Yes. We need to realize united states turns worst crimes against life on earth into a debate if its ok or not. Im guessing its a tactic for illusion of some imagined free society. Thats what hes saying as well i think
lmao I can't blame the algorithm for getting confused tho. There is probably a "fast one" that focuses on spectral analysis, and then they use voice to text translation. Probably the first one failed
Got to love Zizek's take on "Antigone". Sophocles wrote Antigone around 441 BC. In the story King Creon disallows Antigone's brothers burial, because he had lead a foreign army. Antigone buries her brother anyway. She is sentenced to death but hangs herself before the execution. Or - as Zizek puts it: Antigone says: "Fuck off I want to bury my brother", and Creon says "yes but look at the political situation and so on and so on". I love it. So 2021.
Yes, but actually, it's a lacanian intepretation that Zizek is very familiar with, as he works also with psychoanalytical theory. Jacques Lacan has lectured about Antigone (Seminar 7) and how she represents the desire in its purest form, above common laws, beyond good and bad or understanding. The decision to bury her brother is an ethical one, and in his understanding, beyond morality. Lacan uses Antigone to make a point about the ethics of psychoanalysis which is about the subject and its singularity.
As an autistic person I can say he doesn't misrepresent us. There are other autistic people too, so don't take my word to be holy, but I personally found his description very accurate.
But i don't find zizek "autistic" , yeah , he have his ticks and those stuff, Is just representing different people , just like me and just like you , who can use the perfect words to explain but sill have the sense of need to express yourself what you think. step in that way.
yeah me too! I'm oftenly read as 'arrogant' when i'm just trying to be informative 'straight to the facts'. So I understand how greta must feel and i like zizek perspective
@@salvadorkda5758 he’s talking about Greta, the messenger of certainly the Rothschilds, and many more ‘to big to fail’ families and people, like Gates, who all contribute to the media. How do you think she got across the Atlantic Ocean in a ‘carbon neutral boat’. Then have the worlds media report on her setting off? (Is that going to influence the way they write about certain subjects, especially the people and their ‘charitable work’? It’s the start of the ‘narrative’, journalists aren’t like detectives anymore, they’re >99% writers, more artistic, so prefer the ‘narrative’ genre of writing their journalism. Unlike the facts and evidence based approach. That’s why they have, and are becoming more left wing. They used to be predominantly right wing, but with academia being taken over by the left, this is one example of the consequences.
Except for his 's' and 'l' pronunciation, he actually sounds pretty similar to people from Antwerp where I'm from. My accent doesn't differ very much from his
that debate was in Austria where a lot of people still have Latin in high school and either there or even in German Literature class you will definitively learn about Greek Literature like Antigone
@@daniarocio5001 Becusae Im not a sheep nor a monkey on the monkey mountain. Im a free , intelligent , free-thinking person that doesnt like BS nor anything that blindly follows anything.
@@daniarocio5001 What is the purpose of that question? "I literally quoted him as satire lmao you are not what you said, you are just so scared of being considered "slow" you feel the need to prove yourself wherever you are. " No you didnt: here is what you said: "how dare you, and so on" Just stop contacting me with this level of idiocy, thank you.
The main problem is that politicians rarely take a stand on anything if it threatens the popularity of their political party or their own reelection. And if they do take a stand, they won't get many donors the next time around.
The solution is public funding for political parties, dependent on membership numbers, which rewards grassroots popularity at the expense of elite rich donors
Verleugnung (Denial in English) : Refusal to accept reality, thus blocking external events from awareness. Anna Freud postulated that an individual ignores the perception of real sensory impressions and their meaning thus the threatening pieces of external reality can be recognized as non-existent.
@@atthecore4560 it conveniently glosses over the fact the correlation between external events and how they are percieved don't constitute a unified reality. We don't see the world in the same way and we never will.
If i can recall correctly, the name of this talk was "Disorder under Heaven" and it took place in Vienna. But you'll find that Slavoj talked most of the time, as always. :)
I appreciate your content but I think it would be better if you included the name of the interview/conference and the year it was recorded in every description.
Im german and we had this guy in our English test last friday (im in year 11) and they played some Audio Clip where He Talks about ideology and we had to translate to german. I dont have a clue how they find All these Audio clips in English where you dont under stand anything and i just got myself a F
@@Yabroproductions33 1. Literaly everything is propaganda, you can only decide whos propaganda to Listen to. 2.its the exact opposite, he is on the side of the Hard workers and He hates the leeches that let other people work for them or make money of Basic necessity like housing, Water etc
seriously. I can hear and the auto-captioning is lousy. This needs to be more accessible. The youtuber could fix the autocaption and youtube needs to allow channels to crowd source captioning again.
