Makes me think of so many things and this is the problem to me. The expansiveness of violence in all it's flavors. This Baskin Robbins of violence served up ""just to keep things going" and so on and so on... Seriously tho, it kinda makes me think of chapter 11 the 9 situations in Sun Tzu Art of War. They're all interesting but I keep my optimism focused on 8, difficult ground. Basically, try to master myself n do my compassionate best letting nobody mistake me for prey. Cuz there's so much interplay with violence, what kind of violence, n to what extent that there's no easy way. I'm no acedemic. I'm just an average blue collar person but I do try n stay interested n enjoy Zizek quite a bit. I really like his almost diy approach. In a way he reminds me of the writer Don Delillo. Basically I feel he is trying to soften us up n help get us involved with the world we forget we share and so on and so on
i wish people in these comments (and all over the internet) would stop mocking Zizek's mannerisms and tics and instead, start listening to more of his imaginative and insightful political analysis.
I can't help but smile at how Cathy tries to corner him on controversial views but Slavoj just blasts off on a philosophical meta-analysis of the question or a political tangent. His passion and lateral thinking just totally dominates the whole interview 😝
It's so annoying to hear her agenda latent questions and rarely ever a thoughtful understanding of what he's saying before she retorts with her pearls clutched about trying to be provocative when making a subtle but deep point.
I have seen him in a total of 5 shirts. I think it's all he owns, not kidding, 5 shirts, 2 pants, maybe 2 or 3 jackets, a large shelf overflowing with books, two couches, a streetgrab-coffeetable, a stalin poster for comedic value, a tv and an old desktop computer. That is as far as I've seen legit all he owns. He has a toilet and shower but I think that belongs to his landlord. I hope he takes all his money some day, buys a boat and rides off in the sunset.
He was well prepared for camera and his polo shirt was ideally clean and fresh in the beginning of the interview, his spitting technique caused spots, not grease.
The shirt is not greasy! It looks like it but if you pay attention to what appears to be grease, you'll see that the spots move and expand. *It is sweat!* And you are not being nice or helpful.
All crazy people are ahead of their time. I don’t know if it’s karmic for them or the people their with... bless Cathy, she knows not what she knows not.
He IS crazy... I mean, he's the good kind of crazy, maybe (I say `maybe` because I'm just starting to get into him, so I don't know what my stance is yet) even the kind of crazy the world needs, but c'mon, he IS crazy XD
I hate how the interviewer gets hung up on these minor superficial things like how something he has said may be offensive to some people. Why focus on his provocative style and not on his ideas?
I first thought it might serve the purpose of giving Zizek a chance to clarify some points and clear some misunderstandings, but after 10 minutes I was convinced she was just daft.
I think it's fair journalism. If somebody's said something unusual, it's worth asking questions about it. She doesn't try to put words in his mouth or talk over him like some pundits might try.
People say that every cynical person is actually a disappointed idealist. Slavoj talks alot about hopelessness but when he talks you can notice he's a very hopeful person. It's always a treat to hear him talk.
I think she did her job well, I think challenging slavoj to further elucidate some of his perceived contentious points actually showed his genius behind the character well to a more average watcher.
Actually peterson in another interview says (from what i could gather) that "chaos" isn't inherently bad or that order isn't necessarily "good" but that the balance of both is much needed
"If you’re too well accepted, you’re not doing a good job, you should always be ahead of your time. When your critics and readers agree with you, you're not quite there." - Charles Bukowski.
@ Ying and Yang my friend, keep everything in balance. Nothing wrong with mixing ideologies for better ideas, Capitalism has been a good little catalyst in growth and now it's time to put a leash on it with some socialist ideas?
@@LykABoss007 Mixed economies in the Nordic Countries have the most happy and well educated people on the planet. Highest HDI levels, lowest corruption levels, highest rates of societal trust (police, emergency services, health and education services). On the other hand superpowers like US with overheated and polarized markets feel the need to exist since superpower spheres of interest still continue to exist. They still need overheated and polarized consumerist markets to arm massive arsenals that assert their legitimacy. The least the rest of the West can do is assert the new European sociocultural legacy and solidarity (consumer protection, standardization politics, development aid). If EU can't get out of its power compromised limbo and unite in foreign policy that means. China, Russia and to some extent US are all working for the break-up of EU (all the more reason for the EU for *not to breakup* ).
@@kungolaf4499 Yes, but you forget to take into consideration the long history and culture of these countries which if you compare to the US is less violent and discriminatory as well as on a much smaller scale. The EU is a corrupt organisation behind closed doors, we all know it.
@Chester mandvol Treatment stratified according to need seems preferable to treatment stratified according to ability to pay, no? Especially with something like healthcare, I would think.
Oh yes, that's so true. The reason is that, when there's a change, violence happens in the central place, it happens to the middle class. But when maintaining the status quo, it is the frontier, the dregs of society who experience it.
@@theodentherenewed4785 if by "middle class" you mean north america and eu and the "the dregs" you mean african and asian people then yea sure just cuz you dont see child labor in asia doesnt mean it doesnt exist
zizek is literally that one dude at the pub that for some reasone knows everything about everthing and you talk with about the reason of mass concumption of meat for 4 hours and dont know why.... you just have to love the dude
That's the problem with these types of people. Granted, in Cathy's case it's sort of her job to sort of trigger the interviewee, but she's just looking at stuff to be "outraged" or to correct people who know far more about the subject than she does.
I was hating on her but now I started to understand her, she's not that bad, she makes her guest defend his positions which is a good thing, because we'll see her guest's arguments and see if his/her opinions are worth anything
@@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065 yeah exactly the arguments needs to be confronted so that he can argue in favour of it. I applaud her for trying to pick apart what he's saying as it makes him prove his points in a clearer way.
@@brockcharz2104 she asks him about something and he answers, sometimes she misunderstands obviously because she isn't zizek, but she chose the parts she found interesting or need explanation and asked zizek about them, nothing is dishonest about that, zizek has the time and the leisure to reply and the audience have the opportunity to listen.
I think hes the most pure and ultimate optimist. He clearly cares a lot about these topics and through bringing them to light (embracing the hopelessness) he hopes to solve them
@@NinthSettler The whole point of saying this is that we should not put our trust in hope, instead, we must act to constantly change society to meet the needs of these challenges
@Fifes And Clarions I admire her aggressiveness because that brings out the best responses. But since she either lacks the mental agility to keep up with Zizek or because she wants him to "dumb it down" for the audience, the interview stagnates at points.
Imagine interviewing Zizek, he's a self professed madman. Cathy Newman kept a sense of humor and did a fine job - she had her own questions and presented those from the audience. Zizek is creative and interesting, full of twists and turns, digressions.
i love how he takes her more serviously then she takes herself. she tries to provoke him with some simple, dimwitted questions, while he takes the question from her as if she just made some philosophical argument. its great, and she is frustrated beyond believe *haha*. she tried 8 times to lure him into "you offended XY"...i love how he just doesn't acknowledge this...no f*s given ;)
Exactly. That's why you answer the questions seriously, and raise the mirror up to the media. Let them know that it is because of them why ignorance is prevalent. They are the taste makers and gate keepers. Instead of being dismissive like they are to provocateurs, acknowledge their questions and actually answer it fully and unapologetically. Mass media is afraid of intellectuals but if intellectuals get some spotlight, then the people will be able to see that their existential dread isn't isolated.
He answers seriously because he has a respect for language. Even a stupid question is an opportunity for a great philosopher, however annoying it is. He is also respectful of this interviewer, something modern journalists are not trained to be. But why condemn when he got so many great ideas across?
His point about Corbyn and how Labour would split was spot on, reading the reports about how higher-ups within his own party sabotaged their candidates just so he would lose was abhorrent, and they did it to preserve the centrist system which will prevent any major change.
Labour should always remain centre. Not left. Corbyn is proof that taking Labour to the left will be the party's own downfall. The left and the right are all full of corruption and nonsense. Best to be centre and moderate instead of encouraging people with extreme views to influence the majority who are tolerant and moderate.
It will not prevent change, it has made it more violent because now you will have more far-righters in politics. Change will come, at a greater expense. It's like interest in credit, if you don't pay today (have a real social change) you will pay it tomorrow with more costs.
Host: Slavoj, welcome to the studio Zizek (with a dead face): It's an honour for me, thank you Host: That's fantastic this opening is surreal and hilarious.
”If I am gay, I am a man who wants to do it with men” "i understand that. there are bits of your book that i found hard to grasp, but that is clear" ?????
There is something categorically wrong with modern journalism and the media, this presenter makes this point ever so apparent. Keep fighting the good fight Zizek you brilliant human.
Huh? Her conduct was appropriately respectful while remaining skeptical and non-deferential. I have trouble understanding Zizek and was wondering many of the questions that she asked.
Whilst language remains produced industrially - paid for - thinking will not be free, thus, Zizek will fight, and journalism will remain this horrid stupefying force.
Cathy Newman interviewed Jordan Peterson the same way, but I think it is interesting how these two men dealt with her twisting of their words in hugely different ways. Peterson almost seemed to make it a competition where he would demonstrate his rhetorical supremacy over her as a verbal combatant. Zizek seemed to treat her most hostile and probing questions with a sort of dignity and respect. He didn't see her as an adversary. Obviously he didn't score a viral slam dunk on her like Peterson did, but I'm not sure that that is a goal worth aiming for tbh.
Zizek doesn't find confrontation or winning interesting, his goal is always more about getting people to reflect on his idea, that's different kind of intelligence, even his advisory got to admit that they are incapable of stopping him from doing that.
I thought 💭 the same while I was watching, well said! And kudos to Zizek for not falling into sterile arguments with the presenters agenda, and just taking it with humour and moving on to state his points. I’ve never seen anyone taking casually been compared with Hitler, he just didn’t fell for it and moved on to get his points through.
Yesss it was so refreshing! He didn’t get stuck at all. The questions were intentionally annoying at first and he handled them so gracefully that the interview took a very clear and elevated form from both sides. To do so in a secondary language is also remarkable.
