Slavoj Zizek on Donald Trump

[@gregoryfabre7471]

He has a point when he says of wikileaks that people weren't being shown something new, that they already knew what was going on. Probably the best indication of that is how quickly the collective mind forgets these revelations.

[@marce11o]

I think a lot of people never really new what wikileaks revealed or have forgotten. I count myself among them.

[@BeyondSideshow]

That depends on the conspiracy theory. it would be naive to assume that there are absolutely no conspiracies going on in the world.

[@tchuncly]

Everything revealed by Wikileaks was already "in the air" back in the 90's in the shape of "conspiracy theories". I remember, when I was a kid, hearing of an ECHELON programe, and of the US government spying on every phone call and email message exchanged in the world. Yes, even the name of the programe was already spelled out. Of course, back then you had to be "one of those crazy fellas" to believe it. It's the same nowadays with 9/11 --- only now we actually have some evidence to trust the rumours. This doesn't mean Wikileaks didn't fulfil an important function. It's always nice to have everything officially documented as ultimate proof, even though this is only the cherry on the cake.

[@VArsovski10]

Now that's a good thumbnail if I've ever seen one lol :D

[@Kwazkneeack]

Thank you, sir.

[@UTU49]

Speaking of the thumbnail, did anyone else think that he looked like Jeff Daniels?

[@sloof70]

Yes! He's got Daniels hair and beard.

[@UTU49]

sloof70 Also, in the thumbnail, to me his face looks like a Jeff Daniels expression. Particularly his mouth. He looks like Jeff Daniels in Dumb and Dumber To.

[@panoswakeup]

9:55 is better

[@darkanguiel]

1:36 *Zizek: "Just look at Ted Cruz..."* _(Audience laughs)_ *Zizek: "...statements."* (Looks confused)

[@katiemiaana]

Many Trump supporters view any criticism of him as leftist propaganda, but if you asked them whether they particularly liked Trump before he was running most of them would say no.

[@lipglossary]

Did you like Obama before he was running for office?

[@focusedeye]

Obama wasn't a reality celebrity before he entered politics.

[@AntonioBrandao]

Trump was already right-wing before joining politics, so leftists would dislike him already. There's also the envy/hate always leftists tend to have towards rich capitalists. You point is nulled.

[@ReallyWeirdThingsCom]

*>"Did you like Obama before he was running for office?"* I did. But, as was pointed out, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Most people weren't aware that Obama even existed. Trump's been a nationally known public figure for close to the last 40 years.

[@ReallyWeirdThingsCom]

Antonio Brandao: You understand that Trump had been vocally and consistently center-left his entire life, right up until 9/11-ish, yes?

[@coopergore2884]

Daffy Duck is killin' it these days

[@l_shaun_bunds_l]

After 15 years of familiarity and once buying every book by sizes, I'm fucking sick of toilets and Hegelian grandma simile.

[@IvanMortimer]

To accept the dogmatic position as a viable one is to accept the end of dialogue (which means, in practice, that war, or at least violence, is the only alternative). It is to accept that there is no truth but the one you believe, as opposed to the one reached at by research, experimentation, logical thought and discussion. So, no thanks. I would rather endure arguing against bigoted positions for the rest of my life than simply silencing them and promoting my dogmatic beliefs. Constructive criticism, not dogma, is the answer to a more harmonious and happy society.

[@gregtaylor9806]

While I may not agree with the implications of your statement, this is a convincing and well thought out response to the material.

[@ptadisbander7959]

What aspects do you disagree with?

[@BlantonDelbert]

People who do not understand what you are saying are in the Zizek cult. There are many people out there who follow a certain public intellectual as if what he or she says is without criticism, be it Zizek, Chomsky, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, or other. When such public intellectuals speak, their cult followers are right there to support them regardless of the public intellectuals reasoning. Does this not also sound like the people who support Trump? Yes, of course. Once, I was in Kyiv, Ukraine. I was sitting with a young woman. I told her about my father's involvement in WWII, fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific. She then told me that her grandfather was captured by Stalin during WWII. I remarked, "Better Stalin than Hitler." She was like, "What is the difference?" She was correct. At the extreme positions, there is little difference between the Left and Right. They loop around and touch. The extreme Left is pure theory and pure theory cannot work in a physical world of Earth and Human Beings. Thus, a dictator emerges in the vacuum. The extreme Right is pure action (no thought) and pure action STARTS with a dictator. The only real and practical positions are in compromises between the two dogmatic ideals. The Scandinavian Countries have done the best, although they may be "breaking down" of-sorts for a little too much leaning to the Left. Capitalism is the top. Capitalism must be checked from the bottom via the Left. In its extreme, Capitalism is slavery. And, "pure" socialism (which I see as impossible) leaves a vacuum that will be filled by a dictator. So, what is the difference? I am not a cult follower of any public intellectual. Such cult followers are no less blind than the Trump "faithful." Here, it seems Zizek and his cult followers are touching Trumps balls; therefore, Trump and cult followers will touch Zizek's balls. We know what happens next. An orgy of (bull)shit. (No, relax, I am not against Gay Rights.)

