Tfw my Zizek video cravings have been satisfied in the past few days

Mehdi Hassan is a typical inbred muslim.

""""""""""""""journalism""""""""""""""

>Mehdi
>British Accent

>"You're speaking from a view of white privelage"

I fucking hate minorities. I wish Trump said the stuff the liberals say he said, we wouldn't have to listen to their bullshit.

Both clowns, like all leftists

Zizek is perma cucked, he should had left the studio after that sand nigger started talking about "white-privilege"
How the fuck is Trump "scum"? Is he evil for wanting the law to be respected?
America needs to be fucking nuked

I think you need to leave, thank you

Laws are a spook.

>trump is at least a human

Lel that's probably the best compliment trump will ever get from a gommie

This isnt your safe space

Spooks can be useful to have a peaceful society
In the eastern world they have different spooks and women get burned with acid

>he says with no sense of irony

I know this feeling all too well. I am a Zizek addict and it is annoying because his yearly appearance periods mostly communicate the same few new things mixed with the classic jokes and points. Luckily, youtube has an increase speed function now.

Are there any other intellectuals this entertaining to listen to? Most continentals only have some poorly filmed clips from EGS in which they just drown everyone in jargon in a thick accent and only communicating a few interesting points surrounded by filler or unsatisfactory "artistic" vague ideas. For example, the notions of image and representation are fundamental to the tradition and yet philosophers manage to bw completely boring and just vaguely reference a few movies (not even as well as Zizek does) and move on without saying much.

And I'm saying all of this as a continental who unironically worships Deleuze and Guattari (I'm not against Lacan or Hegel, just ambivalent).

>he says ">he says with no sense of irony" with no sense of irony
Also, did you just assume my gender?

...

How's that rubber taste?

How does that muslim cock feel in your arse?

>and so on and so on

ITT

With no laws we can just kill the Museums, Cucktians and Jewmales

Wew lad

With laws if they kill us they go to prison and we can kill them in self defense

With no laws, they don't kill us, and upstanding, gun owning, atheist, white, American males can save civilization as usual you bootlicking cuck

>without laws they dont kill us
Yeah broo people are peaceful is da system which makes them evil bro im an anarchist bro no borders no religion bro do you blaze bro?

People aren't peaceful. Without laws, we kill them first.

We can just make another law that allows us to kill them without going to jail
We already live in a law world, theres no point in going backwards

>backwards

>LE SBOOCCS XDDDDD
Do you realize that everything would go full caos without laws right?
Im fine with caos as long as it isnt my house or my loved ones the one that is burning

>house
>loved ones

Looks like you think that spelling is a spook ahaha

I really want to stab that paki in the neck.

Blame Paxman

They are my property, fuck off

I wonder how can Zizek even agree to participate in the circus that is tv news. Shame on him.

>Also, did you just assume my gender?
Neck yourself

>what is capital
The ideology glasses dont grow the trees ya know

What side of history are you on?

So that people will shit post about him on an anime image board

He needs to keep up his media image in order to stay popular and make money. When you make a living doing talks and interviews, you're bound to get a few bad experiences.

Ugh this fucking interviewer is annoyning as fuck, I'm here to listen to Slavoj Zizek, not some nobody smary journalist

Muslims are so fucking self righteous and entitled jfc

I see this shit in the US too, since when did journalists and interviewers start acting like they know as much as, if not more than, their guest? Challenging guests is one thing to get them to argue their points, but telling them they're wrong, that they don't know what they're talking about, or just talking over them so that they don't say anything is retarded. Why even invite someone on if that's what your plan is?

I'm pretty sure the interviewer didn't really know who Zizek was or how he discussed things and the producers just got Zizek on the show because they hear he's a Trump supporter and could cause a fun argument.

That's the main purpose of these shows. Do you think people genuinely want to hear an enlightening exchange of ideas? People just want to see if they can get the "other guy" BTFOed, which didn't really work here because it just came across like this poor guest kept getting interrupted and didn't get a change to explain his ideas. But there probably are people who watched it and said "haha take that silly communist man, white priviledged shit!"

I don't doubt for a second that hew knows who Zizek is
he's just got a chip on his shoulder because he's a Muslim

>People just want to see if they can get the "other guy" BTFOed, which didn't really work here because it just came across like this poor guest kept getting interrupted and didn't get a change to explain his ideas. But there probably are people who watched it and said "haha take that silly communist man, white priviledged shit!"

I kind of knew that, it's just fucking annoying that this is our media model, and that even intelligent people like Zizek are being shouted down when they get on TV. I don't know if Fox News started this, but they are certainly a visible culprit when it comes to inviting "opposing viewpoints" so that the interviewers can just btfo them. Fox at least tends to invite the worst caricatures of liberals who often are actually retarded, although they do this because they want that to happen, they don't want someone who is actually knowledgeable and skilled at argument. It's just bullshit when Al Jazeera and other outlets are doing this to people like Zizek, who know how to debate and are at least somewhat well-informed.

This is pissing me off so much. I usually don't agree with Zizek, but it's still enjoyable to hear ideas from people like him. All the interviewer was doing was putting words in Zizek's mouth.

There's absolutely nothing to learn from this interview because of that faggot. Shame, because I really wanted him more to expound on "redrawing the political map" and other things he mentioned.

Why am I a bit skeptical that I'll like what he has to say?

Anyone else find worryingly perverse to see Zizek talking about his anti-establishment stance on the most powerful pro-establishment medium, which is tv news?

No because thats retarded

how so?

