as if it meant that.

>No one actually calls themselves a neoliberal/cultural marxist

well this is literally all their argument is.

>"I dont call myself a cultural marxist, therefor cultural marxism doesnt exist!"

literally the dumbest fucking argument around.

>marxist believe marxism isnt rising around the world because of cultural reasons, therefore, they try to take control of culture and direct it torwards marxism, hence the name "cultural marxism"
Impossible from a marxist perspective, the mode of production determines culture not the opposite. Try reading marx instead of memes next time.

>yeah, you clearly are pretending no one likes him because you dont like him. The guy is called the father of the new left, stop pretending he had no influence.
No, i'm "pretending" he is not a major influence because he isn't widely taught or cited (nor discussed among the people you pretend he influenced, "sjw"). I won't repeat myself again until you put an argument forward.

>wow, did you really fucking link me to your highschool english report as if it was some badass appeal to authority? So I posted Marcuse himself, and a famous commie saying how much she looked up to him, and your response is "yeah, well this blog post says its not real!" ? You are really horrible at this user
I linked you to a basic paper covering the subject in a basic way in hopes that you'd read it. From the time it took you to respond, you didn't. I'm not surprised, you don't actually care about truth.
Videos of "Marcuse himself and a famous commie" don't constitute an argument toward what you are trying to prove.

More like in marxism culture is determined by economics, therefore saying cultural marxism is fucking retarded.

>muh semantics!

thats real nice, but you were objectively wrong. Marcuse is the "father of the new left" but he has literally no influence on anyone because some user on said so lol.

so in other words, exactly what I fucking said. No wonder marxism is such a failure, its followers are completely retarded space cadets

Marcuse isn't cited, taught, or discussed, but he has literally subverted the entire western culture by himself because some user said so lol.

Did you just learn the word 'semantic'? You've used it 6 times in this thread as a cheap ploy to sidestep actually responding to a challenge and defending your points. Absolutely no one is fooled by your obvious lack of knowledge.

You're a rabid ideologue, we get it.

>Marcuse isn't cited, taught, or discussed

except he is. Why are you ignoring that he is referred to as the "father of the new left"?

youtube.com/watch?v=vnZ8WaiXnBY