I think she was a lot more rude with JP, just out to get him, but he handled her like a pro. Both, Zizek and Peterson a brilliant in their own way even if the don't agree on every subject. They do agree on identity politics though, which is a big issue.
i'd say on the contrary, good trolling on her side. he is being inconsistent and she's revealing it. "i'm not talking about some leninist party [a few minutes later:] the left should be the party of order!" - wtf mate? yes, we need radical change, but you are encouraging _and_ discouraging it at the same time.
@@jan_kisan I think what Žižek means by these statements is that he wants the Left to reinvent itself and form a party system that can combat (in his words) the new Right-wing Chaos. The Left has always been on the side of chaos historically, with their anti-democratic politics, revolutions and anarchism. Even Leninism and Stalinism were filled with order/chaos paradoxes (for example: forcing a revolution at the expense of the proletariat , creating resolute laws filled with nonsense rules, eradicating class-based society while at same time creating a new elite e.g. the Party, etc.) Žižek sees in Trumpism and Right-wing populism the same kind of chaos that the left held during most of the last century. His so called 'Left Order' should therefore not be seen as classical Leninism, but more as new form of socialism that we have not come up with yet. Atleast that's how I see it.
@@MisterDutch93 well, maybe. but i don't see how we are to beat the capitalist state without strict organisation such as a Leninist party. we'll see where Žižek is leading, if anywhere. of course, we must address the past mistakes, but seems to me many of those ”new leftists” don't even try to differentiate what was a mistake and what actually wasn't.
This host is totally out of her depth, but thankfully she gave him lots of room to talk and explain his ideas, even though her comments almost always showed she wasn't following
I think journalists in general have been out of their depth for a very long time, with notable exceptions like John Pilger and of course George Orwell. If journalists had even a basic grasp of philosophy then it would be possible to engage people like Žižek in a searching manner and provide the intellectual bridge needed to connect them to the majority of the population. Instead we have been subjected to many years of echolalia and palilalia and the capacity for critical analysis appears to be in very short supply, which is why UK and USA are leading the charge back to the middle ages.
Zizek's replied to that, pointing out that Gray made so many errors it was pretty clear he hadn't read the book he was supposed to be reviewing. You can find the response easily online. But beyond that anyway your comment's nonsense. The missing word is 'some'. And some other professional philosophers - Badiou, Agamben, Balibar and many more - take him very seriously indeed.
Cathy Newman proves in this video that intelligence and eloquence are not the same thing. Much modern journalism even from our serious journalists is incredibly superficial.
Reminds me of the interview with Chomsky and Evan Davis on Newsnight recently. The simple-mindedness of journalists and their adherence to the status quo becomes incredibly apparent when they speak to someone who has an analytical mind.
Yeah I thought Cathy Newman came off as pretty journalistic; the kept the interview on topic, call him out when he didn't answer questions, further called him out when his answers weren't satisfactory, but did so more or less without coming off as hostile or biased against him. She was calm and in control of the interview, but not overbearing, definitely allowing Zizek to take the stage and be Zizek. I got to hear Zizek weigh in on some topics, and also got to hear him respond to some common criticism - the way Cathy Newman pressed him on these really forced him to give a more complete response.
shes not challenging him. shes asking those questions because she's obviously not grasping him. besides she even says that herself that his book was hard to grasp at the end of the interview herself. i wouldnt fault her though. zizek is hard to follow. its not fair to call someone dumb because one doesn't get him.
@mark heyne - I think his point about violence needs to be fleshed out a bit further is all. Violence causes pain, but any kind of real growth (not only physical, but emotional, spiritual, societal, political, etc.) only happens through some sort of pain. The violence in society is a constant; when that violence supports the status quo, there is either zero or such imperceptably slow growth as to appear stagnant. This is why revolutionary change is so violent- it causes GREAT pain (so much that most would tend to avoid it) but can, as a result, cause GREAT change and RAPID growth. I think this is the at the core of what he is saying. But I could be wrong, so there's my "cop out"! ;-)
Newman is out of her depth with the mentally retarded. She thinks in cliches, dominant narratives and is deeply tribal. Mental retardation would be one way to liberate her under-used mind.
@mark heyne Marx and Engels were Olympian level moral cretins. They saw evil in the world as the road to goodness - a thing to be celebrated. I suppose it's what you can get when you explain morality to a clever child. In Marx's view, history is a train and it will smash into things and crush people, but that's a good thing - because history is a science and we can predict how it's going to go and direct the train to the right station. - history as Newton's clockwork universe! Ergo, mass murder and oppression are the roads to our moral future. In a few years, when dopey fans of Zizek wake up to the idiocy of his position, Zizek will come out saying Marx and Engels were white supremacists - and will wheel out their support for British rule in India or French colonialism in north Africa. The left is one long and complex waltz involving the peeling of onions when talking about 'liberation'. Actor's tears and scheming. Quite why anyone over the age of 11 is impressed by this pseudo-religious bullshit, is a great mystery.
Because channel 4 wont hire an expensive interviewer/philosopher/politologist in one person just to make a better interview with Slavoj Zizek. It wouldnt be profitable, thats how capitalism works :DDD
Not just fuel. Stores are the same as those in SSSR before end of 80-ies. Empty stores aren`t matter of socialism, but matter of economic blockade of country. Look at Venezuela. Even in Venezuela are people more literate than in the US.
@@nomadliving2212 Agreed. Still the 5th biggest economy in the world and millions still hitching and walking across the EU and then risking their lives to cross the channel to try to come and settle here. Can’t be that bad then can it?
@@nomadliving2212 yea dweeb, britain will be fine as long as europe trades with them. britain is nothing without EU AND if the EU falls, britains falls.
The powers that be aren't. People may be more happy to speak the word "socialism", but it doesn't align with the Biden reality/ existing two party power lock.
It’s eerily similar to a joke Brown told in a speech before the 97 election about a man who spoke at a conference with him. The man was introduced as having made a million pounds in oil in Alabama, he said: Firstly, it wasn’t Alabama, is was Arkansas. Secondly, it wasn’t oil, it was coal. Thirdly, it wasn’t a million pounds, it was half a million. Fourthly, it wasn’t me, it was my brother. And fifthly, he didn’t make it, he lost it.
kudos to him for knowing what to expect with Channel 4. He's a graceful and considerate conversationalist. Its worrying how simple she's willing to allow herself to appear.
He's a big boy, an experienced debater, and will get his points across regardless of the level of the questions. I think she does a fine job relative to her audience. She's direct, she pushes him on provocations. This allows him to clarify these points and demonstrate the complexity behind them.
@Nunya Bis His use of violence is spot on. It's your preconceived and limited definition that is wrong. Violence can be "strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force." Situations can affect in volatile ways, it doesn't have to be physical.
@Nunya Bis Intellect is a state of mind, not a unit of measurement. If you have a mind that watches itself, if you entertain ideas without accepting them and if you engage in civil discourse within the faculty of reasoning. You are an intellectual. Slavoj does all this on steroids. Whether one agrees with his assessments or not, he is literally an intellectual powerhouse.
@Nunya Bis My point is Cameron’s original comment was an assessment of Žižek’s state of mind, they never once said anything like “what Žižek is saying is profoundly mind-blowing to me”. There are tons of people that I think have a frequently intellectual state of mind that I don’t necessarily find “impressive” at all. I’m not saying your regard of Žižek’s impression on others is right or wrong, I’m just saying it was an unfounded response. Also, being “impressed” depends largely on personal circumstance and is not something you can easily hierarchise. If someone is impressed by something that you happen to not be impressed by, it doesn’t automatically mean they’re overall “easily impressed”. I'm sure you know this. Anyway, I don't mean to have a go at you dude. I was just confused by your response.
@Nunya Bis You are very lazy.Your response for zizrks arguments about china shows that you have not even try to understand what he is saying but you went off and played the moral card without even adressing his point.China is the perfect example for him of why capitalism isnt anymore about democracy and freedom and he is right. Countries like china,india,south korea and so on are the fastest growing economies in the world right now and their political structure isnt what somone would call democratic,this is why he is against today's capitalism because it doesn't anymore protect the values of freedom and liberty but helps authoritarian oligarchies to rise and become world powers,he doesnt call china a success story that any other country in the world must follow its example to be successful but he is warning the people around him that today's capitalism gives rise to "monsters" such as china
Yes, we more and more all need to be philosophers. Daily I notice I'm referring to things I've learned from Zizek to help me process the world around me...
5 лет назад+2
Back in the old days of TV, it was seen as a tool for education first, entertainment second. They had philosophical debates and talk shows, as well as science programmes on prime time TV. Now we get Love Island and at a push Question Time with its soundbyte politics.
Unfortunately, we live in a society which doesn't take philosophy seriously. When I decided to take a career break and study undergraduate philosophy (I'm now doing my masters), the reaction I got from most friends and family - even quite liberal, open-minded people - was something along the lines of: "why? What jobs can you get with that?" A society which doesn't value education for education's sake is broken, in my opinion.
@@kiraanastasiaandersen1145 and the kind of problems of that affect 1% of that 0.03% lets talk about toilets not trans sexual workers being murdered by the handful, lets talk about fucking Trumpet Katlyn Jenner or whatever.
This decade will be remembered by identity politics. It's an amazing issue to make people discuss about superficial stuff and ignore the deeper issues in our society. This way the powerful can work behind the camera doing as they please. SJW are 99% identity politics, and so is Trump
But where else can you find out what Zizek thinks about segregated toilets? You might think it's a trivial question but Zizek has clearly given it some thought.