@@Potatoarmy12 In general, people can not be proud of something if they didn't participate in that. That is only an illusion. Just because we are identifying ourselves with something it doesn't mean we can be proud of that. I mean, ofc. you can - that is your feeling. But there is no sense there. Another illusion is hidden in there. We are proud of good things our countrymen do but we have no responsibility in evil things that our countrymen do. And I think that is dangerous.
What he is saying in 1 sentence; Greta speaks her mind directly without falling for the political correctness and that's what we need more off in this world.
"her mind" = #Scriptgirl (Margaret Klein Salamon, "Leading the public into emergency mode", a 2016 framing manual for climate hysteria: "House on fire" phrase etc)
he makes a very good point with a very bad example someone who's a straight shooter is good but greta in an uninformed idiot that lets emotions do the talking we have enough emotional idiots speaking their mind.
I like Zizek's point about dogmatism, it highlights a weakness of our ultra democratic liberal societies that is basically never addressed, the inefficiency and potential dishonesty of leaving every single subject up for debate, because it is the open-minded and democratic thing to do in principle. It opens us up to getting bogged down in inefficient debates or lose motivation at actually achieving a goal we may have already agreed upon (what he means by the "mais comment"). Even worse, it gives the opportunity to certain people to purposefully bog down the conversation into endless debate ensuring actions are never taken, which is most evident in the lobbying around climate action. This is also why to me centrism is the most infuriating political ideology, especially this "critical thinker" brand of centrism like Destiny that is absolutely obsessed with over-nuancing and debating every single topic never arriving at any definite conclusion that could be acted upon, in effect ensuring that the status-quo or the current trajectory of change is unopposed. There's no clear answer whether it's better to be dogmatic or open-minded, because too open-minded and you can be manipulated or placated into endless debate and inaction, while too dogmatic and you can lose the ability to distinguish right from wrong and become driven only by dogma. But one thing's for sure, our inability to deal with issues like climate change is a clear sign that we are perhaps too open-minded and not dogmatic enough in our approach.
our populous is too uneducated for real democracy because of the stronghold authoritarianism has on our systems of education. make people smarter & less focused on surviving and we can have a real democracy instead of an authoritarian capitalistic hellscape where everyone’s so neurotic and traumatized that they can’t actually consume politics or participate in politics without it being for the purpose enacting meaningless vengeance on out-groups. we’re uncivilized and it’s by design. the fact that liberals can’t get shit passed is not a bug in the system, it’s a feature. it’s not going anywhere. the DNC is not in the business of truth telling or sticking up for the truth. politics is a game to them. open-mindedness doesn’t mean being uneducated, unopinionated and easily manipulated. it’s ideally the opposite. being “dogmatic” and being “open minded” aren’t antonyms. there are absolute truths in politics. being “dogmatic” is only an issue when you’re wrong or your ideas are unproven. ie religious. it’s not an issue when you’re educated in social sciences and politics. no, you don’t have to rule with an iron fist nor hurt anybody or enforce opinions by law if you’re “dogmatic”, because dogmatic people can also be extremely open minded. empathy doesn’t mean sacrificing your values, if you’re a well balanced human. you’ve created a false dichotomy. reducing people down to a science without losing their humanity requires a lot more effort than you put into this comment!!
I get that she is supposed to demand answers and not supply them, but there is another great Zizek video "Think, don't act." Where he talks about how people often want revolutions but don't think what should happen after, I feel like the climate movement has lost a lot of steam and people have gone back to not caring and most countries arent doing anything really and the ones who are just do the bare minimum, I feel like the demand solutions instead of action allowed politicans to go "We'll look into" and not following up
The problem here is very simple: When there are 3 countries, that create over 50% of the CO2 emissions, others can’t do too much, that would change the game. So especially those (China, US and India) have to work harder. But there is also a lot of different ecological disaster, like water pollution in Africa r the rain forest burning in Brazil, that add to the problem. All in all I would say, that nothing can be done anymore. We have to adapt, because humans don’t change. The need for more will be always greater, than common sense. Wich interestingly isn’t that common.
@@retardinho5048 i would quickly suggest a focus to local, sustainable production. it would make us a lot more responsible for what we produce and would take power away from china and india in their role in the global economy. though I also realise the reason china is the factory of the world, people want cheap shit and don't want to pay their workers a living wage because its soo much cheaper to exploit a Chinese worker overseas where the consumer doesn't have to think about it all that much.
