So Sackur believes the West is in Afghanistan because it wants to eliminate religious extremism. Bull shit - the west is there for its economic and strategic interests - per usual.
Read Marx - China, India and Brazil are going through the capitalist stage. This is why leftists in these countries are willing to go along with globalization. In 50 years time, these countries will no doubt be facing the same crisis of capitalism and nationalizing their banks and building welfare states. Meanwhile, Africa will probably be the last territory to develop economically.
Liberalism proposes with the world "liberal" to liberate, that is liberate the individual. The reality is that Liberalism is a -ism in disguise, not to liberate, but to allow the market economy to operate without any restrain and destroy the individual.
So, there's is this guy and this other guy trying to come to an agreement on who's the most proper speaker, who should tell the rest of us how we must live our lives. I see!
Why does this "interviewer" insist on a (false) dichotomy between liberal capitalism and anything socialist etc. All he wants to hear is that one side "won" and one side "lost". More like one side failed and the other survived. There is no winning.
"Then people should read more to understand what I'm saying." haha. That says it all. He's not going to be bullied by propagandist media reductionism or emotionally potent oversimplification.
none of these questions can be answered with a simple yes or no answer, that is why zizek has written entire books on the subject. This interviewer views things in a very baseline manner.He can't ask a question without holding his bias. its not even worse having a discussion when this happens.
@lalocejas83 I dislike the BBC and consider Tim Sebastian quite right-of-centre, but he is a good interviewer --certainly better than Paxman-- and, as a journalist, has to press his guests. See his interview with the odious hedge-fund manager Hugh Hendry who holds polar opposite views to Zizek and his style is more or less the same.
@NotHomelessAnymore I agree - he´s not so bad. But some propositions at the begining (supporter of Stalin, he should be ashamed he´s not happy..) are really stupid. But the problem is that thinkers like Zizek have problems with giving easy responds (the way they think is too complex). It´s good someone forces them to do that (he poses the question every averadge viewer wants have responded) but the problem is they do not have spare time to say what they really want to.
IMO, Zizek is an interesting philosopher but he is way too "common sense" - in the "bad way" - sometimes. Even some of his lacanian readings are not as good his friend's (Badiou). I for one do not agree with his view of left. It's not about revolution or bringing back the father in psychonalitic terms but even more it's about knowning how much the father is already within. Here, I think, we should change our view from a marxist one to a Baudrillardian one.
This interviewer is such a moron, does he not listen to Zizek's responses even a little? Question 34 is often answered in Zizek's answer to question 33 but the interviewer does not notice...
1:28 "The last decade wasnt obssessed with 9/11 or financial meltdown"? The same decade that we saw America sending troops to avenge 9/11 and the mess that Bush made of the American Economy! What decade is this nincapoop reffering to?
@thetwentyfourthI trully agree with you. I hate interviews like this whereby the interviewer barricades the speaker with narrow minded questions avoiding the core of his argument and even ignoring the logical points he hears, only to hold on to the same view he had at the beginning of the interview. Small minded people who arent prone to change
He's talking about sitting in Sao Paulo and having a different view of reality than the socialist marxist one, I can garantee that if you live in Sao Paulo for a month with minimum wage you will become a raging revolutionary, I did it for 2 years, that city is the epitome of the necessity of a revolution, where capital and the financial system has become so opressive, you either comply and enslave yourself, go crazy, become a bum in the streets or die.
@VictoriaDanuta He wrote quite an interesting essay on this called Shoplifters of the world unite which you can find on google. I think Zizek is better on paper than speaking, due to the language barrier.
Stephen Sackur please leave these topics alone - you are an imbecile, not a journalist, let alone a scholar - asking these questions doesn't make you look intelligent, just confused.
Who is this moron interviewer? He made Zizek apologize for using the phrase concentration camps. I LIVED IN DUBAI. Indian workers working on outdoor scaffolds, building skyscrapers in 50*C heat, dying of heat stroke. I would watch in horror as they were treated like slaves. I will never forget reading in Dubai local newspaper - a Saudi man & his daughter ran over and killed an Indian worker. They reported that the Saudi mans car was "ruined" and that his daughter suffered whiplash. No charges!
Uhm, the Taliban were funded and armed by the CIA who had no problems overlooking their less than stellar doctrines. So if they gained control of the country... yeah it kind is the fault of the liberal democracies now shedding blood to save the little girls getting acid thrown in their faces. Or... trying to fix their mess. Or... whatever other possible theory. Is he for real??!!!
@thetwentyfourth Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
@thetwentyfourth HHahahahah .... illuminating you say?? Then you most cetainly will be able to answer the two little questions below, for teh answer of which I would even pay you 1.000.000 of my CAPITALISTIC euros :-)
@joaquinveyron Well if you have some nice ideas or useful knowledge to share please do, but once you're name calling it looks like you're struggling to back up your arguments.
@thetwentyfourth "Well if you have some nice ideas or useful knowledge to "
Quite simple: liberalism/capitalism was, is and will be the best system conceivable. This is quite easy to understand if you consider FACTS.
Moreover, I wasnt proposing arguments. I was asking SIMPLE QUESTIONs, obviously too much for pseudo-intellectual leftist dimwits who obviously have no clue about ANYTHING.
@joaquinveyron "Quite simple: liberalism/capitalism was, is and will be the best system conceivable. This is quite easy to understand if you consider FACTS."
LMFAO.
Widespread suffering, profitable war and unsolved problems all over the place, and you think we've come up with the best system conceivable? That is an utter failure of imagination and a joke.
We will move forward when we stop thinking "left vs right" and work together to create security for all mankind.
