I absolutely love Slavoj. I do not hate the host because he helps keep him on a level that's easier for a person to understand... When he goes off on his own he goes so deep I completely lose him from time to time.
Everything that breaks the boundaries of the norms of the majority is considered an illness or at least a disorder. If a guy is famous for touching his nose, that's probably not normal and would be considered in some way a medical problem.
Zizek is the best! So critical and meticulous in his analysis. Never dogmatic, always eclectic. Looking across the northern border of the US I wonder what Zizek's opinion is on the raging political correctness debate at the University of Toronto, specifically Professor Jordan Peterson's refusal to use preferred LGBTQ gender pronouns when conversing with his LGBTQ students.
Wow, I've been putting off this video for a couple of days but now that I get to listen to it, I think it's hilarious. Žižek - "Authentic politics is: I have a global vision that is different from yours. Let's fight without killing each other, but let's fight radically to the end." Gots immediately drops the subject instead of fighting to the end.
Thanks for the interview, Jason; you did pretty well for journalist. Although it would help if you didn´t try to cover up gaps in your knowledge and just shoot straight when you didn´t know what was what. Cheers!
At first his lisp and linguistic tics, his repeating of phrases like; "And so on, and so forth... This is to say... What I am saying is this..." in his oftentimes disjointed sentences can be annoying and off putting... But Zizek's thoughts can be extremely engrossing once you really start listening to "what" he's saying as opposed to "how" he's saying it. Having listened to quite a few of his lectures and debates I now find his frequent tics and rambling sentences quite endearing...
purpleintrepid The thing is Zizek doesn't really have a single "overall" message... He is primarily a contrarian (I dunno if that's actually a real word) He plays devils advocate with a lot of popular ideas, criticizing certain aspects of an idea while never going so far as to say that the idea is flat out wrong. He argues against absolutism frequently saying things like "I strongly believe in this (insert philosophy or concept) but there are a lot of problems with this idea such as blah, blah blah, and so on and so forth..." It often may seem that he's contradicting himself (and in many ways that's true) but I think by doing this he points out the inherant contradictions within certain ideas and philosophy. He points out that (I'm paraphrasing now); In general tolerance and social justice are good things but enforcing tolerance can be deeply intolerant of certain people and their principles. He says that tolerance itself has been misapplied so that people are often forced not to merely tolerate an idea but to actively accept that idea. One can actively and very publically disagree with an idea and still be tolerant. He compares it to having a neighbour, you don't have to be friends with a neighbour to be tolerant of them; in fact you can actively hate them but as long as you don't interfere in that neighbours basic affairs you would remain tolerant of them. If this neighbour puts up a political placard for a certain candidate on their lawn, you can actively oppose them by putting political placards of an opposing candidate, and chastising your neighbour for their political opinions. In doing this you would remain completely tolerant of said neighbour. Only by actively interfering with your neighbours rights by doing something like vandalizing your neighbour's placard or slandering them to their employer or the like would you become intolerant of your neighbour. The political correctness that is so dominant in society right now doesn't do away with racism and sexism. But by making racism and sexism an ostracising social stigma (or oftentimes harmless behaviors associated with racism and sexism) it makes them impossible to express publically thus suppressing certain ideas and attitudes and driving them underground. So when a presidential candidate like Donald Trump gives voice to certain ideas that are associated with racism and sexism (As to whether those ideas actually are racist and sexist is open to argument) Then the people that believe in these ideas but have not been able to personally voice those opinions and resent this social censorship will naturally gravitate to supporting Trump. Thus showing how political correctness is actually backfiring in its intended goals.
purpleintrepid The thing is Zizek doesn't really have a single "overall" message... He is primarily a contrarian (I dunno if that's actually a real word) He plays devils advocate with a lot of popular ideas, criticizing certain aspects of an idea while never going so far as to say that the idea is flat out wrong. He argues against absolutism frequently saying things like "I strongly believe in this (insert philosophy or concept) but there are a lot of problems with this idea such as blah, blah blah, and so on and so forth..." It often may seem that he's contradicting himself (and in many ways that's true) but I think by doing this he points out the inherant contradictions within certain ideas and philosophy. He points out that (I'm paraphrasing now); In general tolerance and social justice are good things but enforcing tolerance can be deeply intolerant of certain people and their principles. He says that tolerance itself has been misapplied so that people are often forced not to merely tolerate an idea but to actively accept that idea. One can actively and very publically disagree with an idea and still be tolerant. He compares it to having a neighbour, you don't have to be friends with a neighbour to be tolerant of them; in fact you can actively hate them but as long as you don't interfere in that neighbours basic affairs you would remain tolerant of them. If this neighbour puts up a political placard for a certain candidate on their lawn, you can actively oppose them by putting political placards of an opposing candidate, and chastising your neighbour for their political opinions. In doing this you would remain completely tolerant of said neighbour. Only by actively interfering with your neighbours rights by doing something like vandalizing your neighbour's placard or slandering them to their employer or the like would you become intolerant of your neighbour. The political correctness that is so dominant in society right now doesn't do away with racism and sexism. But by making racism and sexism an ostracising social stigma (or oftentimes harmless behaviors associated with racism and sexism) it makes them impossible to express publically thus suppressing certain ideas and attitudes and driving them underground. So when a presidential candidate like Donald Trump gives voice to certain ideas that are associated with racism and sexism (As to whether those ideas actually are racist and sexist is open to argument) Then the people that believe in these ideas but have not been able to personally voice those opinions and resent this social censorship will naturally gravitate to supporting Trump. Thus showing how political correctness is actually backfiring in its intended goals.