Oh LOL LOL LOL, my aching sides. You noticed Zizek has a sinus problem. Your powers of comedic observation are unparalleled. You are surely the crown prince of LOLZ. Have you thought of taking this up professionally?
i think you can probably answer that question yourself, seeing as she is interviewing for a mainstream news outlet. she's there to "ask the tough/basic questions people at home would want to hear posed". holding people to account for the most controvertial things they've said is pretty normal. #soyouresayingKathyNewman
The 3 toilet idea is such an simple pragmatic and practical idea that it's a no brainer. That's what they do here in Australia. At least here in Melbourne and the surrounding suburbs. Giving choice to people is never a bad idea.
She said he lost her when Zizek described radical singular love but this was precisely the moment she looked truly happy. That is the moment he had her. And this moment was not obscene.
av a look at jordan peterson, jordan maxwell, richard grannon, noam chomsky, george orwell, david icke, micheal foucault...all cover a vast range of different subjects but all interesting researchers, writers, thinkers, n academics
Herr Wunderbar I read widely... truth is truth regardless of whose speaking it.... Noam knows a lot of alternative info, he may word it differently or more academically, but its scary how it mirrors Icke etc...
@@liverbirdxoxo1984 Hmm? Is "alternative info" like "alternative facts?" Suggest you narrow your reading & interpretations. (Or did you mean well read?) My point is you need to be weary where & in whom you find your "truths." Scary comparisons, Noam would be agast w/ your "mirror." For your reading pleasure: www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Zizek: "It's not a question of slight changes here and there, look it'- Newman: "Erase the whole system, basically. To the ground." Terrible interviewing
@@zakbrown2340 the debate was literally called happyiness ''marxism vs capitilism'' (zizek knew this for months) and when dr peterson spoke about how capitilism is not neccessarily good but better than marxism, zizek agreed lol, so how do some people think zizek won lol, he literally agreed marxism is not good, and sorry but marxism was not just about regulation, ....so i dont see zizek defending marxism at all
@@brockcharz2104 because standard marxism doesnt go far enough. Žižek is a hegelian. Re-hegelianize marx is his project. Žižek's move was brilliant, in that he won people from Peterson's base.
@@Javier-il1xi i dont think he won them over, like he didnt change their minds, but they realized that both zizek and peterson are similar, as in calling out the crazy radical left, and he definatly won their respect so yes maybe he did win peoples respect
But means little to the hordes of illiterates who cannot restrain themselves from their predilection for mocking those who are clearly their intellectual and moral superiors
I can't believe how much this guy understands, he was thinking so far ahead, seeing how all the dots were coming together. I am surprised how there are so many comments about the reporter after all the interesting things Zizek said.
I'm not even close to being a Marxist here but I do sympathise with basically most of what this guy is saying. he seems to want to put a fire under our complacent asses! That's a good thing I think
@@_sayan_roy_ He says things that are the SAME as sooooo many speeches and writings of his predecessors... Mao Stalin Marx Engels He says we need cultural violence OVER AND OVER On this video.... If we can ONLY do that FINE BUT Usually this kind of radical change does FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD Plus, he does say things that are from the communsim. It's pretty obvious if you KNOW And are listen
@@davidturner1641 Dude you don't know what you're talking about. At first I thought you were just spinnin' some good ol' satire but then I realised that you actually believed what you were saying. All he is pointing out that while 9 million people die from starvation each year under our current capitalist systems we should not be worrying about how to enforce the current system but to look for alternatives as to get us out of this mess. Btw 1 Billion people? are you kidding me? I hear propaganda of 100 million from the Black Book of Communism, and if you see this and actually reply I will explain why that statistic is one of the greatest errors of sloppy scholarship in the last 50 years, but when you say that kind of thing I struggle to take you seriously. Also can you just read at least the first chapter of the Communist manifesto because if you did then you would realise that it's significance is only historical and that it is not 'brainwashing propaganda' but much like most of the Political literature of the time.
@Luna Tix NO he explicitly said that he wanted the Right wing to place in a person like trump, so that it would create chaos among the system so the Left would finally start thinking about what their solutions to the problems we face today are.
This man is brilliant and nuanced. His criticism of the 'left' is spot on. Meanwhile, the host can't help but do her best to try to put him in a corner, instead of actually engaging with him and listening to what he's saying.
Critiquing the proliferation of identity interests; what Žižek appears to paraphrase as "marginal issues" is not intended in anyway to attack minority groups of the so called "other". The point is that diverse identity issues such as LGBTI rights like any multiplicity can be exploited or inadvertently enrolled into sustaining the status quo. Ironically political correctness has become the modus operandi of divide and rule. This provides insight into the systematic sidelining of the sort of "universal-ism" that is a democratic prerequisite for voting for a political economy that does not hurt the interests of the vast majority of people. Some time ago I read two prophetic books which articulated this argument in detail, both published in 1989: "Against Postmodernism" by Alex Callinicos (Polity Press) and The Condition of Postmodernity by David Harvey (Basil Blackwell).
Well put. The fact is that most people don't realise that they are being goaded into doing the work of globalist capitalists for them. By voluntarily segmenting themselves into groups, they are easier to market to and easier to exploit for financial gain. You can just make new spin off companies and niches for all the different groups that you want to sell things to, and then market more effectively to the lgbt community or to different religions/nationalities/cultures. A lot of people need to learn the concept of true individuality in order to stop grouping themselves into these limiting areas. Regarding the lgbt toilet I do believe that in an ideal world you wouldn't identify as just a man or a woman, but simply a person. And that goes for all sub-divisions of your identity such as gender, nationality or ethnicity. There should be an accepted truth, e.g individual rights and freedoms, and it shouldn't even be tolerated in decent discourse to try to twist them to suit your agenda. There should be no 'but as a muslim' or 'as a woman', instead there should be an understood universal human form ethics which transcends that, and leads to a better economic and social system.
@@logan86123 Your comments are really refreshing and insightful. The first paragraph, in particular, describes what's going on in a really concise, eloquent manner. As for the second, I guess what I struggle with is the notion that there SHOULD be an accepted truth, and that we shouldn't, in an ideal world, have to identify as anything other than a person -- unfortunately, as much as I'd like to believe we can create a 'perfect' world, I also accept the flaws that exist within us all, and the egoic, tribal aspect of ourselves that actually enjoys identifying with particular groups and sub-divisions. All that said, I do hope and believe we should strive for continuous improvement (and there's much to be improved, even if I remind myself that there are also many things humans have already improved) in our economic and social systems. If humans are part of the problem, then we are also part of the solution.
Well, saying that would have been better than trying to redefine what the word "violence" means in order to convince more people that violence is acceptable when pushing a political agenda.
To be fair that was actually the one thing she said that I agreed with. I mean you can’t say “Hitler should have been more violent” and not expect alarmed reactions lol, even if your actual meaning was reasonable. Context and delivery is important too
Me. I've listened to Slavoj before but that debate brought me to listen to more of Slavoj again. In that debate he seemed more interested in a discussion of ideas rather than a battle of ideas than Peterson was.
Imagine being able to talk to one of the greatest, most thought provoking contemporary philosophers and you waist the whole thing asking him about semantics of an obviously hyperbolic statement.
And clearly, judging by the comments posted by the intellectually challenged, there are many readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun represented here - it is the ignorance, arrogance and cowardice of these folk that has brought the world to the state it is in right now
Harsh imo. Not a fan of hers in anyway, but she’s simply enveloped by the wretchedness of the system and desire for sound bites. The broadcasters continue to do it because the public lap it up. She’s not stupid, nor does that make her “bright”, at one point re: trans toilets, she catches herself from bursting out laughing. She knows how ridiculous the discourse has become, but it sells! That’s makes her unethical for sure.
Zizek's use of the term "violence," in place of something like "extreme disruption," makes sense just fine here as a literary device. It hasn't helped lesser thinkers though. When it comes to law or policy (edit: where use of such terms create limits and responsibilities, requiring the possibility of clear technical interpretation), losing the direct physical harm component of the definition of violence has made public discourse eat its tail. In, for example, a discussion about safe spaces and microaggressions, the term "violence" is now useless - both sides of the discussion use the term while the concept it represents varies too much. The term "violence" carries power, as we are most likely to agree that it is bad; Accepting another's use of the word often seems to validate the entire sentence it's used in. It's a powerful tool and not everyone uses it in good faith.
But there are edge cases. Like refusing to give back something which you stole from someone, is that violent? A lot of people would say yes, but no one's been hurt. I think limiting it to only 'one person physically injuring another person' is just slightly misunderstanding what people mean by the term.
Ooooh, how she is overclassed by Zizek. The intellectual distance is so big, that all she does is slow the stream of thought down. And it causes him to overexplain things. Painful to watch.
Crazy Horse if it seems like that to you, you didnt understand one word of what he said. Its like watching a professor teaching a rebellious fifth grader math basics..
@@dp503 all throughout this comment section i see this. it is her role on this show to question. and to question at a level suitable for the general audience. to question such that the guest will defend their position, so that the viewers questions would be satisfied. she did a very decent job of this.
“Which kind of economy is best” was such a random and uninteresting question that came out of nowhere. I would have maybe asked him that in like 7th grade.
What? That's a fundemental of all politics! What economy is the best is the whole point of having different economic structures in different political parties. Socialism, communism, social democracy, capitalism. It's a massive question
Its a shame so many cannot stand him. An unfortunate thing perhaps that personality plays so much into us humans learning from one another, not just the information and ideas they hold.
Robert Finch precisely tiny Blair gave us an ugly mirror.He presented us with I am everything you want to believe and will deliver everything which you hate and you will still pick me because your ego cannot accept you made a mistake. Brexit is the same many regret it and will not back down until they become destitute them their ego will see through their own hubris
Sorry to disagree but I would say that some dislike Slavoj not because of his personal of psychological idiosyncrasies, but because of the cognitive dissonance his open ended reformulations of current questions causes.