Hourly reminder that Muslim SJWs are the worst SJWs

Because the reason its the choice of the "establishment" is because its the more efficient means of conveying your narrative to the public.
Not to mention there is no so called establishment, the term is an abstraction par excellance

Why are people from the ME so insufferable to discuss anything with. They are the pinnacle of sophism.

Raymond Geuss' lectures on Nietzsche and Marx are interesting to listen to as well as easy to comprehend

youtube.com/watch?v=2fTnEB_r_6Q

at what speed do you listen to zizek?

The Slovenian will be spared when things get...ropey.

>get to 2:53
Alright, I can't watch this any more. Fucking UK faggot.

>(((ALJAZEERA)))
>Constant Nazi rhetoric

I couldn't watch more than two minutes.

Nice dubtrips and true words.
Where do these heathens get off on claiming to know anything about Justice?

>Where do these heathens get off on claiming to know anything about Justice?
Qur'an said something about it so their word is fact :^)

Is he implying that all white people are the same?

Yeah but it's okay because you can't be racist against Whites.

They think they're some kind of superheroes facing great adversity for being muslim but with a basic western education.

Books (of the non-fiction type) only serve to record dialectic. Books such as that have no value. Unless you want to claim that it is indeed supposed to be fiction, in which case it must be denounced for corrupting humans with false morals.

Are you autistic?

I want to fucking strangle that pseud interviewer

I don't care if you agree with Zizek, not everyone's a Marxist psychoanalyst but give the guy some goddamn breathing room for fucks sake

My fucking Gott, this guy's arrogance.
>but you are wrong because MUH SUFFERING
>yeah but how about muslim women, HUH?
*sarcastic smirk*
>you can't talk about that because YOU CAN'T KNOW THEY GO THROUGH *looks away at his papers*

Wew

Sadly, this is how many people think a debate is, not a dialogue of exposition and development of any given issue, but proving your 'opponent' wrong, like two children playing checkers or whatever.

Zizek himself has said that philosophers don't debate

I'm lost for words

Wow, what a wise guy

link to vid?

...

It's called a full house.

>interviewer accuses Zizek of talking from a position of privilege
>literal public-school and oxford establishment man (did PPE as well) with cushy interviewing job tells man who comes from a region ravaged by ethnic tensions, who worked as a dissident under his government (often finding difficulty gaining employment because of his refusal to toe the party line), who was forced into non-voluntary service in his country's military, that he is """"""""PRIVILEGED""""""""

PPE-fags need to be strung the fuck up. There are people on this site who defend oxford as some kind of intellectual bastion when it produces literal mouth-breathers like this

I'm not claiming Zizzy is a darfur war orphan, but does the interviewer seriously think that his life his been more difficult that Slavoj's

This makes me angrier than literally anything else. I'm fucking pacing with anger. People who talk about privilege literally never have any conception of who is actually better off and who isn't. Not that it's relevant in a debate either way.

>getting this mad
>over a youtube video

See the second paragraph of this cap. It's literally pure ideology working its ways to disavow and get ad-hominem'd any attempt to see things from outside the established order of liberal moral righteouness

>getting this mad
>over a youtube video that highlights the cancer that has infected the modern left and will eventually lead to a right wing hegemony
P okay thing to get mad about in my books if you're not a /pol/fag senpai

that user deserves to be mad

I wish Zizek would lecture that faggot interviewer on the hardships he's faced in Slovenia

So now Murrica has elected a literal meme president and the alt-right has been co-opted by the establishment, how long until /pol/ gets mad and turns to radical socialism?

Or has it already happened?

It would just be playing his game. Your personal oppression olympics shouldn't matter to political analysis

Wait until we're into Trump's presidency and he does nothing but follow the same old Neo-Con agenda and lining his own pockets

At that point it might honest-to-God be time for revolution.

At the very least some of the people who deserve to get shot SHOULD get shot.

I'm not even particularly anti-immigrant (though it's shameful that the belt of rich arab countries existing far nearer the conflict have neglected to provide any support for refugees, both on the part of the refugees having to travel ridiculous dangerous distances and on the part of the western countries having real difficulty managing the sheer amount of people felling the war), but that last paragraph is spot-on.

Another perfect example of the established dominant ideology ruthlessly appropriating the left wing is brought up by Zizek himself: all of the critique of male chauvinism is designed to create men who reflect the ideology of a genteel (androgynous) noble class, and is specifically aimed at working class members. You know the scenario of dirty workers "harassing" the poor middle class women,by showing a lack of knowledge of the social codes of the dominant class (everything sexual must be written and put in contract, there are rare appropriate times when it is okay to pay someone a compliment etc.)

>implying my post didn't acknowledge this
>"Not that it's relevant in a debate either way."

I love me some zizek, but i could not finish this. That interviewer made me physically sick

I doubt /pol/ will ever be taken over by socialists, but I can see them swinging back toward libertarianism, which was what dominated the board years ago. Well them and the neo nazis, it was sort of a power struggle but I remain convinced the neo nazis were a much smaller clique trying to slide the board with spam. At any rate I don't think the current crop of reactionaries will stick around for all of Trump's presidency.

No the dialectic can only continue. The Libertarians have either been shown to be impotent and ineffectual symbolized in the Rand and Ron Paul family or else they sold out their own ideals to jump on the Trump wagon.
Can't dig yourself out of a hole, can only go deeper

Thanks user! Reminds me of Rick Roderick's lectures, but Roderick's were a decent intro, yet perfect for someone familiar with the history of philosophy.

1.25, but I go to 2 when he makes an argument or joke I already know (which is quite often, but I don't mind, I've often entertained both my Veeky Forums and non-Veeky Forums friends with his jokes and ideas).

*Imperfect I meant to say, he had some shortcomings when it came to Spinoza, Heidegger, Sartre and others