@thetwentyfourth "Widespread suffering, profitable war and unsolved problems ...."
Yep, exactly and mostly there where CAPITALISTIC concepts were NOT deployed such as:
- Eastern Block
- NKorea
- Mao-China
- GDR
- SU
People - in particular the "small man" - ALWAYS fled (or tried to. Thats why they built up the iron curtain) from COMMUNIST SHITHOLES to CAPITALISTIC countries.
@joaquinveyron You can't get much more CAPITALISTIC than war being PROFITABLE. Look at capitalism's role in the problems in Congo as well. This could go on forever. I'm not going to try to convince you, but if there's anyone home in there, maybe try considering both sides of the coin for a moment instead of acting like you know everything and throwing around meaningless insults.
@thetwentyfourth "can't get much more CAPITALISTIC than war being"
Yaawwwn ... dimwit. War is the disrupture of all contracts - sth. capitalist societies are based on.
And shall we look at the wars led by COMMUNIST COUNTRIES; shall we???
If it hadnt be for the US, South Koreans, for instance, would live in the sam COMMUNISTIC CONCENTRATION CAMPS like thier Northern compatriots. Instead they enjoy CAPITALISTIC PROSPERITY and FREEDOM.
Of course, you are not trying, because you CANNOT, you are not ABLE to.
The only thing that you are doing successfully is eluding my SIMPLE QUESTIONS how communism/leftist policy ever should work.
But I am feeling sympathetic with you there, becasue the answer is; communism NEVER can work. Since you are putting out ARGUMENTS, I understand that basically you know it is true.
What??? I you consider it meaningless, if I just make simple questions regarding HOW is to be achieved what leftist proclaim to be the solution to all problems in the world?? Communism??
I think it is not meaningless at all, it is mostly sincere and IMPORTANT to do so.
@joaquinveyron Your whole argument hinges on the history of capitalism, and that us stupid leftists are calling for communism. My whole point here is that neither Zizek nor myself is asking for a return to 20th century communism. The system we have is rife with problems. We can do better. It is fucking obvious. Anyway, I can't have a point-for-point debate as I'm in a recording session, no time. Clearly you have a strong opinion. No probs. I disagree. Have a good day :)
Yeah, and what is that? Every time capitalism was applied people had 1000 time shigher degree of prosperity and freedom. People always fled from COMMUNIST SHITHOLES to capitalistic countreis:
- Western EUrope vs. Eastern bloc
- FRG vs GDR
- USA vs SU
- China today vs Mao-China
- SKorea vs NKorea
Why dont you leftist DIMWITs not consider FACTS once in a while???
@thetwentyfourth "asking for a return to 20th century communism"
People who implemented the communism of the 20th century also did not want to build a society of TERROR, DICTATROSHIPS, FAMINES; POVERTY, Un-FREEDOm, but this is EXACTLY the RESULT if you want to put communist goals into practice.
And if this stupid Zizek is only half the "Intellectual" he pretends to be, he would be at least this academically capable and sincere to at least see the logic vinculation of the NIGHTMARE of COMMUNIST SHITHOLES with the communist goals the communist intended to implement, be it in the 20th, 19th, 20st or whatever the century.
The COMMUNIST SHITHOLE were exactly SHITHOLES because of communism and nothing else.
Of course, you CANNOT :-) This is always the case when you ask lefttists to back up their non-thought through positions with FACTS and ARGUMENTS: they chicken out. Nothing new :-).
"I'm in a recording session,"
Sure, you are :-) And of course, this is the only reason why you are not anwering the questions I would be paying you € 1.000.000 for, right?? :-) :-)
Of course, we can. There are many problems to be solved. No one stops you from doing what you can to better a situation. This being said, the point is that a liberal free market system is still the best that you can have iN PRACTICE, a point that has been totally proven by EMPIRICS and backed up by 1000s of theoretical arguments. The communist agenda has been totally smashed by REALITY and devasted by THEORY.
"If you have no interest in improving things then leave it to those with some vision."
Hahahah .... yeah, sure. Leftist only can babble about change, but they never get their butts out of bed when it really counts.
Where were/are the leftists when it comes to develop revolutionary technologies that solve many problems of the world?? Where are/were they when revolutionary economic changes have been made to the betterment of mankind? WHat was their part in it?? --- NONE.
"If you have no interest in improving things then leave it to those with some vision."
Hahahah .... you are a joker. Where did leftist EFFECTIVELY improve things?? Where??? When?? Just name me ONE EXAMPLE!! Who donates the most money for charity, good causes? Leftists?? Communists?? -- Ok, those guys dont have much money anyhow. I will tell you: CAPITALISTIC companies and countries!
@joaquinveyron@joaquinveyron Capitalism has brought us far, but we can go further. We can make our world better. If you can't see that you're not looking. Just because we have arrived at some relative prosperity doesn't mean we should plateau and stop working for the betterment of our lives and the world.
Wow dude, I have to stop talking to you. Your comments are the only ones visible on this page. We've had our row and know where each other stand, lets leave some room for someone else, huh?
@thetwentyfourth "but we can go further. We can make our world better."
Sure, we can. Why DONT YOU DO IT??? Why dont you go out there and help people?? Why dont you work in charity organizatios?? Why dont you work in Africa trying to WORK in the fields and create something GREAT. SHow us how much leftists REALLY care for their next. Why dont we see leftists there, in the forefront of charity??
@thetwentyfourth "should plateau and stop working for the betterment of our lives and "
???
Who said that me being against communism (for GOOD REASONS because does NOT lead to a betterment neither of the individual nor the socierty) makes me not want to better teh world?? Who said this??? Quite the contrary!!