Christopher Wright I am 73 years old have worked until I was 65. Believe me this country was much better before we joined the so called EU. It actually wasn't called the EU. These unelected B..... went round the back door and change it to European Union without asking any of the 28 nations. Then what that meant is they had control over all the 28 country's. No I want to leave the EU. It cannot go on. Our NHS is f......d up. Thousands of these Illegal Immigrants are lazy and just want free everything. Then all they do is abuse our young girl rape them beat them up like they beat their own wife's. Some of them got 4 wife's but not allowed to call them wives. They must call there other three friends. 4 children each. Is 16 children for our tax payer to pay for. It is a big lie by Government MP's saying they contribute to our country. Where to? This is why our country is in such a state. X service men on the streets that fort had for our country. You won't see a Muslim on the streets. They get treated better than we do. There are 400,000 Muslims claiming benefits four themselves and there family's and they have big family's. My father worked until he was 72. This country is in a terrible state. Yes we need to get out of the EU. There are more people since winning Brexit want to leave the EU now. We are not a big country. We cannot take any more Immigrants. It is crippling our economy. Radical Muslims won't work because they go to a Mosque 5 times a day and when they are not doing that they are beating our young girls up. Raping them or marching the streets threatening us. They are f.... ungrateful people. We would not be able to do what they do here in their country. They have come here for one reason and they have been preaching it loud enough. To take over our country like many other country's around the world. That is the main reason to get out of the controlling unelected EU.
Miguel any inconsistencies percieved in his views is an interpretative failure on the critics' part to properly analyse zizek's thinking in its maximalist, open-ended, multi-faceted nature. he's coherent, of course though in the realm of common sense. if prolific authors of the past have changed their views drastically over the decades they were active, it would be silly to think zizek, who is not only a copious writer but is also broadcasted almost daily somewhere in the world giving long speeches, would be imune to error.
She is extremely under-qualified to have a real conversation with this man. She speaks from her notes. He speaks from his experience and knowledge. No amount of preparation or notes can match the genius that he is. This is why she keeps bringing him back to common political topics like corbyn, trump or lgbt stuff.
@@nazarchagataev8301 That's what an incompetent interview is like. You need at least some understanding of the subject in order to interview them. She keeps asking inane questions after having them explained (BUT YOU DID SUPPORT TRUMP?!), and does not try to dig anything at all. She's out of her depth interviewing him and trying to fish for simplistic positions that he can't provide. That's a given in this kind of show, but maybe she should at least....try? I was just really off.
"Are we aware of how much violence goes on just to keep things going on the way they are ?" You got to love this man...
Exactly
That's the sort of statement that rarely gets on the TV these days.
What does this line mean to you?
Makes me think of so many things and this is the problem to me. The expansiveness of violence in all it's flavors. This Baskin Robbins of violence served up ""just to keep things going" and so on and so on... Seriously tho, it kinda makes me think of chapter 11 the 9 situations in Sun Tzu Art of War. They're all interesting but I keep my optimism focused on 8, difficult ground. Basically, try to master myself n do my compassionate best letting nobody mistake me for prey. Cuz there's so much interplay with violence, what kind of violence, n to what extent that there's no easy way.
I'm no acedemic. I'm just an average blue collar person but I do try n stay interested n enjoy Zizek quite a bit. I really like his almost diy approach. In a way he reminds me of the writer Don Delillo. Basically I feel he is trying to soften us up n help get us involved with the world we forget we share and so on and so on
Looks like he has been in a communist gulag
i wish people in these comments (and all over the internet) would stop mocking Zizek's mannerisms and tics and instead, start listening to more of his imaginative and insightful political analysis.
Drew Farmer he advocates accelerationism i disagree
But accelerationism has already been happening since ’01 in various forms. Shouldn’t we examine how to deal with it?
But it's his mannerisms that have ascended him to meme-hood *sniff*.
*sniff* I would prefer not to...
dont worry they just have shit for brains
I can't help but smile at how Cathy tries to corner him on controversial views but Slavoj just blasts off on a philosophical meta-analysis of the question or a political tangent. His passion and lateral thinking just totally dominates the whole interview 😝
Most accurate comment lol
fax lol
It's so annoying to hear her agenda latent questions and rarely ever a thoughtful understanding of what he's saying before she retorts with her pearls clutched about trying to be provocative when making a subtle but deep point.
@@WanderingExistence Agreed, I'm not sure whether she's stupid or just doing a really good job job of pretending.
And his fans haven’t launched a brutal crusade against her, unlike a different guy’s fans
love that he did this interview in a greasy polo shirt.
I have seen him in a total of 5 shirts. I think it's all he owns, not kidding, 5 shirts, 2 pants, maybe 2 or 3 jackets, a large shelf overflowing with books, two couches, a streetgrab-coffeetable, a stalin poster for comedic value, a tv and an old desktop computer. That is as far as I've seen legit all he owns. He has a toilet and shower but I think that belongs to his landlord. I hope he takes all his money some day, buys a boat and rides off in the sunset.
shtick is working for him
He was well prepared for camera and his polo shirt was ideally clean and fresh in the beginning of the interview, his spitting technique caused spots, not grease.
It's a mix of drool and grease. You can see the wet spots grow over the course of the interview!
The shirt is not greasy! It looks like it but if you pay attention to what appears to be grease, you'll see that the spots move and expand. *It is sweat!* And you are not being nice or helpful.
Not only, coming over speaking English(his non native language).... he is speaking Welsh, simultaneously... what a guy.
lol
AND he says 'S' like Sylvester the Cat...🤦♂️🤣😖
LOOOOOL i died, love from sLOVEnija!
LOL
Hahhaha thats very funny.
"Here I'm Hegelian, you know"
No, she doesn't.
I can't understand why he took a debate with a lobster.
Do you? Explain to me what hegelian means?
@ yeah but I'm not asking you, I'm asking him.
@@ThepigandThemonkey Good idea. Random RUclipsr's are always fonts of philosophy. Nevermind, you seem an idiot.
@ People would probably listen to you a lot more if you didn't come across as so arrogant.
"I think I was deeply right." - Slavoj Žižek
Well-deserved gravitas.
(He was)
Zizek is so many steps ahead of her that she thinks he's crazy.
All crazy people are ahead of their time. I don’t know if it’s karmic for them or the people their with... bless Cathy, she knows not what she knows not.
This is why humane society is going down when you people beloved to such nonsense , it’s sad ...
He IS crazy... I mean, he's the good kind of crazy, maybe (I say `maybe` because I'm just starting to get into him, so I don't know what my stance is yet) even the kind of crazy the world needs, but c'mon, he IS crazy XD
Zizek: "This is how Trump gets elected."
Cathy: *changes the subject at the speed of light* "well uh anyway, about that GB election hehe"
I think they get along fairly well honestly
I absolutely love the way in which this man unapologetically speaks his mind.
lol... grow up homie... make some ideas of your own... don't believe this stupid commie
now imagine how much you would love yourself if you did the same
I hate how the interviewer gets hung up on these minor superficial things like how something he has said may be offensive to some people. Why focus on his provocative style and not on his ideas?
For focusing on ideas one must have a capacity to do that :)
He's provocative because he knows the MSM will report on provocative. Cathy Newman, an establishment-minded reporter, will go on about that stuff.
I first thought it might serve the purpose of giving Zizek a chance to clarify some points and clear some misunderstandings, but after 10 minutes I was convinced she was just daft.
I think it's fair journalism. If somebody's said something unusual, it's worth asking questions about it. She doesn't try to put words in his mouth or talk over him like some pundits might try.
Because that's how the far leftists operate.
People say that every cynical person is actually a disappointed idealist. Slavoj talks alot about hopelessness but when he talks you can notice he's a very hopeful person.
It's always a treat to hear him talk.
"I believe in miracles" - A pessimist, apparently.
@@anticapitalist-pigwhen you run out of hope there is a miracle.
Imagine having 40 whole minutes of time to talk to Slavoj, and you're such a liberal you spend all your questions asking about civility. Such a waste.
That's what the English do
Tbh I wouldnt know what to ask him
@@SamTheCrazyOne my first question would have to be his thoughts on Diogenes!
I would start by asking "Stuff happens, stuff happens here and there, and so on, and so forth, you agree?"
I think she did her job well, I think challenging slavoj to further elucidate some of his perceived contentious points actually showed his genius behind the character well to a more average watcher.
*Peterson:*
Chaos is a gaping pit, waiting to swallow us all.
*Žižek:*
Chaos is a ladder.
Actually peterson in another interview says (from what i could gather) that "chaos" isn't inherently bad or that order isn't necessarily "good" but that the balance of both is much needed
@@rishik7665 Peterson is a Conservative Post-modernist and thus his opinions mean nothing.
@@anticapitalist-pig everyones oppinion matters my friend.
@@Ruffday4uyes, dissmissing conflicting opinions is what greatly divides us
@@alexluna2054 you put it in a far more elequent way
"Here im dirty and manipulative" Instant classic
"If you’re too well accepted, you’re not doing a good job, you should always be ahead of your time. When your critics and readers agree with you, you're not quite there." - Charles Bukowski.
"You were right, Fukuyama. Capitalism did win. But admit it that ex-communists or left-wingers are the best managers of capitalism." -Zizek
@ Ying and Yang my friend, keep everything in balance. Nothing wrong with mixing ideologies for better ideas, Capitalism has been a good little catalyst in growth and now it's time to put a leash on it with some socialist ideas?
@@LykABoss007 Mixed economies in the Nordic Countries have the most happy and well educated people on the planet. Highest HDI levels, lowest corruption levels, highest rates of societal trust (police, emergency services, health and education services). On the other hand superpowers like US with overheated and polarized markets feel the need to exist since superpower spheres of interest still continue to exist. They still need overheated and polarized consumerist markets to arm massive arsenals that assert their legitimacy.
The least the rest of the West can do is assert the new European sociocultural legacy and solidarity (consumer protection, standardization politics, development aid). If EU can't get out of its power compromised limbo and unite in foreign policy that means. China, Russia and to some extent US are all working for the break-up of EU (all the more reason for the EU for *not to breakup* ).
@@kungolaf4499 Yes, but you forget to take into consideration the long history and culture of these countries which if you compare to the US is less violent and discriminatory as well as on a much smaller scale. The EU is a corrupt organisation behind closed doors, we all know it.
