A very dangerous Q&A - FULL with English subtitles
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Slavoj Zizek, Mona Eltahawy, Kate Adie, Jon Ronson and Greg Sheridan on sexual energy, psychopaths in power, Arab spring or winter, Wikileaks and Assange, capitalism and evolution
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
inviting zizek to anything without at least 2 hours of time allotted to him speaking is a crime
With every question, Slavoj's looks like he's about to explode with answers
You gave words to this feeling I’ve always subconsciously had, thank youuuu 😂😂😂😂😂
As an Afghan I supported hundred percent the comment of Slavoj on Afghanistan. Afghanistan 40 years ago had a government that was much secular and democrat than the most of Asian countries. The current situation of Afghanistan is the result of cold war in this country, one supporting communism other one supporting radical muslims. Afghanistan was much in a head than most Asian countries 50 years ago.
Where are you know?
I always go crazy about the fact that Slavoj advocates true love.
Manuel Küng awww:)
?
n.n
whoever put on english subs, thank you so much :)
I'm 6 minutes in and Slavoj has said 'and so on' at least 3 times
Just imagine being Slavoj for a day!
I enjoyed this A&Q. Great talk. Now I don't feel so bad about being in the Great USSA. Thank you.
What a good talk! Kudos!
although, by the end of it, I have to say that the guy who charmed me the most was Jon Ronson, he gave the best comments and in a certain moment outdebated zizek, props to that dude.
Never heard about Jon Ronson before but he really impressed me. Maybe I'm just being drawn by his charm, but it certainly works well in this kind of setting.
I don't think women and men have the same sex drive, men def have more of it. The idea that women have been suppressed to the point where they hardly think about sex, or hardly masturbate (the most accurate indicator of sex drive besides sex itself) is asinine.
Polyamory has been practiced by Muslim centuries ago. A Muslim Australian have three wives and numerous children and claimed three welfare payments. We paid tax to supported moron like this. How did he convinced Centrelink here?
i'm reading "kwanda" all the time...
Watching this cuz , zizek , you know
where's the English subtitles?
This is an excellent demonstration by way of Zizek´s own quote: "Humanity is ok, but 99% of people are boring idiots."
The level of mind virus those people are spewing bodes ill for society... and it'[s been almost 10 years since then!
*He's a babbling fool. It's no wonder he's an obscure, irrelevant pseudo-public intellectual*
@@MattSingh1 unlike the household name, bona fide intellectual Matthew Singh-Dosanjh
6 min in and i'm already Team Slavoj. lol
Not saying Slavoj Zizek is right about everything but he is clearly on a different level than everyone else there.
Random tweet:
Zizek should be harnessed as an alternative energy source. #qanda
StGusface!
my personal fave was
"I'm embracing rolypolyamory" ...whatever that means!
+crimsonbubbles Fat people getting together and rubbing their blubber against each other. He's mocking the idea that these people who engage in poly- fucking are doing so because they are motivated by a deep connection, intimacy and love for multiple people. It's just about good kinky sex. So imagine when these people do this they don't miraculously engage with fat ugly people who have a pure soul.
Its called cocaine. He cant stop touching his nose
Rahatil Ashekan cocaine is a hell of a drug
Slavoj Zizek should have his own show.
That i would watch.
He would hate to invite most of the people.
Nop. it would destroy him. He is a great mind but still a human being.
It would be "really a monologue interrupted by total strangers". Dame Edna Everage.
Yes this format doesn’t suit Zizek’s style, the debating is a bit competitive in the sense that everyone wants to have their say and the silencing is distracting because one is unable to hear what he has to say completely, and he is also unable to finish his analogies which are very interesting. Its hard to learn good points from Zizek when he has a lot of people disagreeing with him or cutting him short. Ironically Zizek’s style is chaotic and because the structure of the show is in a certain way where everybody has to follow certain rules, and stop speaking at certain points and directly answer the questions without misunderstanding the points and have their information clarified it actually becomes too chaotic. In a sense it would be less chaotic if Zizek had his own show or lecture to speak on these points and answer these questions on his own in whichever way he wishes in his own splatterbrain manner.
they tend to silence the philosopher for they are too stupid to keep on with him. Zizek's words are the most worthwhile hearing.
yeah they're empiricists and moral relativists and have no patience for the continental phenomenology of zizek. He speaks in a kind of musical language to characterise who us/them are (blurring the line between the two) but what the rest of the panel don't realise is they also speak in a musical language that identifies us/them but instead strengthens the divide between the two
Angelo Peralta Zizeks opinion is so exciting to hear. I wanted to hear what he had to say about Tibet but unfortunately he was interrupted by the woman who wanted to make a point about the demonisation of polyandry.