I just asked how you LEFTIST DIMWITS plan to better the world, because YOU NEVER HAVE!! But instead of answering this simple questions, you are talking in circles, just like Zizek.
@thetwentyfourth YOu only make clear once again that leftist have no clue whatsoever what they are babbling about. It is a shame to see someone like Zizek being called a "academic" and "intellectual". This is just a JOKE!
When were/are leftists the avant-garde of something that REALLY brought betterment to the people?? Did they invent the light bulb, the car, the computer, the cell phone, regenerative energy technologies, solar technologies, the bicycle ...NO! Where they the spearhead of economic and industrial revolutions that led to the prosperity we are enjoying?? - NOT AT ALL!!!
@joaquinveyron If you are familiar at all with Zizek you will know that he does not call for the implementation of communism. Your question is also misdirecting. You're asking people to explain how a 20th century system can be successfully implemented when the whole point is that we need to develop a new one. Solving problems isn't about selecting the right system from a historical list. We need to learn from all sides of history, however.
I wasnt proposing ANYTHING. You and this idiot Zizek are/were proposing that socialism that is to be implemented have noooooooooooooooooothing to with the socialistic NIGHMARES of the 20 and 21st centuries.
I was simply was challenging this position, asking for ARGUMENTS that would bakc up this statement. But this is sth I cannot expect from leftists, quite obviously.
Zizek would have had more opportunity to communicate his ideas if the interviewer would have STFU with his platitudinous strawman 'questions' for a while.
"If you you put yourself in somebody's else dream, you're totally and mathematically fucked". This is Deleuze's words.Trying to convice within an arena where capitalism is idealized , is for me not only bravery but a concrete reality!!
"He's smart and he calls himself a Communist get him on, ridicule him in front of everybody watching so they don't look deeply into the alternatives and don't agree with him and keep doing it until we get much richer and our watchers dumber."
"He's smart and he calls himself a Communist get him on, ridicule him in front of everybody watching so they don't look deeply into the alternatives and don't agree with him and keep doing it until we get mush richer and our watchers dumber."
Zizek was wonderful, I didn't see him as nervous or on the brinks of tears!
He would have done brilliantly if allowed more time to explain all the knowledge and creativity he holds.
The point of Hard Talk is precisely this, to corner thinkers and reduce their arguments to mere "bite-size" tabloid type sentences. No wonder many would see this interview as a failure.
However, I think it was great and could have listened to some more, especially about his new book. Fascinating.
he really pushes Zizek to the corner and thats where much of zizeck's rationality falls apart. I felt that Zizek was totally nervous conducting this interview and had no clue on how to handle the simplest challenges to his claims. nevertheless he is an interesting character.
I think one of the most important things about Zizek's thinking is that he can break outside the binary of captialism/communism and imagine other ways. Unfortunately the interviewer here is still entrenched in binary thinking, and it just gives for a very bad interview.
Zizek is brilliant and could only be easily understood by letting him be. But this is how the media function's. Equal measure's don't apply (Manufacturing of Consent).
Communist......make excuses up for the failures of state lead economies. Attack the minor problems with capitalism. Repeat this process until all the wealth is controlled by governments and their media companies [BBC, EURO NEWS 24] and ordinary people are poor.
Sackur really isn´t listening. Hitting back on the poor girl getting acid thrown at her, in some kinda Hollywood dramaturgy. Isn´t there a show called the big picture?
Typical for the british. "The good developments of liberal capitalism" has become reality because of the unions and intellectuals which had brought welfare to the people. We can see what happens, when those forces disappear today. Financial crisis, poverty and the fall of nations. Liberal capitalism without the counter force of socialism is nothing else than a ridiculously proud, self destructing and deeply naive ideology.
@MillyVanillification The unions have caused nothing but unemployment. Capitalism is based on good education and the skills of people. Communism is based on government greed and poverty for the masses.
1:20-1:50 - Stephen Sackur is an orientalist racist. "Poverty has been in India for an aweful long time." Really? Pre-colonial India looked quite different than the romantic imagination of this nostalgic post-colonial brit's "White Hero" image of the British Raj's liberation of the "heathens". Ugh. And to take the middle-class of developing nations as a convenient example misses everything Zizek is saying here. While it is precisely the tendrils of global capital that allows for a middle-class..
@Dharmaserf ... it is also those same tendrils that created the poverty at the exact same time. It's a very convenient view of history that allows people to pat themselves on the back from their immensely privileged perspectives of Western, middle-class complacency and forget all the problems with capitalism.
Unfortunately Zizek doesn't make a point without changing the subject or derailing himself or getting derailed, but I don't think the interviewer is to be blamed. Zizek is just too excited to answer everything in a few seconds. This is not him at his best.
haha, rubbish, China has become more authoritarian since liberating, that is the whole point of contemporary debate around China, and why China competely smashes any notion of End Of History, or the automatic compatibility of Capitalism and Democracy...(and let's not forget Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Guatemala, Brazil under their military juntas propt up by the US and free market ideals, they were all hugely authoritarian
zizek loves the spotlight..uttering the same 20th century 'philoso-centric' nonsense...a intelligent man he is, but self- contradictory, confused and stupid at times. SLAVOJ!? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST OR A LIBERAL CAPITALIST? YOUR BOOKS SEEM TO HAVE UNDERTONES OF AGGRANDISMENT TOWARDS BOTH IDEOLOGIES. YOU ARE CONFUSED MY FRIEND.