@Chester mandvol Treatment stratified according to need seems preferable to treatment stratified according to ability to pay, no?
Especially with something like healthcare, I would think.
Nationalism has turned into crony lobbyism except it is the people that are being convinced. It has been this way for a long time actually. @chess boi
"We tend to only see the violence of change, but are we aware how much violence goes on just to keep things the way they are?"
Genius
Oh yes, that's so true. The reason is that, when there's a change, violence happens in the central place, it happens to the middle class. But when maintaining the status quo, it is the frontier, the dregs of society who experience it.
So you heard what he was saying. What do you want? a parade
@@theodentherenewed4785 if by "middle class" you mean north america and eu and the "the dregs" you mean african and asian people then yea sure
just cuz you dont see child labor in asia doesnt mean it doesnt exist
zizek is literally that one dude at the pub that for some reasone knows everything about everthing and you talk with about the reason of mass concumption of meat for 4 hours and dont know why.... you just have to love the dude
Zizek explaining homosexuality:
”If I am gay, I am a man, who wants to do it with men!”
Profound 🤔
you know?
and so on and so on
He likes to be provocative! So ?
He is making a difference between trasgender and homosexuality. To state that he is aware of the difference
Cathy Newman: Can't handle right, can't handle left
That's the problem with these types of people. Granted, in Cathy's case it's sort of her job to sort of trigger the interviewee, but she's just looking at stuff to be "outraged" or to correct people who know far more about the subject than she does.
I was hating on her but now I started to understand her, she's not that bad, she makes her guest defend his positions which is a good thing, because we'll see her guest's arguments and see if his/her opinions are worth anything
@@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065 yeah exactly the arguments needs to be confronted so that he can argue in favour of it. I applaud her for trying to pick apart what he's saying as it makes him prove his points in a clearer way.
Dry Saliva no what she does is directly misrepresented what someone said just to catch them off, this is dishonest, and a horrible journalist tactic
@@brockcharz2104 she asks him about something and he answers, sometimes she misunderstands obviously because she isn't zizek, but she chose the parts she found interesting or need explanation and asked zizek about them, nothing is dishonest about that, zizek has the time and the leisure to reply and the audience have the opportunity to listen.
I think hes the most pure and ultimate optimist. He clearly cares a lot about these topics and through bringing them to light (embracing the hopelessness) he hopes to solve them
nah, he's like "maybe if humanity survives the imminent catastrophes of the mid 21st century there will be a bright future but i don't think so"
He’s a pessimist by admission
@@NinthSettler The whole point of saying this is that we should not put our trust in hope, instead, we must act to constantly change society to meet the needs of these challenges
I really can't stand the interviewer. Zizek treats her with kid gloves. Classy guy.
@Fifes And Clarions I admire her aggressiveness because that brings out the best responses. But since she either lacks the mental agility to keep up with Zizek or because she wants him to "dumb it down" for the audience, the interview stagnates at points.
Imagine interviewing Zizek, he's a self professed madman. Cathy Newman kept a sense of humor and did a fine job - she had her own questions and presented those from the audience. Zizek is creative and interesting, full of twists and turns, digressions.
Kid gloves made from actual kids
@@pigeonheadedman5225 Reminds me of child labour in the name of profit for Apple and the like!
zizek knows what he’s on about, the interviewer barely knows how to count to 10.
i love how he takes her more serviously then she takes herself. she tries to provoke him with some simple, dimwitted questions, while he takes the question from her as if she just made some philosophical argument.
its great, and she is frustrated beyond believe *haha*. she tried 8 times to lure him into "you offended XY"...i love how he just doesn't acknowledge this...no f*s given ;)
So many modern TV interviewers are like that... Fluff-heads and propagandists for the status quo!
Exactly. That's why you answer the questions seriously, and raise the mirror up to the media. Let them know that it is because of them why ignorance is prevalent. They are the taste makers and gate keepers. Instead of being dismissive like they are to provocateurs, acknowledge their questions and actually answer it fully and unapologetically. Mass media is afraid of intellectuals but if intellectuals get some spotlight, then the people will be able to see that their existential dread isn't isolated.
He answers seriously because he has a respect for language. Even a stupid question is an opportunity for a great philosopher, however annoying it is. He is also respectful of this interviewer, something modern journalists are not trained to be. But why condemn when he got so many great ideas across?
The interviewer really wasn't terrible. I mean compare her with any American pundit and she was stellar.
It is customary for the interviewer on such news shows to be rude. Violent even in the case of Jeremy Paxman.
His point about Corbyn and how Labour would split was spot on, reading the reports about how higher-ups within his own party sabotaged their candidates just so he would lose was abhorrent, and they did it to preserve the centrist system which will prevent any major change.
Labour should always remain centre. Not left. Corbyn is proof that taking Labour to the left will be the party's own downfall. The left and the right are all full of corruption and nonsense. Best to be centre and moderate instead of encouraging people with extreme views to influence the majority who are tolerant and moderate.
It will not prevent change, it has made it more violent because now you will have more far-righters in politics. Change will come, at a greater expense. It's like interest in credit, if you don't pay today (have a real social change) you will pay it tomorrow with more costs.
Weird, it’s almost like Marx was right 😂
Host: Slavoj, welcome to the studio
Zizek (with a dead face): It's an honour for me, thank you
Host: That's fantastic
this opening is surreal and hilarious.
She was complimenting his effort to speak. Although seriously impeded she thought his effort was fantastic and compressible enough for TV.
”If I am gay, I am a man who wants to do it with men”
"i understand that. there are bits of your book that i found hard to grasp, but that is clear"
?????
it cracks me up
Lol, yeah she is ridiculous.
@@uelude No, she is gorgeous and when I'm old enough, I want to marry her, so stfu you bunch of incels.
👁 👁
👄
There is something categorically wrong with modern journalism and the media, this presenter makes this point ever so apparent. Keep fighting the good fight Zizek you brilliant human.
Corporate Centerizam is very condescending after all. "Here's a mediocre product. You WILL love it!"
Huh? Her conduct was appropriately respectful while remaining skeptical and non-deferential. I have trouble understanding Zizek and was wondering many of the questions that she asked.
Whilst language remains produced industrially - paid for - thinking will not be free, thus, Zizek will fight, and journalism will remain this horrid stupefying force.
@@wfjhDUI Thats because you are part of the sheep-demographic that watches news outlets like channel 4 news and take it serious.
Cathy Newman interviewed Jordan Peterson the same way, but I think it is interesting how these two men dealt with her twisting of their words in hugely different ways. Peterson almost seemed to make it a competition where he would demonstrate his rhetorical supremacy over her as a verbal combatant. Zizek seemed to treat her most hostile and probing questions with a sort of dignity and respect. He didn't see her as an adversary. Obviously he didn't score a viral slam dunk on her like Peterson did, but I'm not sure that that is a goal worth aiming for tbh.
Zizek doesn't find confrontation or winning interesting, his goal is always more about getting people to reflect on his idea, that's different kind of intelligence, even his advisory got to admit that they are incapable of stopping him from doing that.
I thought 💭 the same while I was watching, well said!
And kudos to Zizek for not falling into sterile arguments with the presenters agenda, and just taking it with humour and moving on to state his points. I’ve never seen anyone taking casually been compared with Hitler, he just didn’t fell for it and moved on to get his points through.
Yesss it was so refreshing! He didn’t get stuck at all. The questions were intentionally annoying at first and he handled them so gracefully that the interview took a very clear and elevated form from both sides. To do so in a secondary language is also remarkable.
All i see here is Humans and the need for comparison, also the need to make one seem superior. We are truly interesting creatures.
I think she was a lot more rude with JP, just out to get him, but he handled her like a pro.
Both, Zizek and Peterson a brilliant in their own way even if the don't agree on every subject.
They do agree on identity politics though, which is a big issue.
*sniffs in Slovenian*
Hvala
this got me cracking lol
*sniffs in Yugoslav*
Slavoj Žižek is great and way too smart for this reporter.
i'd say on the contrary, good trolling on her side. he is being inconsistent and she's revealing it. "i'm not talking about some leninist party [a few minutes later:] the left should be the party of order!" - wtf mate? yes, we need radical change, but you are encouraging _and_ discouraging it at the same time.
Even Jordan Peterson is to smart for this reporter, yet alone Žižek :D
@@jan_kisan I think what Žižek means by these statements is that he wants the Left to reinvent itself and form a party system that can combat (in his words) the new Right-wing Chaos. The Left has always been on the side of chaos historically, with their anti-democratic politics, revolutions and anarchism. Even Leninism and Stalinism were filled with order/chaos paradoxes (for example: forcing a revolution at the expense of the proletariat , creating resolute laws filled with nonsense rules, eradicating class-based society while at same time creating a new elite e.g. the Party, etc.) Žižek sees in Trumpism and Right-wing populism the same kind of chaos that the left held during most of the last century. His so called 'Left Order' should therefore not be seen as classical Leninism, but more as new form of socialism that we have not come up with yet. Atleast that's how I see it.
@@MisterDutch93 well, maybe. but i don't see how we are to beat the capitalist state without strict organisation such as a Leninist party. we'll see where Žižek is leading, if anywhere.
of course, we must address the past mistakes, but seems to me many of those ”new leftists” don't even try to differentiate what was a mistake and what actually wasn't.
actually he is too smart for all of us!
“I will not go further into this madness”
*goes further into the madness*
This host is totally out of her depth, but thankfully she gave him lots of room to talk and explain his ideas, even though her comments almost always showed she wasn't following
I think journalists in general have been out of their depth for a very long time, with notable exceptions like John Pilger and of course George Orwell. If journalists had even a basic grasp of philosophy then it would be possible to engage people like Žižek in a searching manner and provide the intellectual bridge needed to connect them to the majority of the population.
