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

Do you? Explain to me what hegelian means?

@menckencynic yeah but I'm not asking you, I'm asking him.

@menckencynic People would probably listen to you a lot more if you didn't come across as so arrogant.

@menckencynic how do you make sense of it ?

menckencynic Just because you’re right, doesn’t mean you’re not being an intolerable arsehole. You come across as incredibly self-centered, arrogant and narcissistic, even if you are the expert on philosophy you claim to be. If you were truly knowledgeable you’d know that love is wise and hatred is foolish, but you seem to be full of hatred.

lol

AND he says 'S' like Sylvester the Cat...🤦‍♂️🤣😖

LOOOOOL i died, love from sLOVEnija!

LOL

Hahhaha thats very funny.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Well-deserved gravitas.

(He was)

The last one 😼

15:41 Beautiful double sniff.

24:45 to 24:52 was the good stuff…

Why did this make me laugh so hard hahaha

24:48 he responds in Jabba the Hutt's native tongue

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.

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

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 😂

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

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.

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

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. 👁 👁 👄

@menckencynic 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.

@@kungolaf4499 Yeah, Im from one of those countries, not everything is like the polls say...

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

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.

"I believe in miracles" - A pessimist, apparently.

​@@anticapitalist-pigwhen you run out of hope there is a miracle.

@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.

What is he trying to convey? I cannot make sense of his message

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.

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

Timestamp?

@@PooplexCanal 29:26

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?

Lol.... I agree 100%. Newman is completely of her depth..

FUNNY..

Damn that's savage son!

Absolutely spot on.

I think the host was brilliant. One needs to ask probing questions.

but at least accurate this time :)

@@antonv2653 accurate cluelessness

Hate her for sticking with one minor issue and ignore all his good points.

I dont trust her.

She lets him explain his points. It's a fair interview.

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.

So she's a reporter not an enlightened philosopher.

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.

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

The Peterson's scandal (that was not a "debate") only proved that you can't put an uneducated journalist to interview real intellectuals.

Rofl, if she couldn't beat a minor leaguer, she had 0 chance of flummoxing Zizek then

@@bobbycutts2111 Being an intellectual is a competition now?

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

Hvala

this got me cracking lol

*sniffs in Yugoslav*

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.

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!

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.

He called them out ratfucking Bernie instead of unifying the party.

@@CJonesApple bernie ratfucked himselves. And democratic voters voted against him as a majority. Claiming the democrats winning because they cheated you is why you guys offered not only no alternative to Trump, but the exact same thing as trump has been doing for 4 years.

@@archologyzero you dont win when you cheat, you steal when you cheat.

@@lettucearsebiscuits8375 They didn't cheat. I said you guys claimed they cheated. Granted, you guys operate from such weak logic that you consider anyone in the world even asking Bernie a question to be proof of democrats cheating - nevermind the fact that Bernie has been ranked among the least honest left leaning politicans by politifact and any other legitimate fact checking organization. So my point stands.

@@lettucearsebiscuits8375 But tell me how you supporting a dishonest, whiney loser is proof of democrats cheating? Fact is Bernie did less than nothing to expand any coalition between 2016 and 2020, (he lost TONS of voters) and most of his 2016 votes came from people not really liking Hillary due to Republican propaganda, not because they knew much about Bernie, his voting record, or the practicality of any of his policies.

Propositionally atheist. Practically a Christian hahaha

I believe in miracles, where you from, you sexy thing

You can't be atheist beliving in leftism.

@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

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.

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

Haha spot on!

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 )

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

Hahaha I noticed that too 🙈

@Solve Everything Wow, someone doesn't know how to listen...

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.

the problem is precisely that such shallow and dumb questions are in the maistream because of her and people like her

If I was the sun I would’ve been called the moon... wtf ?

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

@Identity is character not group This comment added nothing of valueb

Hey that's the image for thr Lie Algebra E8 they use on wikipedia, nice

He's an absolute master at that, I was really surprised to hear something like that from him

British main stream media..so used to mentioning Muslims in a bad light that it just slips off the tongue when talking about a different topic 🙃

@@Tameeeeeem Perfectly worded!

@@Tameeeeeem so is Cathy saying thaat Muslism and Mexicans are the same?

She probably misspoke, but to be fair, Trump also claimed multiple times that Muslims and "middle easterners" were crossing the Mexico-US border.

@@matthewwaterman917 that's how you know trump is a fucking moron. Literally the only way they can get in illegaly is the 3% of Muslims in Canada through the northern border (and why would you wanna move to the shittier country where you amass hundreds of thousand in medical debt), and through an airport illegally, which is basically impossible.)

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

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

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?

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.

@@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.

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.

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.

especially after he took 5 minutes to talk about the rise of alternative facts relative to holocaust denial in Slovenia lol