[@jamalashur]

I think Ivan the Dogma he is calling for here is a dogma that is ultimately comes to being through or is reached by research,experimentation and logical thought. I assume you're against the word dogma as is conjures up a certain belief without doubt and religious zealotry mindset of thinking.But to defend him I think he pretty much agrees with your way of thinking. Because as you are aware to every examination, research there must be a certain undeniable facts of foundation.This is where dogma(or rather Basis of conversation reached of course through reason and logic) comes in.

[@leonardorossi998]

The problem is that rational dialogue is full of bugs. One of these is rationalization. Trying to prove that torture is ALWAYS wrong for example is incredibly hard, because there are always some exceptions that someone can conjure up desperate enough for people to think they might try anything to get out of it. But that's the problem: use the right words and ANY situation can be depicted as if it was that apocalyptic scenario. Use the right words, and every day life becomes a life or death situation. And now turture becomes widely acceptable. And the funniest thing is that you can't even argue with that. In order to argue you need a common perception, but language can destroy that commonality of grounds. If someone decides that everyday life is now a life or death situation, that a normal action is now secretly a murder attempt, you can't rationally prove he is wrong. Dogma in this situation is useful, because the only way to make sure a certain act is only used in extreme situation is to make it unthinkable, to turn it into a taboo. By which I don't think it means that we all must adhere to the dogma or even adopt it. Only that there must be one around.

[@markziering6910]

If you think Zizek says he's a racist, you don't understand Irony.

[@daviddante1989]

But Trump is a racist.

[@adamwatson7669]

No, it's not.

[@christianalmli9085]

Trump possesses nowhere near the set of values it takes to be a racist. The guy doesn't believe in anything.

[@LoneWolfDion]

lol

[@BeyondSideshow]

@Arthur Robey Pretty funny how you can't even cut and paste that tired old shit correctly.

[@ToGetToTerrapin]

are you sure this isn't Jeff Daniels? Sure looks like Jeff Daniels.

[@ToGetToTerrapin]

Roy Park the still of Slavoj (above)advertising the video does, skippy.

[@freemonsandlewould1053]

He DEFINITELY looks like Jeff Daniels

[@paladro]

after a stroke...

[@pezpez2383]

+Platagenet Plantagenet Yeah... I'm the guy who has your IP and BloodMoneyLLC too. I'll find you everywhere you go TROLL! This COWARD and BloodMoneyLLC delete all threads that make them look bad anywhere there agenda is ripped a new one. AVOID Engaging them. PLANTAGENET PLANTAGENET is a PAID SOROS CLINTON TROLL and so is BloodMoneyLLC.... Go to my site.... this is what he deleted, I have BloodMoneyLLc's too. Read the replies from the bottom up after HIDE REPLIES. Plantagenet Plantagenet Plantagenet Plantagenet7 hours agoHIGHLIGHTED COMMENT Hello, friend. I would very much like to have a frank discussion with you about why you are wrong about the elaborate conspiracy theorist mythology you appear to believe in. Reply 3 Hide replies

[@alexjaybrady]

HARRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[@syndicateleader6396]

Did he just read my brain. This is exactly some of the problems of the left and right in the western world. Not just America but the whole western Nations.

[@vraikorrigan]

I'd prefer to hear Trump on Slavoj Zizek.

[@disk0__]

"Who does this guy think he is? Does he _really_ think he's gonna get in the US? Unbelievable!"

[@GrothendiecksWish]

I would bet that Trump doesn't know who he is.

[@vraikorrigan]

Fernando Reyes Ah ah, think you're right !

[@daylenriggs]

Cocaine is a helluva drug

[@vaniasofia3192]

I couldn't stop thinking about it the whole time

[@Synochra]

that's your takeaway from this whole video

[@rideforever]

T-SHIRT Man in $5 t-shirt ridicules billionaire. Everyone applauds because they are so superior. Then t-shirt man goes back to hole in ground where he lives. Still feeling smug because he is smarter than Trump. And t-shirt sleeps on the floor of his squat. He tells himself - "perhaps tomorrow I will wear a clean t-shirt".

[@theloniusmonk6687]

Too bad money can't buy intelligence. If that were the case, you're attempt at sarcasm might be funny.

[@epictetus9221]

Or, the t-shirt man is actually a crazy genius, too badass and too busy to care about polished appearances. Or embarrassingly shitty online attempts at sarcastic creative writing.