***** yeah, you're right... In this particular podcast he's using the neighbour analogy like you said. In some of the other media from Zizek he expounds on how the meaning of tolerance has been subverted in the way I was referring to... He talks about how tolerance became an Enlightenment principle precisely because of the way the bloody wars of religion divided europe after the Protestant Reformation. I dunno which lectures/debates that was offhand, but there are probably quite a few of them where he repeats the same talking points. I find that's a problem with a lot of the lecturers/authors I like, every video you watch from them ends up with them repeating the same things over and over...
***** In order to change a person's mind about something you need to engage in dialogue with them. If a person is bigoted, especially if they are only mildly bigoted you're only going to harden their position if you tell them they are evil or a bad person for thinking that way. In fact they will tend to hide their attitudes from others so as to avoid negative reactions... Changing hearts and minds is better achieved by showing an individual how their thinking is factually incorrect then taking a moral stance that the bigoted idea is morally wrong. After all I never found any of the arguments levied by religious fundamentalists to be any more persuasive just because they told me that if I didn't believe I was a bad person and was going to hell. If anything it only confirmed to me that they were off their rocker...
Slavoj’s points are great and important, but it’s difficult to hear how he seems to purposely keep the interviewer from finishing his own points and questions. Slavoj is probably a great lecturer but an exhausting conversationalist.
The idea that Hillary would win was based on the concept that the person who got the most votes would win. Obviously, that's not really the case in America, necessarily. So, yes, in a sense, Hillary convinced more people to vote for her, but our system doesn't care about that in some cases and in this case specifically.
US system is based on electoral votes, not individual votes. Why is that so hard to understand? And he thought Hillary would win because our "system" was heavily rigged in her favor. The entire mainstream media was shilling for her 24/7, and she outspent him more than 2:1 in advertising.
We have the electoral college so that LA and NY and a few other ginormous metropolitan areas don't decide every presidential election. If it was based on the popular votes, you'd frequently have 75% or more of US states voted Red but Blue winning just because Cali,New York State, and the huge counties within them decided to go Blue. The electoral college is a necessity.
guys in the last minutes of the podcast they sum up some movies, anyone get to write those down? or knew from before? Id tried looking up what i thought id heard but no hits? Anyone get the correct movie names?
The title is completely wrong. Zizek is on favour of tollerance in its original sense. Nonetheless, Zizek is against passive and inconsistent acceptance of different cultures and customs: I can live with a immigrant/LGBT/religious minorance, I can be friend, I can spend my time with him/her, but I cannot assume his/her culture and custom as mine, I cannot utterly comprehend, I'm not obbliged to like or to attend the patronizing speeches but I'm obbliged just to respect and, when I don't like, I have to keep the respectful distance (as Nietzsche used to say).
Harold and Maude do have actual physical sex with each other, as I recall that film (_Harold and Maude_ mentioned in last 5-6 minutes of this podcast).
The host is a void of knowledge. He detracts from this recording. His commentary is like listening to an undergrad college radio host. He's talking to one of the most respected philosophers in the WORLD. He should show some deference.
Its a podcast if you wanna listen to Žižek rambling there is a bout 100 videos on youtube and 2 documentaries. It was nice to hear a balance dialog for once even if the other person isnt on his level. All the better!
I was actually impressed with the host. He serves, if nothing else, as a voice for many others who would want to ask for clarification through discourse.
8 minutes In and I’m already irritated with the host. 50% of the time thus far has been misunderstanding Zizek’s point and making him repeat it to get it through your head. Who cares what you think (respectfully)? We’re here for Zizek. :)
everyone knows when couples get old that's how it goes. Power couples work like this... woman/mom is stabilizer...keeps the team moving forward, man/dad is turbo charger... advancing them and getting them out ahead. Turbocharger burns out at 65-70.
Dilma Roussef impeached president in Brazil this year (2016) seems exactly the same story Zizek told us (comparing to Clinton and Merkhel), however, in happens in an even more dramatical way (probably because of the current context of Brazil): "So, women want power in Politics here in Brazil Government? Ok, here you go!"... And what happened next we know already: a coup d'état.
I think Slavoj underestimated the American People's tendency to apathy, rather than action, when they become disgusted with the system. And the sideshow has been good business for the pickpockets.
Well, if women lose the desire for their partner more quickly than men do, then why do men cheat significantly more (at least according to the surveys I have found). Men also seem to let themselves go much faster than women, from what I can see (and hear). I wonder if that is why women tend to lose the desire faster (if that is actually true)?
Maybe nature itself has made up this setting ? When children are born and raised what's the purpose for women having sex ? Also remember menopause . Why do women paint their lips even when far beyond 60 yrs ? Sex totally is overrated in a hedonistic aligned society.