Its so sad that he has to be cut short, but I guess they need to keep things running in a one hour format like this where there are five different speakers.
*keep up with him
its a tv show bro, very limited time
Goodness, Zizek is just in a league of his own with the rest of this panel. They're not especially stupid, his mind just clearly functions in an infinitely more critical and creative manner. He triumphed, and he tends to in environments such as these.
He's top in his own league of stupidity lol. No socialist or communist society has ever done well. It's a recipe for oppression, murder and dictatorship.
Jake Roberts Read much Zizek? Marx? Any philosophy or political economy for that matter? I suspect you haven't, because otherwise you would not be so crude as to erect a tiresome Stalinist strawman in place of proper intellectual debate.
You need to go into a math or science department and see what a real brain looks like. Literary intellectuals aren't.
Edward Jones Yes, all we need is some good old-fashioned objective science to save us from society's ills...
211Anon dude Zizek is a charlatan and a buffoon.
The only "infinite" quality of his mind is an infinite capacity for the (at best) dressing up of platitudes in a wrapping of such blustering conviction that you're convinced something of great moment must be being discussed.
Peel back all the wrapping and what's left? Give me three examples from this talk of "infinitely more critical" things he said.
This is a man who harangued Chomsky for the apparently intolerable principle that beliefs should be proportional to evidence. He states that the lesson of Stalinist gulags is that we mustnt wait for evidence, we must act, presumably, from some infallible intuition. He doesn't also say whether Philosohers such as David Hume, scientists such as Galileo and every legal system in the Western world should also be lumped in with Chomsky for the same offence.
On a separate note, he's explicitly chastised Chomsky for saying that the data at the time of the Western media crying genocide in Cambodia was insufficient for the charge. Zisek's "infinitely more clear and creative" mind, to use your phrase, has translated this into the claim that there was no genocide in Cambodia.
Kate Adie, who is a highly respected foreign correspondent, had much more sensible things to say on some of those topics. But she said them calmly, with no great theatre, using only simple language and without any of Zisek's arm flailing frothing bombast. But then again, she can afford to. Her career depends on giving a coherent and sensible account of the facts of this or that situation around the world. It doesn't depend on sputtering Marxian babble in attempt to con (usually literary) intellectuals into thinking there is thinking going on under there.
Good god! go away all of you and let zizek speek.
"speek" hahahha
Interesting spelling :D
No John can speak. He's the Steven Pinker of this panel with the great deal of genuine information that he's bringing to the discussions.
terrible audience
@@zlatankovacevic4281 Speek is why the comment was so good, its zizek
who else skipped to only the parts when Zizek spoke?
me! je suis Ross Ulbricht
Wish i did !
😂😂😂You got me😄
@Stevo Devo yes true I also like to create an echo chamber, only want to hear my opinions
Jon Ronson trying to explain ideological frameworks to Zizek literally had me old school rofl-ing. Seven hells, what an idiot.
I happen to be rather high at the moment
Ídolo
The host is so rude to Zizek. He doesnt even talk more than anybody else on that panel.
He is a notoriously poor interviewer and facilitator, and particularly ill-equipped to deal with Slavoj.
Hanne Lykke Poulsen That’s the impression that I had. I was trying to figure out whether the host was being fair by giving everyone a chance to speak, or whether he was unfairly rude to Zizek.
Actually I thought the host did an excellent job of keeping moving it along and giving everyone a chance to speak.. Zizek will talk forever and monopolize the conversation if the host doesn't keep him in check..
I think it just seems that way because Zizek is so enjoyable to listen to. Time flies when you’re having fun, and so on and so on.
@@fellowcitizen Tony Jones is a notoriously poor interviewer and host? What planet do you live on mate? There's a reason why he's been the host of qanda for more almost 10 years
Capitalism isn't to blame for endless growth and the strive for profit?
Capitalism IS to blame.
*****
capitalism IS matrial growth and profit
KironVB capitalism also means you’re using a smart phone commenting on TH-cam videos instead of working in a field and living an average life of 46 years.
Some One because capitalism refers to wealth creation, property rights and means of production. The examples you gave was a religion and food you moron.
iamsheep
Those who lived an average of 46 did not put whole planet's future in danger of extinction.