[@rideforever]

Epictetus Yes, well one has to choose who you follow. The man who lives in a t-shirt who enjoys talking of "big things" over few glasses of wine. Or the man who never drinks a drop and through his own effort has earned himself a palace. "Epictetus taught that philosophy is a way of life and not just a theoretical discipline."

[@epictetus9221]

rideforever What the fuck are you talking about? Why should I choose to follow either of them? And what's wrong with a few glasses of wine?

[@rideforever]

Epictetus An empty vessel ...

[@nicoled0607]

thank you SO MUCH whoever did captioning for this video

[@schmoukiz]

Slavoj Zizek is Donald Duck.

[@MrsSensible1]

How could anyone reasonably prefer Killary?

[@marce11o]

I'd like to dispute and criticize what this guy is saying but I can't understand what he's saying.

[@thestorm9645]

you can't understand because you are ignorant, If he spoke British Accent or Australian, you would have said the same of course depending on your origins, but it is clear that you are ignorant person, Accent is a beautiful thing, it tells us where the person is from without us having to ask, plus the man speaks your language in addition to his own language and most likely other languages, do you speak his language or speak any other language? if you did, you wouldn't say what you said.

[@marce11o]

The storm Ignorant of what? I tried again. I pressed play. I heard "I'm sorry"... then [unintelligible]... and then "..a little bit". You want to tell me what he said?

[@thestorm9645]

The man is world known philosopher, wrote so many books, you can download them from the internet. If I and everyone else could understand him, you also can, if you say you do not care for the topic he is talking about and do not understand it, that i can understand but if you are saying you do not understand because of his accent then sorry but i maintain with my position of saying that you are ignorant person.

[@marce11o]

The storm Can you tell me what he said in the beginning? That was what I asked you earlier and you are not responding to that comment/question.

[@brentrainey6186]

.

[@lukeknopp4267]

Right on "We [the left] are the moral majority in practice"

[@pauljohnson7548]

@Broseph I think you're confusing liberalism with Christianity.

[@pauljohnson7548]

***** I did get molested by a priest, as a matter of fact. So you can just fuck right off, dickhole.

[@pauljohnson7548]

***** This is a cut and paste job, but you asked so here you go. German Peasants' War - A series of peasant revolts during the height of the Protestant Reformation, spurred on by a mix of economic and religious causes. 100k deaths for Christianity. Moro Insurgency - Islamic rebels in the Philippines have a long, bloody history of resistance against colonial and Philippine governments alike. 120k deaths for Islam. Northern Crusades - Crusades to root out the Baltic pagans. Couldn't find any good casualty estimates, but 150k deaths for Christianity seems reasonable. Algerian Civil War - More Islamist rebels. 200k deaths for Islam. Lord's Resistance Army - Christian militants in Central Africa. Remember Kony 2012? 200k deaths for Christianity. Albigensian Crusade - France leads a crusade to root Cathar heretics out of the Languedoc. Estimates vary wildly from 7k to 1mil, but let's just say 200k deaths for Christianity. Great Turkish War - A "Holy League" of Christian states rolls back the Ottoman Empire's conquests in Eastern Europe. 300k deaths for Christianity. Afghan Civil Wars - A variety of Islamists, including Al Qaeda, vie for control over Afghanistan. 400k deaths for Islam. Rashidun Conquests - The Islamic Caliphate conquered its way from being a desert backwater to the world's most powerful state in an incredibly short period of time. I can't find anything resembling an estimate for the casualties involved, so I'm going to completely BS this one: 500k deaths for Islam. Trust me, it won't affect the winner. Ottoman Conquests - Mehmed II leads the Ottomans on a merry path of conquest over Eastern Europe. 800k deaths for Islam. The Crusades - All of Christendom spends a few centuries banging it's head against a Holy Land-shaped wall. 1mil deaths for Christianity. So far, Christianity's crusading habit is definitely a big source of casualties, but those pesky Muslim militants have pushed Islam into the lead. The score is neck and neck at 1,950,000 deaths for Christianity and 2,120,000 deaths for Islam. But three wars that most people have never heard of completely blow this competition out of the water. French Wars of Religion - The French Protestants and Catholics spend 36 years massacring each other silly. 3mil deaths for Christianity. Thirty Years' War - Protestant and Catholic princes duke it out for control of the Holy Roman Empire (modern Germany). War is waged between mercenary companies that loot the countryside to support themselves. One third of Germany dies. 10mil deaths for Christianity. So that's 15 million deaths for Christianity and a mere 2 million for Islam.

[@lemmysverruca]

+Broseph Stalin What you're referring to is communism, not socialism.

