Yes. We need to realize united states turns worst crimes against life on earth into a debate if its ok or not. Im guessing its a tactic for illusion of some imagined free society. Thats what hes saying as well i think
lmao I can't blame the algorithm for getting confused tho. There is probably a "fast one" that focuses on spectral analysis, and then they use voice to text translation. Probably the first one failed
Got to love Zizek's take on "Antigone". Sophocles wrote Antigone around 441 BC. In the story King Creon disallows Antigone's brothers burial, because he had lead a foreign army. Antigone buries her brother anyway. She is sentenced to death but hangs herself before the execution. Or - as Zizek puts it: Antigone says: "Fuck off I want to bury my brother", and Creon says "yes but look at the political situation and so on and so on". I love it. So 2021.
Yes, but actually, it's a lacanian intepretation that Zizek is very familiar with, as he works also with psychoanalytical theory. Jacques Lacan has lectured about Antigone (Seminar 7) and how she represents the desire in its purest form, above common laws, beyond good and bad or understanding. The decision to bury her brother is an ethical one, and in his understanding, beyond morality. Lacan uses Antigone to make a point about the ethics of psychoanalysis which is about the subject and its singularity.
that debate was in Austria where a lot of people still have Latin in high school and either there or even in German Literature class you will definitively learn about Greek Literature like Antigone
Except for his 's' and 'l' pronunciation, he actually sounds pretty similar to people from Antwerp where I'm from. My accent doesn't differ very much from his
As an autistic person I can say he doesn't misrepresent us. There are other autistic people too, so don't take my word to be holy, but I personally found his description very accurate.
But i don't find zizek "autistic" , yeah , he have his ticks and those stuff, Is just representing different people , just like me and just like you , who can use the perfect words to explain but sill have the sense of need to express yourself what you think. step in that way.
yeah me too! I'm oftenly read as 'arrogant' when i'm just trying to be informative 'straight to the facts'. So I understand how greta must feel and i like zizek perspective
@@salvadorkda5758 he’s talking about Greta, the messenger of certainly the Rothschilds, and many more ‘to big to fail’ families and people, like Gates, who all contribute to the media. How do you think she got across the Atlantic Ocean in a ‘carbon neutral boat’. Then have the worlds media report on her setting off? (Is that going to influence the way they write about certain subjects, especially the people and their ‘charitable work’? It’s the start of the ‘narrative’, journalists aren’t like detectives anymore, they’re >99% writers, more artistic, so prefer the ‘narrative’ genre of writing their journalism. Unlike the facts and evidence based approach. That’s why they have, and are becoming more left wing. They used to be predominantly right wing, but with academia being taken over by the left, this is one example of the consequences.
@@daniarocio5001 Becusae Im not a sheep nor a monkey on the monkey mountain. Im a free , intelligent , free-thinking person that doesnt like BS nor anything that blindly follows anything.
@@daniarocio5001 What is the purpose of that question? "I literally quoted him as satire lmao you are not what you said, you are just so scared of being considered "slow" you feel the need to prove yourself wherever you are. " No you didnt: here is what you said: "how dare you, and so on" Just stop contacting me with this level of idiocy, thank you.
The main problem is that politicians rarely take a stand on anything if it threatens the popularity of their political party or their own reelection. And if they do take a stand, they won't get many donors the next time around.
The solution is public funding for political parties, dependent on membership numbers, which rewards grassroots popularity at the expense of elite rich donors
Verleugnung (Denial in English) : Refusal to accept reality, thus blocking external events from awareness. Anna Freud postulated that an individual ignores the perception of real sensory impressions and their meaning thus the threatening pieces of external reality can be recognized as non-existent.
@@atthecore4560 it conveniently glosses over the fact the correlation between external events and how they are percieved don't constitute a unified reality. We don't see the world in the same way and we never will.
Im german and we had this guy in our English test last friday (im in year 11) and they played some Audio Clip where He Talks about ideology and we had to translate to german. I dont have a clue how they find All these Audio clips in English where you dont under stand anything and i just got myself a F
@@Yabroproductions33 1. Literaly everything is propaganda, you can only decide whos propaganda to Listen to. 2.its the exact opposite, he is on the side of the Hard workers and He hates the leeches that let other people work for them or make money of Basic necessity like housing, Water etc
If i can recall correctly, the name of this talk was "Disorder under Heaven" and it took place in Vienna. But you'll find that Slavoj talked most of the time, as always. :)
seriously. I can hear and the auto-captioning is lousy. This needs to be more accessible. The youtuber could fix the autocaption and youtube needs to allow channels to crowd source captioning again.
I appreciate your content but I think it would be better if you included the name of the interview/conference and the year it was recorded in every description.
@@Potatoarmy12 In general, people can not be proud of something if they didn't participate in that. That is only an illusion. Just because we are identifying ourselves with something it doesn't mean we can be proud of that. I mean, ofc. you can - that is your feeling. But there is no sense there. Another illusion is hidden in there. We are proud of good things our countrymen do but we have no responsibility in evil things that our countrymen do. And I think that is dangerous.
I like Zizek's point about dogmatism, it highlights a weakness of our ultra democratic liberal societies that is basically never addressed, the inefficiency and potential dishonesty of leaving every single subject up for debate, because it is the open-minded and democratic thing to do in principle. It opens us up to getting bogged down in inefficient debates or lose motivation at actually achieving a goal we may have already agreed upon (what he means by the "mais comment"). Even worse, it gives the opportunity to certain people to purposefully bog down the conversation into endless debate ensuring actions are never taken, which is most evident in the lobbying around climate action. This is also why to me centrism is the most infuriating political ideology, especially this "critical thinker" brand of centrism like Destiny that is absolutely obsessed with over-nuancing and debating every single topic never arriving at any definite conclusion that could be acted upon, in effect ensuring that the status-quo or the current trajectory of change is unopposed. There's no clear answer whether it's better to be dogmatic or open-minded, because too open-minded and you can be manipulated or placated into endless debate and inaction, while too dogmatic and you can lose the ability to distinguish right from wrong and become driven only by dogma. But one thing's for sure, our inability to deal with issues like climate change is a clear sign that we are perhaps too open-minded and not dogmatic enough in our approach.
our populous is too uneducated for real democracy because of the stronghold authoritarianism has on our systems of education. make people smarter & less focused on surviving and we can have a real democracy instead of an authoritarian capitalistic hellscape where everyone’s so neurotic and traumatized that they can’t actually consume politics or participate in politics without it being for the purpose enacting meaningless vengeance on out-groups. we’re uncivilized and it’s by design. the fact that liberals can’t get shit passed is not a bug in the system, it’s a feature. it’s not going anywhere. the DNC is not in the business of truth telling or sticking up for the truth. politics is a game to them. open-mindedness doesn’t mean being uneducated, unopinionated and easily manipulated. it’s ideally the opposite. being “dogmatic” and being “open minded” aren’t antonyms. there are absolute truths in politics. being “dogmatic” is only an issue when you’re wrong or your ideas are unproven. ie religious. it’s not an issue when you’re educated in social sciences and politics. no, you don’t have to rule with an iron fist nor hurt anybody or enforce opinions by law if you’re “dogmatic”, because dogmatic people can also be extremely open minded. empathy doesn’t mean sacrificing your values, if you’re a well balanced human. you’ve created a false dichotomy. reducing people down to a science without losing their humanity requires a lot more effort than you put into this comment!!
in our current global, capitalistic consumerism we have effectively numbed a great deal of the public by simply saying 'here, you can spend a bit more and pretend you have made a difference'. its moral licensing at work.
