People keep making comments on his nose touching because it's gross and funny. And it's never not going to be gross and funny. I love hearing this man speak and have listened to him for hours, but I still pick up on it and it's distracting. I'm willing to ignore it because of the quality of his words, but it's annoying. And don't try to pretend it's not annoying because then you're just lying to yourself.
I kinda like it in a way. It is a comedic relief to pretty hard topics and themes, but he will not think them to the end, which forces you to think further. He has written books and articles about all of it, where he elaborates all of his ideas, but a speach or presentation in this intellectual topic should be exactly like this.
bomber9912 well I disagree, he should elaborate them more so we can understand what he's saying without any reinforcements. Imagine if teachers didn't explain things well and then saying don't worry it's in the book.
His voice makes my eyes water uncontrollably. I don't know why, it's weird, and I don't like it. It got so bad it was like I was weeping, streams of tears running down my face. I had to stop listening, which is unfortunate because I would have liked to hear what he had to say.
It takes time to filter that. As mamals we are wired to repel and reject signs of sickness, and his ticks, to our unconsciousness, which does not care about medicine books or psychology literature, his ticks indicate he's sick or has some problem. The further he is, the less chance we got to catch whatever he has. Unconsciousness, something Marx didn't seem to know about, our behavior is driven by our instincts, feelings and genes, with some luck we can put some reazon into some of our actions. Capítalism is nothing but an observation of how we work and tells you the optimus way to maximize profit and growth in the material world, but it doesn't say you have to exploit your employees. Actually, today it is well known that less hours of work and happier employees contribute more, which ultimately increase profit. A bad practice of capitalism is not of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, simply doesn't work, it's based on untrue facts such as human behavior
Westerners are a disgrace to yoga. They strip away it’s necessary Hinduism and make it secular There is no secular yoga. That’s just called doing uncomfortable poses Lol
Making identity the main point of your doctrine is a poor move. Many are probably too narcissistic to admit it or incapable of grasping that identity is inherently anti-emancipatory
@@alicepractice9473 - making identity the main point of a doctrine is evil and effective. Identities are vehicles of group interest and if you break their creation process by interferring at an early age - like modern marxism does - you can then easily indoctrinate a malleable mass of pathologized young - as seen all around.
With respect to Zizek, a much pithier way of putting it was in the form of a joke I saw once: Socialist: "Eight men own as much wealth as half the population of Earth." Liberal: "I agree, that is disgusting! Four of them should be black women!" Clearly, racism and sexism (and transphobia, and any number of different things) are bad things, and we should fight against them. But speaking out against them is fundamentally not threatening for the structures of power, in the way that speaking out against class inequality and worker exploitation would be. Sticking up a few Pride flags in the office costs a company pennies; restructing the entire company and society so that workers are no longer exploited is catastrophic for the owner class. So we are presented with the illusion of companies caring about inequality in all the ways that are non-threatening to them.
I disagree. I think that is to fail to understand how patriarchal and colonial structures actually reinforce capitalism. When you complain at work about long hours, and you are called a "sissy" or something like this, that is the power of patriarchal norms stifling dissent against capitalism. If people - and men especially - were to suddenly be able to express their feelings and needs openly, I believe we would have a socialist revolution before the end of the month. The masculine ban on communicating about your feelings means that workers cannot know what others are struggling with, meaning that they cannot see that they are all struggling in the same way, meaning that they can't reach class consciousness. Of course the progressive liberal appropriation that goes something like the quote you have given is horrible, but I don't think we should dismiss the movements on the left that are challenging these structures of power.
@@noor5x9 If your reasoning as to why a socialist revolution doesn't (and can't) happen is correct, then how do you explain previous socialist revolutions all over the world, dating back to the 18th century? In environments and societies where masculinity and patriarchy were far more pronounced, in fact not even challenged in the slightest? Not to mention that 'feelings' seem to be secondary concerns when you're struggling to meet your basic needs as a result of exploitation and inexcusably low wages.
@@allweknowisfalling7322 That's a fair point about earlier revolutions, and I'd love to learn how people were able to find connection with each other and build a movement in that patriarchal context. We did see feminism appear also in many other socialists revolutionary movements though. For example, abortion was decriminalised in the early soviet Union, along with homosexuality. That said, we have also seen a re-emergence of strong hierarchical orders after socialist revolutions. I suspect that it is precisely because we change the economic order without challenging the cultural pressupositions that both give rise to such an order and reinforce it
Zizek is a great thinker, but to speak on behalf of myself and my friends; I don't think most LGBTQ people want their gender or sexual identities to be politicized or viewed as a radical statement- they simply want to exist. The emergence of more people in the west openly identifying as such, is the result of lots of of contributing factors- a big one of course being social media and online communities; we have more resources than ever to understand ourselves and seek validation and support from others. So yes economic growth has facilitated the emergence of more active, informed LGBTQ communities, and allowed the discourse around gender and sexuality to develop. And of course big tech giants want to capitalize off this. But our identities are not inherently political, and regardless of political context, Gender and sexual fluidity has existed for thousands of years (take a look at Ancient Greece, and Native American culture), we are not new or radical, we just have more visibility now.
they do simply exist. they politicize them selves by interacting with this pathetic thing. its fun to participate for these people, they are literally boring people who have spent their entire lives either on the fringe of fitting in or just never being a part of anything whatsoever. this is their chance for attention. not one of them knows what its like to be cool or popular, and this is an avenue for that. literally. the same thing for 45 year old women who are just getting blue hair for the first time, or finding an identity on twitter surrounding some rage filled idea of teenager politics. its a hollow attempt at finding a surrogate personality using contemporary identity politics. its easy to scream and fight for things when you have an army of mainstream news outlets arguing for you. if these people found a skill that wasnt drawing furry cartoons or making childish art they would know what its like to have something to offer society and be rewarded for, and wouldnt feel so desperate to reach out and compromise their dignity for attention. its really not complicated, were seeing this pattern over and over literally millions of times. basically ugly and or boring people just looking for the limelight and pretending like the world is attacking them. its extremely cliche and probably the most cringe thing you can find in this decade
Bullshit. Most "LGB" Folks don't want their sexuality (Not their 'identities, their literal 'sexualities') not to be politicized anymore because those have been politicized, and the majority of things that where to be achieved had been achieved. Discrimination was made illegal, marriage was permitted, equal access to the workforce, and equal access to legislative rights including medical support. the 'TQ+' Fraction of that (which just "Bandwagoned" on the political platform having inherently zero to do with them), are the ones that basically poisoned the entire fucking progress with their retarded ideology and strictly reality-denying, anti-scientific, biology-antagonizing horseshit, by trying to 'normalize' lifestyles that would be largely impossible without severe, violent modification and altering of the human body through absolutely unnecessary, often times life-threatening surgeries and hormonal experimentation that does more harm then it does good. And the consistent presence and uncovering of fucking child molesters amongst their ranks and pedophiles trying to introduce highly pornographical/kink based material into school curriculums and trying to disguise it as 'Sex-Ed' is only the tip of that Iceberg. Or the Presence of "MAP" acceptance advocates in the 'TQ+' fraction. Homosexual, Bisexuality, Lesbianism can all be considered natural. Nature has enough of examples of it occuring, and we've had enough of historical precedents proving that people 'did' lead those lifestyles in one way or another. the 'TQ+' Nonsense is absolutely invented out of thin air on shoddy pseudo-science from liberal arts degrees, rooted in sociology and philosophy far more then any hard science out there.
Conflating queerness and pedophilia (regardless of era) is a dangerous game, and we see this narrative a lot from far-right christian conservatives (not to suggest that you fit this category). It's very important to acknowledge and address issues of pedophilia and child abuse abuse- both historic and current, but remember to exercise nuance and be aware of potentially damming and accusatory associations. @@markbranham7355
Agreed. The whole problem is that, instead of prescribing the simple extension of feminine and masculine rather than male and female, we implant sexuality as the root argument. There are both men and women who carry both feminine and masculine traits. THAT is the primary issue. Some carry those tendencies to include sexuality. Those that do are now mired in a conversation that has no purpose and is utterly missing the point. It is the Native American idea of "two spirits." We all carry both.
As a trans person its a little silly that this point even needs to made - of course my transition is not revolutionary, its an individual action with little impact on other people and done for only my own sake. Thus, it becomes a consumer group for markets to target, despite mine or anyone elses chagrin. Zizek is correct as usual. I hope as few as my trans brothers and sisters as possible fall under the pretention it is revolutionary.
The problem isn't transgenderism, it's the total infiltration of transgenderism into the mainstream and the militant approach the movement has taken to get everyone to recognize a lifestyle choice that objectively only a small percentage of the population engages in
@E A Youre rationalizing the hatred of independent judgment and the fear of social disapproval. Consciousness is derivative, merely the consciousness OF reality. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind. Its mans basic method of survival.
His point is pretty straightforward. We should fully support transgender people, but there's nothing revolutionary about it, which means that it doesn't threaten the existing global capitalism.
The fluidity of ideas and stances is in the postmodern age of late capitalism at its peak, so it shouldn’t surprise you that even so solid natural things as gender or environment are not given anymore, according to Zizek’s reading of the Marx’s critique of capitalism. Clear?