[@Peteruspl]

Even further than that. Left or more accurately Progressive Movement was that moral majority after WW2. But over time it overreached and mutated, sacrificed all other virtues on the altar of equality of outcome. So many people deserted that they clearly are no longer a majority. Progressives are now the gatekeepers after they have entrenched their presence in the media and academia. They are puppet masters, propaganda makers, grasping, trying to brainwash ("educate") population back to the pen. All the while their dogma grows more and more constraining as every decade Progressive thought is becoming even more radical.

[@Nclm1]

Thanks for the subtitles !

[@mirsad96]

6:50 Sounds like a perfect description of the youtube comment section.

[@Raziel_Knight]

Being the "moral majority" in practice, loses all moral high ground, when you openly admit that your public statements don't always match your actual principles.

[@BlantonDelbert]

There are many people out there who follow a certain public intellectual as if what he or she says is without criticism, be it Zizek, Chomsky, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, or other. When such public intellectuals speak, their cult followers are right there to support them regardless of the public intellectuals reasoning. Does this not also sound like the people who support Trump? Yes, of course. Once, I was in Kyiv, Ukraine. I was sitting with a young woman. I told her about my father's involvement in WWII, fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific. She then told me that her grandfather was captured by Stalin during WWII. I remarked, "Better Stalin than Hitler." She was like, "What is the difference?" She was correct. At the extreme positions, there is little difference between the Left and Right. They loop around and touch. The extreme Left is pure theory and pure theory cannot work in a physical world of Earth and Human Beings. Thus, a dictator emerges in the vacuum. The extreme Right is pure action (no thought) and pure action STARTS with a dictator. The only real and practical positions are in compromises between the two dogmatic ideals. The Scandinavian Countries have done the best, although they may be "breaking down" of-sorts for a little too much leaning to the Left. Capitalism is the top. Capitalism must be checked from the bottom via the Left. In its extreme, Capitalism is slavery. And, "pure" socialism (which I see as impossible) leaves a vacuum that will be filled by a dictator. So, what is the difference? I am not a cult follower of any public intellectual. Such cult followers are no less blind than the Trump "faithful." Here, it seems Zizek and his cult followers are touching Trumps balls; therefore, Trump and cult followers will touch Zizek's balls. We know what happens next. An orgy of (bull)shit. (No, relax, I am not against Gay Rights.) Ah, one more remark. The dictator on the Right might pretend to be for the working people. But, in his deepest psyche he hates them; and, when gets power, he will quickly flip on the workers and use whatever means possible to pursue his righteous movement. So, the dictator from the Right does Start, his deepest psyche, from that position even though he may pretend to be in the Workers Socialist Party. Remember. Remember.

[@linkdude64]

" I remarked, "Better Stalin than Hitler." She was like, "What is the difference?" She was correct. " Communism has killed so many millions more people around the world than facism that it is hilarious how little you have read about it. Seriously. Stalin was MUCH worse than Hitler. He didn't even bring his country up to strength, he destroyed it. Germany became the most powerful individual country in the world, and fought, effectively, 3 super powers at the same time. Sure, for the wrong reasons, but no, Stalin was FAR FAR worse than Hitler.

[@AhmadAli-wh1ny]

Do you expect us to read all that?

[@BlantonDelbert]

No, not you.

[@AhmadAli-wh1ny]

Dimitry Raskolnikov Thank you! I appreciate it.

[@MegaChickenPunch]

snip

[@MrBumbaclyde]

trumps anti pc movement = pro public oral defication 😅

[@Jcolinsol]

Trump likes to run his mouth, but that is not the primary motivation of the anti-PC and anti-social justice movement, neither is Trump the leader of such. Most anti-PC people correctly identify political correctness as a racialized version of Orwellian newspeak. That is, most anti-PC people are motivated by their disgust for the overt racism and sexism of the regressive left.

[@mckenzie05762]

This guy is always coked out of his mind

[@chittybangbang8370]

You can't think this clearly on coke, you moron.

[@kristbane]

Wow, very innovative. You are only the 13837th murican to regurgitate that.

[@khorn102]

you've clearly never done good coke, you moron.

[@pattmayne]

yup. Consistently for decades. He's the most stable, lucid, intellectual, on-point coke addict ever.

[@pattmayne]

***** explain

[@DucksDeLucks]

What Zizek is saying is that he likes Trump. But he has to say it in code. Trump is the closest thing to an anti-war candidate and is independent of the Wall Street banks and is pro working-class up to a point. More than you can say for Hillary.

[@ilqrd.6608]

who is this homeless man?

[@mavericktheace]

This talk is spot on! ...for ten years ago. I love Zizek, but I think on a fundamental level he is missing the broader cultural shift that has been ongoing in Western Civilization. The left won so much that everything has tilted to that side of the raft and now we're taking on water. I am one of the many people who would prefer to sit on the left side, but I find myself shifting to the right so we don't all sink. Trump represents exactly that. If Trump wins it will be because so many left leaning people see the imbalances of our society and wish to correct it.