If you watch his older videos from the 1990s, he comes across as far more "normal," with far fewer tics and sniffling. Whatever his problem is, it appears to be worsening with age.
I get that she is supposed to demand answers and not supply them, but there is another great Zizek video "Think, don't act." Where he talks about how people often want revolutions but don't think what should happen after, I feel like the climate movement has lost a lot of steam and people have gone back to not caring and most countries arent doing anything really and the ones who are just do the bare minimum, I feel like the demand solutions instead of action allowed politicans to go "We'll look into" and not following up
The problem here is very simple: When there are 3 countries, that create over 50% of the CO2 emissions, others can’t do too much, that would change the game. So especially those (China, US and India) have to work harder. But there is also a lot of different ecological disaster, like water pollution in Africa r the rain forest burning in Brazil, that add to the problem. All in all I would say, that nothing can be done anymore. We have to adapt, because humans don’t change. The need for more will be always greater, than common sense. Wich interestingly isn’t that common.
@@retardinho5048 i would quickly suggest a focus to local, sustainable production. it would make us a lot more responsible for what we produce and would take power away from china and india in their role in the global economy. though I also realise the reason china is the factory of the world, people want cheap shit and don't want to pay their workers a living wage because its soo much cheaper to exploit a Chinese worker overseas where the consumer doesn't have to think about it all that much.
@@retardinho5048 That is definitely part of the problem. There are other aspects to it of cource, but this is an important one. We will probably not be able to prevent anything in the short term, mainly becouse other countries are too poor to give a shit, and also becouse science is difficult and the most efficiënt solutions need time to be discovered. We would however be able to make a difference in the long term @tuyenero tuyenero . There have been several great researches that suggested it would be best to invest in: getting poor countries developed asap, decreasing child malnutrition, things like that. Also investing in new tochnologies (like actual good nuclear power plants or cheaper renewable energy) would be very important. Getting more people out of poverty to be able to care more, and to have more brainpower availible to help with research should be the main concerns.
From what I observe, she's become a meme for most on the internet, climate change activists are so easy to hate for some reason, but I guess that's the martyrdom they accept for a modicum of change.
@Hugh Mungus yea but aren't we all? There are lots of things worthy of critique which we've grown dependant on. When they come across like condescending assholes, I totally get you, but I simultaneously don't think activism is useless. Sadly too many people virtue signal without making an actual contribution, so perhaps there's only so much being polite and passive can do.
@Hugh Mungus if only the face of climate change activism are people like Alex Honnold, Killian Jornet, and Emelie Forsberg. People who made a major part of their lives playing in the mountains and wild open spaces and have achieved incredible feats of human skill and technique. Instead they chose Greta. 🤣🤣🤣
@Hugh Mungus The names listed above disqualify the moronic generalisation you make when you say 'climate change activists are self righteous hypocrites'
What he is saying in 1 sentence; Greta speaks her mind directly without falling for the political correctness and that's what we need more off in this world.
"her mind" = #Scriptgirl (Margaret Klein Salamon, "Leading the public into emergency mode", a 2016 framing manual for climate hysteria: "House on fire" phrase etc)
he makes a very good point with a very bad example someone who's a straight shooter is good but greta in an uninformed idiot that lets emotions do the talking we have enough emotional idiots speaking their mind.
@Gaynor Lewis no, it depends on the money you have, the more money you have the more time you can afford to not worry for basic things and the more you would worry for (for example) climate change, ask a taxi driver in mexico city (a lot of them have college degree, some are even doctors) ask them if they are worried for climate change when they are strugling to take food to their families.
@@RightfootWestHam what..? he was just sharing his view on Greta Thunberg, would've you preferred he veneered what he said as some sort of objective truth rather than the open discussion it obviously is? you seem like the type who gets easily decieved by misleading graphs. it's so ironic by being so concerned about "facts" and "objectivity" you end up shutting down all avenues for possible critical thought. this obsession with logos that certain people have is honestly frightening.
@@RightfootWestHam great way to completely avoid everything I said by fixating on the smallest detail imaginable. surely you're not socially inept enough to not understand that "what..?" is just a phrase to show confusion.
I am not nearly educated enough to even understand a third of what he is saying most of the time but you really get the feeling that he’s the joker of modern philosophy and I’m all here for it. All I can really say is fuck these cringelord moralists and the modern left is far too weak and seems unconcerned with backing up their values with sound reasoning.
I think he actually had a pretty clear point this one time. FFF acts as a dogmatic young movement with a clear simple message of acknowledging the urgency and reality of climate change beyond the political mainstream which often highlights the complexity of the issue and gets a bit too comfortable hiding behind the complexity so much that it became a common convention to take a measured and moderate approach which balances ecology, economy and social welfare which isn’t wrong but has started to ignore the urgency. Greta is also on the autism spectrum and autistic people are known for straight talking and not caring too much about social conventions and etiquettes. His point now is that she has integrated that into the messaging of FFF and uses it to give a wake up call
Your point is a common criticism, and understandably so against him but this probably isn’t the right vide to bring it up in because this was very clear and straightforward if you just listen
I'm autistic but I'm not dogmatic. At least not in my thinking. My thinking is very nuanced. My behavior however is very dogmatic. I cannot be nuanced in how I behave in public, I have to keep categorically silent or else I will feel compelled to say inappropriate things.
I dont think he meant dogmatic in any negative meaning of the word. The current political climate is that of ""free market place of ideas"" which doesnt want a discussion to settle, beacause if it still goes on, we don't have to do anything about the issues, "the experts are still debating it". I understood the dogmaticism as -- there are some things that arent up to debate anymore and we should be very clear about it.
The ban on torture is absolute. There are no exceptions, no special provisions, no contingencies, no way about it. Torture is always and under all circumstances a crime against humanity. "We tortured some folks." - some American president publicly admitting to being a war criminal in an attempt to normalise violating international law, incidentally painting his entire country as a legitimate military target
What made sense about this Yue? Because all I heard were feelings and emotionbased opinions about another person and a situation. No facts. So please try to explain to me what made sense here.
I have a little trouble understanding what he's talking about. And it has nothing to do with the language, he speaks very incoherently as if he is just throwing in themes without them having anything to do with each other.