My main problem is that Judith Butler shouldn't own the lgbtq movement. "Judith Butler went to Yale to be a lesbian" is funny joke to lgbtq people because it distills how little lgbtq as we instinctively understand it fits with Yale traditionally. But Zizek is right here, she did a great job at assemilating it into capitalism. I think theres an alternative theory of lgbtq to be found that fits better into a wider range of lgbtq experiences, but it is a type of subjectivity and mode of communal relationships that academia and capitalism is designed to filter out. Academia especially is at the forefront of the classification of "good brain vs bad brain" and "good human vs bad human" and we as leftists keep finding ways to say "what if 'x' psychological trait is actually good brain" or "what if 'x' identity is actually good human", when we should instead be throwing away such valuations altogether. I think the only real judgement we should give validity is "are they acting in solidarity or are they not, and why". This is actually how you ascend capitalist subjectivity. I'm certainly interested in figuring out "why am i trans, really" on some level, but I know its not a conscious choice to like, dismantle society leaving only capital relations. More like, it feels like censoring myself to increase my own capital value feels like a dismantling of society. "gender is a social construct", so lets openly celebrate our genders, not try to eat away at the concept gender.
Well, gender is not a social construct... gender fashion is... I do agree with your idea that celebration instead of denialism should be the propper way to go about the subject...
Gender debate is subjective boomerang to such an extent that debating over it puts layers to it nevermind demystifying any rational behind it. In the school of rationality where the argument corroborates scientific rigour, Gender is a fashion period.
I'm trans and I think the identity politics-bread cancel culture in our community has gotten out of hand. But I mostly want to know where he gets his amphetamine.
I think the so called "left" is just a sibsitute for real, socialist leftists. They make up problems that don't exist and if a problem really does exist, it's even worse, because it cannot be addressed because terms like "racist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "imperialist" etc have been used so inflationary that noone takes real discrimination serious. And that's why Bezos, Gates, Cook etc fully support it, they want people to keep the masses confused so that we don't mind that they're controlling us. Divide et impera. Century old concept, works all the time. That's also why Gates and Buffet support social democracy, they absolutely like to pay a little bit more taxes if it means that the whole system can go on without uprisings. All they do is control us, and all this political correctnes cancel culture thing is just a cheap trick to establish a "new left" which is rather center-left because it ultimately supports the status quo, but claims that it doesn't. Just like what we call the "right" is in favor of traditional values and religion and focuses on national issues but at the end of the day they all support a globalized, unregulated market system in which the big banks and big businesses are free to treat the globe however they please. I mean, I'm bisexual myself and I do support the full emancipation of people with whatever sexuality, but I don't think it's in any way relevant for politics. The schools and restaurants and enterprises have to decide how many bath rooms they want, and you will never turn any intolerant person into a tolerant one by insulting them or forcing them, all we can do is do business as usual and show people that life goes on. The US needs to have a serious discussion about global warming, poverty, violence etc. You guys got a huge legal opioid problem and the US has the most imprisoned per capita in the world.
spiritual eco-syndicalist hero of the working class you bring up some interesting points but I don’t think I agree when you say identity has no place in politics. Like the civil rights movement and feminism were inarguably political, and also focused on identity. I agree completely that America desperately needs a real politically relevant socialist movement, and that corporations and the liberal state will try to, as Malcolm X said, give gestures to emancipation of marginalized groups to try to distract from real progress. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also push for anti-discrimination laws and cultural acceptance. Basically we need economic leftism and social progressivism.
@@aberfork6031 Absolutely agree. My point was that one's sexuality (just like one's religion, nationality etc) is a very personal thing and that we must not have a debate about what counts as sexuality, what's normal and what's not, how we should treat them etc. That's completely irrelevant. What we must do is realize that all of this doesn't matter once we accept that people are different not because they're made that way but because they are that way. I don't need people telling me how proud I am for coming out, and I don't want people hating me for that. Vice versa, I don't think women who like to stay at home, do the housework, raise the children etc instead of working are outdated and old-fashioned. If that's what they like, then let them. I don't think it's progressive when women choose to go to work and have a career instead. It's just what they prefer to do. It's the other way around, in the past women have been raised to be housewives, that's not progressive. In that sense, an individual cannot be progressive. But the way the individual is treated, that's progressivism for me. And of course it all comes back to individual behavior, since society is nothing but a collective of individuals. For me, a single individual cannot be truly progressive, and that's non-political for me. We shouldn't walk up to someone and tell him how to behave.
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 regardless socialism doesn’t work it doesn’t matter if you are against the modern left you’re still a socialist. It’s stupid.
i was a it aprehensive because of the title of the video, but in the end i completely agree with zizek. i'm trans, and there are some people that put's 'transgenderism' as part of the 'transhumanist' ideology. some people think transgender people will bring the end of gender, and that's ridiculous. what happens is that gender roles and expectations modify and adapt according to the changing in social values. and the transgender umbrella includes so many different groups of people that it becomes hard to pinpoint which ones are the revolutionaries. i don't think we are. having surgery to change your body to make yourself more comfortable with your body isn't revolutionary, people have done it for a long time. men wearing skirts may appear to confront gender stereotypes, but the concepts of gender are evolving parallel to that, so in some years, the gender categories will just be a bit different than they're now, but they probably won't disappear or anything. transgender people adapt themselves to society, but there are many ways this can be done, but the power structures will probably continue to exist, they'll just hide themselves in a different manner.
@@unCivilizedInfanta "Abolish gender" or abolish the structures in society which cause gender to matter more than it should (which is nil)? We can't just wish away gender. That in and of itself isn't revolutionary at all but rather idealism in its most basic form. Working towards class [and gender] equality will effectively dissolve all ideas of gender and its perceived roles and place in society -- rendering them meaningless beyond reproduction. As it should be. Edit: This will cause a paradigm shift, not back to the status quo, but rather towards a place where a man or woman can be comfortable as man or woman without any preconceived notions about what it means to be one. Thus, no need for a gender spectrum.
This obviously does not deal with transgenderism (man to woman and vice versa) because to me that is still binary. My comment deals with the debate around gender as a whole, and the massive gray area in the middle that seems to be the bulk of the pseudo-revolution.
@@ghoulswinnfield4692 humm, some people who transition, or partially transition, still may feel conflicted emotions about their gender, so they may feel that they belong somewhere in the middle, instead of falling in the binary. i respect that, i just let it be. but yeah, binary transgender people are somewhat easier to understand
@@beatrizkarwai6763 I guess my main point is that I agree that gender, and all of the ideas and debates surrounding it, as an overemphasized thing, should be done away with, but I vary in my conclusion on how. We can decide that gender doesn't exist in a metaphysical way and impose that idea on society, or we can actually create a world where its existence is irrelevant. The former being idealist and the latter obviously being materialist. I understand people have more immediate needs and mine is a long-game strategy. As far as societal impact, I just believe that the issue of gender as a concept is most often a matter of the inherent perceptions, prejudices and the discrimination and oppression that comes with it (man vs woman historically for example) and less about outward expression of the inner self. I don't personally care about how people express themselves, that's a part of the organic evolution of culture etc, I'm more concerned with the impact that expression has on the individual and society as a whole. This particulat debate creates a new contradiction in itself between trans women and cis women which is very much worth discussion.. and I'm not sure people are ready for it on either side. My wife being one of them. Btw, I have two teens, one of which is trans and the other leans nonbinary. And I'm still learning a lot about it; what I want to find is a principled Marxist analysis on the matter that enhances the strategy. Not at all easy
He has a good point here. He just goes about stating it poorly. Late stage capitalism is inherently fluid and subjective. Which is to say transgenderism fits perfectly within the system instead of being a revolutionary aspect. Transgenderism being almost wholly subjective and fluid is about as revolutionary to the system as fixed interest loans...
Same. This will probably get alot of backlash, but I believe not all transgenders are in fact transgender. In Thailand, alot of men have sex surgery so they can prostitute themselves as women, because there are no other jobs on the market. In Europe, there have already been cases of children who had sex change surgery and regret it, so now they are working on an underage sex change ban. We must admit that transgender identity is a real thing, but we also have to admit that people might use the tolerance towards transgender identity to escape their own reality and simply exploit their bodies for a better economic position or, like superheroes, they saw something on television and want to live out their fantasies.
@@rockpunk52 I see it this way: 1-bread and circuses, helps as a distraction having people fighting over it 2-helps rich and powerful wrap themselves in a shroud of fake virtue, fucking over real people with legitimate grievances
when it (along with his horrifically slobbery vocals) makes it extremely difficult to discern what the man is even saying, I'd say the comments are warranted.
I think I dislike the framing (the title) in this video more than I dislike or disagree with Zizek. He doesn‘t say a lot about trans identities anyway. That identities get incorporated into the capitalist framework is nothing new (rainbow capitalism) and this is a legit criticism by Zizek and by many other LGBTQ+ activists. There can‘t be real liberation without economic liberation and a lot of minorities have this topic as a major cause for their fight. Trans people especially suffer under the consequences of capitalism where access to healthcare and unemployment are one of the worst things that trans people are affected by. Many trans people are socialists, many trans intellectuals are socialists but of course not everybody is a socialist or even understands this. The identity in itself is not revolutionary (although breaking the binary is in itself a gender revolution but not a marxian one).
I have to add that people who focus on his ticks annoy me too. It‘s just part of his person and shouldn’t really distract you from what he says although he is hard to follow sometimes and jumps a lot in his thoughts but that‘s just his style of presentation.