@@retardinho5048 That is definitely part of the problem. There are other aspects to it of cource, but this is an important one. We will probably not be able to prevent anything in the short term, mainly becouse other countries are too poor to give a shit, and also becouse science is difficult and the most efficiënt solutions need time to be discovered. We would however be able to make a difference in the long term @tuyenero tuyenero . There have been several great researches that suggested it would be best to invest in: getting poor countries developed asap, decreasing child malnutrition, things like that. Also investing in new tochnologies (like actual good nuclear power plants or cheaper renewable energy) would be very important. Getting more people out of poverty to be able to care more, and to have more brainpower availible to help with research should be the main concerns.
in our current global, capitalistic consumerism we have effectively numbed a great deal of the public by simply saying 'here, you can spend a bit more and pretend you have made a difference'. its moral licensing at work.
I think he actually had a pretty clear point this one time. FFF acts as a dogmatic young movement with a clear simple message of acknowledging the urgency and reality of climate change beyond the political mainstream which often highlights the complexity of the issue and gets a bit too comfortable hiding behind the complexity so much that it became a common convention to take a measured and moderate approach which balances ecology, economy and social welfare which isn’t wrong but has started to ignore the urgency. Greta is also on the autism spectrum and autistic people are known for straight talking and not caring too much about social conventions and etiquettes. His point now is that she has integrated that into the messaging of FFF and uses it to give a wake up call
Your point is a common criticism, and understandably so against him but this probably isn’t the right vide to bring it up in because this was very clear and straightforward if you just listen
If you watch his older videos from the 1990s, he comes across as far more "normal," with far fewer tics and sniffling. Whatever his problem is, it appears to be worsening with age.
From what I observe, she's become a meme for most on the internet, climate change activists are so easy to hate for some reason, but I guess that's the martyrdom they accept for a modicum of change.
@Hugh Mungus yea but aren't we all? There are lots of things worthy of critique which we've grown dependant on. When they come across like condescending assholes, I totally get you, but I simultaneously don't think activism is useless. Sadly too many people virtue signal without making an actual contribution, so perhaps there's only so much being polite and passive can do.
@Hugh Mungus if only the face of climate change activism are people like Alex Honnold, Killian Jornet, and Emelie Forsberg. People who made a major part of their lives playing in the mountains and wild open spaces and have achieved incredible feats of human skill and technique. Instead they chose Greta. 🤣🤣🤣
@Hugh Mungus The names listed above disqualify the moronic generalisation you make when you say 'climate change activists are self righteous hypocrites'
What made sense about this Yue? Because all I heard were feelings and emotionbased opinions about another person and a situation. No facts. So please try to explain to me what made sense here.
I am not nearly educated enough to even understand a third of what he is saying most of the time but you really get the feeling that he’s the joker of modern philosophy and I’m all here for it. All I can really say is fuck these cringelord moralists and the modern left is far too weak and seems unconcerned with backing up their values with sound reasoning.
@@RightfootWestHam what..? he was just sharing his view on Greta Thunberg, would've you preferred he veneered what he said as some sort of objective truth rather than the open discussion it obviously is? you seem like the type who gets easily decieved by misleading graphs. it's so ironic by being so concerned about "facts" and "objectivity" you end up shutting down all avenues for possible critical thought. this obsession with logos that certain people have is honestly frightening.
@@RightfootWestHam great way to completely avoid everything I said by fixating on the smallest detail imaginable. surely you're not socially inept enough to not understand that "what..?" is just a phrase to show confusion.
I have a little trouble understanding what he's talking about. And it has nothing to do with the language, he speaks very incoherently as if he is just throwing in themes without them having anything to do with each other.
I'm autistic but I'm not dogmatic. At least not in my thinking. My thinking is very nuanced. My behavior however is very dogmatic. I cannot be nuanced in how I behave in public, I have to keep categorically silent or else I will feel compelled to say inappropriate things.
I dont think he meant dogmatic in any negative meaning of the word. The current political climate is that of ""free market place of ideas"" which doesnt want a discussion to settle, beacause if it still goes on, we don't have to do anything about the issues, "the experts are still debating it". I understood the dogmaticism as -- there are some things that arent up to debate anymore and we should be very clear about it.
The ban on torture is absolute. There are no exceptions, no special provisions, no contingencies, no way about it. Torture is always and under all circumstances a crime against humanity. "We tortured some folks." - some American president publicly admitting to being a war criminal in an attempt to normalise violating international law, incidentally painting his entire country as a legitimate military target
It is nuanced and subtle, but at the core he is arguing for liberal fascism, and I'm not mad about it. Listen again to the part where he says we shouldn't have to endlessly debate rape. That's the core of his argument. Check out Richard Rorty's liberal ironism. There are limits to democracy, and sometimes you just have to bring the hammer down on stuff that you know is wrong, and shouldn't require an explanation or debate about why it's wrong.