[@Gallart82]

Slavoj Shishek is the Donald Trump of the intellectuals and political philosophers.

[@studfinderball]

The time worn 'stupid if you don't agree with me' gambit. Precious.

[@Kwazkneeack]

Well ladies and gents its official. Trump 2016. Here Zizek's more recent take on Trump and Clinton: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ7RhoOpr6esask

[@BunnyLebowski38D]

Oh Matt! Are you an Ormstown Farmboy? I would like to reward you! Do you know what "lap-dancing" is? An ancient Laplander culture I would perform on you...

[@Kwazkneeack]

Never been to Ormstown, but they next time you're in Chicago holla at me.

[@Arjetube]

As a Trump supporter to the bone, I like this guy very much. I respect his opinion about Trumps bad mouth, it's true. But it is also true, that he loves his country and would be less harm than HRC

[@kev03103]

What is this jelly tongue trying to say?

[@S2Cents]

Lots of shit.

[@AntonioBrandao]

Quite accurate description.

[@icecreamforcrowhurst]

He said in this year's election the only real choice would have been between Trump and Sanders (ie not Trump and Clinton)

[@MichaelMarko]

I think it's wonderful the way Zizek has turned the word disgusting into a major tool of the meta-discourse.

[@Kwazkneeack]

Also to everyone who thinks that Zizek is on cocaine he addresses that here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i36rfYh_ZailpKM

[@HAL-ld7ih]

Matt K He's on cocaine. End off.

[@nathandrake5544]

I'm no Marxist, but I'm beginning to prefer Zizek over Chomsky. He seems to have a better idea about what is happening in the world.

[@schroeder666]

Chomsky argues we have to know the truth, organize, demand an end to corruption and war. In other words, in Chomsky's framework there is no culture, only facts. Zizek argues that the Left needs to wield the right kind of strategic illusion and make the right bureaucratic changes to create the necessary stable illusion of positive change as we shift into the next paradigm, or else there will be a disaster. Essentially, Zizek wants to strategize against the populist-nationalist backlash. Chomsky doesn't address the backlash, or stylize it as culture, or psychoanalyze it, he simply states evidence of its existence and accumulation. Chomsky never, for example, conjectures as to why propaganda is effective, what its psychoanalytic content is. Zizek does that all day.

[@calc2323]

So, not necessarily better by your analysis, just different?

[@Kobe29261]

I really admire your thinking and break down. I think Zizeks psychoanalytic bend allows him greater nuance on the issues at hand. Like he said of Assange, there are well meaning people who think 'evidence' is all that's required. It's short-sighted which for people as astute as Chomsky is unnerving. I've discovered how powerful psychoanalytic tools are to figuring out why we have the world that we have. It really should be recommended study at least at the college level.

[@schroeder666]

Anogoya Dagaati I totally agree but the difficulty is that we have psychoanalytic philosophy in college already, but it's crypto-fascist and comprised largely of thought policing. As Zizek puts it, fads of the day are such that you view people who "don't see beyond the binary" in a mandated binary-negative way. As always, the polarization of mankind is what becomes disturbing, more than anything. You don't get philosophers like Zizek very often who respect the opposition, who respect healthy alienation and who respect ideologies as vessels for real and valid irrational feelings. Social constructionist philosophers are often brutal sectarians, even if only by accident. I think Judith Butler's writing was so shoddy that she actually created a miniature cult of social constructionists entirely by accident. What psychoanalytic criticism suggests is NOT that you "see through the illusion" as most godawful leftist-fundamentalist scum propose their worldview to be, obvious and all-encompassing, and contemptible for anyone to not comprehend. No. Proper psychoanalysis suggests the opposite, that you confront the likelihood of your wrongness on both sides as extensively as you can, building a healthy and robust ability to approach the possibility of terrible revelations without freaking out and losing your shit. I agree that it's exciting to imagine humanity's potential for psychoanalysis, such was the Lacanian dream, but we have to keep in mind that as soon as such a thing is instituted, it loses its identity as a secret path and becomes domesticated and comodified. There is also the potential for limitless corruption because words are nothing but a game - take for example precisely the fashion in which the construction I just proposed describes Trump to his fans succinctly. They believe he is a psychoanalytically "clear headed" person who strides across thought policed leftism without hesitation and shatters the fourth wall of politics, and as a result they're voting for a real estate developer and pretending a businessman is the opposite of a politician. Barf-o-rama.

[@UndrState]

I'm a little in awe at how well you put that .

[@fvo911]

i dont understand Slavoj's body langauge, what does it mean?

[@domanz1]

doped even

[@bpsyked1627]

perpetual pathological panic because no other emotion other than disgust flows through his mind and body?