Well said! The difficulties that trans people face within capitalism, much like racism, can be understood as a product of the system, and as such, can shine more light on the severe shortcomings of the system. Black and LGBT movements sometimes walk hand in hand in Western countries because they are so marginalized, and I have seen groups of these movements that have become armed revolutionaries. Patriarchal relations are generally very beneficial to traditional capitalism, and to this day are responsible for a lot of oppression, so even in a neoliberal utopia I don't think these oppressions will vanish just because capitalism sees identity as a market of sorts. But idk, this is a confusing topic because theorizing endlessly tends to be more confusing than observing what really happens
“Liberation” is an Utopia. We may get less cohertion compared to past - that’s all. People can’t stand life in its total nihilistic meaningless way. Myths are always needed (being Revolutions, Liberations, Hollywood, etc)
Reading these comments about his idiosyncratic behavior is disappointing. This focus on what he does physically and with his sniffing that is abnormal of course is a symptom of a materialistic culture where individuals have their value measured on how normal their appearance and mannerisms are rather than on the content of their ideas.
Most of the comments about his tics seem to have been thumbs downed to the bottom and instead the top comments are just spammed with people handwringing about the bad comments. You could have instead drowned them out with interesting input or a summary for people having trouble following.
It's been challenging for me to get through one of his concepts because of his animated nature. I decided not to watch him speak but to open a second window and listen to ambient sound design while listening to him speak, this helped isolate his information.
"Forms of hysteria are almost always specified". This isn't a trivial observation by Zizek because he's basically saying that every epoch has its prevailing taboos/aspirations. He captures that with his example of how marital infidelity used to be perceived (at least half a century ago) and how its now literally the reverse. I find that interesting because it may tie into the "peaks and troughs" theory of group ethos. There will be some centuries that lean heavily towards conservatism and others to liberalism. Maybe that's the greater message. I may be wrong though.
It's fascinating how in universities in Europe there's many mamy graffities about end the cistem, kill cis scum... I can't imagine MOST of the people doing graffiti doing it about this. They gotta be paid
While IDENTITY plays a huge role in understanding class-struggle, identity-reductionism is *always* counter-revolutionary, and only gives credence to reactionary/fascist notions of race & gender.
That's a lot of big words. If I may, what Karl Brothers is trying to say is that identity is complex, and if we disregard some aspects of identity (like race and gender) in favour of other aspects of identity (like class), we inadvertently contribute to the oppression of disadvantaged race and gender groups. By saying that those aspects of their identity are not as important as their class, we downplay their lived experience and empower those that stand opposed to their interests, like the patriarchy or white white supremacy.
@@harshilsangal6226 I understand gender playing a big part of your identity, but why race? Is your eye color as relevant to your identity as your class and gender? If all the elements of your identity are fluid and consequentially subjective. How can you take objective political stances in their regard? That road will only lead you to paradox. By placing people in boxes, groups and colors. You're conditioning those who listen to you to identify with those respective groups. Which in turn will enable the oppression of groups of identity. Identity politics is a death trap.
Big statement with no arguments, basically a mere prefabricated slogan. What is actually pretty fascist is convincing people that their identity primarily relies on their genre, their sexual tendencie, their race, (even class) etc etc... instead of on their persona. That way you have a massive amount of sheeps without sense of their actual persona and at the service of your ideology (a very common strategy in fascism and communism). But of course, for you and for your ideology it is very convenient that people tag themselves primarily in groups, rather than in their own persona, so that having them perfectly controlled, and to actually perpetuate those groups and that class-struggle (despite apparently fighting that struggle) so that eternally justifying the necessity of your ideology. In other words: your ideology, and the slogan you stated, are a tool of power (nothing to do with social justice).
That’s a mouth full of obscurantism, bruh. The so-called “live experience “ rubbish your spewing is entirely inner subjective whereas class is something objective . It is not an identity ; it is your position within economic relations; it is based on who owns what within a system of production .
@@MrAlRats fun didn't hurt anyone, but I have seen some comments that are mean spirited or dismissive of what he says simply because of his ticks. That is what pains me. But nothing that a line of coke with the man cannot fix.
Zizek suffers from nasal problems, and nervous ticks while lecturing or presenting, and on the other corner we have the high-school comedians here being witty about it who would probably gladly imitate an disabled person if asked
Is it possible to get Zizek to focus and develop his main points for longer than 3 minutes? He’s always dishing out interesting points (or at least interestingly labelled points), but I rarely get to hear them beyond the initial labels
I have exactly the same observation. He never does, because he's just an ADHD Marxist standup performer. He obviously does rarely have such longer trains of thought - maybe it's drugs or just lack of mental capabilities. He only deals in episodic observations and jokes.
The quote is act 2 scene 2, aka Balcony scene, Romeo and Juliet. He quoted my favourite Shakespearean line in the exact opposite sense I quote it in part of my thesis as she is asking why (wherefore) is he Romeo not why is she herself Juliet. So it's not a question about her own identity, not even in the lacanian sense, it's more a question of her own love and the possibilities of naming something
My dad is Japanese, but given that Idk Japanese, we speak in English. I always thought his way of speaking English was somewhat funny. Here I am listening to someone from a completely different country speaking English in the EXACT. SAME. WAY. I've grown to find this speech pattern (can you call it a speech pattern?) very charming tbh and maybe I prefer it over regular English.
I think my life would be much more enjoyable and fulfilling if I was thoroughly able to embody his absolutely immeasurable level of indifference when it comes to how much he actually cares about how others perceive him and his wonderfully belligerent antics... It's almost comedy, and I say that with respect and admiration. I wish I had the balls to get up and speak my mind while shamelessly choking back ungodly amounts of that gackity gack, drippity drip drool, not giving a damn if they think me a fool.
@@westondeloney8306 You got a chuckle, but really, no. You know Donald Trump takes himself -- particularly his appearance and identity -- very seriously. He is proud of his hair, fingers, speech-patterns, etc. and usually offended at critical comments about them rather than self-deprecating or even apologetic like Zizek.
This reminds me of an old lady, earnestly asking "as a dialectical materialist should I be opposed to homosexuality because they wont procreate and thus populate the proletariat?" She was corrected and told "no." She was also extremely sad and visibly concerned because she knew she was asking a question which would compromise either her politics or her ethics/morals.
You have not understood a word of what Zizek said. Or better said, you don't want to, simply because it compromises your ideological assumptions. In no moment he is opposed to homosexuality.
@@screambeyond You didn't really read the comment - the lady went away disappointed because she realized that her politics and morals were at odds with each other, and to resolve the contradiction she'd have to modify one or the other.
@@Wisstihrwas Marx was also supposedly hegelian, yet he wasn't. Zizek is a wasted talent because he is either focusing on wrong things or the good things with the extremly bad perception. Here and there he knows to be correct, but most of the times im surprised that there is so much people agreeing with him.
One thing that I can agree with the marxista is that the revolution needs to be made on a class basis. Not on the way that they propose it of course. But I also think that every kind of ways the human can liberate himself from social hierarchies such as political, sexual, or even collective hierarchies should at least be considered as necessary for the revolution.
@@studio1988. If you think that you are so intellectually superior to someone, then it's better to prove that through argumentation rather than playground insults. The latter only proves the opposite.
Half of the comments are about his tics. The other half of them are about why those comments are disappointing and we should instead talk about the subject matter. They don't talk about it either. And I'm just a stupid guy critisizing the comment section. I mainly agree with him about most of the things he pointed out btw.
I think Zizek is right to say that the breakdown of cis and binary normativity and of traditional patriarchal gender roles is completely compatible with Capitalism, but it's also important to be careful not to talk as if Capitalism, with its tendency to make all things melt into air, is what created transgenderism. There have been people who don't fit into a ridgid, cisnormative conception of gender and sexuality forever. What is happening now is not that lgbt+ people have started existing, but that we are moving from a social mode wherein they are extremely excluded to one in which they are less excluded. What Zizek is right to say is that this process isn't inherently revolutionary, and can be integrated into Capitalism.
Well you could honestly break it down as an aspect of the idea of safety. Capitalism protects fairly well against hunger and violence. Provide well for the hierarchy of need if you will. These factors allows for people to experiment with identity and allows for a market to be built around these identity experiments in order to find the self. Thus sustaining the “fluidness” of the actual identity. That is not to say it is a bad thing or in anyway justifiable to simply write it off as if it’s just a late stage capitalism side effect. However the structure of capitalism is one of the only economic factors that allow for it to the degree that is present today. The problem with capitalism is not the idea of moving product but in the consumers choose of product especially when there is no genuine choice. Which is why most libertarians argue for small government intervention( little regulation) as it allows for more choices to pop up in the market. However that also creates a balancing act for the governments responsibility to smash monopolies and oligopolies on the market.
Sure It’s actually pretty normal when you think about it Marx isn’t the end all be all for every aspect of reality, BUT I hate when people say things like “progressive politic is Marxism applies to everything “ as of those people know anything of Marx or ever read a line of his books
I am just now getting into philosophy and having kind of a hard time understand and synthesizing exactly what he’s claiming. Could someone somewhat summarize? Or point me to some readings on a similar topic?
Yeah i have no fucking idea. I have a philosophy degree, I think I'm ok at making it through dense texts, but either I have ADHD or Zizek is all build-up no climax. He's establishing a bunch of preliminary ideas but I lose where they lead to. I think right at the end he brings it round to questioning the basis of externally imposed identities... but not sure what his argument is.
There's nothing inherently revolutionary about any political ideology or social identity. How revolutionary an ideology or way of existing is depends completely on the context of it's creation. In the context of the existing Dominant paradigm of Binary Gender, Transgender or Non-binary identities can be radical, so long as the continue to attempt to dismantle the dominant paradigm. In the context of Marxist analysis, no its not necessarily radical, unless it also takes up the mantle of class struggle, which a number of gender fluid people do. But yes the politics of identity do run the risk of (and are currently) being co-opted and commodified; Especially by the existing Capitalist telecommunication industries (Mass Media networks). But also, a Marxism isn't the end all be all of theories of oppression; Racial, Gendered, Ethnic, and Dynastic/State/Imperial oppression has existed for centuries before global capitalism, and they can continue to exist after its inevitable collapse.
exactly! but capitalism has done that with everything, that’s what it’s designed to do. Coopting is in the capitalist nature, it excels in this. Syndicalism, ecology, feminism, gender theory, decolonization, black liberation, even communism itself - all taken, capitalized, commodified and commercialized. That doesn’t automatically remove the revolutionary potential in all of these.