Capitalism is actually the absence of a system, so that the chief human emotional responses to the market, greed and fear, are allowed to self-regulate individual's responses to market dynamics. Ordinarily fear keeps a check on greed, but when the market is corrupted through monopoly, which is enabled by government and the special favours bought through politicians and by lobbying, or by the socialization of services, these are instances of cronysim whereby fear no longer keeps greed in check.
Zizek is the embodiment of chaotic good.
"Capitalism rewards psychopathy."
Pretty self evident
Yes, the more nutty I’ve become the more I understand.
@Andrew Meek And with both it's better to design a society with less of it!
"I agree with you on only one thing! People do not want to be happy!" Slavoj Zizek 2011
zizek is the only smart one there, and by that i mean only one who isnt unoriginal and kind of shallow in their anaysis. imho
Actually, the others are not unintelligent, but they are just ordinary and cannot offer anything especially original, whereas Zizek, most certainly, can.
I liked the Egyptian woman’s commentary alright.
@@Ethan-fh9lq The Egyptian one was almost the worse, but very attractive, but I bet she is a handful to live with. Jon Rondson seems fairly balanced
@@michaelcorcoran3942 If your worldview makes you "a handful to live with", more power to you! Zizek is probably even worse in that regard :)
Michael Corcoran f*** off you misogynist piece of shit
That beautiful middle finger by Slavoj! Lmao
Oh boy, every video with Zizek in it, people say, 'why does he stroke his mustache', 'he must be on drugs', 'I bet he smells bad'... I thought most people had grown out of that sort of commentary by the time they were maybe 15. Deal with it, everyone has quirks. Zizek's simply very enthusiastic about his ideas, he moves around a lot. f you can't handle that, maybe go back to watching children's TV and stop trying to engage with ideas that make you feel uncomfortable.
Something I found interesting is that I saw a video where he is speaking in his native language, and he doesnt seem to do it as much. Perhaps that has something to do with it.
Even if he had the bad habit of scratching his ass, that would be easier to tolerate than the morons on the panel.
Isn't it a Tourettes Syndrome?
I say let them speak, all it does is reveal who the moron really is..uH OHHH.
@@travisdylan5938 Tourette syndrome (TS or simply Tourette's) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder with onset in childhood, characterized by multiple motor tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic. So, no, he doesn't have Tourettes syndrome, since he doesn't have any vocal tics. I heard him explain that those are nervous tics. You can see similar in tennis with Rafa Nadal, for example.
Zizek should have spoken 10 minutes and all others 2 total for each question. It would have reflected the balance of intelligence.
Damn.....you're not wrong.....but damn😂
Zizek is wasting his time with these half-wits.
Kate Adie is no half wit.
soeffingwhat
Hear hear!
Yea, an internationally recognised philosopher with double PhD must be a half-wit
Fucking painful to watch
I am here to see and hear Slavoj Zizek : >
Slavoj Zizek is the man!
Can't do anything but love Zizêk.
I love how the people constantly clap for Zizek. This guy's legit bringing down some sweet sweet KNOWLEDGE
Slovenian guy Slavoj rocks.
I’ve been with my husband for so many years, none that I regret. I couldn’t love another man the way I love my husband. I am in love with my husband. I don’t believe that you can be in love with two people, not equally anyway. I simply couldn’t imagine being able to do that. I couldn’t share my body with another man, and I wouldn’t want him to share his body with another woman. His emotional input into another woman would hurt me. I suppose others can do as they please, but I can never understand it. Just my humble opinion.
I think they disrespected slavoj zizek by inviting him.
they try and get zizek to be brief then pull him up on him saying 'lets not go into details' what a bunch of melons - good talk though was some pretty interesting voices outside of zizek
The category of life that you are using is pure ideology.
Slavoj Zizek 📈📈📈
I think Slavoy deserves his own version of "Being John Malkovich" - imagine him being surrounded by himself...
*WTF is this !?! Bunch of clowns talking about the most serious issues of humanity ! Zizek is an exception, he is actually the only marxist I have some respect ;)*
No matter how fucked up the world becomes I know it will be alright because Zizek will have a something hilarious to say about it.
I watched this for Zizek, but I was pleasantly surprised with the interesting perspectives of the other speakers (though Greg Sheridan interested me least of all).
Greg Sheridan was quite terrible actually.
This should just be an interview with Zizek, the rest of the panel is irrelevant, and really annoying too.