Slavoj and other leftists like him remind me a lot of the anti-Stalin left in the way they criticize a lot of the mainstream left tendencies nowadays which lean to political correctness and using some form of censorship unto certain ideas they don't see as fit. I say they seem similar because the anti-stalin left and many mainstream marxists at the time who critcized stalin and lenin were completely opposed to the totalitarian state and use of force they(Stalin) were using to achieve their goals. Not that regressives are Stalin but they are similar in the sense that they are willing to use certain authoritarian tactics to achieve their goals.
How is Hillary being both occupy wall street and Wall Street big money and LGBTQ supporter and getting Saudi money not make her as much of an political/cultural (BLM also) opportunist as Zizek claims Trump to be?
Tolerance has many meanings and definitions according to various sources, including dictionaries and philosophy books. Many people have their own tolerance threshold that they deem appropriate, but what does it really mean? Well, let's see... For example, the dictionary definition of tolerance is 'the ability to tolerate something' or 'a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices etc. differ from one's own.' This means that tolerance in this sense can only exist between two groups: a tolerant group and an intolerant group. Tolerance could not coexist with itself because it would contradict itself. As defined by Stephen G. Post, professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio: 'Tolerance means accepting the existence of those who do not share my beliefs and saying nothing about them.' This is a more neutral viewpoint that does not have any sort of prejudice or favoritism towards another group. So, what are the consequences of this non-discriminating definition of tolerance? I have found that from a philosophical point of view, there is no absolute truth. There are many viewpoints and interpretations about any given thing in life. The fact that we can even speak about an 'absolute truth' means that there is no such thing because it has to be relative to something else. So, where is the line drawn between intolerance and acceptance? It seems that you have to accept everything or tolerate everything. Is it possible to reject something without being intolerant? You could say that tolerance means accepting the existence of others who do not share my beliefs. But, what if those 'others' are actually harming society in its own way? If you were to accept everything, then that would mean that you are accepting the existence of those who are intolerant. This completely contradicts the definition of tolerance. So, one has to draw the line between what is 'acceptable' and what is not.
Robin DiAngelo is directly talking about Zizek here: “To be unpicking my privilege, my supremacy, my colonized mind. That’s tough enough. But to be faced with blank looks from fellow whites. That’s the real rusty razor to the carotid artery. I wasn’t raised to see my race as saying anything relevant about me. I will not coddle your comfort. I’m going to name and admit to things white people rarely name and admit. I know you. Oh, white progressives are my specialty. Because I am a white progressive. And I have a racist worldview. My psychosocial development was inculcated in this water and internalized white superiority is seeping out of my pores. White supremacy - yes, it includes extremists or neo-Nazis, but it is also a highly descriptive sociological term for the society we live in, a society in which white people are elevated as the ideal for humanity, and everyone else is a deficient version. There is something profoundly anti-Black in this culture.” Robin DiAngelo, 'White Fragility' Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?, Feature, New York Times Magazine, July 15, 2020
We already live in Marxist societies in the west. Let us look at the 10 points Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, and let us see how it is in the west today. 1. land property and expropriation of rent to public purposes. Implemented. Rent on land, the added value created by the productive use of land, goes in various phases of production to the State through taxation. 2. Strong progressive taxation. Implemented. This hardly needs to be discussed in our countrys. The Conservatives introduced this in Sweden 1910, all political parties in the Parliament approve this idea today. 3. The hereditary abolition. Implemented. In virtually all cases. Succession is not completely abolished, but is heavily taxed. Anyone who today inherit his parents' house will have to pay more than a quarter of the value to the state, despite everything he inherits already have been taxed many times over. 4. Confiscation of all emigrants and rebels. This point is not relevant today. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Implemented. For about a century ago there was a functioning foreign exchange market in our countrys. The central bank have made all banks into one. 6. Centralization of the transportation system in the state's hands. Implemented. The state have the responsibility to plan and maintain railway, airtravel and car traffic, broadband and telephony. Although the state often take private businesses to help the government control, and to take the overall responsibility. All other alternative solutions are discouraged or banned. 7. Extension of domestic factories, instruments of production, cultivation and improvement of the soil for a social plan. Implemented. The Ministry of Industry has the overlying responsibility for all economic policy concerning this. 8. Equal of all to labor, the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Implemented. In elementary school, children are brought up to become good wage workers. Those of working age who do not work quickly becoming subjects of various government programs to increase skills or otherwise made to work. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; measures to eventually obliterate the distinction between town and country. Implemented. "All region shall live". Regional policy is often hotly debated in the parliament and in the media. Politicians running around promising millions in subsidies. 10. Public and free education for all children. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Implemented. The school is for everyone and by school attendance all parents must put their children in school for at least nine year. This creates a consistent environment for all children between 7 and 15 years, where they can be brought up to be good citizens and workers who will vote correctly. Thus, dear comrades, it doesn´t matter what you vote for. All politicians in the west are in one degree or another Marxist. Read their party programs and compare with Marx 10 requirements and you will see for yourselves. Politicians never accuse you of being greedy if you want to get other people's money - only if you want to keep your own.
22:50 I disagree with that "observation." From my perspective trump best fits in feminine archetype and Hillary was much more masculine in that race. The same comparison can be maid between Bill and Hillary. You can't change the definition of feminity to what used to be definition of masculinity and then call yourself feminist. But yes more men are feminine and more women are masculine because members of each group are taught these days that they should act that way.
