Is he, dare I say it, our guy?

>He'll get shit on because he's a Stalinist
but he isn't, he's constantly critical of stalin too

He's a stand-up comic, a human meme, completely reprehensible.

Start with the greeks

This is a good point desu

Has anyone here read any books of his? Should I start with The Sublime Object of Ideology or Violence?
I want something that shows me a balanced spread of what he's about.

The Parralax View is the best beginning book of his

Noam Chomsky on Slavoj Žižek
youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

>he's a fluffmaster with no principles to base his observations upon

redpilled on the refugee crisis though...

Yawn

Oh no, how will I ever get on without verification! How can I ever be interested in something which has no verifiability?!
Thanks gnome

Town drunk who was lucky enough to be born in a family with ties to the secret police so he was allowed to spout his bullshit in academia. He was a pretty good informant who sent quite a few of his colleagues to prison, and since the same power structures are still in power in Slovenia, he has very good relations with the post-Yu-breakup government too.

Obsessed with the most retarded iconography of the commie age, MUH HEGEL, and a form of psychoanalysis that has been proven to be a cultist sham.

What I love me is a good ruler. Twelve inches every time. I feel every one of them. A good straight edge too.

I thought this was Jeff Daniels before clicking the thumbnail. Jeffbait.

pretty much this

zizek is the real deal. his popularity annoys people, because it's like a double whammy, he's the smart and the popular kid at once to put it in ameriburger terms

typical anglo-analytic-autist response

Do not slander a good Christian woman like this.

Zizek isn't a Stalinist - what makes him strange to us in the post-Cold War era is that he takes Stalin seriously as a political thinker and force rather than as a depersonalized (and de-ideologized) "monster." He disagrees pretty vehemently with Stalin's revolutionary praxis, and has gone as far as Badiou in regarding "the Party State" as a dead end which will never transition to socialism. But he thinks Stalin is worth reading and studying precisely because he represents such a catastrophic failure, whereas most bourgeois academics would have you simply dismiss Stalin as a butcher because this kind of mythmaking comes along with the tacit assumption that communism is always a criminal utopia, or that Stalinism is the telos of Marxism.

That's why even if I often disagree with Zizek I can't dislike him. He's one of the only philsophers who approaches Marx with both earnestness and honesty.

He's about as Our Guy as it gets.

If anything, he's not memey enough.

>Chumpsky

And I don't even like the Sniffling Slovenian.

My trouble with Žižek is that at worst, he's an obscurantist. At best, what he says is either obvious or obviously wrong. Like all French post-structuralists/modernists, he realized that you can go far with verbiage: hence his fondness for verbiage of the Lacanian variety, arguably the most impenetrable garbage there is. Throw in a touch of Hegel, and you can create a pretty nice niche for yourself in the world of acadamia.

is partially right, though for the reason I aforementioned as opposed to his own. His popularity does annoy people, because it's another testament to the fact that in life, you can go much further than you necessarily should.

Žižek is a hack, but a likeable hack. I even employ some of his terms from time to time (Master Signifiers/Signifiers Without a Signified/etc), but I don't have any pretensions that he's a particularly serious thinker.

Is he, dare I say it, our guy?

He has a massive head

for you

He has a mix of relatively more banal but still applicable ideas (I.e. Pure ideology and its ilk) but sometimes in order to be seen as subversive or perhaps an entirely "different" thinker he'll say something completely incorrect, as in the case that he said the NSA surveillance case was not important and not a violation of anything because, quite, "he didn't care"

Why would he care when he was collaborating with UDBA all his life? He's got lifetime immunity.

>obscurantist
you probably saw some videos in which he is talking about extremely esoteric theory. the terminology may sound obscure but thats because you dont know what the words mean (in that context).

he is great because he can be the most unintelligible (from a laymans point of view) philosopher when appropirate and the most intelligible when he wants. he discusses block-buster movies for gods sake!

He is too autistic

of course he is, he even has pilled himself

start with his two movies(the pervert's guide to cinema and ideology), then continue with some youtube lectures of him(preferably his egs lectures).and when you digested him move on his books

I'm not even a "leftist" but I can't help loving this guy. Would have a beer with.

...

I find him irritating. He's a slobbering old angry foreign guy and that's his """thing""".
>wearing moccasins from a flea market
>grey little boy socks
>ill-fitting trousers
>exposed leg skin because trousers don't fit properly
This sort of thing triggers me. He looks like can't fucking dress himself. BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE LE ANGRY FOREIGN PHILOSOPHER!1

isn't that his most dense?

He's Veeky Forums, you just have shit faggot taste

He obviously doesn't give a shit about going shopping to look for new clothes when he already has some. Plus it looks comfy.

>This sort of thing triggers me. He looks like can't fucking dress himself. BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE LE ANGRY FOREIGN PHILOSOPHER!1
It's just a schtick for western retards, similar to Kusturica.

Have you seen what Kusturica does? He alway has the same brown jacket, and the same shoes with untied shoelaces, and in every interview, he crosses his legs so that the untied shoelaces are prominently visible, it's so fake and retarded.

>Is he, dare I say it, our guy?
Where is this phrase actually from? Where did this maymay origin?

I like Zizek but sneef sneef

>caring how you look

Do you like the bin? Did you make a reservation?

yeš

well he wouldn't have a beer with you for sure

You mean because he doesn't drink, right?

...

No. He's not.