[@patrickwickett1787]

Cocaine's a hell of a drug

[@fvo911]

B Psyked that could be a point, when you view things logically you see the basic nature of those which is in its turn quite digusting. Love=fuck cos we need to breed

[@33afterM]

It's the dance of the devil....LOOK AWAY!

[@markmotarker]

I disagree with what he said about Wikileaks. even though I always "knew" those things, I never read them so explicitly beyond any doubt. it turned my suspicious about how our world works into facts.

[@kuonirat]

7:14 - "We, the left, are the only true defenders of simple, common decency. We are the moral majority!" - It's statements like this what makes the left so dangerous. The belief that they're holding the one and the ultimate truth about what constitutes morality and the only acceptable ethics. On one hand they promote relativism, on the other a very homogeneous world view (still I cannot put this contradiction into a consistent, comprehensive form). I think it's not the higher standard of morality what characterises the left. Rather, it's the belief of their superiority, thanks to which they can group fap to their own images in their mirrors. I like listen to Zizek, really, but God, what an onanist he is!

[@BeyondSideshow]

Well, you took that out of context very nicely to get your rant going. He didn't say a word about "ultimate truth" or "acceptable ethics", he was simply talking about manners and the danger of degenerating public discourse.

[@beatricelee2986]

Then what is he speaking about when he says "we need dogma" that everyone will accept in society. There's something moralistic about the social mores he suggests we should enforce. Why use rape and torture as an example if that's not the case?

[@BeyondSideshow]

Beatrice Lee by dogma, a word btw which he openly uses "to provoke", he means there should be a moral bottom line in a civilized society. a "dogma" that torture, rape and such atrocities are unacceptable *without question*. that gradual acceptance of barbarities such as torture into public discourse is gradually decaying our common ethics. sounds like a reasonable worry enough to me... and apparently like masturbation to you. yes, in a sense it is moralistic. no, nowhere did he imply that there is "one, ultimate truth" held by leftists, you simply made that up. he just said leftists are now responsible for holding up humane values such as these.

[@Gatineau33]

Good point!

[@kuonirat]

I really don't get you, guys. I quote him. He said about the left, that they are "the only true defenders of simple, common decency!" and it does imply, he thinks that the left has a monopoly for at least this aspect of morality, which he called "a simple, common decency". It's true, though, I took this out of context and elaborated to make my point.

[@monsieurp5429]

Can someone who is familiar with Zizek's thought explain the grounds for his claims of a "new dogmatism" of "simple, common decency"? I assume he is an atheist. If so, do you think he is basically assuming a godless Judeo-Christian morality as his framework? Thanks for posting this video, and thanks in advance to any comments on my questions!

[@Cuddlestrike]

sniff

[@UndrState]

And so on .

[@mihavatovec5770]

Remembering Trump 3 years ago calling African people shity black holes,i had read that he was hiding in a bunker when the protest was going on and it makes pretty much sense now

[@princessbubblee699]

'I think Trump is disgusting' ... good thing Zizek's not a lisping opportunist.

[@epictetus9221]

That wasn't the point. The point was that even though Trump is vulgar and disgusting he is still less dangerous than someone like Cruz.

[@princessbubblee699]

Yes, that was the point. And there wasn't much to it.

[@epictetus9221]

Princess Bubblee Well, you did not listen then. I can assure you, that was just a joke in the beginning. The title of this video is misleading, Trump is not even the topic of this talk.

[@princessbubblee699]

Keep barking. I submit it's a trivial point. Zizek is being Zizek: just contrarian enough to says something outside the norm (Cruz is more awful than Trump!), but well within acceptable parameters of a leftist intellectual's discourse.

[@epictetus9221]

Princess Bubblee I'm sorry, you lost me - what is a trivial point? Yes, you are correct, everything Zizek says in this video is surely "within acceptable parameters of a leftist intellectual's discourse". But I assure you, the whole rap about Trump, Cruz etc. was just a preliminary build-up to the actual broader cultural matter he was trying to get to. Yet everyone gets hung up on the remark he made in the first minute of the clip. Oh, well.

[@gregilyniak6994]

This tumbnail is my expression whenever people continuously talk about the U.S election.

[@donaldchump7651]

I love this guy! I have no idea what he's talking about but I love him anyway!

[@FelicityCondition]

Manufacturing consent is not Noam Chomsky's concept. It's just that he brought it into the public consciousness. Noam Chomsky pulled it out of Walter Lippmann's book Public Opinion (1922).

[@SJ-oi7tk]

Between Zizek and Melania, future historians will wonder at how Slovenians came to define an entire age.