U said we ultimately get to truth, also U spoke about science and science can never claim what is truth ? They are not in that business, Sciences answers the the questions of how not why? or why should we believe in truth, Also alqaida or Isis etc they can not be the example of a religion, I urge try to refuse Rumi books on religion as he could be considered a Muslim and most of what U say , Rumi said to the very so called Muslims who used to do the same in the past as Isis and alqayeda, But if religion does not stand on the bases of love.. than it is fake, but we can't really say science is also morally good and responsible as look at atomic bombs and weapons humans made by science in the name of defence... So if religion teaches bad, than science can be evenly destructive without standard measurement of what is right and wrong .. But does science say what is wrong and wrong ? Ofcourse not, and I agree religion teaches evil too in many cases, but why should we not take good parts from religion, human mind and science also and base life on the goodness.. that is generally accepted by us all.. with our limited capacities... Every human would feel disgust with terrorists do, but why don't U go further and see who trains these people and pay money to these religious training centres in Pakistan and Saudi , and U will find British and USA , so the argument goes deeper.. Our problem is lack of education and lack of morality to think all humans are brothers and same, our goal should be equality , but U as an American why don't criticise from the root that USA has destroyed, Iraq, veitnam, Afghanistan, Lebia, Japan, and that is worst than what U gave as an example and they gave birth to so called extremists or devils in the Asia.. and also making best relations with Israel and Saudi the two worst systems in middle east.. Are they not one of the worst things ? Did Sept 11 not planned by Saudi.. and yet they are best friends with USA... Dude money is one of the main issues of today's world too not just simply relgion... Yamen, and after 40 years of destroying Afghanistan USA today makes a deal with taleban again and leaves Afghanistan in the hand of taleban..!? Do U see it? 2 million killed in the name of freedom and jihad which was a concept of British plan and USA funded plan .. just because they hated communism ? Wake up my friend ..
Zizek is great as ever, but what a ridiculous interlocutor. When Slavoj gives him 10 seconds he just starts babbling in that horrible radio voice of his, with its completely contrived cadence and weird phonetics (just listen to his t's and d's for God's sake). The only point in the interview when any real expertise was evinced on his part was the end, when they shot the shit about movies they liked.
Why should I tolerate Jehovah’s Witnesses eating bread, BREAD, on Passover, as a way to worship Jesus. He would not have given them bread in the desert. It would become hard as a rock and inedible, and as we learned from the Temptation of the Christ, you cannot eat a stone. No, I do not tolerate Jehovah’s Witness, because not only do they not bear witness, they insult him and the struggles of his people. Why should I tolerate poor human intelligence? Just because it’s a religion doesn’t mean it’s get to go around espousing absolute falsehoods as a kind of belief without at least attempting to respect the laws of nature and the necessity of myth and poetry to connect the inexplicable to the creative. I just don’t have the ways, means, energy, or confidence to say it’s intolerable.
My desire for my partner dropped off fairly quickly because he just isn't that good in bed. Our libido's are very well aligned but he reaches orgasm every time, I only get there once in a blue moon. I do love him but, in my experience, men are often not that good about pleasuring women. I hope this is changing for this new generation. (it might just be my luck).
BIG THINK: Are you conducting your interview segments in a Dentists office again while your guests are having their teeth pulled? Please stop it. Thank you, the world.
How can I marvel at his constant nose wipes and hand movements if there's no video?
It's a secret tai chi form only known by a select few.
If you listen very closely you can just make out the ruffling of fabric.
This is the first guy who actually talked to Zizek.
exactly everyone else just heaps flattery upon him, this is way more interesting
I'm really enjoying bingeing Slavoj appearences on podcasts, dude is as funny as he is interesting.
I absolutely love Slavoj. I do not hate the host because he helps keep him on a level that's easier for a person to understand... When he goes off on his own he goes so deep I completely lose him from time to time.
no camera? i want to see just how million times this guy will touch his nose during the whole talk
AJ MAN i didn't
Everything that breaks the boundaries of the norms of the majority is considered an illness or at least a disorder. If a guy is famous for touching his nose, that's probably not normal and would be considered in some way a medical problem.
wow you're primitive
No it's just a funny thing that people make fun of, you're reading too much into it.
*Sniffs*
*Sniff sniff*
I wrote a new book, i called it Hegel 2: Dialectic Boogaloo
*Tugs shirt*
Holdin McGroin and so on
I laughed.
Zizek is the best! So critical and meticulous in his analysis. Never dogmatic, always eclectic. Looking across the northern border of the US I wonder what Zizek's opinion is on the raging political correctness debate at the University of Toronto, specifically Professor Jordan Peterson's refusal to use preferred LGBTQ gender pronouns when conversing with his LGBTQ students.
This comment did not age well.
@@squalemardin3124 aged like fine wine
Wow, I've been putting off this video for a couple of days but now that I get to listen to it, I think it's hilarious.
Žižek - "Authentic politics is: I have a global vision that is different from yours. Let's fight without killing each other, but let's fight radically to the end."
Gots immediately drops the subject instead of fighting to the end.
The most important thinker of contemporary times in my estimation.