I find Marx knew very little about human behavior, only his judgement of it, he saw racism but never understood why it exists. At that time humans were perceived as something totally different from animals, out of the animal kingdome, as if we were rational beings with feelings. Today it is proven and concluded that we are driven by feelings and instinct and some times some are smart enough to look back and think about, reazonable, what we did and with some luck, undertand the actual reasons. No wonder he proposed the "new man" as if our mind was only shaped by culture and learning and there wasn't a subconsciousness evolved thousand of years to keep us alive and reproduce, injecting chemicals into our body to make us walk away from things it perceives dangerous or harmful and make us prone to repeat things it perceives as good with endorphines and dopamine
I mean yeah, I'm trans because of dysphoria making my life hell without transitioning! It's not a statement, not a revolution, and it is absolutely not political. It's just for my own wellbeing. The only "political" aspect of it is forced on me because of some parties who put a desire to at best stop me from having that wellbeing or at worst have me dead at the forefront of their politics. If they went away, nothing about me being transgender would be any more political than any other medical issue.
So? We all have struggles, what should I do? Cry my eyes out because you function differently? Guess what, so do I, nothing special about that. Those individual push things onto you and you push things onto them - you don't want them, they don't want yours, yet you both keep on doing it.
@@princeargon6508 I uh, don't think you understood the point, I was saying it's not revolutionary it's just how I am. Not lookin for pity or whatever you may have thought? And your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever lol
Oh that's too late. It's his USP. What would Zizek be without his ticks. Just another boring looking philosopher. :) Though sometimes it's hard to focus...
This might be the first video ever where I wished written text was read by google translator instead. I just can't listen to him propperly. I'm interested in what he has to say, but I just can't overlook the sideshow. It's sad.
He may or may not be spitting facts, but he is undoubtedly spitting.
10/10
Best comment
Yeah this joke has got pretty repetitive at this point...
@@sykocode8530 So has the spitting.
😂😂
Ah yes, my favourite Shakespeare quote: "What's in that name, am I that name, and so on and so on."
you probably shouldn't misquote the guy, this being your favorite Shakespeare quote,
Jason Unruhe, Dankey Kang, Jesse Grant and the Pink Triangle
czcams.com/video/3YdP4HMi-WA/video.html
Mine is "Now… something, something, something"
I would love to see a live retelling of Shakespeare as recalled off-hand by by Zizek
@@Letmegetthatforyou hahaha
When you spend decades making unique contributions to psychoanalysis and philosophy and all anyone can focus on is your facial ticks.
he's a PUBLIC intellectual. those are the breaks.
"unique contributions" sure buddy..
@@mobspeak the Peterson debate was enough for him to earn that.
People keep making comments on his nose touching because it's gross and funny. And it's never not going to be gross and funny. I love hearing this man speak and have listened to him for hours, but I still pick up on it and it's distracting. I'm willing to ignore it because of the quality of his words, but it's annoying. And don't try to pretend it's not annoying because then you're just lying to yourself.
@@mobspeak this video is a perfect example of his unique contributions
Zizek referring to Tim Cook as “the other apple guy” is so unbelievably relatable.
It's good but not as good as Tim Apple
LMFAO
Seems people in this comment section have never heard of neurological tics before...
Cocaine or tics?
I've heard of it but have never witnessed it.
sweet anita
No we've heard of them, I have them but it's still funny.
@@mrbrown1159 found someone who never heard of a neurological tic
The problem with Zizek is that when he's finally reaching the point, he tells a joke, turns and then gets into another subject.
I kinda like it in a way. It is a comedic relief to pretty hard topics and themes, but he will not think them to the end, which forces you to think further. He has written books and articles about all of it, where he elaborates all of his ideas, but a speach or presentation in this intellectual topic should be exactly like this.
bomber9912 well I disagree, he should elaborate them more so we can understand what he's saying without any reinforcements. Imagine if teachers didn't explain things well and then saying don't worry it's in the book.
"The problem"
@@bomber9912 i like to cook a good diner and right before eat it. I throw it all in the trash...
bro we just know that when there’s a video entitled a certain subject done by Zizek it’s gonna be 80% other points
90% of people who watch Zizek just make the same unfunny joke about him touching his nose
It’s better to point out he’s just a gross person in general.
I made the funny joke about him wearing the Freddy Krueger shirt. Imagine if he had the glove too. OUCH!!!!
@@timolsen3494 stfu
*sniff*
The jokes may be unfunny but his behaviour is fucking hilarious.
The most annoying thing about Zizek is that mainstream reception reduces him to his ticks.
people see what they can understand
Not just him, Eastern Europeans in general and I fucking hate it
His voice makes my eyes water uncontrollably. I don't know why, it's weird, and I don't like it. It got so bad it was like I was weeping, streams of tears running down my face. I had to stop listening, which is unfortunate because I would have liked to hear what he had to say.
He should make a tictoc 😉
Oh wait, he's already there :)
It takes time to filter that. As mamals we are wired to repel and reject signs of sickness, and his ticks, to our unconsciousness, which does not care about medicine books or psychology literature, his ticks indicate he's sick or has some problem. The further he is, the less chance we got to catch whatever he has.
Unconsciousness, something Marx didn't seem to know about, our behavior is driven by our instincts, feelings and genes, with some luck we can put some reazon into some of our actions. Capítalism is nothing but an observation of how we work and tells you the optimus way to maximize profit and growth in the material world, but it doesn't say you have to exploit your employees. Actually, today it is well known that less hours of work and happier employees contribute more, which ultimately increase profit. A bad practice of capitalism is not of capitalism. Socialism, on the other hand, simply doesn't work, it's based on untrue facts such as human behavior
''The problem with Marx is that precisely where he was right, he was right to such an extent, he couldn't even imagine how right he is''
-Slavoj Zizek
The problem with Zizek is he is fucked in the head. - Me.
@@mobspeak
3 edgy 5 you m9
@@bazkervillerouge750 His retarded followers speak worse gibberish than he does, it's not a surprise.
@@mobspeak
Riveting.
@igor šajinović And the fact that you follow people like this tells me that you belong in a mental institution.
"Schniff" - Slavoj Zizek
Schnüffeln
Underrated
snorted a booger at this 😂
Šniff
yo the man has nervous tics, don't be mean
“Enlightened western Buddhism” “spiritual hedonism” those are great terms for this white influence yoga craze
xdddddddddddddddd
Westerners are a disgrace to yoga.
They strip away it’s necessary Hinduism and make it secular
There is no secular yoga. That’s just called doing uncomfortable poses
Lol
@@deanmccrorie3461 Yoga is lame. Mobility training is more effective.
@@BrObstreperous lololol.
I guess but effective at what?
@@deanmccrorie3461 wait so I cant practice this stuff thats been immeasurably helpful because I don’t practice hinduism? Tf?
Final Boss of Google's caption machine learning.
It works perfectly for me
JAJAJAJAA
It do work. Except when it comes to questioning "pressure positions"
@@LiliS319 Lol
Hahahahahahaha omg this comment wins the comment section
Identity is never revolutionary in general
It depends how you're identified and where you are living when you're being identified.
Destroying identities is a way to destroy society, i.e. push forward the creeping revolution through the superstructure
Making identity the main point of your doctrine is a poor move. Many are probably too narcissistic to admit it or incapable of grasping that identity is inherently anti-emancipatory
@@alicepractice9473 - making identity the main point of a doctrine is evil and effective. Identities are vehicles of group interest and if you break their creation process by interferring at an early age - like modern marxism does - you can then easily indoctrinate a malleable mass of pathologized young - as seen all around.
@Frederick Röders - who are those?
In the Age of COVID, how the f*ck do you keep Zizek from touching his face 2000000 times per min?
We simply get him to do what we are all being asked to do, wash hands, or sanitiser and good personal hygiene. I think that he does all that.
@spiro futue te ipsum. If you're not braindead, you should know what it means.
cover his hands in chili powder
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
@@philoz08 you murdered him
I find it insulting that the comments are mainly about his appearances, and not about the subject itself.
Who cares?
@@user-dz8pg5sw6s Not the likes of you, who can't grasp what he is talking about, obviously.
You're dealing with the majority of the population that's low IQ but has access to the internet
And you made it worse pointing it out so shut up
@@robergarcia11 He didn’t make it worse. It is insulting.
With respect to Zizek, a much pithier way of putting it was in the form of a joke I saw once:
Socialist: "Eight men own as much wealth as half the population of Earth."
Liberal: "I agree, that is disgusting! Four of them should be black women!"
Clearly, racism and sexism (and transphobia, and any number of different things) are bad things, and we should fight against them. But speaking out against them is fundamentally not threatening for the structures of power, in the way that speaking out against class inequality and worker exploitation would be. Sticking up a few Pride flags in the office costs a company pennies; restructing the entire company and society so that workers are no longer exploited is catastrophic for the owner class. So we are presented with the illusion of companies caring about inequality in all the ways that are non-threatening to them.
I disagree. I think that is to fail to understand how patriarchal and colonial structures actually reinforce capitalism. When you complain at work about long hours, and you are called a "sissy" or something like this, that is the power of patriarchal norms stifling dissent against capitalism.