Instead we have been subjected to many years of echolalia and palilalia and the capacity for critical analysis appears to be in very short supply, which is why UK and USA are leading the charge back to the middle ages.
Žižek is not taken seriously by professional philosophers:
www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/07/12/violent-visions-slavoj-zizek/
Zizek's replied to that, pointing out that Gray made so many errors it was pretty clear he hadn't read the book he was supposed to be reviewing. You can find the response easily online. But beyond that anyway your comment's nonsense. The missing word is 'some'. And some other professional philosophers - Badiou, Agamben, Balibar and many more - take him very seriously indeed.
theres a BBC radio 4 prgram where they interview philosophers and the host understands philosophy
Any host who understands philosophy would know that Žižek is a caricature of a philosopher.
"There were bits of your book I found hard to comprehend" I suspect she's referring to the parts between the covers.
Lol.... I agree 100%. Newman is completely of her depth..
FUNNY..
Damn that's savage son!
Absolutely spot on.
Genius is genius. Difficult to present himself is the mainstream, but I thank him for putting himself is this kinds of situations.
What is he trying to convey? I cannot make sense of his message
Cathy Newman proves in this video that intelligence and eloquence are not the same thing. Much modern journalism even from our serious journalists is incredibly superficial.
great point
Reminds me of the interview with Chomsky and Evan Davis on Newsnight recently. The simple-mindedness of journalists and their adherence to the status quo becomes incredibly apparent when they speak to someone who has an analytical mind.
I'd love to hear more about the wall to keep muslims out. Stellar journalism Channel 4
Yeah I thought Cathy Newman came off as pretty journalistic; the kept the interview on topic, call him out when he didn't answer questions, further called him out when his answers weren't satisfactory, but did so more or less without coming off as hostile or biased against him. She was calm and in control of the interview, but not overbearing, definitely allowing Zizek to take the stage and be Zizek. I got to hear Zizek weigh in on some topics, and also got to hear him respond to some common criticism - the way Cathy Newman pressed him on these really forced him to give a more complete response.
shes not challenging him. shes asking those questions because she's obviously not grasping him. besides she even says that herself that his book was hard to grasp at the end of the interview herself.
i wouldnt fault her though. zizek is hard to follow. its not fair to call someone dumb because one doesn't get him.
Cathy Newman is so out of her depth.
@mark heyne - I think his point about violence needs to be fleshed out a bit further is all. Violence causes pain, but any kind of real growth (not only physical, but emotional, spiritual, societal, political, etc.) only happens through some sort of pain. The violence in society is a constant; when that violence supports the status quo, there is either zero or such imperceptably slow growth as to appear stagnant. This is why revolutionary change is so violent- it causes GREAT pain (so much that most would tend to avoid it) but can, as a result, cause GREAT change and RAPID growth. I think this is the at the core of what he is saying. But I could be wrong, so there's my "cop out"! ;-)
Newman is out of her depth with the mentally retarded. She thinks in cliches, dominant narratives and is deeply tribal. Mental retardation would be one way to liberate her under-used mind.
Colin Davis when is she not?
@mark heyne Marx and Engels were Olympian level moral cretins. They saw evil in the world as the road to goodness - a thing to be celebrated. I suppose it's what you can get when you explain morality to a clever child.
In Marx's view, history is a train and it will smash into things and crush people, but that's a good thing - because history is a science and we can predict how it's going to go and direct the train to the right station. - history as Newton's clockwork universe! Ergo, mass murder and oppression are the roads to our moral future.
In a few years, when dopey fans of Zizek wake up to the idiocy of his position, Zizek will come out saying Marx and Engels were white supremacists - and will wheel out their support for British rule in India or French colonialism in north Africa.
The left is one long and complex waltz involving the peeling of onions when talking about 'liberation'. Actor's tears and scheming. Quite why anyone over the age of 11 is impressed by this pseudo-religious bullshit, is a great mystery.
Because channel 4 wont hire an expensive interviewer/philosopher/politologist in one person just to make a better interview with Slavoj Zizek. It wouldnt be profitable, thats how capitalism works :DDD
2 years from Brexit and Brits are out of fuel. Well said Mr. Zizek, well said.
Not just fuel. Stores are the same as those in SSSR before end of 80-ies. Empty stores aren`t matter of socialism, but matter of economic blockade of country. Look at Venezuela. Even in Venezuela are people more literate than in the US.
whole world is out of fuel, dumbo
Britain will be fine
@@nomadliving2212 Agreed. Still the 5th biggest economy in the world and millions still hitching and walking across the EU and then risking their lives to cross the channel to try to come and settle here. Can’t be that bad then can it?
@@nomadliving2212 yea dweeb, britain will be fine as long as europe trades with them. britain is nothing without EU AND if the EU falls, britains falls.
When he said “Let’s wait”, he was spot on. 2 years later and more than half the country is comfortable with the thought of a socialist economy.
DNC still managed to stop Bernie from becoming president though
The powers that be aren't. People may be more happy to speak the word "socialism", but it doesn't align with the Biden reality/ existing two party power lock.
@@stevengarthune9802 Never were, never will be. Build dual power.
was looking for this comment
You're living with the fairies if you seriously think that.
That old USSR joke genuinely cracked me up
This joke is like .. 50 years old ! :))))
Its not really joke. Its funny moment from life
It’s eerily similar to a joke Brown told in a speech before the 97 election about a man who spoke at a conference with him.
The man was introduced as having made a million pounds in oil in Alabama, he said:
Firstly, it wasn’t Alabama, is was Arkansas.
Secondly, it wasn’t oil, it was coal.
Thirdly, it wasn’t a million pounds, it was half a million.
Fourthly, it wasn’t me, it was my brother.
And fifthly, he didn’t make it, he lost it.
When does he Zizek say the joke?
@@Fummy007 11:10
“It’s an honour for me thank you...”
“That’s...fantastic”
This guy is extraordinary. Absolutely spot on, point by point.
@Solve Everything Wow, someone doesn't know how to listen...
kudos to him for knowing what to expect with Channel 4. He's a graceful and considerate conversationalist. Its worrying how simple she's willing to allow herself to appear.
That just make his points that much more pertinent, because he's facing the actual 'common sense' of the system. She played a great part, I loved it!
There was no obscenity
Biased and condescending interviewer, as you can expect.
this man is outstanding. the interviewer, well, less than great.
He's a big boy, an experienced debater, and will get his points across regardless of the level of the questions. I think she does a fine job relative to her audience. She's direct, she pushes him on provocations. This allows him to clarify these points and demonstrate the complexity behind them.
Zizek: this banana looks less rotten than the orange
Newman: So you are a banana fetish
for the entire 40 minutes
What?
not everyone knows zizek and they often lack context. newman makes it easier for the viewer to understand zizek. now fk you wannabe intellectual
This guy is an intellectual powerhouse
Nunya Bis I totally agree
@Nunya Bis His use of violence is spot on. It's your preconceived and limited definition that is wrong. Violence can be "strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force." Situations can affect in volatile ways, it doesn't have to be physical.
@Nunya Bis Intellect is a state of mind, not a unit of measurement.
If you have a mind that watches itself, if you entertain ideas without accepting them and if you engage in civil discourse within the faculty of reasoning. You are an intellectual.
Slavoj does all this on steroids. Whether one agrees with his assessments or not, he is literally an intellectual powerhouse.
@Nunya Bis My point is Cameron’s original comment was an assessment of Žižek’s state of mind, they never once said anything like “what Žižek is saying is profoundly mind-blowing to me”. There are tons of people that I think have a frequently intellectual state of mind that I don’t necessarily find “impressive” at all.
I’m not saying your regard of Žižek’s impression on others is right or wrong, I’m just saying it was an unfounded response.
Also, being “impressed” depends largely on personal circumstance and is not something you can easily hierarchise. If someone is impressed by something that you happen to not be impressed by, it doesn’t automatically mean they’re overall “easily impressed”. I'm sure you know this.
Anyway, I don't mean to have a go at you dude. I was just confused by your response.
@Nunya Bis You are very lazy.Your response for zizrks arguments about china shows that you have not even try to understand what he is saying but you went off and played the moral card without even adressing his point.China is the perfect example for him of why capitalism isnt anymore about democracy and freedom and he is right. Countries like china,india,south korea and so on are the fastest growing economies in the world right now and their political structure isnt what somone would call democratic,this is why he is against today's capitalism because it doesn't anymore protect the values of freedom and liberty but helps authoritarian oligarchies to rise and become world powers,he doesnt call china a success story that any other country in the world must follow its example to be successful but he is warning the people around him that today's capitalism gives rise to "monsters" such as china
“And you’re saying.. embrace the hopelessness”
“And so you’re saying.. a solution will emerge?”
Classic Cathy Newman.
but at least accurate this time :)
@@antonv2653 accurate cluelessness
Hate her for sticking with one minor issue and ignore all his good points.
She lets him explain his points. It's a fair interview.
"so youre saying...... "
"Yes"
The stains on his shirt are a nice touch
"I want three toilets" - Slavoj Žižek
He needs them.
Extremely good solution. And he stuck to his guns.
@@anneother6224 In view of what he is talking he needs to stick to all 3 guns.BST
A simple role on the wall will be the next demand from lgbtqhz monomaniacs. You know, for practical purposes, reserved toilettes are a no-go.
@@joaov.m.oliveira9903 muh slippery slope
this Philosophical critique of modern society, if you agree with the view or not, should be more prominent in our news, media and political lives
Yes, we more and more all need to be philosophers. Daily I notice I'm referring to things I've learned from Zizek to help me process the world around me...
Back in the old days of TV, it was seen as a tool for education first, entertainment second. They had philosophical debates and talk shows, as well as science programmes on prime time TV. Now we get Love Island and at a push Question Time with its soundbyte politics.
Unfortunately, we live in a society which doesn't take philosophy seriously. When I decided to take a career break and study undergraduate philosophy (I'm now doing my masters), the reaction I got from most friends and family - even quite liberal, open-minded people - was something along the lines of: "why? What jobs can you get with that?" A society which doesn't value education for education's sake is broken, in my opinion.