Wow. Sackur is an ass. Using quotes incorrectly, taking things out of context, interrupting rudely, condescending, and incapable of listening or understanding a damn thing he's being told.
omfg, can the guy just F*king shut up and allow Zizek to talk? This is worse than Naom Chomsky, jeez; but at least Naom Chomsky kind of told him to shut up and let him talk. Seriously, HARDtalk is more like HARDass
@beat4battle That is because it is incomprehensible gibberish with a marxist face. This man has no grounding in reality and his ideas are inconsistent and idiotic.
@beat4battle Oh my GOD! :D I just watched it and he looks like hes about to cry out in pain or something. Stephen Sackur seems to be more or less guided by some wierd moralism....
@beat4battle Hahaha, I had it paused at 7:14 to say that it's as though the interviewer is completely ignoring everything he's saying, and then I saw your comment...
That's a good comparison between Talib-era Afghanistan and the Kansas bible belt. What he's saying - which the interviewer chooses to ignore - is that when capitalism alienates or disenfranchises people, they lose faith in the notion of liberal capitalist 'progress' and revert to religious fundamentalism. Seems straightforward and sensible enough to me.
Stephen Sackur should apply equal measures to all of his guests. Go check out his HARDtalk interview with Noam Chomsky, where Stephen asked much easier questions, and did so in a very respectful and tame manner. But against Zizek ? Hostile questions, simplifications of Zizek's theories, misreadings, misinterpretations, constantly interrupting Zizek, and so on. If you are HARDtalk, why not be equally hard on everybody ?
@pixelator30 Yeah. Anyone with atleast some activity in brain can see the political aligment in BBC or the interviewer. Solution? Smash the fucking TV!
personally, i don't much care for sackur's style of argumentative, dismissive questioning, but i find he takes the same approach with most of his guests. as for this interview, i found all the questions fair, and zizek, for once, actually seemed at a loss for words
@pixelator30 If you think this is hard then it is obvious his ideas cannot even withstand the weakest of challenges. Look at Dylan Ratigan treats his guests if you want HARDtalk. Ratigan would never have let this economic illiterate get away without answering the questions.
@pixelator30 no he never hes tried makin chomsky look like a idiot by sayn ur family ran away from nazi murder howe can u say bad fings about america and the reason why he didnt look as hostile is because chomsky killed his questions made him look stupid and he went red
@pixelator30 Dude was rude as fuck to Chomsky---didn't listen to answers at all. Only reasons it seemed the questions were easy is 'cause there is no hard question for Chomsky. Noam'll mop it up.
@pixelator30 First off, for what it is worth I think Zizek is brilliant and insightful. Part of what is so refreshing about him is his intellectual honesty and willingness to face uncomfortable truths. However, the uncomfortable truth is that despite his brilliance, Zizek did a poor job at presenting his views in a clear coherent manner here. In addition, he dominated the conversation seldom answering a question directly. Sackur was polite, challenging but polite.
@pixelator30 The answer seems fairly clear to me. Chomsky was polite and answered the questions asked without trying to dominate the conversation. Zizek didn't. Also, Zizek did not have a coherent answer to the question of why he called him self a communist. Just because one critiques capitalism it doesn't follow that one is a communist (as opposed to an anarchist). If you disagree then please explain what Zizek said that shows us that he is a communist (as opposed to say an anarchist).
By challenging Zizek more he, in fact, reveals Zizek strength. If his intention was to make Zizek look weak, oh dear, he failed. If you want to get stronger don't turn to people who flatter your ego with easy questions - rather look for the ones that tackle your deepest beliefs!
So Sackur believes the West is in Afghanistan because it wants to eliminate religious extremism. Bull shit - the west is there for its economic and strategic interests - per usual.
32peartree 1 day ago
Read Marx - China, India and Brazil are going through the capitalist stage. This is why leftists in these countries are willing to go along with globalization. In 50 years time, these countries will no doubt be facing the same crisis of capitalism and nationalizing their banks and building welfare states. Meanwhile, Africa will probably be the last territory to develop economically.
32peartree 1 day ago
Liberalism proposes with the world "liberal" to liberate, that is liberate the individual. The reality is that Liberalism is a -ism in disguise, not to liberate, but to allow the market economy to operate without any restrain and destroy the individual.
defensafinancial 5 days ago
This journalist is such a dick
Maff234 6 days ago
another one owned by zizek
TheTimijK 1 week ago
this guys like the british bill o'reilly
cdphatty 1 week ago
the idea that everyone should have a ready made solution in response to every critique they make is unfair and anti-intellectual.
version191 2 weeks ago
So, there's is this guy and this other guy trying to come to an agreement on who's the most proper speaker, who should tell the rest of us how we must live our lives. I see!
jpaulos75 1 month ago
@jpaulos75 obviously you dont. i hope youre just being a smartass, this is some serious shit
edslerson 1 month ago
Why does this "interviewer" insist on a (false) dichotomy between liberal capitalism and anything socialist etc. All he wants to hear is that one side "won" and one side "lost". More like one side failed and the other survived. There is no winning.
mikewtp 1 month ago
6:20 - 7:10 the interviewer gets annihilated <-<
wolfheartDelReal 2 months ago
"Then people should read more to understand what I'm saying." haha. That says it all. He's not going to be bullied by propagandist media reductionism or emotionally potent oversimplification.
jasondelauro 2 months ago 4
none of these questions can be answered with a simple yes or no answer, that is why zizek has written entire books on the subject. This interviewer views things in a very baseline manner.He can't ask a question without holding his bias. its not even worse having a discussion when this happens.
lalocejas83 2 months ago
@lalocejas83 "He can't ask a question without holding his bias."