Gulag for me
Thanks for the interview, Jason; you did pretty well for journalist. Although it would help if you didn´t try to cover up gaps in your knowledge and just shoot straight when you didn´t know what was what. Cheers!
"yeah yeah yeah yeah" - Slavoj Žižek
Great interview
This guy's from the same country as me
a huge shout out from Slovenia
Gregor Romšak Gnjezda lucky you
Gregor Romšak Gnjezda gulag for you
Is Ljubljana as beautiful as I imagine it to be? :)
When he talks about the initiation rites for boys to become men, it reminded me a lot of "king wizard warrior lover"
Thanks for the upload!!!
At first his lisp and linguistic tics, his repeating of phrases like; "And so on, and so forth... This is to say... What I am saying is this..." in his oftentimes disjointed sentences can be annoying and off putting...
But Zizek's thoughts can be extremely engrossing once you really start listening to "what" he's saying as opposed to "how" he's saying it.
Having listened to quite a few of his lectures and debates I now find his frequent tics and rambling sentences quite endearing...
purpleintrepid The thing is Zizek doesn't really have a single "overall" message... He is primarily a contrarian (I dunno if that's actually a real word) He plays devils advocate with a lot of popular ideas, criticizing certain aspects of an idea while never going so far as to say that the idea is flat out wrong. He argues against absolutism frequently saying things like "I strongly believe in this (insert philosophy or concept) but there are a lot of problems with this idea such as blah, blah blah, and so on and so forth..."
It often may seem that he's contradicting himself (and in many ways that's true) but I think by doing this he points out the inherant contradictions within certain ideas and philosophy.
He points out that (I'm paraphrasing now); In general tolerance and social justice are good things but enforcing tolerance can be deeply intolerant of certain people and their principles. He says that tolerance itself has been misapplied so that people are often forced not to merely tolerate an idea but to actively accept that idea. One can actively and very publically disagree with an idea and still be tolerant. He compares it to having a neighbour, you don't have to be friends with a neighbour to be tolerant of them; in fact you can actively hate them but as long as you don't interfere in that neighbours basic affairs you would remain tolerant of them.
If this neighbour puts up a political placard for a certain candidate on their lawn, you can actively oppose them by putting political placards of an opposing candidate, and chastising your neighbour for their political opinions. In doing this you would remain completely tolerant of said neighbour. Only by actively interfering with your neighbours rights by doing something like vandalizing your neighbour's placard or slandering them to their employer or the like would you become intolerant of your neighbour.
The political correctness that is so dominant in society right now doesn't do away with racism and sexism. But by making racism and sexism an ostracising social stigma (or oftentimes harmless behaviors associated with racism and sexism) it makes them impossible to express publically thus suppressing certain ideas and attitudes and driving them underground.
So when a presidential candidate like Donald Trump gives voice to certain ideas that are associated with racism and sexism (As to whether those ideas actually are racist and sexist is open to argument) Then the people that believe in these ideas but have not been able to personally voice those opinions and resent this social censorship will naturally gravitate to supporting Trump. Thus showing how political correctness is actually backfiring in its intended goals.
purpleintrepid The thing is Zizek doesn't really have a single "overall" message... He is primarily a contrarian (I dunno if that's actually a real word) He plays devils advocate with a lot of popular ideas, criticizing certain aspects of an idea while never going so far as to say that the idea is flat out wrong. He argues against absolutism frequently saying things like "I strongly believe in this (insert philosophy or concept) but there are a lot of problems with this idea such as blah, blah blah, and so on and so forth..."
It often may seem that he's contradicting himself (and in many ways that's true) but I think by doing this he points out the inherant contradictions within certain ideas and philosophy.
He points out that (I'm paraphrasing now); In general tolerance and social justice are good things but enforcing tolerance can be deeply intolerant of certain people and their principles. He says that tolerance itself has been misapplied so that people are often forced not to merely tolerate an idea but to actively accept that idea. One can actively and very publically disagree with an idea and still be tolerant. He compares it to having a neighbour, you don't have to be friends with a neighbour to be tolerant of them; in fact you can actively hate them but as long as you don't interfere in that neighbours basic affairs you would remain tolerant of them.
If this neighbour puts up a political placard for a certain candidate on their lawn, you can actively oppose them by putting political placards of an opposing candidate, and chastising your neighbour for their political opinions. In doing this you would remain completely tolerant of said neighbour. Only by actively interfering with your neighbours rights by doing something like vandalizing your neighbour's placard or slandering them to their employer or the like would you become intolerant of your neighbour.
The political correctness that is so dominant in society right now doesn't do away with racism and sexism. But by making racism and sexism an ostracising social stigma (or oftentimes harmless behaviors associated with racism and sexism) it makes them impossible to express publically thus suppressing certain ideas and attitudes and driving them underground.
So when a presidential candidate like Donald Trump gives voice to certain ideas that are associated with racism and sexism (As to whether those ideas actually are racist and sexist is open to argument) Then the people that believe in these ideas but have not been able to personally voice those opinions and resent this social censorship will naturally gravitate to supporting Trump. Thus showing how political correctness is actually backfiring in its intended goals.
***** yeah, you're right... In this particular podcast he's using the neighbour analogy like you said.
In some of the other media from Zizek he expounds on how the meaning of tolerance has been subverted in the way I was referring to...