38:38 Zizek got a chance to talk, immediately ignore the question from the audience XD
i don´t think that this people have watched enough zizek, or else they would know that he would be all zizek and stuff and wouldn´t have invited the rest of the panel
Zizek is the closest thing we have to a greek philosopher! When he showed the middle finger I almost cry 😂 Dude's wild!
The guy at around 34 minutes who couldn't stop stuttering :"( It's ok man.
I have the deepest respect for Monas courage and honesty.
Mona doesnt have 12 brain cells to rub together. A vulgar twat too.
Slavoj, what a crazy, lovable bastard! Perfect company for an intellectual piss-up.
I'm willing to go full Commie for this guy
K.. let us all know how that works out for you..
@@claudeusgothicus6453 You're just ignorant and unwilling to listen to new ideas.
@@ebiwright8973 - really.. so you think communism is a new idea?
@@claudeusgothicus6453 I mean you're clearly being stubborn and sticking to old outdated shit rather than coming in with an open mind.
Communism may not be a new idea, but it's obviosly new for you.
@@ebiwright8973 when has communism has worked?
It's obvious that most of the panel can't keep up with Slavojs intellect given that they always react with either laughter or a smirk. That's the number 1 giveaway that you don't understand what he's talking about. Even if they do understand , they still react the same way because they feel utterly inferior in this situation.
Or it could be that Zizek has an entertaining way of getting his idea across. Look at how often the questions are directed at Zizek, and even if they're directed at the panel, the panel tends to go to Zizek first. They have a huge respect for his ideas.
How bout No ? I
But he did make some good jokes..
What a pretentious analysis.
Tony also lacked the skill to facilitate him - just cutting him off whenever he was getting to the salient point every time. Tony has always been a poor facilitator and interviewer, and I've never understood how he came to control key ABC positions.
Would have loved to see Zizek debate Hitchens...
+UltimateHandler Hm. Maybe. But Hitch was so intensely practical and clear on problem solving. Zizek can get very vague and metaphysical. He says that instead of focusing on the problem and how to solve it, we should contemplate why it is a problem in the first place.
They might have ended up debating cross-purposes.
+CTyler84 Hitchens is a speaking trashcan. Zizek would bury him if there wasn't a audience Hitchens could relate to.
its like saying: i would loved to see Tiger Woods and Ronaldo to compete in a eating competition...
The are 2 non overlapping majesteria!! just enjoy them both
not really, they are just thinking about politic from the complete opposite side of each other. It would definitely have been interesting
Although both are self proclaimed (though hitchens often leaned more torwards trotskyism) it woild probably have been a very unproductive discourse given that is brutally pragmatoc with his arguments whereas the other gets carried away with metaphysical/abstract tendencies, it woukd have been great to see them give a speech in the same room.
I disagree with the panel at the end.Growth isn't the problem,capitalism is.Growth is related to energy cunsumption.We're currently investing trillions to fund wars for natural resources.Resources which we burn and harm our own environment with.Why,instead,don't we fund perfecting alternative sources such as sun and wind energy?Because it doesn't make money for the big corporates.Harvesting the energy of the sun would be extremely sufficient for all people,because it would stop harming the environment,it would introduce a great abundace of energy,thus production and growth,which in turn will allow technology to develop at a much faster rate,allowing standards of living all around the world to skyrocket and it will practically stop war altogether.But for that to happen the resources of a country must be commonly owned,not privately,so that when it is decided what to do with them,it can be the solution for all,not for the few.If we accept that growth is the problem,we're accepting that progress and evolution are the problem.The problem is how we distribute our resources,not how we use them.
7:25 - "There is this bizarre idea that men's sex drives is higher than women's and that's just total crap".
No it isn't total crap. It's true. A woman will never understand unless she spends a day being a man. Healthy, young men are horny the whole time. We think about sex every 10 minutes. Men have 7 times the amount of testosterone in them as women. This notion that men and women are identical in the sexual drive department is just nonsense.
Jon Ronson is on the MI5 payroll
I love Slavoj sooo much. He could have been great in a stand up show :D
guys it’s a Slavic thing with this so son and so on, in fact almost all Slavic languages translate the ecc... as tak dalej i tak dalej (this one is in Polish but Russians and Slovenes use very similar version of this word) which literally means and so further away and further away but in English obviously is translated as so on and son, the problem is that Slavs very often use this so on thing when they talk, far more often than English speakers and thats why it almost looks like an OCD style obsession but in reality it’s not, when he speaks in English he still thinks automatically in his head in Slovene and I know because I’m Polish and I speak 3 languages fluently and 2 at an intermediate level and so it also happens to me a lot plus I have slight dyslexia so my brain sometimes overheat when I try to use 3 different languages at the same time
Would love to see Chomsky and Zizek on the same panel. Mona is good too.