HAHAHAHAH,
too bad that some people ask for ARGUMENTS anf FACTS, right?? :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@lalocejas83 I dislike the BBC and consider Tim Sebastian quite right-of-centre, but he is a good interviewer --certainly better than Paxman-- and, as a journalist, has to press his guests. See his interview with the odious hedge-fund manager Hugh Hendry who holds polar opposite views to Zizek and his style is more or less the same.
NotHomelessAnymore 2 months ago 2
@NotHomelessAnymore This is exactly who I understand him. Well said.
ashburnhouse 1 week ago
@NotHomelessAnymore I agree - he´s not so bad. But some propositions at the begining (supporter of Stalin, he should be ashamed he´s not happy..) are really stupid. But the problem is that thinkers like Zizek have problems with giving easy responds (the way they think is too complex). It´s good someone forces them to do that (he poses the question every averadge viewer wants have responded) but the problem is they do not have spare time to say what they really want to.
Rozmbar 1 week ago
IMO, Zizek is an interesting philosopher but he is way too "common sense" - in the "bad way" - sometimes. Even some of his lacanian readings are not as good his friend's (Badiou). I for one do not agree with his view of left. It's not about revolution or bringing back the father in psychonalitic terms but even more it's about knowning how much the father is already within. Here, I think, we should change our view from a marxist one to a Baudrillardian one.
Thisez 2 months ago
typical Englishman.... he should enroll for military, so he learns some manners first
wesnfred 3 months ago
This interviewer is such a moron, does he not listen to Zizek's responses even a little? Question 34 is often answered in Zizek's answer to question 33 but the interviewer does not notice...
AidanMakesGames 3 months ago
3:31 "If i was not an atheist i would pray to GOD for Revolution". Gotta love Slavoj Zizek
91sdp 3 months ago
1:28 "The last decade wasnt obssessed with 9/11 or financial meltdown"? The same decade that we saw America sending troops to avenge 9/11 and the mess that Bush made of the American Economy! What decade is this nincapoop reffering to?
91sdp 3 months ago
@thetwentyfourthI trully agree with you. I hate interviews like this whereby the interviewer barricades the speaker with narrow minded questions avoiding the core of his argument and even ignoring the logical points he hears, only to hold on to the same view he had at the beginning of the interview. Small minded people who arent prone to change
91sdp 3 months ago
He's talking about sitting in Sao Paulo and having a different view of reality than the socialist marxist one, I can garantee that if you live in Sao Paulo for a month with minimum wage you will become a raging revolutionary, I did it for 2 years, that city is the epitome of the necessity of a revolution, where capital and the financial system has become so opressive, you either comply and enslave yourself, go crazy, become a bum in the streets or die.
Fuck capitalism and biased media.
Konicava 4 months ago 19
Zizek's face @7:12 hahahah!!!
capath 4 months ago
gotta give the host some credit for being the only guy i've ever seen able to trump zizek in a debate.
jkbosh 4 months ago
This is a good interview. I wish all influential people were given this much scrutiny.
thejobloshow 4 months ago
Zizek is enlightened. I am serious
kamakshi179 4 months ago 2
yes people should read more, including stephen, to get him correctly.
rkdebbarma 4 months ago
Wooow... Sackur is an IDIOT.
wuz352 5 months ago 15
Zizek is the soviet socrates.
07Aristotle 5 months ago
If the leader in this program wants to come with critique he should read his books and give a real critique on a higher level.
BlueFrog83 6 months ago
Do you see violence in the future? YES, Zizek answered. Today 10.08.2011 we have in London the REAL ANSWER ! Zizek was RIGHT !
VictoriaDanuta 6 months ago
@VictoriaDanuta He wrote quite an interesting essay on this called Shoplifters of the world unite which you can find on google. I think Zizek is better on paper than speaking, due to the language barrier.
DefTheMarxist 5 months ago
@DefTheMarxist Thanks for the BOOK tip! You`re right: it is better to read him, than lo listen to him.
VictoriaDanuta 5 months ago
Zizek should change the name for communism...
quierover1234 6 months ago
why Stephen Sackur keeps interruptung and pretending to be more intelligent...??
troncocomun 6 months ago 2
Stephen Sackur please leave these topics alone - you are an imbecile, not a journalist, let alone a scholar - asking these questions doesn't make you look intelligent, just confused.
bloozmonkey111 7 months ago 2
wow - sackur asks questions and then interrupts before zizek can respond - how ridiculous.
berrim 7 months ago
"For me capitalism is not the big bad guy."
"It sounds that way."
"Okay, then people should read more."
Sums up this whole interview.
anablepophobia 8 months ago 26
Is thew way someone ends up with an ideology even rational?
Ebareebaveebeedee 8 months ago
Who is this moron interviewer? He made Zizek apologize for using the phrase concentration camps. I LIVED IN DUBAI. Indian workers working on outdoor scaffolds, building skyscrapers in 50*C heat, dying of heat stroke. I would watch in horror as they were treated like slaves. I will never forget reading in Dubai local newspaper - a Saudi man & his daughter ran over and killed an Indian worker. They reported that the Saudi mans car was "ruined" and that his daughter suffered whiplash. No charges!
Katzenbergerr 8 months ago 13
@Katzenbergerr and they get shit pay, same for the college-educated folk in India (who work ridiculous hours).
WrathOfTheTyrants 7 months ago
Uhm, the Taliban were funded and armed by the CIA who had no problems overlooking their less than stellar doctrines. So if they gained control of the country... yeah it kind is the fault of the liberal democracies now shedding blood to save the little girls getting acid thrown in their faces. Or... trying to fix their mess. Or... whatever other possible theory. Is he for real??!!!
agriope23 8 months ago
Zizek is the Real turing this BBC lyrical landscape into a grotesque mess. That's a good thing, BTW.
debile666 8 months ago
7:35 "Ok, then people should read more to get it correctly!"