[@roman14032]

yea zizek, stubling around in the dark again, someday hes going to find that light switch

[@nikoslav]

"He said we should X Russia" What is X? Dogfit? Dopeet? I couldn't figure it out. Then I turned the subtitles on. "We should TALK WITH Russia". Oh well. He really needs those teeth he's missing.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Trump is the product of evolution which has a mind of its own, Trump does not need to have a mind as long as he promotes evolution by solving the ME problem, talking to Russia, or reconstructing Iraq. Trump 2016.

[@Yamayamauchiman]

When he finds a proper argument against the man, give me a call.

[@nikolasb2933]

YES! Trump Vs Clinton race just another example of, 'you are free as long as you do what I say'.....

[@georgevartanian6136]

Sounded like a genuine response and perspective he shared was very human and the intellect delivered his thoughts very clearly & if you can't understand someone with an accent then you need to walk outside n' over yonder .

[@tosc4581]

I just saw the thumbnail and my initial thought was: "Man, Jeff Daniels is looking rough these days".

[@thelastfightingtommy9985]

isn't his statement at 9 min about the private acceptance of torture an application of the same tenet of manners as he laid out previously in the video?

[@shawnscott7842]

To the one person who clapped at the end... You the real MVP.

[@disk0__]

I would argue that the wikileaks disclosure of commonplace and casual discussion of >deplorable actions doesn't push the boundaries of public manners, or slightly if at all. But regardless of that, and more importantly it *shows* the public that these people already don't care. If someone is trying to hide something and they really think it is impactful in that social manner, they wouldn't discuss or keep it on such a public and permanent medium like email (anything on the internet save proper encryption measures can be a problem and should be assumed will be compromised as a general rule of thumb to me). Seriously, imagine if this Clinton Foundation stuff ends up going all the way down and the smoking gun for pedophilia trafficking charges is EMAILS

[@Hy-jg8ow]

"Eastern European Duffy Duck" :)

[@robarton]

To be listened and not watched ;-) Where is the end of this ??

[@adrianmyers4503]

I find it very difficult to listen to him regardless of how smart he is. It's his person, body language and his SSSS's speech.

[@trainerd1]

Before I can listen anymore to Zizek he needs to go into detox for his apparent Coke habit. Jeez he's almost unbearable to watch.

[@Raziel_Knight]

Ugh IMO wikileaks wasn't about telling us something we already knew but chose to ignore, but instead was specifically about putting potentially actionable evidence to something we already speculated about. It's pretty pointless to be certain something is going on of you can't evidence it

[@luchosab1]

Something's wrong with Spanish subtitles. When Zizek quotes Hegel, he doesn't refer to "Wirklichkeit" (reality), but to "Sittlichkeit" (morality).

[@raffine_9705]

If Trump vs. Bernie Sanders, that would be a real choice👍👏

[@JonathanNelsonOfficial]

This guy is eloquently free falling into an abyss of nothing.

[@alquinn8576]

If Trump can get Zizek to abstain from cocaine for 10 minutes and suffer what appears to be a therapeutic nervous breakdown, maybe that's one (and only one) point in favor of Trump?

[@Raziel_Knight]

Jesus. I mean it's not opportunistic to say that we shouldn't publicly accept say, torture, but also openly admit that he lacks conviction in his principles. Seriously if you think there is possibly a justifiable time to torture, then what's wrong with publicly admitting It? It's opportunistic to publicly say you're against torture, but privately hold the principle that there may be a time you would torture. The first looks good publicly, but is meaningless personally if it isn't actually true.

[@mr.q337]

Bottom line is it is easier to control an idiot than an evil genius

[@dioclatin]

Zizeks twin in the audience...asking questions...adding comments to....loooong comments to Zizeks talk...i would sell my own mother to see that :P

[@Corgifunni]

thumbnail says it all lol

[@geneintn1906]

Professors?......We have too many now.....That is what is wrong with our kids

[@wolfboy868]

A better title for this would be "How to say nothing with the most words possible".

[@2hardbackrub743]

I wonder what Mr. Zizek's opinion would be after a few nights at my place, looking at my links.

[@shadbakht]

I think he's been taking Commentiquette with Erik classes!

[@martinrodrigueztherealtor9405]

Yeah, he's going to do to the Oligarchs what Putin did to the Oligarchs in Russia.

[@rubikscube4596]

The most sensible man on planet Earth..!!! And also the most restless one too.. :D

[@b4blue]

Dear lord, how is this guy still relevant?

[@DOGANBAYRAK]

well done Slavoj!! Spot on analysıs !!!

[@weatheranddarkness]

good point at 3:40 ! Rather than making it a subject of criticism, own the idea, set the table as it were.

[@scottmacdonald5592]

I wonder if this guy realizes cocaine is not part of a nutritional and balanced diet. I closed my eyes and it was like listening to Sylvester the cat tweaking out. Damn painful.