If people - and men especially - were to suddenly be able to express their feelings and needs openly, I believe we would have a socialist revolution before the end of the month. The masculine ban on communicating about your feelings means that workers cannot know what others are struggling with, meaning that they cannot see that they are all struggling in the same way, meaning that they can't reach class consciousness.
Of course the progressive liberal appropriation that goes something like the quote you have given is horrible, but I don't think we should dismiss the movements on the left that are challenging these structures of power.
@@noor5x9 If your reasoning as to why a socialist revolution doesn't (and can't) happen is correct, then how do you explain previous socialist revolutions all over the world, dating back to the 18th century? In environments and societies where masculinity and patriarchy were far more pronounced, in fact not even challenged in the slightest? Not to mention that 'feelings' seem to be secondary concerns when you're struggling to meet your basic needs as a result of exploitation and inexcusably low wages.
@@allweknowisfalling7322 That's a fair point about earlier revolutions, and I'd love to learn how people were able to find connection with each other and build a movement in that patriarchal context. We did see feminism appear also in many other socialists revolutionary movements though. For example, abortion was decriminalised in the early soviet Union, along with homosexuality.
That said, we have also seen a re-emergence of strong hierarchical orders after socialist revolutions. I suspect that it is precisely because we change the economic order without challenging the cultural pressupositions that both give rise to such an order and reinforce it
What about a company owned by the workers? Are the workers them working class or owner class?
There is no actual logical argument for legitimizing transgender.
I always get the sense that Zizek understands more than he can convey. And he conveys quite a bit.
is like a sidewalk stone he conveys... or a potato
@@hayleyberry3437 The man writes so many books but CZcams people don't read so this is all they get.
The speed of his mind exceeds the speed of his speech
@@onisuryaman408that's exactly how ADHD feels
not his mother language
Zizek is a great thinker, but to speak on behalf of myself and my friends; I don't think most LGBTQ people want their gender or sexual identities to be politicized or viewed as a radical statement- they simply want to exist. The emergence of more people in the west openly identifying as such, is the result of lots of of contributing factors- a big one of course being social media and online communities; we have more resources than ever to understand ourselves and seek validation and support from others. So yes economic growth has facilitated the emergence of more active, informed LGBTQ communities, and allowed the discourse around gender and sexuality to develop. And of course big tech giants want to capitalize off this.
But our identities are not inherently political, and regardless of political context, Gender and sexual fluidity has existed for thousands of years (take a look at Ancient Greece, and Native American culture), we are not new or radical, we just have more visibility now.
they do simply exist. they politicize them selves by interacting with this pathetic thing. its fun to participate for these people, they are literally boring people who have spent their entire lives either on the fringe of fitting in or just never being a part of anything whatsoever. this is their chance for attention. not one of them knows what its like to be cool or popular, and this is an avenue for that. literally. the same thing for 45 year old women who are just getting blue hair for the first time, or finding an identity on twitter surrounding some rage filled idea of teenager politics. its a hollow attempt at finding a surrogate personality using contemporary identity politics. its easy to scream and fight for things when you have an army of mainstream news outlets arguing for you. if these people found a skill that wasnt drawing furry cartoons or making childish art they would know what its like to have something to offer society and be rewarded for, and wouldnt feel so desperate to reach out and compromise their dignity for attention. its really not complicated, were seeing this pattern over and over literally millions of times. basically ugly and or boring people just looking for the limelight and pretending like the world is attacking them. its extremely cliche and probably the most cringe thing you can find in this decade
Bullshit.
Most "LGB" Folks don't want their sexuality (Not their 'identities, their literal 'sexualities') not to be politicized anymore because those have been politicized, and the majority of things that where to be achieved had been achieved. Discrimination was made illegal, marriage was permitted, equal access to the workforce, and equal access to legislative rights including medical support.
the 'TQ+' Fraction of that (which just "Bandwagoned" on the political platform having inherently zero to do with them), are the ones that basically poisoned the entire fucking progress with their retarded ideology and strictly reality-denying, anti-scientific, biology-antagonizing horseshit, by trying to 'normalize' lifestyles that would be largely impossible without severe, violent modification and altering of the human body through absolutely unnecessary, often times life-threatening surgeries and hormonal experimentation that does more harm then it does good.
And the consistent presence and uncovering of fucking child molesters amongst their ranks and pedophiles trying to introduce highly pornographical/kink based material into school curriculums and trying to disguise it as 'Sex-Ed' is only the tip of that Iceberg. Or the Presence of "MAP" acceptance advocates in the 'TQ+' fraction.
Homosexual, Bisexuality, Lesbianism can all be considered natural. Nature has enough of examples of it occuring, and we've had enough of historical precedents proving that people 'did' lead those lifestyles in one way or another. the 'TQ+' Nonsense is absolutely invented out of thin air on shoddy pseudo-science from liberal arts degrees, rooted in sociology and philosophy far more then any hard science out there.
Conflating queerness and pedophilia (regardless of era) is a dangerous game, and we see this narrative a lot from far-right christian conservatives (not to suggest that you fit this category). It's very important to acknowledge and address issues of pedophilia and child abuse abuse- both historic and current, but remember to exercise nuance and be aware of potentially damming and accusatory associations. @@markbranham7355
Agreed. The whole problem is that, instead of prescribing the simple extension of feminine and masculine rather than male and female, we implant sexuality as the root argument. There are both men and women who carry both feminine and masculine traits. THAT is the primary issue. Some carry those tendencies to include sexuality. Those that do are now mired in a conversation that has no purpose and is utterly missing the point. It is the Native American idea of "two spirits." We all carry both.
Finally, a lgbt person talking about this subject using facts and logic without sounding like an edgy teenage girl with autism.
Respects for you.
As a trans person its a little silly that this point even needs to made - of course my transition is not revolutionary, its an individual action with little impact on other people and done for only my own sake. Thus, it becomes a consumer group for markets to target, despite mine or anyone elses chagrin. Zizek is correct as usual. I hope as few as my trans brothers and sisters as possible fall under the pretention it is revolutionary.
based
worded very eloquently!
@@killdracula526 But still shit!
The problem isn't transgenderism, it's the total infiltration of transgenderism into the mainstream and the militant approach the movement has taken to get everyone to recognize a lifestyle choice that objectively only a small percentage of the population engages in
Would you be the trans brother or sister then?
"Hysteria is the elementary form of critique of ideology." This should be inscribed onto every school of humanities' entrance door!
00:00
We live in a society
Society is in reality.
@E A
Youre rationalizing the hatred of independent judgment and the fear of social disapproval. Consciousness is derivative, merely the consciousness OF reality. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind. Its mans basic method of survival.
We live in an economy. -The Marxer
@@Nina-cd2eh marxer..
We live in crazee taims
Ima be honest I enjoyed that but I couldn’t tell you his main point at all
Lemwell7 My main point is this one. *sniffs philosophically*
The point is we should support trans people and defend them, but their struggle is not revolutionary in the Marxist meaning of revolution.
His point is pretty straightforward. We should fully support transgender people, but there's nothing revolutionary about it, which means that it doesn't threaten the existing global capitalism.
Hey man welcome to zizek!
The fluidity of ideas and stances is in the postmodern age of late capitalism at its peak, so it shouldn’t surprise you that even so solid natural things as gender or environment are not given anymore, according to Zizek’s reading of the Marx’s critique of capitalism. Clear?
The picture you've chosen seems deliberately curated in order to make additional implications to what Zizek claims. C'mon man.
Got to pull in people somehow.
It’s to get the clicks, because capitalism hahaha
the right wing hate machine can spin a dove into hitler if it means someone gets paid.
@@adammchugh5456 Right wing?
@@lomouche Not me, mate. And....?
My main problem is that Judith Butler shouldn't own the lgbtq movement. "Judith Butler went to Yale to be a lesbian" is funny joke to lgbtq people because it distills how little lgbtq as we instinctively understand it fits with Yale traditionally. But Zizek is right here, she did a great job at assemilating it into capitalism.
I think theres an alternative theory of lgbtq to be found that fits better into a wider range of lgbtq experiences, but it is a type of subjectivity and mode of communal relationships that academia and capitalism is designed to filter out.
Academia especially is at the forefront of the classification of "good brain vs bad brain" and "good human vs bad human" and we as leftists keep finding ways to say "what if 'x' psychological trait is actually good brain" or "what if 'x' identity is actually good human", when we should instead be throwing away such valuations altogether.
I think the only real judgement we should give validity is "are they acting in solidarity or are they not, and why". This is actually how you ascend capitalist subjectivity. I'm certainly interested in figuring out "why am i trans, really" on some level, but I know its not a conscious choice to like, dismantle society leaving only capital relations. More like, it feels like censoring myself to increase my own capital value feels like a dismantling of society. "gender is a social construct", so lets openly celebrate our genders, not try to eat away at the concept gender.
holy shit, this deserves way more likes.
Well, gender is not a social construct... gender fashion is... I do agree with your idea that celebration instead of denialism should be the propper way to go about the subject...
Gender is grammatical, sex is biological and there are only two and they determine society.
@@bulkingup if you are saying that there are only two sexes, then what about intersex?
Gender debate is subjective boomerang to such an extent that debating over it puts layers to it nevermind demystifying any rational behind it.
In the school of rationality where the argument corroborates scientific rigour, Gender is a fashion period.
I'm trans and I think the identity politics-bread cancel culture in our community has gotten out of hand.
But I mostly want to know where he gets his amphetamine.