Ahhhhhhhhhh, loved it! LOL.
prizeba 9 months ago
7:36 Epic pwnage! Go Zizek!
dragmio 10 months ago 2
Comment removed
thetwentyfourth 11 months ago 22
@thetwentyfourth I don't know if you live in the UK, but this is the whole of the programme of 'HardTalk'. It is annoying and pointless.
Samgurney88 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetwentyfourth Ok, you LEFTIST DIMWITS, if you think that ALL the COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are not supposed to have anything to do with the "great" ideas of Marx (yeah, right :-) ), then you surely will be able to lay out how communist goals can be achieved WITHOUT
1) POVERTY, FAMINES, IN-EFFICIENCIES, but with PROSPERITY
2) TERROR, DICTATORSHIPS, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM.
I pay you € 1.000.000, if you are able to.
joaquinveyron 3 months ago
@thetwentyfourth
This stupid Zizek talks in circles, circles and circles ... when confronted with ARGUMENTS andf FACTS.
Well, what do you expect from LEFTIST DIMWITS :-)
joaquinveyron 3 months ago
@joaquinveyron I disagree. Zizek's thoughts and work have been illuminating to me. It's worth trying to understand his perspective.
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth HHahahahah .... illuminating you say?? Then you most cetainly will be able to answer the two little questions below, for teh answer of which I would even pay you 1.000.000 of my CAPITALISTIC euros :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Comment removed
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth I was offereing 1.000.000 of my CAPITALISTIC euros to whoeevr is able to explain how Marxist/communist ideas can be realised
WITHOUT ending in
1) TERROR, DICTATORSHIP, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM
2) POVERTY; FAMINES; IN-EFFICIENCY, but in PROSPERITY.
I wopuld even pay another 100.000, if anybody were able to point out to ONE example of where communism/leftist agenda ever worked.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Comment removed
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetwentyfourth " that we need to develop a new one."
Hahahahahha, but of course ... and of course, all this SOCIALISTIC RUBBISH that led humani´ty into a NIGHTMARE, of course, will be different :-)
LEFTIST DIMWITs like you cannot even answer simple qeustions.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Leftist dimwits like you and this ugly man Zizek have not even learnt YET why ALL leftist systems crased, both poltically and economically.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Comment removed
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@joaquinveyron Well if you have some nice ideas or useful knowledge to share please do, but once you're name calling it looks like you're struggling to back up your arguments.
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "Well if you have some nice ideas or useful knowledge to "
Quite simple: liberalism/capitalism was, is and will be the best system conceivable. This is quite easy to understand if you consider FACTS.
Moreover, I wasnt proposing arguments. I was asking SIMPLE QUESTIONs, obviously too much for pseudo-intellectual leftist dimwits who obviously have no clue about ANYTHING.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@joaquinveyron "Quite simple: liberalism/capitalism was, is and will be the best system conceivable. This is quite easy to understand if you consider FACTS."
LMFAO.
Widespread suffering, profitable war and unsolved problems all over the place, and you think we've come up with the best system conceivable? That is an utter failure of imagination and a joke.
We will move forward when we stop thinking "left vs right" and work together to create security for all mankind.
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "Widespread suffering, profitable war and unsolved problems ...."
Yep, exactly and mostly there where CAPITALISTIC concepts were NOT deployed such as:
- Eastern Block
- NKorea
- Mao-China
- GDR
- SU
People - in particular the "small man" - ALWAYS fled (or tried to. Thats why they built up the iron curtain) from COMMUNIST SHITHOLES to CAPITALISTIC countries.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@joaquinveyron You can't get much more CAPITALISTIC than war being PROFITABLE. Look at capitalism's role in the problems in Congo as well. This could go on forever. I'm not going to try to convince you, but if there's anyone home in there, maybe try considering both sides of the coin for a moment instead of acting like you know everything and throwing around meaningless insults.
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "can't get much more CAPITALISTIC than war being"
Yaawwwn ... dimwit. War is the disrupture of all contracts - sth. capitalist societies are based on.
And shall we look at the wars led by COMMUNIST COUNTRIES; shall we???
If it hadnt be for the US, South Koreans, for instance, would live in the sam COMMUNISTIC CONCENTRATION CAMPS like thier Northern compatriots. Instead they enjoy CAPITALISTIC PROSPERITY and FREEDOM.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Comment removed
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
" Look at capitalism's role in the problems in Congo as well. "
The role of capitalism in Congo????
Ok, where there is put in place:
- a free market
- private property
- competition
- private entrepreneurship
etc.??
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
"I'm not going to try to convince you, "
Of course, you are not trying, because you CANNOT, you are not ABLE to.
The only thing that you are doing successfully is eluding my SIMPLE QUESTIONS how communism/leftist policy ever should work.
But I am feeling sympathetic with you there, becasue the answer is; communism NEVER can work. Since you are putting out ARGUMENTS, I understand that basically you know it is true.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "throwing around meaningless insults."
What??? I you consider it meaningless, if I just make simple questions regarding HOW is to be achieved what leftist proclaim to be the solution to all problems in the world?? Communism??