Slavoj "let's say I were to have this type of love for you 😉" Zizek
Timestamp?
@@PooplexCanal 29:26
Notice how the interviewer spends more time asking about transgendered toilets than any other subject.
Classic diversion from the hard issues.
@@kiraanastasiaandersen1145 and the kind of problems of that affect 1% of that 0.03% lets talk about toilets not trans sexual workers being murdered by the handful, lets talk about fucking Trumpet Katlyn Jenner or whatever.
This decade will be remembered by identity politics. It's an amazing issue to make people discuss about superficial stuff and ignore the deeper issues in our society. This way the powerful can work behind the camera doing as they please. SJW are 99% identity politics, and so is Trump
Yeah why dyou think the idw talks about gender so much
The decay of serious journalism...
But where else can you find out what Zizek thinks about segregated toilets? You might think it's a trivial question but Zizek has clearly given it some thought.
Zizek is neither hopeless nor strange. Thank you for the interview. Great job.
"I want three toilets!" -- Slavoj ŹIźek
"Yes, but, here I'm a Hegelian you know" *massive wet sniff*
I don't see his hegelian side in this purge :)
I blushed like a high school girl talking to her crush at that part.
IMMEDIATELY
which nut ward did they find this guy on ?
Oh LOL LOL LOL, my aching sides. You noticed Zizek has a sinus problem. Your powers of comedic observation are unparalleled. You are surely the crown prince of LOLZ. Have you thought of taking this up professionally?
Why is this host so obnoxious? She’s making zizek explain such trivial things. Why can’t an educated person interview philosophers like him
i think you can probably answer that question yourself, seeing as she is interviewing for a mainstream news outlet. she's there to "ask the tough/basic questions people at home would want to hear posed". holding people to account for the most controvertial things they've said is pretty normal.
#soyouresayingKathyNewman
X4rrr I get that it’s her job but it’s almost like she’s unresponsive to his explanations and continues raising the same petty questions
@@rachitamahajan9323 Yes she's incompetent.
Because mass media gender politics.
Sad I don’t think we have enough well informed audiences for a good interview with zizek. Not good for ratings I guess
The 3 toilet idea is such an simple pragmatic and practical idea that it's a no brainer. That's what they do here in Australia. At least here in Melbourne and the surrounding suburbs.
Giving choice to people is never a bad idea.
"As a leftist - as an atheist leftist! - I believe in miracles."
Propositionally atheist. Practically a Christian hahaha
I believe in miracles, where you from, you sexy thing
You can't be atheist beliving in leftism.
What a great talk! Slavoj puts thoughts I've had myself into words beautifully.
She said he lost her when Zizek described radical singular love but this was precisely the moment she looked truly happy. That is the moment he had her. And this moment was not obscene.
thats pure ideology *sniff*
Damn, I've been watching a lot of useless youtube videos. this guy is full of knowledge.
av a look at jordan peterson, jordan maxwell, richard grannon, noam chomsky, george orwell, david icke, micheal foucault...all cover a vast range of different subjects but all interesting researchers, writers, thinkers, n academics
@@liverbirdxoxo1984 wow. I never imagined in my wildest dreams I'd see Noam's name among those of JBP & David Ick...
Herr Wunderbar I read widely... truth is truth regardless of whose speaking it.... Noam knows a lot of alternative info, he may word it differently or more academically, but its scary how it mirrors Icke etc...
@@liverbirdxoxo1984 Hmm? Is "alternative info" like "alternative facts?" Suggest you narrow your reading & interpretations. (Or did you mean well read?) My point is you need to be weary where & in whom you find your "truths." Scary comparisons, Noam would be agast w/ your "mirror." For your reading pleasure: www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
@@liverbirdxoxo1984 icke is a truly desperate lunatic laughed at the world over. Noam Chomsky is a genius logician respected the world over.
So you regret your suppor-? NOOOOOOO
Slavoj turned into a bear for a brief second there! That part cracked me up! NOOOOOOOO!!
her reaction to this was very cute.
Lol ya that got me too
I just stopped watching here and came to the comments section for some respite. PHEW
14:25
Oh wow... Watching this in 2020 after the US elections and seeing he was right. Priceless.
Zizek: "It's not a question of slight changes here and there, look it'-
Newman: "Erase the whole system, basically. To the ground."
Terrible interviewing
This is classic Newman. Odd she didn't start of the mischaracterization with "so what you're saying is...." That's her jam.
Or just expert word-twisting
It's called playing Devil's Advocate. She's deliberately using provocative language, which he also admits to doing during the interview.
But very contemporary.
He's absolutely incredible
and sho forth
you're dense if you can't see that this guy is beyond the current left and right
So... what is new?
did you just learn joined up writing?
saul what?
"sometimes the greatest violence is not to do anything to refuse to participate" amen to that!
First heard him on the debate, and now binge watching all of his videos on youtube
Damn this is literally so beautiful
@@zakbrown2340 the debate was literally called happyiness ''marxism vs capitilism'' (zizek knew this for months) and when dr peterson spoke about how capitilism is not neccessarily good but better than marxism, zizek agreed lol, so how do some people think zizek won lol, he literally agreed marxism is not good, and sorry but marxism was not just about regulation, ....so i dont see zizek defending marxism at all
@@brockcharz2104 because standard marxism doesnt go far enough. Žižek is a hegelian. Re-hegelianize marx is his project. Žižek's move was brilliant, in that he won people from Peterson's base.
@@Javier-il1xi i dont think he won them over, like he didnt change their minds, but they realized that both zizek and peterson are similar, as in calling out the crazy radical left, and he definatly won their respect so yes maybe he did win peoples respect
@@Javier-il1xi i do like both peterson and zizek btw
She never said “so you’re saying” because she didn’t know what he was saying most of the time.
(Edit for grammar)
Hahaha you made my day 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Asim Alamssi I can die a happy man knowing I made someone’s day a little brighter 🤷🏽♂️👍🏽
Haha
Fucking great man my man!!😂
3:53
I had to go and find it for you buddy )
5 years later and zizek was completely right about Trump
this guy pretty much predicted the yellow coats in France with whole Macron dealio
@
This comment added nothing of valueb
Hey that's the image for thr Lie Algebra E8 they use on wikipedia, nice
Zizek may not be the most suave character but youth should learn from him what critical thinking is? This man is so well read
But means little to the hordes of illiterates who cannot restrain themselves from their predilection for mocking those who are clearly their intellectual and moral superiors
@@BernieHollandMusic damn I also hate poor people
I can't believe how much this guy understands, he was thinking so far ahead, seeing how all the dots were coming together. I am surprised how there are so many comments about the reporter after all the interesting things Zizek said.
Slavoj has a lot of well-informed points
I'm not even close to being a Marxist here but I do sympathise with basically most of what this guy is saying. he seems to want to put a fire under our complacent asses! That's a good thing I think
he is playing mind games
the communist manifesto is 100% for lying to brain wash people
then when it fails murder a billion people
@@davidturner1641 he is not a proponent of communist manifesto.
@@_sayan_roy_
He says things that are the SAME as sooooo many speeches and writings of his predecessors...
Mao
Stalin
Marx
Engels
He says we need cultural violence OVER AND OVER On this video....
If we can ONLY do that FINE
BUT
Usually this kind of radical change does FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD
Plus, he does say things that are from the communsim. It's pretty obvious if you KNOW And are listen
@@davidturner1641 Dude you don't know what you're talking about.
At first I thought you were just spinnin' some good ol' satire but then I realised that you
actually believed what you were saying. All he is pointing out that while 9 million people die from
starvation each year under our current capitalist systems we should not be worrying about
how to enforce the current system but to look for alternatives as to get us out of this mess.
Btw 1 Billion people? are you kidding me? I hear propaganda of 100 million from the Black Book of Communism,
and if you see this and actually reply I will explain why that statistic is one of the greatest errors of sloppy
scholarship in the last 50 years, but when you say that kind of thing I struggle to take you seriously.
Also can you just read at least the first chapter of the Communist manifesto because if you did then you would
realise that it's significance is only historical and that it is not 'brainwashing propaganda' but much like most of the
Political literature of the time.
@@davidturner1641
Isn't that what the tories and right wing media have been doing here in the UK, brainwashing people.
At the time of the interview, he was far ahead of his time
Cathy Newman actually says the words “Trump’s wall to keep Muslims out” keep it classy cathy
We all need walls against the Muslim ideology.
In her defence I think she meant to have something like a lull in that particular sentence, it just didnt come across
@Luna Tix NO he explicitly said that he wanted the Right wing to place in a person like trump,
so that it would create chaos among the system so the Left would finally start thinking about
what their solutions to the problems we face today are.
"Do you regret your decision?"
*Violently* "NO!"
This man is brilliant and nuanced. His criticism of the 'left' is spot on. Meanwhile, the host can't help but do her best to try to put him in a corner, instead of actually engaging with him and listening to what he's saying.
I think the host was brilliant. One needs to ask probing questions.
Critiquing the proliferation of identity interests; what Žižek appears to paraphrase as "marginal issues" is not intended in anyway to attack minority groups of the so called "other". The point is that diverse identity issues such as LGBTI rights like any multiplicity can be exploited or inadvertently enrolled into sustaining the status quo. Ironically political correctness has become the modus operandi of divide and rule. This provides insight into the systematic sidelining of the sort of "universal-ism" that is a democratic prerequisite for voting for a political economy that does not hurt the interests of the vast majority of people. Some time ago I read two prophetic books which articulated this argument in detail, both published in 1989: "Against Postmodernism" by Alex Callinicos (Polity Press) and The Condition of Postmodernity by David Harvey (Basil Blackwell).