No one is gonna come to the table with that kind of attitude, the kind where you must shutdown any and all contesting arguments to global ecology. You can't make the problem so urgent either to low income people and below when their reality/circumstances takes precedent over the affairs of the globe.
That's why we need to end world poverty before we save the environment. We're a species, it's more ethical to take care of ourselves first before the planet, that's the conundrum we find ourselves in.
@@shroobify just like Edwin said in the post their reality is that they will need jobs, money and food. They will do whatever to provide for their family before they start to worry about the lack of insect biodiversity. I could mention Maslow's hierarchy of needs here. You need a stable base before you can begin to make the world a better place for generations to come.
It is nuanced and subtle, but at the core he is arguing for liberal fascism, and I'm not mad about it. Listen again to the part where he says we shouldn't have to endlessly debate rape. That's the core of his argument. Check out Richard Rorty's liberal ironism. There are limits to democracy, and sometimes you just have to bring the hammer down on stuff that you know is wrong, and shouldn't require an explanation or debate about why it's wrong.
Maybe the advancing glacier is responding to the flow of heat and growing away from main heat output “pipe.” Still, its a good idea to do as little to the earth to generate energy. The work is dangerous and the jobs are romanticized. The need for money has obscured our need for a kind of insurance. If someone might die for me to heat my room, is this a reasonable equation? Solar energy, for example, is a kind of insurance, and insurance is a good idea. Plus, “green” or green energy takes less time and less work to produce. I don’t like typical energy production because I think it invisibly manifests economic control and rigid class structuring. You have a guaranteed work force, which on one hand is good because people will have work, but on the other hand not so good because people might end up trapped and unable to recognize they can do more. Some people will of course be as happy as a clam, but I think again, this may have more to do with being able to provide for themselves rather than job fulfillment. No one is truly totally fulfilled, but dirty work and falsified notions of how happy these people might be are expounded upon by people only on the receiving end. Plus, with reliance on one source there is a restriction on choice. Most people are forced to use typical energy sources. Why does it have to be that way? Furthermore, even if there was no such thing as global warming, why rip through the earth if we don’t have to do it? Some people say solar panels are polluting because they take up land space, but this also has to do with the need to change the designs. Miles and miles of desert can easily become major sites of solar power, and they would be nowhere within view unless you were to fly over them. Imagine if Denver was flooded with solar panels all along route 70 for example. People should have the right to exercise choice without fear of recrimination: this pairs well with a democratic country. The issue with green energy is it has become mired with politics. It’s a good idea that we have energy insurance, that we create work that is unlike jobs such as these that can be dangerous and demoralizing, to leave the earth alone if we don’t have to cut into it, and to move on from debates as to whether not global warming is real to the fact that in the country we are paying for the hazards this energy sources carries in our bills. You may have to pay more so someone else can have running water, why? Why not save money, work cleaner and safer with less exhausted people, and at the very least “rotating the crops.”
Post 2016 zizek frustrates me sometimes. He himself put it best in one of his most famous public musings: the Greta thunberg ecological dogmatism is ‘V for vendetta part 1’. But what does V for vendetta part 2 look like? Importing more resources from Africa and manufacturing from China to make 2-3 year life span electric vehicles, inefficient wind turbines and habitat destroying dams? Renewable energy/ sustainability policies that are not tailored to a countries geographical situation resulting in things like increased food importation and deforestation for mono agriculture farming and pesticides? Soy in our animal food replacements and plastic in our leather and fur replacements, thus feeding into fast food and fast fashion trends? The list goes on. And when you pragmatically suggest effective renewable energies like nuclear, that thunberg ‘green future at all costs’ dogmatism goes out the window. Big capital again deciding what our ‘green future’ looks like. Pure ideology if you ask me
And the middle class Martyrs are the useful idiots. There was a time when you’d own a petrol vehicle for 10-15 years and sometimes longer. Now we get our cars on credit and go through them every several years. What’s that about !?
There is no part 2. We'll all be dead in 30 years. Wind turbines are not inefficient. Nuclear is not renewable. The latest IPCC report calculates that while nuclear would be an improvement over coal and gas in terms of CO2, ignoring the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, it is also the most expensive by far, exceeded only slightly by bioelectricity which is not being used right now. Greta Thunberg herself is in favour of nuclear energy, by the way, so you can "pragmatically" tear down your strawman right away. The cheapest source of electricity is solar power. It is being adopted at an exponential rate by private households. It saves money. The ROI is 3 years. But it won't make a noticeable dent into the emission of CO2. During the lockdowns during the pandemics, CO2 emissions were reduced by 11%, NOx by 40%, mit because of the reduced commuting and air traffic, but because of closed factories. What can you do to shut down factories? What can you do for waste water treatment? What can you do to change city planning and zoning to reduce dependence on individual transport? What can you do to prevent overfishing, bee colony collapse, and oil spills?
With all due respect these are simply insufficient reasons to stop a green pivoting of the economy given the long term weigh off, and nuclear is fully compatible with a green revolution. But also this is quite exaggerated: China and India's manufacturing of solar panels has driven the price of solar way down to affordable levels, and you only really need a few large hydroelectric dams to provide a large share if not all of a country's needed electricity. Wind is not catastrophically short term, but even if it were, it is far superior to the carbon costs of LNG and coal. Nuclear is great, but also takes time to build and phase in and produces some pretty gnarly waste so is unlikely to ever be a dominant power source
Hydroelectric dams are breathtakingly destructive to the natural environment including river life. Solar panels leak toxic substances into the soil overtime. LNG is not an efficient way of importing gas; if it’s imported through pipelines it’s far cheaper and subsequently outperforms wind energy for cost effectiveness. Electric vehicles require high volumes of lithium to produce batteries with a shelf life of less than 8 years. Plant based mono agriculture is destroying the fertility of our soil. Importing more manufactured products from China for the sake of under performing wind farms feels like exactly the thing that got us in this mess in the first place. Why not ask China to produce spare parts for vehicles we’ve already made so they are maintained instead of scrapped for millions of new electric vehicles. Every current technological proposition made by the green movement feels utopian and in reality totally suicidal for our societies. It’s a movement running off pure hubris right now, and all the green suggestions appear to have a worse long term impact on us and our environment than current oil and gas based energy sources. We really have to tread carefully on this subject, i see a boondoggle on the horizon with totalitarian political consequences and mugabe style land grabs. Never a good sign
He calls it dogmatism. I would rather call it fundamentalism. Absolutizing one aspect at cost of all the others. Democratic states are either based on finding compromises between different aspects of life or they aren't democratic. I sense a good portion of his Leninist heritage in this statement.
@@anonymousSWETo assume climate change would "make the world inhabitable for everyone" seems to me a massive overstatement. Climate change might have unforeseeable consequences, but humans and many animals most probably can adapt to them. But with your fear of eternal extinction you demonstrate that fundamentalism is exactly the right category for this kind of mindset. For Greta and their followers the fight against climate change is a religion. It is the fight between good and evil. People are divided into believers and deniers. And woe to the deniers! It were better for them that a millstone were hanged about their necks, and that they were drowned in the depth of the sea.
