William Buckley Interviews Hugh Hefner on Firing Line (1966) Part 5

[@herbertwells8757]

The tacit rule of this discourse appears to be that Buckley is allowed to interrupt Hefner at will, but Hefner is allowed to speak only when Buckley deigns. When Hefner tries to defend himself, explain, or clarify, Buckley will simply continue blathering on over Hefner. Buckley continually invents straw men and generally rides roughshod over logic and manners. Buckley, in short, is intellectually dishonest. (I do enjoy, however, how a disgusted Hefner finally begins to assert himself more aggressively toward the end of this segment.)

[@Eltae42]

Heffner makes a very good point when he says that women's liberation is linked to their sexual liberation.

[@magicsinglez]

Hefner insists that once we're no longer repressed (and I've always thought this too) perversions and fetishes will melt away, and homosexuality will diminish. So far, this hasn't seemed to have happened? Never fear, though, as reality turns out to be in complete opposition to what the progressives have asserted it would be, they will double-down on their prescription anyway. Paradise hasn't completely arrived yet? Double the dose of the medication (poison)!

[@magicsinglez]

shut up, you reptile.

[@vacantmoon]

anyone who licks their lips while conversing as much as Buckley does is highly suspect.

[@g.macgregor5416]

He rambled thru philosophy as tho he somehow has contributed to society when all he has done is to sell some magazines that have died a natural death.

[@TornadoOfSouls777]

@7beers yeah its because he has banged 10,000 tens...he's r E L A x E d

[@eragon2121]

2:46 Gotta love those Buckley mannerisms, lol.

[@iamboyto]

This is more of a debate rather than an interview.

[@asielnorton345]

91ch6er6ok6ee that’s the point of the show. It was called firing line.

[@mayumashu]

Hefner's a hedonist, nothing less. Buckley's tone is condescending, sure, but he exposes Hefner. Not to say that it might have taken some hedonism for society to break lose of its near-puritanism prior to the sixties.

[@RipTheJackR]

@gofindyourmusic yeah, we can just look at biology, we know men invest way less into a baby and that have enourmous implications on the psychology of sexes during millions of years of evolution. Pure knowledge is the only way to override certain dispositions. So acknowledging the differences is probably the way to go about this subject.

[@7beers]

@WhenLilacsLast Interesting. Reading the statement in his Wiki entry puts it in a different context. Let me ask you: what exactly do you think he meant by: "take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally"?

[@7beers]

@WhenLilacsLast Quite a list. I will address only one: references as to his pro-segregationist stance?

[@7beers]

@WhenLilacsLast The burden of proof is on you to adduce evidence that those were his intentions.

[@jonnylawrence3818]

This part (5) seems to me to be the most interesting of the interview. Especially picks up when Buckley challenges him on subverting norms....

[@1844Freddy]

'What I don't find anywhere in your sexual philosophy...' ah man you have to love Buckley

[@7beers]

You fall into the common trap of confusing fear for morality.

[@bleebloe]

well aside from that ridiculous and antiquated homosexual notion Hef made, Hef is still on the ball, and Buckley just seems like a pretentious idiot who is not willing to give any merit whatsoever to Hef's logical premise.

[@ActionableFreedom]

He does attack Hef very well on the fact that in his capitalist enterprise he affirms restraint as the way forward but wishes to liberate (or pollute) the minds of others by letting go off restraint elsewhere in society. It reminds me of corporate culture, how it sells individuality but how inside of it internally tends to be quite conformist.

[@mdt471]

Exposes Hefner as what, a thoughtful, articulate man who offers intelligent responses to baiting question? I agree. The participant who came out of this debate tarnished was Buckley. To believe otherwise is to ignore what is in front of you.

[@swell1954]

Hefner made a great point at the end about being opposed to the way religious views of sex have influenced law and legal practice. Buckley refused to concede or even acknowledge that point and repeatedly attempted to paint Hefner as anti-religious.

[@7beers]

It's very unfortunate that Buckley takes such an antagonistic approach, especially since Hefner is willing to speak so openly and honestly. Thus a rare opportunity for an intriguing debate between two fundamentally different points of view was wasted. I've always thought of Heffner as a moral dirtbag, but I reluctantly concede that he comes across here as both a gentleman and a thoughtful person.

[@mdt471]

Let me guess; born again. Right? If not, you would certainly qualify, lack of the ability to think critically being the top requirement.

[@ArtieMcCannMusic]

I find the way Buckley's tongue occasionally lashes out incredibly unsettling. It brings to mind the characterising trait of Barty Crouch Jr. in JK Rowling's much loved series.