I think it is not meaningless at all, it is mostly sincere and IMPORTANT to do so.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@joaquinveyron Saying all leftists propose communism as the solution is a gross generalization :p
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth Yaaaaaawn is that all you can say? :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@joaquinveyron Your whole argument hinges on the history of capitalism, and that us stupid leftists are calling for communism. My whole point here is that neither Zizek nor myself is asking for a return to 20th century communism. The system we have is rife with problems. We can do better. It is fucking obvious. Anyway, I can't have a point-for-point debate as I'm in a recording session, no time. Clearly you have a strong opinion. No probs. I disagree. Have a good day :)
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "hinges on the history of capitalism"
Yeah, and what is that? Every time capitalism was applied people had 1000 time shigher degree of prosperity and freedom. People always fled from COMMUNIST SHITHOLES to capitalistic countreis:
- Western EUrope vs. Eastern bloc
- FRG vs GDR
- USA vs SU
- China today vs Mao-China
- SKorea vs NKorea
Why dont you leftist DIMWITs not consider FACTS once in a while???
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "asking for a return to 20th century communism"
People who implemented the communism of the 20th century also did not want to build a society of TERROR, DICTATROSHIPS, FAMINES; POVERTY, Un-FREEDOm, but this is EXACTLY the RESULT if you want to put communist goals into practice.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth
And if this stupid Zizek is only half the "Intellectual" he pretends to be, he would be at least this academically capable and sincere to at least see the logic vinculation of the NIGHTMARE of COMMUNIST SHITHOLES with the communist goals the communist intended to implement, be it in the 20th, 19th, 20st or whatever the century.
The COMMUNIST SHITHOLE were exactly SHITHOLES because of communism and nothing else.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth
"I can't have a point-for-point "
Of course, you CANNOT :-) This is always the case when you ask lefttists to back up their non-thought through positions with FACTS and ARGUMENTS: they chicken out. Nothing new :-).
"I'm in a recording session,"
Sure, you are :-) And of course, this is the only reason why you are not anwering the questions I would be paying you € 1.000.000 for, right?? :-) :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetwentyfourth
"We can conceive of a better system."
Of course, we can. There are many problems to be solved. No one stops you from doing what you can to better a situation. This being said, the point is that a liberal free market system is still the best that you can have iN PRACTICE, a point that has been totally proven by EMPIRICS and backed up by 1000s of theoretical arguments. The communist agenda has been totally smashed by REALITY and devasted by THEORY.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth
"If you have no interest in improving things then leave it to those with some vision."
Hahahah .... yeah, sure. Leftist only can babble about change, but they never get their butts out of bed when it really counts.
Where were/are the leftists when it comes to develop revolutionary technologies that solve many problems of the world?? Where are/were they when revolutionary economic changes have been made to the betterment of mankind? WHat was their part in it?? --- NONE.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth
"If you have no interest in improving things then leave it to those with some vision."
Hahahah .... you are a joker. Where did leftist EFFECTIVELY improve things?? Where??? When?? Just name me ONE EXAMPLE!! Who donates the most money for charity, good causes? Leftists?? Communists?? -- Ok, those guys dont have much money anyhow. I will tell you: CAPITALISTIC companies and countries!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@joaquinveyron @joaquinveyron Capitalism has brought us far, but we can go further. We can make our world better. If you can't see that you're not looking. Just because we have arrived at some relative prosperity doesn't mean we should plateau and stop working for the betterment of our lives and the world.
Wow dude, I have to stop talking to you. Your comments are the only ones visible on this page. We've had our row and know where each other stand, lets leave some room for someone else, huh?
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "but we can go further. We can make our world better."
Sure, we can. Why DONT YOU DO IT??? Why dont you go out there and help people?? Why dont you work in charity organizatios?? Why dont you work in Africa trying to WORK in the fields and create something GREAT. SHow us how much leftists REALLY care for their next. Why dont we see leftists there, in the forefront of charity??
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "should plateau and stop working for the betterment of our lives and "
???
Who said that me being against communism (for GOOD REASONS because does NOT lead to a betterment neither of the individual nor the socierty) makes me not want to better teh world?? Who said this??? Quite the contrary!!
I just asked how you LEFTIST DIMWITS plan to better the world, because YOU NEVER HAVE!! But instead of answering this simple questions, you are talking in circles, just like Zizek.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth YOu only make clear once again that leftist have no clue whatsoever what they are babbling about. It is a shame to see someone like Zizek being called a "academic" and "intellectual". This is just a JOKE!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
Comment removed
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
And I didn t say that capitalism is perfect. I was saying that it is the BEST SYSTEM in REALITY.
But nice try to elude my questions. Obviously you dont need € 1.000.000. :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@joaquinveyron "And I didn t say that capitalism is perfect. I was saying that it is the BEST SYSTEM in REALITY."
Actually you said "liberalism/capitalism was, is and will be the best system conceivable."
We can conceive of a better system. Just watch it happen. If you have no interest in improving things then leave it to those with some vision.
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth "hen leave it to those with some vision"
When were/are leftists the avant-garde of something that REALLY brought betterment to the people?? Did they invent the light bulb, the car, the computer, the cell phone, regenerative energy technologies, solar technologies, the bicycle ...NO! Where they the spearhead of economic and industrial revolutions that led to the prosperity we are enjoying?? - NOT AT ALL!!!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joaquinveyron If you are familiar at all with Zizek you will know that he does not call for the implementation of communism. Your question is also misdirecting. You're asking people to explain how a 20th century system can be successfully implemented when the whole point is that we need to develop a new one. Solving problems isn't about selecting the right system from a historical list. We need to learn from all sides of history, however.
thetwentyfourth 2 months ago
@thetwentyfourth
I wasnt proposing ANYTHING. You and this idiot Zizek are/were proposing that socialism that is to be implemented have noooooooooooooooooothing to with the socialistic NIGHMARES of the 20 and 21st centuries.