[@r0ck3r4ever]

He is neurotic. He believes his own lies.

[@djoleyt]

Lies? Care to elaborate? I don't agree with half of what he is saying but.. lies? Tell me one thing he is lying about.. please..

[@r0ck3r4ever]

You know what? People are people, they sing their songs ehh. I am tiered of all of this. I hope we will not get an extinction event soon.

[@djoleyt]

Catalin Nistor And where is the lie there? He is not talking there about anything but his own views. (I think, from the context, he is describing thought pattern of the people in those quotes.. but I don't know where he is saying that) I don't see any claim that can be lie there.

[@r0ck3r4ever]

Đole Well his solution to all of that is that we need more communism. More centralized power. When in fact we need more systemic power. This guy seems to be a moral relativist. Ehhh...

[@djoleyt]

Catalin Nistor His opinion on communism is valid.. I don't agree with that (I myself am Bakuninist) but that is valid ideology. My problem with your arguments is that you are talking about lies.. nothing like that in his talks.. He is talking about philosophy.. and you have to have facts in order to argue that something is a lie.. that some fact is false.

[@michasosnowski5918]

Maybe people act like they dont know becouse they live day by day. Traumatized by public schools and their upbringing. Lost of economic opportunities. I dont know how more socialism and regulation and redistribution and debt would make people to pay attention, when they are crippled by these policies in the first place. Like the fameous saying goes: "Socialism courageusly fights with the problems he created".

[@SICKDOAPNIXON]

ouhfff.. finally, the comments - where I'm safe from this madman's hallucinatory yet entrancing gesticulation.

[@phpn99]

I wonder how you feel about this speech today (jan 2018), Slavoj ?

[@earlgrey2130]

Everyone shitting in the front row having umbrellash open i ashume? Sry, couldn't resist xD

[@CSUnger]

Unfortunately, I guarantee you that the average listener to this goes away with only the sense that he either confirms their bias or they can't figure out what he is talking about.

[@asfdghkjxzcvnbm2580]

thumbnail ZIZEK AFTER A BOTTLE OF WHISKEY

[@federicojara1825]

Matt K, do you have te continuation of this conference?

[@HellomynameisN]

This stalanist calls Donald Trump disgusting? What a joke!

[@epictetus9221]

"stalanist"?

[@henrix999]

I am sure he ment Stalone

[@craigrobb8197]

zizek is crazzy but very insightful

[@spiralarray1969]

Huh? I can't understand him

[@Maravone]

"We are the moral majority in practice" I'm pretty sure that Savonarola and John of Leiden said something similar in their time

[@dziembaj]

and they were probably right but on the other hand they were also total fucks. don't compare slavoy to a total fuck please :) i had to google them tho :P so thanks!

[@orangepurgatory]

Part of being a good public speaker requires you to be able to communicate your ideas succinctly and accurately. I've seen a few comments on here relating to the clarity of his argument, it doesn't make you ignorant if you don't understand him. If anything it is incumbent on him to make it accessible to everyone, what good is knowledge that cannot be shared? If I need to read all of your books to 'get the point', it becomes a little like a circle jerk. It's the same problem with Post-Modernist philosophy, summed up as this. "Never has so little been said in so many words."

I'd love to see the full presentation, anyone who has a link to it?

[@Chris-is1rd]

cocaine is a hell of a drug

[@user-zp8ei6pi7p]

Accelerationism, ALL ABOARD!!! CHOO CHOO!!!

[@user-zp8ei6pi7p]

All Empires are doomed to fail, and a Empire that throws away 80% of all consumable goods (food) deserves to fail

[@BeyondSideshow]

PLEASE UNDERSTAND that this clip is not "Slavoj Zizek on Donald Trump". By watching one minute of it and then banging a snarky comment about Trump / Clinton you just reveal that you didn't watch the clip. Even the uploader cuts it mid-thought, so I guess he just wanted the "disgusting" part... But that is *not* the point of this talk. The subject is much broader and, frankly, more interesting.

[@Me-tuber]

That's the problem with some guys like this philosopher on this case. Many as Slavoj. here have these epiphany moments that say or behave like "with Trump I become a racist " and so I place my question: what is the extend of this mindset? Should we be afraid of what you will "become a racist with" in the future? Maybe a group of people due to their culture or education or personal values. Anyways the common ground here is that Trump must go to do what he is good at, and that is anything else but the US President. I thought Slavoj would say something interesting but unfortunately not at least for me. Please somebody convince Trump that he is the best Εverest climber ever existed and I will be gratefull.

[@Aworology323]

I thought that was Jeff Daniels on the thumbnail.

[@elisabethguerrier246]

He is better writer and theorician than orator...

[@phanindrasrungavarapu]

I want to watch this video back in a year after bernie wins