@Gaynor Lewis no, it depends on the money you have, the more money you have the more time you can afford to not worry for basic things and the more you would worry for (for example) climate change, ask a taxi driver in mexico city (a lot of them have college degree, some are even doctors) ask them if they are worried for climate change when they are strugling to take food to their families.
It is amusing to see all the people here jumping to ridicule his appearance and mannerism. Expected of most people too. Never underestimate the power of these people in large groups, as Carlin used to say...
Post 2016 zizek frustrates me sometimes. He himself put it best in one of his most famous public musings: the Greta thunberg ecological dogmatism is ‘V for vendetta part 1’. But what does V for vendetta part 2 look like? Importing more resources from Africa and manufacturing from China to make 2-3 year life span electric vehicles, inefficient wind turbines and habitat destroying dams? Renewable energy/ sustainability policies that are not tailored to a countries geographical situation resulting in things like increased food importation and deforestation for mono agriculture farming and pesticides? Soy in our animal food replacements and plastic in our leather and fur replacements, thus feeding into fast food and fast fashion trends? The list goes on. And when you pragmatically suggest effective renewable energies like nuclear, that thunberg ‘green future at all costs’ dogmatism goes out the window. Big capital again deciding what our ‘green future’ looks like. Pure ideology if you ask me
And the middle class Martyrs are the useful idiots. There was a time when you’d own a petrol vehicle for 10-15 years and sometimes longer. Now we get our cars on credit and go through them every several years. What’s that about !?
There is no part 2. We'll all be dead in 30 years. Wind turbines are not inefficient. Nuclear is not renewable. The latest IPCC report calculates that while nuclear would be an improvement over coal and gas in terms of CO2, ignoring the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, it is also the most expensive by far, exceeded only slightly by bioelectricity which is not being used right now. Greta Thunberg herself is in favour of nuclear energy, by the way, so you can "pragmatically" tear down your strawman right away. The cheapest source of electricity is solar power. It is being adopted at an exponential rate by private households. It saves money. The ROI is 3 years. But it won't make a noticeable dent into the emission of CO2. During the lockdowns during the pandemics, CO2 emissions were reduced by 11%, NOx by 40%, mit because of the reduced commuting and air traffic, but because of closed factories. What can you do to shut down factories? What can you do for waste water treatment? What can you do to change city planning and zoning to reduce dependence on individual transport? What can you do to prevent overfishing, bee colony collapse, and oil spills?
With all due respect these are simply insufficient reasons to stop a green pivoting of the economy given the long term weigh off, and nuclear is fully compatible with a green revolution. But also this is quite exaggerated: China and India's manufacturing of solar panels has driven the price of solar way down to affordable levels, and you only really need a few large hydroelectric dams to provide a large share if not all of a country's needed electricity. Wind is not catastrophically short term, but even if it were, it is far superior to the carbon costs of LNG and coal. Nuclear is great, but also takes time to build and phase in and produces some pretty gnarly waste so is unlikely to ever be a dominant power source
Hydroelectric dams are breathtakingly destructive to the natural environment including river life. Solar panels leak toxic substances into the soil overtime. LNG is not an efficient way of importing gas; if it’s imported through pipelines it’s far cheaper and subsequently outperforms wind energy for cost effectiveness. Electric vehicles require high volumes of lithium to produce batteries with a shelf life of less than 8 years. Plant based mono agriculture is destroying the fertility of our soil. Importing more manufactured products from China for the sake of under performing wind farms feels like exactly the thing that got us in this mess in the first place. Why not ask China to produce spare parts for vehicles we’ve already made so they are maintained instead of scrapped for millions of new electric vehicles. Every current technological proposition made by the green movement feels utopian and in reality totally suicidal for our societies. It’s a movement running off pure hubris right now, and all the green suggestions appear to have a worse long term impact on us and our environment than current oil and gas based energy sources. We really have to tread carefully on this subject, i see a boondoggle on the horizon with totalitarian political consequences and mugabe style land grabs. Never a good sign
@@hi_im_roman I haven't read him, he's probably quite interesting, but you have to admin that he is not the best public speaker. He is very vague and chaotic, and I'm not talking about the accent or the speech impediment.
@@Tom-mk7nd Neither vague nor chaotic. Like many academics he would sometimes (well, often) branch out into a supporting concept before returning to the previous concept or the main thrust of his argument or idea, in contrast to most people who associatively jump from topic to topic and never look back or remember what they were talking about a minute ago. It is like a stack or a tree. School text books are written like that as well. People not used to returning to a previous topic with the latest notion in hand often get lost or confused by this requirement of having a working memory.
And what about dogmatically asserting “trans women are women!” Or dogmatically asserting the opposite? We need more rational debate, not less. If people repeat bad arguments, then repeat the refutation. Dogmatism is the death of reason and beginning of violence, one debate ends.