I think the so called "left" is just a sibsitute for real, socialist leftists. They make up problems that don't exist and if a problem really does exist, it's even worse, because it cannot be addressed because terms like "racist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "imperialist" etc have been used so inflationary that noone takes real discrimination serious.
And that's why Bezos, Gates, Cook etc fully support it, they want people to keep the masses confused so that we don't mind that they're controlling us. Divide et impera. Century old concept, works all the time. That's also why Gates and Buffet support social democracy, they absolutely like to pay a little bit more taxes if it means that the whole system can go on without uprisings. All they do is control us, and all this political correctnes cancel culture thing is just a cheap trick to establish a "new left" which is rather center-left because it ultimately supports the status quo, but claims that it doesn't. Just like what we call the "right" is in favor of traditional values and religion and focuses on national issues but at the end of the day they all support a globalized, unregulated market system in which the big banks and big businesses are free to treat the globe however they please.
I mean, I'm bisexual myself and I do support the full emancipation of people with whatever sexuality, but I don't think it's in any way relevant for politics. The schools and restaurants and enterprises have to decide how many bath rooms they want, and you will never turn any intolerant person into a tolerant one by insulting them or forcing them, all we can do is do business as usual and show people that life goes on.
The US needs to have a serious discussion about global warming, poverty, violence etc. You guys got a huge legal opioid problem and the US has the most imprisoned per capita in the world.
spiritual eco-syndicalist hero of the working class you bring up some interesting points but I don’t think I agree when you say identity has no place in politics. Like the civil rights movement and feminism were inarguably political, and also focused on identity. I agree completely that America desperately needs a real politically relevant socialist movement, and that corporations and the liberal state will try to, as Malcolm X said, give gestures to emancipation of marginalized groups to try to distract from real progress. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also push for anti-discrimination laws and cultural acceptance. Basically we need economic leftism and social progressivism.
@@aberfork6031 Absolutely agree. My point was that one's sexuality (just like one's religion, nationality etc) is a very personal thing and that we must not have a debate about what counts as sexuality, what's normal and what's not, how we should treat them etc. That's completely irrelevant. What we must do is realize that all of this doesn't matter once we accept that people are different not because they're made that way but because they are that way. I don't need people telling me how proud I am for coming out, and I don't want people hating me for that. Vice versa, I don't think women who like to stay at home, do the housework, raise the children etc instead of working are outdated and old-fashioned. If that's what they like, then let them. I don't think it's progressive when women choose to go to work and have a career instead. It's just what they prefer to do.
It's the other way around, in the past women have been raised to be housewives, that's not progressive. In that sense, an individual cannot be progressive. But the way the individual is treated, that's progressivism for me. And of course it all comes back to individual behavior, since society is nothing but a collective of individuals. For me, a single individual cannot be truly progressive, and that's non-political for me. We shouldn't walk up to someone and tell him how to behave.
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 Well spoken!
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 regardless socialism doesn’t work it doesn’t matter if you are against the modern left you’re still a socialist. It’s stupid.
i was a it aprehensive because of the title of the video, but in the end i completely agree with zizek.
i'm trans, and there are some people that put's 'transgenderism' as part of the 'transhumanist' ideology. some people think transgender people will bring the end of gender, and that's ridiculous. what happens is that gender roles and expectations modify and adapt according to the changing in social values. and the transgender umbrella includes so many different groups of people that it becomes hard to pinpoint which ones are the revolutionaries. i don't think we are. having surgery to change your body to make yourself more comfortable with your body isn't revolutionary, people have done it for a long time. men wearing skirts may appear to confront gender stereotypes, but the concepts of gender are evolving parallel to that, so in some years, the gender categories will just be a bit different than they're now, but they probably won't disappear or anything. transgender people adapt themselves to society, but there are many ways this can be done, but the power structures will probably continue to exist, they'll just hide themselves in a different manner.
You're right. We should abolish gender, but trans identities just enforce it. Nothing revolutionary there.
@@unCivilizedInfanta
"Abolish gender" or abolish the structures in society which cause gender to matter more than it should (which is nil)? We can't just wish away gender. That in and of itself isn't revolutionary at all but rather idealism in its most basic form. Working towards class [and gender] equality will effectively dissolve all ideas of gender and its perceived roles and place in society -- rendering them meaningless beyond reproduction. As it should be.
Edit: This will cause a paradigm shift, not back to the status quo, but rather towards a place where a man or woman can be comfortable as man or woman without any preconceived notions about what it means to be one. Thus, no need for a gender spectrum.
This obviously does not deal with transgenderism (man to woman and vice versa) because to me that is still binary. My comment deals with the debate around gender as a whole, and the massive gray area in the middle that seems to be the bulk of the pseudo-revolution.
@@ghoulswinnfield4692 humm, some people who transition, or partially transition, still may feel conflicted emotions about their gender, so they may feel that they belong somewhere in the middle, instead of falling in the binary. i respect that, i just let it be. but yeah, binary transgender people are somewhat easier to understand
@@beatrizkarwai6763
I guess my main point is that I agree that gender, and all of the ideas and debates surrounding it, as an overemphasized thing, should be done away with, but I vary in my conclusion on how. We can decide that gender doesn't exist in a metaphysical way and impose that idea on society, or we can actually create a world where its existence is irrelevant. The former being idealist and the latter obviously being materialist. I understand people have more immediate needs and mine is a long-game strategy.
As far as societal impact, I just believe that the issue of gender as a concept is most often a matter of the inherent perceptions, prejudices and the discrimination and oppression that comes with it (man vs woman historically for example) and less about outward expression of the inner self. I don't personally care about how people express themselves, that's a part of the organic evolution of culture etc, I'm more concerned with the impact that expression has on the individual and society as a whole. This particulat debate creates a new contradiction in itself between trans women and cis women which is very much worth discussion.. and I'm not sure people are ready for it on either side. My wife being one of them.
Btw, I have two teens, one of which is trans and the other leans nonbinary. And I'm still learning a lot about it; what I want to find is a principled Marxist analysis on the matter that enhances the strategy. Not at all easy
He has a good point here. He just goes about stating it poorly. Late stage capitalism is inherently fluid and subjective. Which is to say transgenderism fits perfectly within the system instead of being a revolutionary aspect.
Transgenderism being almost wholly subjective and fluid is about as revolutionary to the system as fixed interest loans...
Same. This will probably get alot of backlash, but I believe not all transgenders are in fact transgender. In Thailand, alot of men have sex surgery so they can prostitute themselves as women, because there are no other jobs on the market. In Europe, there have already been cases of children who had sex change surgery and regret it, so now they are working on an underage sex change ban.
We must admit that transgender identity is a real thing, but we also have to admit that people might use the tolerance towards transgender identity to escape their own reality and simply exploit their bodies for a better economic position or, like superheroes, they saw something on television and want to live out their fantasies.
Warms my heart to see level-headed people on my opposite end of the aisle.
obvious example being that large corporations and fortune 500 promoting the transgender narrative
Transgenderism is more active in highly capitalistic societies so he may be onto something.
@@rockpunk52 I see it this way:
1-bread and circuses, helps as a distraction having people fighting over it
2-helps rich and powerful wrap themselves in a shroud of fake virtue, fucking over real people with legitimate grievances
Kinda creeps me out that my father has the exact same shirt and I've NEVER seen it on anyone else but on him.
Have you ever seen your Dad and Zizek in the same room ?
@@aymericst-louis-gabriel8314 N-nope...
Oh no! O.O
Shall I introduce you to Chris Chan?
He and Zizek are lovers, dummy
@@sergeibelozorov4428
Every time I watch this guys videos I think I know what's going on but by the end I have no clue what he's about.
Right there with you man... 🤷🏼♂️
My condolences 🌸
How do I put this in a nice way?
Maybe it's just not for you
I understand you just gotta also understand Marx
The titel is a bit click baity
Zizek speaks the same way, whether he is addressing a single person or a full room.
One of the best minds of our time and every comment is about his neurological ticks, mankind is doomed...
YES!!
i mean those are some very noticeable and distracting ticks
when it (along with his horrifically slobbery vocals) makes it extremely difficult to discern what the man is even saying, I'd say the comments are warranted.
The capitalistic development of our society is so fast nowadays that you can't even stop to blow your nose.
or touch it for that matter
The nose is no longer solid it’s liquid
its difficult to be distracted by his ticks because what he says actually makes my brain think
Ikr
I think I dislike the framing (the title) in this video more than I dislike or disagree with Zizek. He doesn‘t say a lot about trans identities anyway. That identities get incorporated into the capitalist framework is nothing new (rainbow capitalism) and this is a legit criticism by Zizek and by many other LGBTQ+ activists. There can‘t be real liberation without economic liberation and a lot of minorities have this topic as a major cause for their fight. Trans people especially suffer under the consequences of capitalism where access to healthcare and unemployment are one of the worst things that trans people are affected by. Many trans people are socialists, many trans intellectuals are socialists but of course not everybody is a socialist or even understands this. The identity in itself is not revolutionary (although breaking the binary is in itself a gender revolution but not a marxian one).
I have to add that people who focus on his ticks annoy me too. It‘s just part of his person and shouldn’t really distract you from what he says although he is hard to follow sometimes and jumps a lot in his thoughts but that‘s just his style of presentation.
you put it into great terms!! thank you!!