@@anonymousSWE I was refering to the "dogmatic/fundamentalist" environmental movement (Fridays for future or extinction rebellion for example). And to say that farreaching predictions about the future impact of climate change are facts appears to me highly dubious. A scientific fact is that predictions get increasingly imprecise the further the anticipated future lies ahead. When it comes to climate change there is rather a multitude of very different scenarios and it is not evident that the worst case scenario will occur - at least I and my offspring hope that.
@@matthiasbaum4850 The hope you have for a better future does not correspond to there being a better future. Predictions of how the issue of climate change will progress are based on the progress of the issue of climate change in the present - which is trending in the direction of abysmal.
It doesn't matter what you would call it. Dogmatism is the correct technical term. Fanaticism is not the correct technical term. Also, Zizek is not and never has been a Leninist.
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
they should team up. How dare you, and so on.
Yay
you make my day 😂😂😂
Yes. We need to realize united states turns worst crimes against life on earth into a debate if its ok or not. Im guessing its a tactic for illusion of some imagined free society. Thats what hes saying as well i think
Oh, god. Sure, then we'll all kill ourselves.
@Graf von Losinj im guessing this is an automatic bot. To distract from what the united states does. Who knows if this is automatic or not
I love the way he starts with a badass beat box
Beat box ? Man sounds like he’s drowning in honey
I can't...🤣
He's an old medieval shopkeeper
ruclips.net/user/shortszomwM3Xbl7c
😂😂😂
mans accent so strong the youtube subtitles are in dutch lol
Lol
Racist common
lmao
I can't blame the algorithm for getting confused tho.
There is probably a "fast one" that focuses on spectral analysis, and then they use voice to text translation.
Probably the first one failed
haahahahhaha
This man is snorting facts!
why u do him dirty like that
@@hamayun1112 I think he doesn't look at his shit before he flushes it. : >
🤣😭😭
@doesitmatter itdoesntmatter Or maybe I am checking my health if I do so : >
@@Leftyotism tasting it gives you a better assesment. Just a professional tip.
I love how hes a slovenian man speaking english while simultaneously throwing in german and french words xD
That explains why I play and replay and still can't understand some of it.
and the subtitles are all in Dutch.
Euros
That's how we speak, adopt a superior word to emphasize.
Oh sorry, European speaking
When he was on serbian news he spoke a lot of English words
"We don't know for sure, but when we do it will definately be too late"
Fucking brilliant
It's the same argument people use to justify a belief in god, idk how profound it is.
Just push nuclear. Problem solved.
Well except...with Climate Change we DO know for sure.
@Martin Patrick Anyone who thinks nuking their percieved political/idealogical enemies is in any way a good idea is a fucking idiot.
@Martin Patrick If 99% of us have to die to make you happy then please at least do it in an environmentally friendly way
Got to love Zizek's take on "Antigone". Sophocles wrote Antigone around 441 BC. In the story King Creon disallows Antigone's brothers burial, because he had lead a foreign army. Antigone buries her brother anyway. She is sentenced to death but hangs herself before the execution. Or - as Zizek puts it: Antigone says: "Fuck off I want to bury my brother", and Creon says "yes but look at the political situation and so on and so on". I love it. So 2021.
Yes, but actually, it's a lacanian intepretation that Zizek is very familiar with, as he works also with psychoanalytical theory. Jacques Lacan has lectured about Antigone (Seminar 7) and how she represents the desire in its purest form, above common laws, beyond good and bad or understanding. The decision to bury her brother is an ethical one, and in his understanding, beyond morality. Lacan uses Antigone to make a point about the ethics of psychoanalysis which is about the subject and its singularity.
I studied Antigone in Verona, years ago, interesting story.
reminds the history of the world in 20 min video.
After your comment the "don't look up" fin came out 🙂
Zizek actually has written his own version of Antigone
I just learned of this man’s existence in the last week, and he’s immediately one of my all-time favorite humans.
from a safe distance
he'd think you were a moron for finding someone through youtube that becomes your favorite human
@@shakhster8382 Fair point.
@@seanmcdonald4686 hahaha not very often a RUclips comment ends in ‘fair point’.
Fair play Sean.
@@shakhster8382And he'd think you're a moron for taking the comment literally and not just a hyperbolic way to say he enjoys what he says
all the people in the audience that never read Antigone: "What the hell is this guy talking about burying his Crayon?"
that debate was in Austria where a lot of people still have Latin in high school and either there or even in German Literature class you will definitively learn about Greek Literature like Antigone
@@schnitzelsemmel yeah and even if you don't study Latin and Greek, antigone is still studied in Italian high schools.
Hahaha. A shame, really. Has the West fallen so far back behind?
He’s mastered so much, except the letter “S”
Im crying 😂
😂😂
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! excellent!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
SZSCH
When he talks he slurps so much that RUclips`s automatic subtitle algorithm thinks that he is speaking Dutch.
The subtitels are terrible lol
How is this possible......
🌍
I thought it was a joke...😶
Except for his 's' and 'l' pronunciation, he actually sounds pretty similar to people from Antwerp where I'm from. My accent doesn't differ very much from his
He could also come from French Auvergne
Do the Dutch do a lot of slurping?
As an autistic person I can say he doesn't misrepresent us. There are other autistic people too, so don't take my word to be holy, but I personally found his description very accurate.
But i don't find zizek "autistic" , yeah , he have his ticks and those stuff, Is just representing different people , just like me and just like you , who can use the perfect words to explain but sill have the sense of need to express yourself what you think.
step in that way.
hahahaha yeah sure
yeah me too! I'm oftenly read as 'arrogant' when i'm just trying to be informative 'straight to the facts'. So I understand how greta must feel and i like zizek perspective
@@salvadorkda5758 he's not. Greta is.
@@salvadorkda5758 he’s talking about Greta, the messenger of certainly the Rothschilds, and many more ‘to big to fail’ families and people, like Gates, who all contribute to the media.
How do you think she got across the Atlantic Ocean in a ‘carbon neutral boat’. Then have the worlds media report on her setting off? (Is that going to influence the way they write about certain subjects, especially the people and their ‘charitable work’?
It’s the start of the ‘narrative’, journalists aren’t like detectives anymore, they’re >99% writers, more artistic, so prefer the ‘narrative’ genre of writing their journalism. Unlike the facts and evidence based approach. That’s why they have, and are becoming more left wing. They used to be predominantly right wing, but with academia being taken over by the left, this is one example of the consequences.
Excellent opening lip smacks, sniffs, and so on and so on
These are overused but this one is gold
Roared laughing
And you know
I agree with everything he said but boy how I wish he would leave his nose alone for a minute.
ticks all the boxes
He’s literally spitting facts 💦
What facts were spitted?
@@daniarocio5001 Becusae Im not a sheep nor a monkey on the monkey mountain. Im a free , intelligent , free-thinking person that doesnt like BS nor anything that blindly follows anything.