He talks about how tolerance became an Enlightenment principle precisely because of the way the bloody wars of religion divided europe after the Protestant Reformation.
I dunno which lectures/debates that was offhand, but there are probably quite a few of them where he repeats the same talking points.
I find that's a problem with a lot of the lecturers/authors I like, every video you watch from them ends up with them repeating the same things over and over...
***** In order to change a person's mind about something you need to engage in dialogue with them. If a person is bigoted, especially if they are only mildly bigoted you're only going to harden their position if you tell them they are evil or a bad person for thinking that way. In fact they will tend to hide their attitudes from others so as to avoid negative reactions...
Changing hearts and minds is better achieved by showing an individual how their thinking is factually incorrect then taking a moral stance that the bigoted idea is morally wrong.
After all I never found any of the arguments levied by religious fundamentalists to be any more persuasive just because they told me that if I didn't believe I was a bad person and was going to hell. If anything it only confirmed to me that they were off their rocker...
There's a video on this same channel, "Penn Jillette: Why Tolerance Is Condescending", with a similar view on the topic.
Very smart man.
Finally some real big think
South Park already made an episode about the difference between tolerance and acceptance
Ender Wiggin south park also made an episode on the futility of the "simpsons already did it" argument...
That was a good episode too
Which episode?
Zizek tells it like it is
Slavoj’s points are great and important, but it’s difficult to hear how he seems to purposely keep the interviewer from finishing his own points and questions. Slavoj is probably a great lecturer but an exhausting conversationalist.
Didn't know you guys ran a podcast... interesting convo!
Wow, Slavoj didn't think Trump would win either!
I love that he casually assumes Hilary is about to win. I did also
11:33 I am who I am, you are who I am
The idea that Hillary would win was based on the concept that the person who got the most votes would win. Obviously, that's not really the case in America, necessarily. So, yes, in a sense, Hillary convinced more people to vote for her, but our system doesn't care about that in some cases and in this case specifically.
There's so much evidence. For example, he contradicted himself over and over and it's on f***** tape.
US system is based on electoral votes, not individual votes. Why is that so hard to understand? And he thought Hillary would win because our "system" was heavily rigged in her favor. The entire mainstream media was shilling for her 24/7, and she outspent him more than 2:1 in advertising.
We have the electoral college so that LA and NY and a few other ginormous metropolitan areas don't decide every presidential election. If it was based on the popular votes, you'd frequently have 75% or more of US states voted Red but Blue winning just because Cali,New York State, and the huge counties within them decided to go Blue. The electoral college is a necessity.
Does anyone know how I can get youtube to remember the place/time I watched up to on the video? I loved that feature, but it just disappeared.
guys in the last minutes of the podcast they sum up some movies, anyone get to write those down? or knew from before?
Id tried looking up what i thought id heard but no hits?
Anyone get the correct movie names?
Shooting Robot Hal Ashby's Harold and Maude and Being There
*Insert generic comment about Zizek's tics rather than discussion of actual material here. God I'm so funny.*
Why no subtitles or video transcript?
The title is completely wrong. Zizek is on favour of tollerance in its original sense. Nonetheless, Zizek is against passive and inconsistent acceptance of different cultures and customs: I can live with a immigrant/LGBT/religious minorance, I can be friend, I can spend my time with him/her, but I cannot assume his/her culture and custom as mine, I cannot utterly comprehend, I'm not obbliged to like or to attend the patronizing speeches but I'm obbliged just to respect and, when I don't like, I have to keep the respectful distance (as Nietzsche used to say).
Harold and Maude do have actual physical sex with each other, as I recall that film (_Harold and Maude_ mentioned in last 5-6 minutes of this podcast).
Radical problems may require radical changes.
I think English subtitles would have been a good idea .
I wish I could understand this guy, all I hear is "slosh" and "tssk"
The host is a void of knowledge. He detracts from this recording. His commentary is like listening to an undergrad college radio host. He's talking to one of the most respected philosophers in the WORLD. He should show some deference.
This fucking Kid keeeeeeps interrupting. Stfu!
The host forces Zizek to clarification. The more people understand the concepts he discusses, the more reach or impact it has.
Freakydemon Fair enough.
Its a podcast if you wanna listen to Žižek rambling there is a bout 100 videos on youtube and 2 documentaries. It was nice to hear a balance dialog for once even if the other person isnt on his level. All the better!
I was actually impressed with the host. He serves, if nothing else, as a voice for many others who would want to ask for clarification through discourse.
I feel like a lame time traveler reading these comments
8 minutes In and I’m already irritated with the host. 50% of the time thus far has been misunderstanding Zizek’s point and making him repeat it to get it through your head.
Who cares what you think (respectfully)?
We’re here for Zizek. :)
The presenters laugh is so cute
everyone knows when couples get old that's how it goes. Power couples work like this... woman/mom is stabilizer...keeps the team moving forward, man/dad is turbo charger... advancing them and getting them out ahead. Turbocharger burns out at 65-70.
Dilma Roussef impeached president in Brazil this year (2016) seems exactly the same story Zizek told us (comparing to Clinton and Merkhel), however, in happens in an even more dramatical way (probably because of the current context of Brazil): "So, women want power in Politics here in Brazil Government? Ok, here you go!"... And what happened next we know already: a coup d'état.