Well said! The difficulties that trans people face within capitalism, much like racism, can be understood as a product of the system, and as such, can shine more light on the severe shortcomings of the system. Black and LGBT movements sometimes walk hand in hand in Western countries because they are so marginalized, and I have seen groups of these movements that have become armed revolutionaries. Patriarchal relations are generally very beneficial to traditional capitalism, and to this day are responsible for a lot of oppression, so even in a neoliberal utopia I don't think these oppressions will vanish just because capitalism sees identity as a market of sorts. But idk, this is a confusing topic because theorizing endlessly tends to be more confusing than observing what really happens
“Liberation” is an Utopia. We may get less cohertion compared to past - that’s all. People can’t stand life in its total nihilistic meaningless way. Myths are always needed (being Revolutions, Liberations, Hollywood, etc)
Reading these comments about his idiosyncratic behavior is disappointing. This focus on what he does physically and with his sniffing that is abnormal of course is a symptom of a materialistic culture where individuals have their value measured on how normal their appearance and mannerisms are rather than on the content of their ideas.
You're on youtube, you really shouldnt be expecting a bunch of philosophy students in the comments
yea
Most of the comments about his tics seem to have been thumbs downed to the bottom and instead the top comments are just spammed with people handwringing about the bad comments. You could have instead drowned them out with interesting input or a summary for people having trouble following.
Can you imagine this guy just doing lines and reading history books
Continental philosophy books*
I am watched it right now for 10 minutes and 3 seconds straight.
hahahaha I'd fucking pay for that.
What do you think gave him the runny nose and post nasal drip? He's clearly done a fuck ton of drugs up the nose.
@@FreakTechnics u right my b
It's been challenging for me to get through one of his concepts because of his animated nature. I decided not to watch him speak but to open a second window and listen to ambient sound design while listening to him speak, this helped isolate his information.
I do the same.
I figure it’s a philosophical style: Make yourself more difficult to understand in order to get the listener to work towards it
You can read his books. They are much better than his extemporaneous talks.
His gestures are definitely distracting. And funny. In a good way. Well funny is always good, right?
@@arcachata4137 I don't find his gestures to be distracting. Just the sound of his nose is louder than his speech.
I feel like his nose is just an absolute hard-right capitalist trying to shut his host down.
"Forms of hysteria are almost always specified".
This isn't a trivial observation by Zizek because he's basically saying that every epoch has its prevailing taboos/aspirations. He captures that with his example of how marital infidelity used to be perceived (at least half a century ago) and how its now literally the reverse. I find that interesting because it may tie into the "peaks and troughs" theory of group ethos. There will be some centuries that lean heavily towards conservatism and others to liberalism. Maybe that's the greater message.
I may be wrong though.
It's fascinating how in universities in Europe there's many mamy graffities about end the cistem, kill cis scum... I can't imagine MOST of the people doing graffiti doing it about this.
They gotta be paid
A room full of people and no one hands this man a tissue smh
I'm thinking hand him the whole box.
pretty sure he wants whatever is causing him to sniff to stay where it is
Mirin that Chris Chan outfit
LMAO DIDNT THINK ABOUT IT
Even more ironic considering the topic he’s discussing
Chris Chan.... Sam Hyde... Slavoj Zizek.. they all wear the polo
I am *schniff* looking for a *schniff* boyfriend-free girl, and so on and so forth.
Zizek is a historical phenomenon, deep respect for his great contributions to philosophy and psychoanalysis as a whole.
@I'm not getting banned again Mixing dirty jokes with communism
@I can't swim Unlike us he’s at least trying to do something by talking about serious actual problems of society publicly.
Isn't psychoanalysis a pseudoscience?
@@JoseEchoes378yes
Historical phenomenon, along with the like of? Please name more historical phenomenons as examples
Agree or disagree with him this man is never afraid to speak his mind and listen with his ears.
Two things he is extremely competent in using.
"Do you have Oedipal problems, bla bla." Classic Zieezy
You Know? MY Gott!
While IDENTITY plays a huge role in understanding class-struggle, identity-reductionism is *always* counter-revolutionary, and only gives credence to reactionary/fascist notions of race & gender.
That's a lot of big words. If I may, what Karl Brothers is trying to say is that identity is complex, and if we disregard some aspects of identity (like race and gender) in favour of other aspects of identity (like class), we inadvertently contribute to the oppression of disadvantaged race and gender groups. By saying that those aspects of their identity are not as important as their class, we downplay their lived experience and empower those that stand opposed to their interests, like the patriarchy or white white supremacy.
hogwash
@@harshilsangal6226 I understand gender playing a big part of your identity, but why race? Is your eye color as relevant to your identity as your class and gender?
If all the elements of your identity are fluid and consequentially subjective. How can you take objective political stances in their regard? That road will only lead you to paradox.
By placing people in boxes, groups and colors. You're conditioning those who listen to you to identify with those respective groups. Which in turn will enable the oppression of groups of identity. Identity politics is a death trap.
Big statement with no arguments, basically a mere prefabricated slogan. What is actually pretty fascist is convincing people that their identity primarily relies on their genre, their sexual tendencie, their race, (even class) etc etc... instead of on their persona. That way you have a massive amount of sheeps without sense of their actual persona and at the service of your ideology (a very common strategy in fascism and communism). But of course, for you and for your ideology it is very convenient that people tag themselves primarily in groups, rather than in their own persona, so that having them perfectly controlled, and to actually perpetuate those groups and that class-struggle (despite apparently fighting that struggle) so that eternally justifying the necessity of your ideology. In other words: your ideology, and the slogan you stated, are a tool of power (nothing to do with social justice).
That’s a mouth full of obscurantism, bruh. The so-called “live experience “ rubbish your spewing is entirely inner subjective whereas class is something objective . It is not an identity ; it is your position within economic relations; it is based on who owns what within a system of production .
zizek:
touches nose
internet:
and I took that personally
Not a fan of Zizec but it pains me to see people make fun of his tics.
Why? Don't you like fun?
@@MrAlRats fun didn't hurt anyone, but I have seen some comments that are mean spirited or dismissive of what he says simply because of his ticks. That is what pains me. But nothing that a line of coke with the man cannot fix.
@Good Goy hahahahaha "now that we have discussed all this Hegelian stuff why don't we go powder our noses".
Trying to explain my law degree to policemen after a coke binge
😂😂
5:32 people just can't resist the laugh.
Damn I almost feel bad for laughing
I love him but I'm not shaking his hand!
Zizek suffers from nasal problems, and nervous ticks while lecturing or presenting, and on the other corner we have the high-school comedians here being witty about it who would probably gladly imitate an disabled person if asked
When its funny, its funny. Stop being a bitch.
not based and blue pilled
@@TaarLpsSorry your presidential candidate didn't make it for their second term
Sorry yours likes little girls.
This is why your country is fucked, cause you think automatically two sided politics. Hey good luck for the next 4 years
Is it possible to get Zizek to focus and develop his main points for longer than 3 minutes? He’s always dishing out interesting points (or at least interestingly labelled points), but I rarely get to hear them beyond the initial labels
read his books, they are big and dense :o
I have exactly the same observation. He never does, because he's just an ADHD Marxist standup performer. He obviously does rarely have such longer trains of thought - maybe it's drugs or just lack of mental capabilities. He only deals in episodic observations and jokes.
Zizek never says anything. It’s not a timescale issue.
Leonard Peikoff, in _DIM Hypothesis_, says modern culture is conceptually disintegrated as a result of Kantian nihilism.
@@TeaParty1776 - it's the effect of Marxist anti-cultural critical theory implemented in academia and top-down since decades
While I agree with him, I still cought a cold listening ...
*coughed
@@wildzwaan caught
@@ghostfjdgcsusvsgsj It was a pun...
@@ghostfjdgcsusvsgsj You didn't catch it.
Please, can someone tell me how to access the full lecture? Thanks a lot !
The quote is act 2 scene 2, aka Balcony scene, Romeo and Juliet. He quoted my favourite Shakespearean line in the exact opposite sense I quote it in part of my thesis as she is asking why (wherefore) is he Romeo not why is she herself Juliet. So it's not a question about her own identity, not even in the lacanian sense, it's more a question of her own love and the possibilities of naming something
Am I the only one who think his clothes are cute?
Chris Chan
this is his fav shirt
Yes
“It is not a joke, unfortunately” 😂
My dad is Japanese, but given that Idk Japanese, we speak in English. I always thought his way of speaking English was somewhat funny. Here I am listening to someone from a completely different country speaking English in the EXACT. SAME. WAY. I've grown to find this speech pattern (can you call it a speech pattern?) very charming tbh and maybe I prefer it over regular English.
japanese english is quite different from his english.
"If it's hysterical, it's historical" - Trixie Mattel/Slavoj Žižek
i keep waiting for him to slap himself.
In two years or so
Hahahaha
Lmfaos!
😂😂😂😂
Hahahahha
I think my life would be much more enjoyable and fulfilling if I was thoroughly able to embody his absolutely immeasurable level of indifference when it comes to how much he actually cares about how others perceive him and his wonderfully belligerent antics... It's almost comedy, and I say that with respect and admiration. I wish I had the balls to get up and speak my mind while shamelessly choking back ungodly amounts of that gackity gack, drippity drip drool, not giving a damn if they think me a fool.
I've heard my father say the exact same thing about Donald Trump
@@westondeloney8306 You got a chuckle, but really, no. You know Donald Trump takes himself -- particularly his appearance and identity -- very seriously. He is proud of his hair, fingers, speech-patterns, etc. and usually offended at critical comments about them rather than self-deprecating or even apologetic like Zizek.
@@crimsonmask3819 Agreed, Trump seems the exact opposite. Deeply, deeply insecure.
@@westondeloney8306 Haha don't let trump hear about what your dad said, he would implode
LMAo
Anybody know where I can find the full "lecture ?