@@RightfootWestHam satire?
@@ayushgurung9564 Dont understand your question, noone does.
@@daniarocio5001 What is the purpose of that question?
"I literally quoted him as satire lmao you are not what you said, you are just so scared of being considered "slow" you feel the need to prove yourself wherever you are. "
No you didnt: here is what you said: "how dare you, and so on"
Just stop contacting me with this level of idiocy, thank you.
He missed a spot on his face.
Brooooo 🤧😵
The main problem is that politicians rarely take a stand on anything if it threatens the popularity of their political party or their own reelection. And if they do take a stand, they won't get many donors the next time around.
The solution is public funding for political parties, dependent on membership numbers, which rewards grassroots popularity at the expense of elite rich donors
@@samjoshi1812
Democracy is built in a way to make controversial politics impossible even if the controversial politics are needed
The auto generated subtitles perfectly capture his speech
Verleugnung (Denial in English) : Refusal to accept reality, thus blocking external events from awareness. Anna Freud postulated that an individual ignores the perception of real sensory impressions and their meaning thus the threatening pieces of external reality can be recognized as non-existent.
where can i read more on this work from Anna?
That statement is so vague, I don't think you can even describe it beyond your own subjective opinions.
@@atthecore4560 too smart for YT :(
@@atthecore4560 it conveniently glosses over the fact the correlation between external events and how they are percieved don't constitute a unified reality. We don't see the world in the same way and we never will.
@@puk4763 Good news everyone!
I fulfilled my purpose in existence lol
Zizek is providing baseball signals in perpetuity
Im german and we had this guy in our English test last friday (im in year 11) and they played some Audio Clip where He Talks about ideology and we had to translate to german. I dont have a clue how they find All these Audio clips in English where you dont under stand anything and i just got myself a F
Achso na dann
Even for native speakers he is not easy to understand - still love to listen to him even if I disagree
This guy’s a propagandist and hates hard workers. F with honor yo
@@Yabroproductions33 😂😂😂
@@Yabroproductions33 1. Literaly everything is propaganda, you can only decide whos propaganda to Listen to. 2.its the exact opposite, he is on the side of the Hard workers and He hates the leeches that let other people work for them or make money of Basic necessity like housing, Water etc
Zizek is a global treasure
Just as the global warming. Found by wannabe scientists to play climate games with federal funding.
you could say.. internationalist treasure
@@aiaramchek2077 The global federation?
Disagree. What makes him that?
To other leftist slobs on the lower end of the desirability hierarchy.
i dont think any of the other speakers wanted to hold the mic after him
Ouch! 🔥
H i l a r i o u s
I would... but Im not a speaker.
You know its gonna be a good one then the first three seconds are sniffing and snorting already XXDDD
Hallo! I wanted to ask what conference is that clip taken from because I wanted to see all the members opinions and the whole discussion. Thank you!
If i can recall correctly, the name of this talk was "Disorder under Heaven" and it took place in Vienna. But you'll find that Slavoj talked most of the time, as always. :)
@@datnguyenthe8300 *members' opinions, to correct my previous comment and thank you for your response!:)
Hallo, da bin ich
his professional career began as a stamp humidifier
I hate you for making me laugh
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
... a position he held a short two days before getting fired for inaccurate aiming
I laughed ugly
I often wondered what would Žižek do if one tied his hands behind his back in some debate.
I take him on in a debate. Not a hard debate what so ever since he only talks emotions and feelings ,not facts.
Wrong. You're just A much in your feelings and emotions as you say he is.
@@RightfootWestHam Zizek would wreck your ass
@@RightfootWestHam He talks about life
And that he hates it
Shoulder nose snarf
I wish they had a sign person next to him.
He doesnt need one, he does it himself.
@@reunited258 what does the part mean when he touches his nose
seriously. I can hear and the auto-captioning is lousy. This needs to be more accessible. The youtuber could fix the autocaption and youtube needs to allow channels to crowd source captioning again.
They did that once, he drowned.
Would love to meet this man but no way in hell would shake his hand.
Zizek would be a super spreader for sure.
Oh how original, I haven't seen that joke about him a thousand times before.
@@GordonSeal ye
@@GordonSeal But is he right?
Dig the splash zone
Consumerist egotist?
I appreciate your content but I think it would be better if you included the name of the interview/conference and the year it was recorded in every description.
Don’t even attempt subtitles
and so on and so on hahahaha
Dutch!!!
Holy shit lol
im so proud he is from my country i wish to meet him one day
Never meet your heroes.
.
@@ivanadrobnjakovic8558 because he is my countryman am i not allowed to?
@Mephisto von Döbelstein of course
@@Potatoarmy12 In general, people can not be proud of something if they didn't participate in that.
That is only an illusion. Just because we are identifying ourselves with something it doesn't mean we can be proud of that. I mean, ofc. you can - that is your feeling. But there is no sense there. Another illusion is hidden in there. We are proud of good things our countrymen do but we have no responsibility in evil things that our countrymen do. And I think that is dangerous.
I love listening to him but it's so hard to follow 🤣
You just gotta pay a bit of attention and so on and so forth.
He is very fluent...
It seemed to me that he was really only making one simple point but he continue to reiterate and retrace it and beat it into the ground.
I can't
Its because he is sharing his feelings and opinion, like a dogmatic woman.
What is the description describing?
I like Zizek's point about dogmatism, it highlights a weakness of our ultra democratic liberal societies that is basically never addressed, the inefficiency and potential dishonesty of leaving every single subject up for debate, because it is the open-minded and democratic thing to do in principle. It opens us up to getting bogged down in inefficient debates or lose motivation at actually achieving a goal we may have already agreed upon (what he means by the "mais comment"). Even worse, it gives the opportunity to certain people to purposefully bog down the conversation into endless debate ensuring actions are never taken, which is most evident in the lobbying around climate action.
This is also why to me centrism is the most infuriating political ideology, especially this "critical thinker" brand of centrism like Destiny that is absolutely obsessed with over-nuancing and debating every single topic never arriving at any definite conclusion that could be acted upon, in effect ensuring that the status-quo or the current trajectory of change is unopposed.