I think Slavoj underestimated the American People's tendency to apathy, rather than action, when they become disgusted with the system. And the sideshow has been good business for the pickpockets.
...What?
Well, if women lose the desire for their partner more quickly than men do, then why do men cheat significantly more (at least according to the surveys I have found).
Men also seem to let themselves go much faster than women, from what I can see (and hear). I wonder if that is why women tend to lose the desire faster (if that is actually true)?
Maybe nature itself has made up this setting ?
When children are born and raised what's the purpose for women having sex ? Also remember menopause . Why do women paint their lips even when far beyond 60 yrs ?
Sex totally is overrated in a hedonistic aligned society.
can someone go more in depth as to why identity politics is just global capitalism.
Slavoj and other leftists like him remind me a lot of the anti-Stalin left in the way they criticize a lot of the mainstream left tendencies nowadays which lean to political correctness and using some form of censorship unto certain ideas they don't see as fit.
I say they seem similar because the anti-stalin left and many mainstream marxists at the time who critcized stalin and lenin were completely opposed to the totalitarian state and use of force they(Stalin) were using to achieve their goals.
Not that regressives are Stalin but they are similar in the sense that they are willing to use certain authoritarian tactics to achieve their goals.
7:53 WHY IS THE HOST A COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY PROPAGANDIST?! The Workers' Bomb is the only viable path forward. Long live Posadas!
How is Hillary being both occupy wall street and Wall Street big money and LGBTQ supporter and getting Saudi money not make her as much of an political/cultural (BLM also) opportunist as Zizek claims Trump to be?
The interviewer had some really immature laughs. He should work at that. It's annoying.
And keeps interrupting the guest.
You're an immature laugh. (Get past yourself. We're here for Slavoj)
It's a fanboy laugh.
Alexander W. slavoj is making a joke intentionally and the interviewer is laughing what's wrong with that?
Tolerance has many meanings and definitions according to various sources, including dictionaries and philosophy books. Many people have their own tolerance threshold that they deem appropriate, but what does it really mean? Well, let's see...
For example, the dictionary definition of tolerance is 'the ability to tolerate something' or 'a fair, objective and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices etc. differ from one's own.' This means that tolerance in this sense can only exist between two groups: a tolerant group and an intolerant group. Tolerance could not coexist with itself because it would contradict itself.
As defined by Stephen G. Post, professor of bioethics at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio: 'Tolerance means accepting the existence of those who do not share my beliefs and saying nothing about them.' This is a more neutral viewpoint that does not have any sort of prejudice or favoritism towards another group.
So, what are the consequences of this non-discriminating definition of tolerance? I have found that from a philosophical point of view, there is no absolute truth. There are many viewpoints and interpretations about any given thing in life. The fact that we can even speak about an 'absolute truth' means that there is no such thing because it has to be relative to something else.
So, where is the line drawn between intolerance and acceptance? It seems that you have to accept everything or tolerate everything. Is it possible to reject something without being intolerant? You could say that tolerance means accepting the existence of others who do not share my beliefs. But, what if those 'others' are actually harming society in its own way?
If you were to accept everything, then that would mean that you are accepting the existence of those who are intolerant. This completely contradicts the definition of tolerance. So, one has to draw the line between what is 'acceptable' and what is not.
Robin DiAngelo is directly talking about Zizek here: “To be unpicking my privilege, my supremacy, my colonized mind. That’s tough enough. But to be faced with blank looks from fellow whites. That’s the real rusty razor to the carotid artery. I wasn’t raised to see my race as saying anything relevant about me. I will not coddle your comfort. I’m going to name and admit to things white people rarely name and admit. I know you. Oh, white progressives are my specialty. Because I am a white progressive. And I have a racist worldview. My psychosocial development was inculcated in this water and internalized white superiority is seeping out of my pores. White supremacy - yes, it includes extremists or neo-Nazis, but it is also a highly descriptive sociological term for the society we live in, a society in which white people are elevated as the ideal for humanity, and everyone else is a deficient version. There is something profoundly anti-Black in this culture.”
Robin DiAngelo, 'White Fragility' Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?, Feature, New York Times Magazine, July 15, 2020
Silvester from looney tunes
We already live in Marxist societies in the west. Let us look at the 10 points Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, and let us see how it is in the west today.
1. land property and expropriation of rent to public purposes. Implemented. Rent on land, the added value created by the productive use of land, goes in various phases of production to the State through taxation.
2. Strong progressive taxation. Implemented. This hardly needs to be discussed in our countrys. The Conservatives introduced this in Sweden 1910, all political parties in the Parliament approve this idea today.
3. The hereditary abolition. Implemented. In virtually all cases. Succession is not completely abolished, but is heavily taxed. Anyone who today inherit his parents' house will have to pay more than a quarter of the value to the state, despite everything he inherits already have been taxed many times over.
4. Confiscation of all emigrants and rebels. This point is not relevant today.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. Implemented. For about a century ago there was a functioning foreign exchange market in our countrys. The central bank have made all banks into one.
6. Centralization of the transportation system in the state's hands. Implemented. The state have the responsibility to plan and maintain railway, airtravel and car traffic, broadband and telephony. Although the state often take private businesses to help the government control, and to take the overall responsibility. All other alternative solutions are discouraged or banned.