Well put. The fact is that most people don't realise that they are being goaded into doing the work of globalist capitalists for them. By voluntarily segmenting themselves into groups, they are easier to market to and easier to exploit for financial gain. You can just make new spin off companies and niches for all the different groups that you want to sell things to, and then market more effectively to the lgbt community or to different religions/nationalities/cultures. A lot of people need to learn the concept of true individuality in order to stop grouping themselves into these limiting areas.
Regarding the lgbt toilet I do believe that in an ideal world you wouldn't identify as just a man or a woman, but simply a person. And that goes for all sub-divisions of your identity such as gender, nationality or ethnicity. There should be an accepted truth, e.g individual rights and freedoms, and it shouldn't even be tolerated in decent discourse to try to twist them to suit your agenda. There should be no 'but as a muslim' or 'as a woman', instead there should be an understood universal human form ethics which transcends that, and leads to a better economic and social system.
That's the smartest comment I've ever seen on RUclips, and I agree 100%. Gonna check these books
That's very impressive, well done lad.
YES! This is so well put.
@@logan86123 Your comments are really refreshing and insightful. The first paragraph, in particular, describes what's going on in a really concise, eloquent manner. As for the second, I guess what I struggle with is the notion that there SHOULD be an accepted truth, and that we shouldn't, in an ideal world, have to identify as anything other than a person -- unfortunately, as much as I'd like to believe we can create a 'perfect' world, I also accept the flaws that exist within us all, and the egoic, tribal aspect of ourselves that actually enjoys identifying with particular groups and sub-divisions. All that said, I do hope and believe we should strive for continuous improvement (and there's much to be improved, even if I remind myself that there are also many things humans have already improved) in our economic and social systems. If humans are part of the problem, then we are also part of the solution.
I like how he used Lacan to flirt with her for a brief time and how she liked it. Even Lacan would appreciate the way he did it :P
He's an absolute master at that, I was really surprised to hear something like that from him
First time i heard Zizek i couldnt almost understand him, but the more i do listen i can hear him clear.
"Why don't you just say 'Ghandi was more radical'"
Wow, Cathy Newman, you really do have quite an ear for poetry.
Well, saying that would have been better than trying to redefine what the word "violence" means in order to convince more people that violence is acceptable when pushing a political agenda.
@@mudgeotter9549 You know the word 'violent has more than one definition right? One is physical, the other is simply the antonym of 'mild'
To be fair that was actually the one thing she said that I agreed with. I mean you can’t say “Hitler should have been more violent” and not expect alarmed reactions lol, even if your actual meaning was reasonable. Context and delivery is important too
@@pm2881 perhaps that's what he intended to get a reaction
Anyone else here after the JP debate?
First I heard of Slavoj was the debate, now I love listening to him. A very knowledgeable guy.
Yup, and y'know, I think I'm already more of a fan of Slavoj than Peterson.
Yep
Fandom is kindof ideological is it not?
Me. I've listened to Slavoj before but that debate brought me to listen to more of Slavoj again. In that debate he seemed more interested in a discussion of ideas rather than a battle of ideas than Peterson was.
Imagine being able to talk to one of the greatest, most thought provoking contemporary philosophers and you waist the whole thing asking him about semantics of an obviously hyperbolic statement.
Listening to the presenter is like having The Daily Mail read to you.
And clearly, judging by the comments posted by the intellectually challenged, there are many readers of the Daily Mail and the Sun represented here - it is the ignorance, arrogance and cowardice of these folk that has brought the world to the state it is in right now
Harsh imo. Not a fan of hers in anyway, but she’s simply enveloped by the wretchedness of the system and desire for sound bites. The broadcasters continue to do it because the public lap it up.
She’s not stupid, nor does that make her “bright”, at one point re: trans toilets, she catches herself from bursting out laughing. She knows how ridiculous the discourse has become, but it sells! That’s makes her unethical for sure.
Zizek's use of the term "violence," in place of something like "extreme disruption," makes sense just fine here as a literary device. It hasn't helped lesser thinkers though. When it comes to law or policy (edit: where use of such terms create limits and responsibilities, requiring the possibility of clear technical interpretation), losing the direct physical harm component of the definition of violence has made public discourse eat its tail. In, for example, a discussion about safe spaces and microaggressions, the term "violence" is now useless - both sides of the discussion use the term while the concept it represents varies too much.
The term "violence" carries power, as we are most likely to agree that it is bad; Accepting another's use of the word often seems to validate the entire sentence it's used in. It's a powerful tool and not everyone uses it in good faith.
Your post is violent.
But there are edge cases.
Like refusing to give back something which you stole from someone, is that violent?
A lot of people would say yes, but no one's been hurt.
I think limiting it to only 'one person physically injuring another person' is just slightly misunderstanding what people mean by the term.
Listening to Zizek is always nice
Ooooh, how she is overclassed by Zizek. The intellectual distance is so big, that all she does is slow the stream of thought down. And it causes him to overexplain things. Painful to watch.
Really? It looks like she's mostly pointing out his inconsistencies.
Crazy Horse if it seems like that to you, you didnt understand one word of what he said. Its like watching a professor teaching a rebellious fifth grader math basics..
I don’t think she did anything wrong. Why are you being so hard on her :(
@@dp503 all throughout this comment section i see this. it is her role on this show to question. and to question at a level suitable for the general audience. to question such that the guest will defend their position, so that the viewers questions would be satisfied. she did a very decent job of this.
@@s.j7423 And he did a good job at responding. He was not annoyed at all. Everyone can relax :)
He actually comes across as a really nice guy, even if harbouring sometimes crazy or abrasive opinions
I feel when you really sit down and listen to him and soak it in, his ideas are very un-crazy.
“Which kind of economy is best” was such a random and uninteresting question that came out of nowhere. I would have maybe asked him that in like 7th grade.
What? That's a fundemental of all politics! What economy is the best is the whole point of having different economic structures in different political parties. Socialism, communism, social democracy, capitalism. It's a massive question
@@HumanTypewriter its 42
@@HumanTypewriter mixed economy there’s no debate
Very insightful chap.
Its a shame so many cannot stand him. An unfortunate thing perhaps that personality plays so much into us humans learning from one another, not just the information and ideas they hold.
Robert Finch precisely tiny Blair gave us an ugly mirror.He presented us with I am everything you want to believe and will deliver everything which you hate and you will still pick me because your ego cannot accept you made a mistake.
Brexit is the same many regret it and will not back down until they become destitute them their ego will see through their own hubris
Sorry to disagree but I would say that some dislike Slavoj not because of his personal of psychological idiosyncrasies, but because of the cognitive dissonance his open ended reformulations of current questions causes.
Christopher Wright I am 73 years old have worked until I was 65. Believe me this country was much better before we joined the so called EU. It actually wasn't called the EU. These unelected B..... went round the back door and change it to European Union without asking any of the 28 nations. Then what that meant is they had control over all the 28 country's. No I want to leave the EU. It cannot go on. Our NHS is f......d up. Thousands of these Illegal Immigrants are lazy and just want free everything. Then all they do is abuse our young girl rape them beat them up like they beat their own wife's. Some of them got 4 wife's but not allowed to call them wives. They must call there other three friends. 4 children each. Is 16 children for our tax payer to pay for. It is a big lie by Government MP's saying they contribute to our country. Where to? This is why our country is in such a state. X service men on the streets that fort had for our country. You won't see a Muslim on the streets. They get treated better than we do. There are 400,000 Muslims claiming benefits four themselves and there family's and they have big family's. My father worked until he was 72. This country is in a terrible state. Yes we need to get out of the EU. There are more people since winning Brexit want to leave the EU now. We are not a big country. We cannot take any more Immigrants. It is crippling our economy. Radical Muslims won't work because they go to a Mosque 5 times a day and when they are not doing that they are beating our young girls up. Raping them or marching the streets threatening us. They are f.... ungrateful people. We would not be able to do what they do here in their country. They have come here for one reason and they have been preaching it loud enough. To take over our country like many other country's around the world. That is the main reason to get out of the controlling unelected EU.
Miguel any inconsistencies percieved in his views is an interpretative failure on the critics' part to properly analyse zizek's thinking in its maximalist, open-ended, multi-faceted nature. he's coherent, of course though in the realm of common sense. if prolific authors of the past have changed their views drastically over the decades they were active, it would be silly to think zizek, who is not only a copious writer but is also broadcasted almost daily somewhere in the world giving long speeches, would be imune to error.
12:55
" he saved us from something his politics caused "
Zizek is absolutely right.
hindsight
@@am5790 Explain?
It's 11:55
An intellectual powerhouse Zizek is.
Exquisite bangs, Mr. Zizek!
"yeah, but what about the toilets?!" ffs woman, just leave it and ask some serious questions.
They need something they can provoke people with in the title
She is extremely under-qualified to have a real conversation with this man. She speaks from her notes. He speaks from his experience and knowledge. No amount of preparation or notes can match the genius that he is. This is why she keeps bringing him back to common political topics like corbyn, trump or lgbt stuff.
So she's a reporter not an enlightened philosopher.
interviewer is provoking in all the wrong ways. its not a debate
It's an interview. This is what interviews are like
@@nazarchagataev8301 That's what an incompetent interview is like. You need at least some understanding of the subject in order to interview them. She keeps asking inane questions after having them explained (BUT YOU DID SUPPORT TRUMP?!), and does not try to dig anything at all. She's out of her depth interviewing him and trying to fish for simplistic positions that he can't provide. That's a given in this kind of show, but maybe she should at least....try? I was just really off.
@@Edeinawc she read his books, i think she prepared well.
@@pneumonoultramicroscopicsi4065 I don't think she did. She must have just skimmed through them trying to find something provocative or offensive.
she's talking to a Balkan philosopher - so she's come as Demeter - goddess of corn and wisdom
This interview is amazing! Dude killed it
Zizek is spot on. He does not exist in a vacuum by the way. Many of us have the same thoughts.
35:41 "your friend"donald trump"
sneaky sneaky cathy
Zizek is a true intellectual. Cathy is just a mouthpiece for an ideology
Brilliant interview, respect on both sides, interviewer and interviewee.