There's no clear answer whether it's better to be dogmatic or open-minded, because too open-minded and you can be manipulated or placated into endless debate and inaction, while too dogmatic and you can lose the ability to distinguish right from wrong and become driven only by dogma. But one thing's for sure, our inability to deal with issues like climate change is a clear sign that we are perhaps too open-minded and not dogmatic enough in our approach.
our populous is too uneducated for real democracy because of the stronghold authoritarianism has on our systems of education. make people smarter & less focused on surviving and we can have a real democracy instead of an authoritarian capitalistic hellscape where everyone’s so neurotic and traumatized that they can’t actually consume politics or participate in politics without it being for the purpose enacting meaningless vengeance on out-groups. we’re uncivilized and it’s by design. the fact that liberals can’t get shit passed is not a bug in the system, it’s a feature. it’s not going anywhere. the DNC is not in the business of truth telling or sticking up for the truth. politics is a game to them.
open-mindedness doesn’t mean being uneducated, unopinionated and easily manipulated. it’s ideally the opposite. being “dogmatic” and being “open minded” aren’t antonyms. there are absolute truths in politics. being “dogmatic” is only an issue when you’re wrong or your ideas are unproven. ie religious. it’s not an issue when you’re educated in social sciences and politics.
no, you don’t have to rule with an iron fist nor hurt anybody or enforce opinions by law if you’re “dogmatic”, because dogmatic people can also be extremely open minded. empathy doesn’t mean sacrificing your values, if you’re a well balanced human. you’ve created a false dichotomy.
reducing people down to a science without losing their humanity requires a lot more effort than you put into this comment!!
I love how everything about his way of speaking is so unappealing but you are still hanging on his lips because it's just phenomanal content wise.
I also like this movement, Fridays and so on.
Doctor: you can't touch your face constantly like that it might cause your life.
Zizek: ok, can I touch somebody's face near me then?
I totally agree, certain situations do require a dogmatic approach of no negotiation or committment.
I agree but how do you fit any of that dogmatism into western democratic society?
How do you spell that word Freud used?
not a german but i think its verleugnung
A German and yeah that's how you spell it
That just denial.
Zizek uses too much oxygen and his mike is not sufficiently energy efficient.
The subtitles are amazing!
He makes me itchy just be looking at him...
he scratches your itch
Zizek: sniff sniff
Greta: how dare you?! 😭
in our current global, capitalistic consumerism we have effectively numbed a great deal of the public by simply saying 'here, you can spend a bit more and pretend you have made a difference'. its moral licensing at work.
Profitable, too.
What’s the Freudian term he refers to? I can’t distinguish it to type it out and further read. Said it stands for “I know, but...”
A question for Slovenians. Is Slavoj's way to pronounce the letter "S" the correct way in your language?
I don't know, I'm Brazilian.
of course not :D
@@gw8813 this reply is so underrated
I think it's just a speech impediment, honestly. I know Slovenians but they don't speak like him at all.
How did manage to get his first job imagine His inteview!!
Explains the homeless vibe.
If you watch his older videos from the 1990s, he comes across as far more "normal," with far fewer tics and sniffling. Whatever his problem is, it appears to be worsening with age.
Most of these neomarxists have never worked an actual job in their lives..
@@matthewmichealattard7602 A simple Google search would disprove your absurd ignorance.
I get that she is supposed to demand answers and not supply them, but there is another great Zizek video "Think, don't act." Where he talks about how people often want revolutions but don't think what should happen after, I feel like the climate movement has lost a lot of steam and people have gone back to not caring and most countries arent doing anything really and the ones who are just do the bare minimum, I feel like the demand solutions instead of action allowed politicans to go "We'll look into" and not following up
yeah but what actions? what can a country do that will make a considerable contribution without killing have its population
The problem here is very simple: When there are 3 countries, that create over 50% of the CO2 emissions, others can’t do too much, that would change the game. So especially those (China, US and India) have to work harder. But there is also a lot of different ecological disaster, like water pollution in Africa r the rain forest burning in Brazil, that add to the problem. All in all I would say, that nothing can be done anymore. We have to adapt, because humans don’t change. The need for more will be always greater, than common sense. Wich interestingly isn’t that common.
@@retardinho5048 i would quickly suggest a focus to local, sustainable production. it would make us a lot more responsible for what we produce and would take power away from china and india in their role in the global economy. though I also realise the reason china is the factory of the world, people want cheap shit and don't want to pay their workers a living wage because its soo much cheaper to exploit a Chinese worker overseas where the consumer doesn't have to think about it all that much.
@@retardinho5048 That is definitely part of the problem. There are other aspects to it of cource, but this is an important one. We will probably not be able to prevent anything in the short term, mainly becouse other countries are too poor to give a shit, and also becouse science is difficult and the most efficiënt solutions need time to be discovered. We would however be able to make a difference in the long term @tuyenero tuyenero . There have been several great researches that suggested it would be best to invest in: getting poor countries developed asap, decreasing child malnutrition, things like that. Also investing in new tochnologies (like actual good nuclear power plants or cheaper renewable energy) would be very important. Getting more people out of poverty to be able to care more, and to have more brainpower availible to help with research should be the main concerns.
This approach does in fact also constitute having to "adapt", but only in the short term
The video has Dutch (auto generated) subtitles.
0:55 yes, but that doesn't mean not being domatic, depending on the situation- things stay the same if they don't change
Zizek is the only one i know who tosses in random deutsche Wörter
Are you sicher?
@@davidwuhrer6704 can you think about jemand other?
@@thestruggler776 Would not be difficult, mine Herr.
well said, well said.
What was well said? Even an child can express feelings and emotionbased opinions. Very few people deem what they say to be "weill said"
Spit literally is flying through my phone. Couldn't believe it.
Great points, incidentally can you please come speak in California so we can end the drought?
😂😂💀
I thought I would use the subtitles to help me track what in the hell he is saying.
Oy! What a mistake.
From what I observe, she's become a meme for most on the internet, climate change activists are so easy to hate for some reason, but I guess that's the martyrdom they accept for a modicum of change.
@Hugh Mungus yea but aren't we all?
There are lots of things worthy of critique which we've grown dependant on.
When they come across like condescending assholes, I totally get you, but I simultaneously don't think activism is useless.
Sadly too many people virtue signal without making an actual contribution, so perhaps there's only so much being polite and passive can do.
@Hugh Mungus if only the face of climate change activism are people like Alex Honnold, Killian Jornet, and Emelie Forsberg. People who made a major part of their lives playing in the mountains and wild open spaces and have achieved incredible feats of human skill and technique. Instead they chose Greta. 🤣🤣🤣
@Hugh Mungus The names listed above disqualify the moronic generalisation you make when you say 'climate change activists are self righteous hypocrites'
@Hugh Mungus here here
More middle class nonsense yet again, martyrdom don't make me laugh
His accent is so strong that youtube gives you dutch translation :D
Link to the original ???
What he is saying in 1 sentence; Greta speaks her mind directly without falling for the political correctness and that's what we need more off in this world.
"her mind" = #Scriptgirl (Margaret Klein Salamon, "Leading the public into emergency mode", a 2016 framing manual for climate hysteria: "House on fire" phrase etc)
And a conservative know it all speaks.
Still, what she is saying is not politically correct. That she or someone else wrote for her doesn't matter.
@@tdb517does that mean that its wrong
he makes a very good point with a very bad example someone who's a straight shooter is good but greta in an uninformed idiot that lets emotions do the talking we have enough emotional idiots speaking their mind.
How seriously you take it might depend on where you live ... I live in Australia.