7. Extension of domestic factories, instruments of production, cultivation and improvement of the soil for a social plan. Implemented. The Ministry of Industry has the overlying responsibility for all economic policy concerning this.
8. Equal of all to labor, the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Implemented. In elementary school, children are brought up to become good wage workers. Those of working age who do not work quickly becoming subjects of various government programs to increase skills or otherwise made to work.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; measures to eventually obliterate the distinction between town and country. Implemented. "All region shall live". Regional policy is often hotly debated in the parliament and in the media. Politicians running around promising millions in subsidies.
10. Public and free education for all children. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. Implemented. The school is for everyone and by school attendance all parents must put their children in school for at least nine year. This creates a consistent environment for all children between 7 and 15 years, where they can be brought up to be good citizens and workers who will vote correctly.
Thus, dear comrades, it doesn´t matter what you vote for. All politicians in the west are in one degree or another Marxist. Read their party programs and compare with Marx 10 requirements and you will see for yourselves. Politicians never accuse you of being greedy if you want to get other people's money - only if you want to keep your own.
this is the dumbest goddamn thing i have ever read in my entire life holy shit LOL please be satire
22:50 I disagree with that "observation." From my perspective trump best fits in feminine archetype and Hillary was much more masculine in that race. The same comparison can be maid between Bill and Hillary. You can't change the definition of feminity to what used to be definition of masculinity and then call yourself feminist.
But yes more men are feminine and more women are masculine because members of each group are taught these days that they should act that way.
First
Second
Third
David Jones Fourth?
U said we ultimately get to truth,
also U spoke about science and science can never claim what is truth ? They are not in that business,
Sciences answers the the questions of how not why?
or why should we believe in truth,
Also alqaida or Isis etc they can not be the example of a religion,
I urge try to refuse Rumi books on religion as he could be considered a Muslim
and most of what U say , Rumi said to the very so called Muslims who used to do the same in the past as Isis and alqayeda,
But if religion does not stand on the bases of love.. than it is fake, but we can't really say science is also morally good and responsible as look at atomic bombs and weapons humans made by science in the name of defence... So if religion teaches bad, than science can be evenly destructive without standard measurement of what is right and wrong ..
But does science say what is wrong and wrong ? Ofcourse not, and I agree religion teaches evil too in many cases, but why should we not take good parts from religion, human mind and science also and base life on the goodness.. that is generally accepted by us all.. with our limited capacities...
Every human would feel disgust with terrorists do, but why don't U go further and see who trains these people and pay money to these religious training centres in Pakistan and Saudi , and U will find British and USA , so the argument goes deeper..
Our problem is lack of education and lack of morality to think all humans are brothers and same, our goal should be equality , but U as an American why don't criticise from the root that USA has destroyed, Iraq, veitnam,
Afghanistan, Lebia, Japan,
and that is worst than what U gave as an example and they gave birth to so called extremists or devils in the Asia.. and also making best relations with Israel and Saudi the two worst systems in middle east..
Are they not one of the worst things ? Did Sept 11 not planned by Saudi.. and yet they are best friends with USA...
Dude money is one of the main issues of today's world too not just simply relgion...
Yamen, and after 40 years of destroying Afghanistan USA today makes a deal with taleban again and leaves Afghanistan in the hand of taleban..!? Do U see it?
2 million killed in the name of freedom and jihad which was a concept of British plan and USA funded plan .. just because they hated communism ?
Wake up my friend ..
Boy is this all a bla bla blahhh now... Go TRUMP baby... :)
GO TO BUT
Zizek is great as ever, but what a ridiculous interlocutor. When Slavoj gives him 10 seconds he just starts babbling in that horrible radio voice of his, with its completely contrived cadence and weird phonetics (just listen to his t's and d's for God's sake). The only point in the interview when any real expertise was evinced on his part was the end, when they shot the shit about movies they liked.
Hey dipshit Zizek's first language isn't English, let's hear your second language pronunciation...
Why should I tolerate Jehovah’s Witnesses eating bread, BREAD, on Passover, as a way to worship Jesus. He would not have given them bread in the desert. It would become hard as a rock and inedible, and as we learned from the Temptation of the Christ, you cannot eat a stone. No, I do not tolerate Jehovah’s Witness, because not only do they not bear witness, they insult him and the struggles of his people. Why should I tolerate poor human intelligence? Just because it’s a religion doesn’t mean it’s get to go around espousing absolute falsehoods as a kind of belief without at least attempting to respect the laws of nature and the necessity of myth and poetry to connect the inexplicable to the creative. I just don’t have the ways, means, energy, or confidence to say it’s intolerable.
My desire for my partner dropped off fairly quickly because he just isn't that good in bed. Our libido's are very well aligned but he reaches orgasm every time, I only get there once in a blue moon. I do love him but, in my experience, men are often not that good about pleasuring women. I hope this is changing for this new generation. (it might just be my luck).
all hail trump
you new to the internet?
Zack Kammler I wish, I've seen dumb asses like you for far too long, time to bring back the gulags
BIG THINK: Are you conducting your interview segments in a Dentists office again while your guests are having their teeth pulled? Please stop it.
Thank you,
the world.
what a wierdo.