Chomsky is arrogant piece of sh*t
@@HSOON38 llooll no
That little stroking of the mustache at 25:53 was so intentional...
Drew Winkler Bingo !
Zizek dominates the panel. Everyone looks like a dull NPC beside him.
39:41 "She asked me about condoms", Zizek focusing on the important questions
39:45 my god what a gorgeous woman
i had to scroll down to find the like minded people
Jon Ronson claims that capitalism is not the problem, a psychopathic lust for profit is the problem. What he fails to realise is that a psychopathic lust for greed is the very *essence* of capitalism.
you got it mate
Epic
But in that case, nothing can be done about it. Capitalism is the only economic model that works.
Skoda130 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I agree, but I think he may be suggesting that a weaker capitalism with a bunch of regulation works better.
All these comments saying everyone but zizek is stupid are really sad to see. The ideas that are put forth aren't mutually exclusive, and they're not without a good deal of public agreement. Belittling different structured views of the world is a very sad type of closemindedness to see in the comments of a zizek video.
Q&A: The yardstick of the culturally confused in Australia
Slavoj, the only one calling out the racist undertones of spreading liberal democracy to the oh so poor middle eastern counties, imperialist opportunist bs, Mona made some good points as well but has to much faith in voting
Mona Eltahawy redirects away from or half-answers every question she is given. And the bit about cutting the Muslim Brotherhood some slack? Ridiculous.
Is he trolling with the Gaddafi and condom thing?
Thanks for the subtitles. I'm a little deaf and subtitles really help.
I see where Zizek is coming from. He is sharp. People ought not get distracted by his enthusiasm.
Conservatives trying to explain sexual behaviors of modern liberated people is cringe worthy. If you are ideologically against promiscuity you should shut up about things you know nothing about!
This was actually a really great panel compared to most of what I see on QandA nowadays!
Shut these other 5 people up.
I never knew zizeks view on the middle east but he sounds like any other person that Chistopher hitchens has dismantled. still love him though
Of course women should be able to have multiple husbands. But I highly doubt that women have the same caliber and frequency and compulsion of sexual thoughts as men do. It really has very little to do with universal ethics, and whether polyamory should be egalitarian.
I find your arrogance loathsome and revolting.
+Honey Ryder No idea what arrogance you're talking about. Males are compelled to mastrubate more. How does that make males better?
They don't appear to understand what Slavoj Zizek is saying.
i
25:44 haha, his face of shock!
4:50 ... Exactly... Having promiscuous sex is nothing more than having sex with a puppet. People say it would be "boring" to have sex with the same person... But isn't that exactly what having sex with multiple strange is?
Very disorganized and trivial discussion. Too bad because there are a few great minds here.
The Egyptian lady is so wrong about socialisation of sexual drive. Men do have a stronger sexual drive in the context of frequency because it's purely biological. The more sexual partners men have, the more chance to have off-spring.
With those subtitles super job you have do it, I think must be little more bigger for to read well, and I learning english during entertainments.
anyway, congratulate, video have changed significantly from technical, that time uploaded
Imagine if ur uncle was slavoj
"Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
I just want to hear Zizek speak all night
I'll just say to the Aussies what a great show. Obviously host and people are unfair to the genius of Slavoj Zizek (I say this as someone rather more conservative in outlook), but the audience wasn't like the ghastly lynchmob it is in the UK - applauding anyone who manages to string a sentence with a verb adjective and noun. Sometimes only 1/3. They laugh when people are funny. 90% of the audience is cheering for the looney comedian or Guardian journalist who stand up and say "politicians are shit" *BRAVOOO* "Bankers are shit" *TAKE MY MONEY, HAVE SOME ROSES*
It's basically like being in a pub or round a camp fire haha. Good work!!
That mediator became very rude and snarky to Zizek as the programme went on.
West restrained Mubarak from using force by the threat of not giving military aid. Finally Mubarak was persuaded to leave.
God this format was annoying, just let them talk and go deep, not interrupt after 10 seconds because we need totake another topic!
This was first time I saw/listen to Zizek. I was love at first sight.
Wow. Just wow. A truly incredible debate!
You won't see this on mainstream television!
This was literally on mainstream television
The commentary on polyamory was pretty vapid. Seems like weren't even familiar with the concept