@Joseph Norm wild fires are very common
@Gaynor Lewis no, it depends on the money you have, the more money you have the more time you can afford to not worry for basic things and the more you would worry for (for example) climate change, ask a taxi driver in mexico city (a lot of them have college degree, some are even doctors) ask them if they are worried for climate change when they are strugling to take food to their families.
It's kinda funny that when he wanted to say torture he first thought of the german word Folter.
On the day subtitle AI can manage Zizek, it can be considered sentient.
I need English subtitles! Pleease!! It’s not so difficult
How dare you, and so on so on so on .
I have Dutch subtitles 🤣
incredible genius i'm proud that we were born in the same country....
What did he say that you think was genius? All I heard were feeligns and emotionbased opinions... anyone can have those.
I think his genius is in his nose; that's why he keeps rubbing it, and rubbing, and rubbing, ad infinitum.
@@RightfootWestHam what..? he was just sharing his view on Greta Thunberg, would've you preferred he veneered what he said as some sort of objective truth rather than the open discussion it obviously is? you seem like the type who gets easily decieved by misleading graphs. it's so ironic by being so concerned about "facts" and "objectivity" you end up shutting down all avenues for possible critical thought. this obsession with logos that certain people have is honestly frightening.
@@flamo2666 "what..? " Noone in the history of mankind understand this question.
What do you think is the purpose of a question?
@@RightfootWestHam great way to completely avoid everything I said by fixating on the smallest detail imaginable. surely you're not socially inept enough to not understand that "what..?" is just a phrase to show confusion.
Which sniffs do you prefer? The sniffs at the start, the middle or the end?
I wanted to steal her dreams, but there were too many people waiting in line.
Zizek is the most terrifying philosopher I've ever heard of.
?? What u scared of mate? The slobber or the truth?
I am not nearly educated enough to even understand a third of what he is saying most of the time but you really get the feeling that he’s the joker of modern philosophy and I’m all here for it. All I can really say is fuck these cringelord moralists and the modern left is far too weak and seems unconcerned with backing up their values with sound reasoning.
Commentator. Not philosopher
I think he had a point. It went in a lot of different directions and I eventually lost it completely but it was there.
I think he actually had a pretty clear point this one time.
FFF acts as a dogmatic young movement with a clear simple message of acknowledging the urgency and reality of climate change beyond the political mainstream which often highlights the complexity of the issue and gets a bit too comfortable hiding behind the complexity so much that it became a common convention to take a measured and moderate approach which balances ecology, economy and social welfare which isn’t wrong but has started to ignore the urgency.
Greta is also on the autism spectrum and autistic people are known for straight talking and not caring too much about social conventions and etiquettes.
His point now is that she has integrated that into the messaging of FFF and uses it to give a wake up call
Your point is a common criticism, and understandably so against him but this probably isn’t the right vide to bring it up in because this was very clear and straightforward if you just listen
He kept the momentum from the start and never changed direction.
Listening to this with bone conduction headphones and I can feel the sniff to the very core
Video starts at 0:04
I'm autistic but I'm not dogmatic. At least not in my thinking. My thinking is very nuanced. My behavior however is very dogmatic. I cannot be nuanced in how I behave in public, I have to keep categorically silent or else I will feel compelled to say inappropriate things.
yeah sure
I dont think he meant dogmatic in any negative meaning of the word. The current political climate is that of ""free market place of ideas"" which doesnt want a discussion to settle, beacause if it still goes on, we don't have to do anything about the issues, "the experts are still debating it".
I understood the dogmaticism as -- there are some things that arent up to debate anymore and we should be very clear about it.
@@fyviane great thoughts!
The ban on torture is absolute. There are no exceptions, no special provisions, no contingencies, no way about it. Torture is always and under all circumstances a crime against humanity.
"We tortured some folks." - some American president publicly admitting to being a war criminal in an attempt to normalise violating international law, incidentally painting his entire country as a legitimate military target
finally some sense in the whole greta conversion.
What made sense about this Yue? Because all I heard were feelings and emotionbased opinions about another person and a situation. No facts. So please try to explain to me what made sense here.
I have a little trouble understanding what he's talking about. And it has nothing to do with the language, he speaks very incoherently as if he is just throwing in themes without them having anything to do with each other.
*playback begins*
*SHNIFF huff* "Ah..."
yep it's Zizek
The first 3 seconds of this video are tremendous
True beatboxing
"Precisely"
Proceed to explain things "imprecisely"
I wish my English was good enough that I can understand him the first time
And so on and so on................
I have panic attacks trying to watch this man 😂
how about listen and try to think doing it?
i like his thought process because he's very original in his ideas, he's not some hive mind, he has his own unique take even on present matters
A hive mind is any mind expressed by the collective actions of individuals. Examples are ant colonies, bee colonies, and human languages.
I'm not touching that mic.. ever!
the auto generated subtitles think he's speaking dutch
Somebody should make a meme about zizek and the people who constantly talk about his sniffing with the "missed the point" Template
It must be uncomfortable, they should give him a new shirt.
He has nervous ticks it kind of like a necessity for him to touch his nose and shirt while speaking or else he can’t be truly comfortable
Someone hand Zizek a Benadryl? Hearing him speak, I wish I had a raincoat.
His surname name was Šišek... until they heard him pronounce it.
No one is gonna come to the table with that kind of attitude, the kind where you must shutdown any and all contesting arguments to global ecology. You can't make the problem so urgent either to low income people and below when their reality/circumstances takes precedent over the affairs of the globe.
Well said.✌
That's why we need to end world poverty before we save the environment. We're a species, it's more ethical to take care of ourselves first before the planet, that's the conundrum we find ourselves in.
Thank you! It’s not that all people who don’t agree with her are “climate deniers”, they’re just not “climate alarmists”
@@hammy1470 people in the Agriculture sector are already losing their jobs, because of climate change. What about them?
@@shroobify just like Edwin said in the post their reality is that they will need jobs, money and food. They will do whatever to provide for their family before they start to worry about the lack of insect biodiversity. I could mention Maslow's hierarchy of needs here. You need a stable base before you can begin to make the world a better place for generations to come.
Finally a person with a Nuanced opinion. It feels like fresh air.
It is nuanced and subtle, but at the core he is arguing for liberal fascism, and I'm not mad about it. Listen again to the part where he says we shouldn't have to endlessly debate rape. That's the core of his argument. Check out Richard Rorty's liberal ironism. There are limits to democracy, and sometimes you just have to bring the hammer down on stuff that you know is wrong, and shouldn't require an explanation or debate about why it's wrong.
@@jeffb587 You are one scary S.O.B. Hopefully, nut cases like you are kept out of office.