Anybody has the full lecture link? It was starting to get interesting!
You should be able to find it by searching for Dundee University Lecture Series
0:01 a society
This reminds me of an old lady, earnestly asking "as a dialectical materialist should I be opposed to homosexuality because they wont procreate and thus populate the proletariat?"
She was corrected and told "no."
She was also extremely sad and visibly concerned because she knew she was asking a question which would compromise either her politics or her ethics/morals.
You have not understood a word of what Zizek said. Or better said, you don't want to, simply because it compromises your ideological assumptions. In no moment he is opposed to homosexuality.
@@screambeyond I am giving an example of misinterpretations of Marxism and materialism.
@@screambeyond You didn't really read the comment - the lady went away disappointed because she realized that her politics and morals were at odds with each other, and to resolve the contradiction she'd have to modify one or the other.
Why not get DNA from intelligent people like Von Neumann and Noether and use a surragate mother?
@@aoeu256you're assuming they'd be smart, and you're assuming they'd support a certain ideologies because of that. None of that is necessarily true.
What is the link for the original full lecture? Please include the source in the description
Where can i find the rest of the lecture?
I don’t really agree with communism but this man atleast makes you listen to what he has to say
What makes you think he's an actual communist? (I mean he's left obviously)
what does that even mean??
Zizek is Hegelian, He picks all the good aspects of all ideologies but also criticizes the bad of those ideologies.
1. Zizek is no communist (he even says it repeatingly). He's more of a hegelian- lacanian (french psychoanalyst).
2. Everybody can learn from his work
@@Wisstihrwas Marx was also supposedly hegelian, yet he wasn't. Zizek is a wasted talent because he is either focusing on wrong things or the good things with the extremly bad perception. Here and there he knows to be correct, but most of the times im surprised that there is so much people agreeing with him.
My man speaks like an aphex twin song
*laughs in windowlicker*
where is the rest of the talk? It cuts off just when it was getting interesting.
Whats the name of the full lecture?
One thing that I can agree with the marxista is that the revolution needs to be made on a class basis. Not on the way that they propose it of course. But I also think that every kind of ways the human can liberate himself from social hierarchies such as political, sexual, or even collective hierarchies should at least be considered as necessary for the revolution.
marxista reads likes maxanista lol
Wearing his best Chris-chan shirt, I see.
😂😂
The Chris Chan shirt
This deserves a better title tbh
If I ever meet a gnome, I expect it to look like Zizek but with a pointy hat and smaller.
i love how the crowd is so confused and challenged :)))
i can barely hear what hes saying with all the sniffing and his accent
my transness means that the status quo wants me dead, to be trans in an anti-trans is revolutionary
Stupid logic from stupid liberals thinking they are marxists
@@studio1988. If you think that you are so intellectually superior to someone, then it's better to prove that through argumentation rather than playground insults. The latter only proves the opposite.
Half of the comments are about his tics. The other half of them are about why those comments are disappointing and we should instead talk about the subject matter. They don't talk about it either.
And I'm just a stupid guy critisizing the comment section. I mainly agree with him about most of the things he pointed out btw.
I think Zizek is right to say that the breakdown of cis and binary normativity and of traditional patriarchal gender roles is completely compatible with Capitalism, but it's also important to be careful not to talk as if Capitalism, with its tendency to make all things melt into air, is what created transgenderism.
There have been people who don't fit into a ridgid, cisnormative conception of gender and sexuality forever. What is happening now is not that lgbt+ people have started existing, but that we are moving from a social mode wherein they are extremely excluded to one in which they are less excluded.
What Zizek is right to say is that this process isn't inherently revolutionary, and can be integrated into Capitalism.
Nah. Transgenderism is literally an expression of liquid modernity.
Capitalism certainly coopted the gay rights movement...Gay rights, now brought to you by Bud Light!
@@haniel3066 imagine being so ignorant you think transgender people didn't exist before modernity.
Well you could honestly break it down as an aspect of the idea of safety. Capitalism protects fairly well against hunger and violence. Provide well for the hierarchy of need if you will. These factors allows for people to experiment with identity and allows for a market to be built around these identity experiments in order to find the self. Thus sustaining the “fluidness” of the actual identity. That is not to say it is a bad thing or in anyway justifiable to simply write it off as if it’s just a late stage capitalism side effect. However the structure of capitalism is one of the only economic factors that allow for it to the degree that is present today. The problem with capitalism is not the idea of moving product but in the consumers choose of product especially when there is no genuine choice. Which is why most libertarians argue for small government intervention( little regulation) as it allows for more choices to pop up in the market. However that also creates a balancing act for the governments responsibility to smash monopolies and oligopolies on the market.
@@haniel3066
Afraid il Desu is right. Other cultures had third genders. Just not our culture.
Sure
It’s actually pretty normal when you think about it
Marx isn’t the end all be all for every aspect of reality, BUT I hate when people say things like “progressive politic is Marxism applies to everything “ as of those people know anything of Marx or ever read a line of his books
Man this guy is smart but it's freaking hard to stay focused with the comments.🤦🏻♂️
I am just now getting into philosophy and having kind of a hard time understand and synthesizing exactly what he’s claiming. Could someone somewhat summarize? Or point me to some readings on a similar topic?
Yeah i have no fucking idea. I have a philosophy degree, I think I'm ok at making it through dense texts, but either I have ADHD or Zizek is all build-up no climax. He's establishing a bunch of preliminary ideas but I lose where they lead to.
I think right at the end he brings it round to questioning the basis of externally imposed identities... but not sure what his argument is.
the students look a little uncomfortable when he starts questioning transgender politics lol
yes
I find it uncomfortable when people slap bass.
Yeah, because they watch a lot of mainstream media and netflix
why is he wearing the chris chan shirt
Algum br sabe se tem traduzido esse video
There's nothing inherently revolutionary about any political ideology or social identity. How revolutionary an ideology or way of existing is depends completely on the context of it's creation. In the context of the existing Dominant paradigm of Binary Gender, Transgender or Non-binary identities can be radical, so long as the continue to attempt to dismantle the dominant paradigm.
In the context of Marxist analysis, no its not necessarily radical, unless it also takes up the mantle of class struggle, which a number of gender fluid people do. But yes the politics of identity do run the risk of (and are currently) being co-opted and commodified; Especially by the existing Capitalist telecommunication industries (Mass Media networks).
But also, a Marxism isn't the end all be all of theories of oppression; Racial, Gendered, Ethnic, and Dynastic/State/Imperial oppression has existed for centuries before global capitalism, and they can continue to exist after its inevitable collapse.
exactly! but capitalism has done that with everything, that’s what it’s designed to do. Coopting is in the capitalist nature, it excels in this. Syndicalism, ecology, feminism, gender theory, decolonization, black liberation, even communism itself - all taken, capitalized, commodified and commercialized. That doesn’t automatically remove the revolutionary potential in all of these.
I find Marx knew very little about human behavior, only his judgement of it, he saw racism but never understood why it exists. At that time humans were perceived as something totally different from animals, out of the animal kingdome, as if we were rational beings with feelings. Today it is proven and concluded that we are driven by feelings and instinct and some times some are smart enough to look back and think about, reazonable, what we did and with some luck, undertand the actual reasons.
No wonder he proposed the "new man" as if our mind was only shaped by culture and learning and there wasn't a subconsciousness evolved thousand of years to keep us alive and reproduce, injecting chemicals into our body to make us walk away from things it perceives dangerous or harmful and make us prone to repeat things it perceives as good with endorphines and dopamine
I mean yeah, I'm trans because of dysphoria making my life hell without transitioning! It's not a statement, not a revolution, and it is absolutely not political. It's just for my own wellbeing. The only "political" aspect of it is forced on me because of some parties who put a desire to at best stop me from having that wellbeing or at worst have me dead at the forefront of their politics. If they went away, nothing about me being transgender would be any more political than any other medical issue.
So? We all have struggles, what should I do? Cry my eyes out because you function differently? Guess what, so do I, nothing special about that.
Those individual push things onto you and you push things onto them - you don't want them, they don't want yours, yet you both keep on doing it.
@@princeargon6508 I uh, don't think you understood the point, I was saying it's not revolutionary it's just how I am. Not lookin for pity or whatever you may have thought? And your second paragraph makes no sense whatsoever lol
Love watching him but MY GOSH he needs a speech coach or something!!
Oh that's too late. It's his USP. What would Zizek be without his ticks. Just another boring looking philosopher. :) Though sometimes it's hard to focus...
What video is this?
Revolution is suppressed, not printed on a mug, tee and stockings.
morons think the people backed by every corporation and political establishment are the resistance L M A O
@@Annnto how the hell can you miss the point so hard...?
Where did he get James Mays shirt from
I agree, but I also think that there's nothing remotely revolutionary in Žižek.
this is the weirdest SmartWater ad I've seen
Zizek is a global treasure - we need to preserve him at all costs, Chomsky's almost gone.
"Recently--not so recently, years ago..."
Gem.
This might be the first video ever where I wished written text was read by google translator instead. I just can't listen to him propperly. I'm interested in what he has to say, but I just can't overlook the sideshow. It's sad.
There's only two type of people:
"And so on, and so on"
"He's touching his face/sniffing/spitting"
because the types of people who want to try and understand him cant.... then they go back to joe rogan clips....
Maybe Marx and Slajov ignores that in many not western cultures, third sex identity has been existed before capitalism
yet again zizek makes fantastic points and this youtube channel uses thumnails and titles to spin it as bigoted social conservatism
I can't tell if the owner is a reactionary socialist or a progressive luring reactionaries into watching Zizek.