Maybe the advancing glacier is responding to the flow of heat and growing away from main heat output “pipe.” Still, its a good idea to do as little to the earth to generate energy. The work is dangerous and the jobs are romanticized. The need for money has obscured our need for a kind of insurance. If someone might die for me to heat my room, is this a reasonable equation? Solar energy, for example, is a kind of insurance, and insurance is a good idea. Plus, “green” or green energy takes less time and less work to produce. I don’t like typical energy production because I think it invisibly manifests economic control and rigid class structuring. You have a guaranteed work force, which on one hand is good because people will have work, but on the other hand not so good because people might end up trapped and unable to recognize they can do more. Some people will of course be as happy as a clam, but I think again, this may have more to do with being able to provide for themselves rather than job fulfillment. No one is truly totally fulfilled, but dirty work and falsified notions of how happy these people might be are expounded upon by people only on the receiving end. Plus, with reliance on one source there is a restriction on choice. Most people are forced to use typical energy sources. Why does it have to be that way? Furthermore, even if there was no such thing as global warming, why rip through the earth if we don’t have to do it? Some people say solar panels are polluting because they take up land space, but this also has to do with the need to change the designs. Miles and miles of desert can easily become major sites of solar power, and they would be nowhere within view unless you were to fly over them. Imagine if Denver was flooded with solar panels all along route 70 for example. People should have the right to exercise choice without fear of recrimination: this pairs well with a democratic country. The issue with green energy is it has become mired with politics. It’s a good idea that we have energy insurance, that we create work that is unlike jobs such as these that can be dangerous and demoralizing, to leave the earth alone if we don’t have to cut into it, and to move on from debates as to whether not global warming is real to the fact that in the country we are paying for the hazards this energy sources carries in our bills. You may have to pay more so someone else can have running water, why? Why not save money, work cleaner and safer with less exhausted people, and at the very least “rotating the crops.”
Don't turn on the subtitles😁
Hi guys,
I secretly admire Jordan B. Peterson.
Sniff cough sniff cough - strong opener
i like that next to the video is a recommended video called: How to speak.
Žižek 👍👏
Post 2016 zizek frustrates me sometimes. He himself put it best in one of his most famous public musings: the Greta thunberg ecological dogmatism is ‘V for vendetta part 1’. But what does V for vendetta part 2 look like? Importing more resources from Africa and manufacturing from China to make 2-3 year life span electric vehicles, inefficient wind turbines and habitat destroying dams? Renewable energy/ sustainability policies that are not tailored to a countries geographical situation resulting in things like increased food importation and deforestation for mono agriculture farming and pesticides? Soy in our animal food replacements and plastic in our leather and fur replacements, thus feeding into fast food and fast fashion trends? The list goes on.
And when you pragmatically suggest effective renewable energies like nuclear, that thunberg ‘green future at all costs’ dogmatism goes out the window.
Big capital again deciding what our ‘green future’ looks like. Pure ideology if you ask me
And the middle class Martyrs are the useful idiots. There was a time when you’d own a petrol vehicle for 10-15 years and sometimes longer. Now we get our cars on credit and go through them every several years. What’s that about !?
@@matchoftheday3 Money.
There is no part 2. We'll all be dead in 30 years.
Wind turbines are not inefficient. Nuclear is not renewable.
The latest IPCC report calculates that while nuclear would be an improvement over coal and gas in terms of CO2, ignoring the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, it is also the most expensive by far, exceeded only slightly by bioelectricity which is not being used right now.
Greta Thunberg herself is in favour of nuclear energy, by the way, so you can "pragmatically" tear down your strawman right away.
The cheapest source of electricity is solar power. It is being adopted at an exponential rate by private households. It saves money. The ROI is 3 years.
But it won't make a noticeable dent into the emission of CO2. During the lockdowns during the pandemics, CO2 emissions were reduced by 11%, NOx by 40%, mit because of the reduced commuting and air traffic, but because of closed factories.
What can you do to shut down factories?
What can you do for waste water treatment?
What can you do to change city planning and zoning to reduce dependence on individual transport?
What can you do to prevent overfishing, bee colony collapse, and oil spills?
With all due respect these are simply insufficient reasons to stop a green pivoting of the economy given the long term weigh off, and nuclear is fully compatible with a green revolution.
But also this is quite exaggerated: China and India's manufacturing of solar panels has driven the price of solar way down to affordable levels, and you only really need a few large hydroelectric dams to provide a large share if not all of a country's needed electricity. Wind is not catastrophically short term, but even if it were, it is far superior to the carbon costs of LNG and coal. Nuclear is great, but also takes time to build and phase in and produces some pretty gnarly waste so is unlikely to ever be a dominant power source
Hydroelectric dams are breathtakingly destructive to the natural environment including river life. Solar panels leak toxic substances into the soil overtime. LNG is not an efficient way of importing gas; if it’s imported through pipelines it’s far cheaper and subsequently outperforms wind energy for cost effectiveness. Electric vehicles require high volumes of lithium to produce batteries with a shelf life of less than 8 years. Plant based mono agriculture is destroying the fertility of our soil. Importing more manufactured products from China for the sake of under performing wind farms feels like exactly the thing that got us in this mess in the first place. Why not ask China to produce spare parts for vehicles we’ve already made so they are maintained instead of scrapped for millions of new electric vehicles.
Every current technological proposition made by the green movement feels utopian and in reality totally suicidal for our societies. It’s a movement running off pure hubris right now, and all the green suggestions appear to have a worse long term impact on us and our environment than current oil and gas based energy sources. We really have to tread carefully on this subject, i see a boondoggle on the horizon with totalitarian political consequences and mugabe style land grabs. Never a good sign
He calls it dogmatism. I would rather call it fundamentalism. Absolutizing one aspect at cost of all the others. Democratic states are either based on finding compromises between different aspects of life or they aren't democratic. I sense a good portion of his Leninist heritage in this statement.
@@anonymousSWETo assume climate change would "make the world inhabitable for everyone" seems to me a massive overstatement. Climate change might have unforeseeable consequences, but humans and many animals most probably can adapt to them.
But with your fear of eternal extinction you demonstrate that fundamentalism is exactly the right category for this kind of mindset. For Greta and their followers the fight against climate change is a religion. It is the fight between good and evil. People are divided into believers and deniers. And woe to the deniers! It were better for them that a millstone were hanged about their necks, and that they were drowned in the depth of the sea.
@@anonymousSWE I was refering to the "dogmatic/fundamentalist" environmental movement (Fridays for future or extinction rebellion for example).
And to say that farreaching predictions about the future impact of climate change are facts appears to me highly dubious. A scientific fact is that predictions get increasingly imprecise the further the anticipated future lies ahead.
When it comes to climate change there is rather a multitude of very different scenarios and it is not evident that the worst case scenario will occur - at least I and my offspring hope that.
@@matthiasbaum4850 The hope you have for a better future does not correspond to there being a better future. Predictions of how the issue of climate change will progress are based on the progress of the issue of climate change in the present - which is trending in the direction of abysmal.
It doesn't matter what you would call it. Dogmatism is the correct technical term. Fanaticism is not the correct technical term.
Also, Zizek is not and never has been a Leninist.
Man oh man!!!! This is refreshing!!!
The guy who spits and talks at the same time