I was simply was challenging this position, asking for ARGUMENTS that would bakc up this statement. But this is sth I cannot expect from leftists, quite obviously.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
shackur im sorry we achieved equal rights it wasnt a gift
timetochilli 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's a pained face! 7:15
Schniddo 11 months ago
Comment removed
Schniddo 11 months ago
Comment removed
Schniddo 11 months ago
someone shoot that pommy wanker please.....fucking pompous british cunts
earthrooster1717 11 months ago
4:36 ...its seems he didnt get the joke either :D
Kwamisalami 11 months ago
5:22 - Ballsack just got owned.
dmerfield 11 months ago
Zizek would have had more opportunity to communicate his ideas if the interviewer would have STFU with his platitudinous strawman 'questions' for a while.
belzondium 1 year ago
interviewer is an absolute prat, should be looking for work
belzondium 1 year ago
If the interviewer sneered any harder, his face would collapse in on itself. Which wouldn't be the worst thing.
Traitorfish 1 year ago
"If you you put yourself in somebody's else dream, you're totally and mathematically fucked". This is Deleuze's words.Trying to convice within an arena where capitalism is idealized , is for me not only bravery but a concrete reality!!
tigerledj 1 year ago
Shitty "interviewer", completely partial and intrusive, you can almost read in his forehead: "I Supported the War on Terror"
Inceptions661 1 year ago 4
Stephen Sackur didnt do his homework...
triglavsvarun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"He's smart and he calls himself a Communist get him on, ridicule him in front of everybody watching so they don't look deeply into the alternatives and don't agree with him and keep doing it until we get much richer and our watchers dumber."
Mcjimmy111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"He's smart and he calls himself a Communist get him on, ridicule him in front of everybody watching so they don't look deeply into the alternatives and don't agree with him and keep doing it until we get mush richer and our watchers dumber."
Mcjimmy111 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mcjimmy111 1 year ago
HAhAhAHAHA Zizek stayed true to every word. Can't agree with him more! Its not that people are idiots just the news!
importfilta 1 year ago
Zizek was wonderful, I didn't see him as nervous or on the brinks of tears!
He would have done brilliantly if allowed more time to explain all the knowledge and creativity he holds.
The point of Hard Talk is precisely this, to corner thinkers and reduce their arguments to mere "bite-size" tabloid type sentences. No wonder many would see this interview as a failure.
However, I think it was great and could have listened to some more, especially about his new book. Fascinating.
sherinone 1 year ago 2
why won't this guy shut up and let zizek talk
brianofoblivion 1 year ago
powerful interviewer, a job well done.
he really pushes Zizek to the corner and thats where much of zizeck's rationality falls apart. I felt that Zizek was totally nervous conducting this interview and had no clue on how to handle the simplest challenges to his claims. nevertheless he is an interesting character.
spatima 1 year ago
oh god, that face. poor guy looks like he's at the brink of tears
southsydney 1 year ago
I think one of the most important things about Zizek's thinking is that he can break outside the binary of captialism/communism and imagine other ways. Unfortunately the interviewer here is still entrenched in binary thinking, and it just gives for a very bad interview.
cormoify 1 year ago 5
Zizek is brilliant and could only be easily understood by letting him be. But this is how the media function's. Equal measure's don't apply (Manufacturing of Consent).
esteban2284 1 year ago
Jesus, if I were Zizek I would have strangled the guy.
79898325 1 year ago
what a prick, slavoj is too patient
alonsozr 1 year ago 2
Communist......make excuses up for the failures of state lead economies. Attack the minor problems with capitalism. Repeat this process until all the wealth is controlled by governments and their media companies [BBC, EURO NEWS 24] and ordinary people are poor.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
This interviewer sucks. I dont always agree with Zizek, but this guy doesnt let him clarify his points.
jdugmar 1 year ago
I wanna throw acid in Sackur's face.
gregpastor 1 year ago
Sackur really isn´t listening. Hitting back on the poor girl getting acid thrown at her, in some kinda Hollywood dramaturgy. Isn´t there a show called the big picture?
rasmusrefug 1 year ago
this guy is to naiv and simple to interview Zizek
TheSocialistSam 1 year ago 3
Typical for the british. "The good developments of liberal capitalism" has become reality because of the unions and intellectuals which had brought welfare to the people. We can see what happens, when those forces disappear today. Financial crisis, poverty and the fall of nations. Liberal capitalism without the counter force of socialism is nothing else than a ridiculously proud, self destructing and deeply naive ideology.
MillyVanillification 1 year ago
@MillyVanillification The unions have caused nothing but unemployment. Capitalism is based on good education and the skills of people. Communism is based on government greed and poverty for the masses.
warriorprince1010 1 year ago
I cannot make up my mind which is the worst haircut.
You can't call either a hairstyle, now, can you?
ZwolfZki 1 year ago
@ZwolfZki
you are a beautiful example of today's observer / absorber
oksimoron222 1 year ago
@oksimoron222 Awww... shucks.
ZwolfZki 1 year ago
@ZwolfZki jueputa culiolazo vaya a ver videos de paul mitchell
alonsozr 1 year ago
1:20-1:50 - Stephen Sackur is an orientalist racist. "Poverty has been in India for an aweful long time." Really? Pre-colonial India looked quite different than the romantic imagination of this nostalgic post-colonial brit's "White Hero" image of the British Raj's liberation of the "heathens". Ugh. And to take the middle-class of developing nations as a convenient example misses everything Zizek is saying here. While it is precisely the tendrils of global capital that allows for a middle-class..
Dharmaserf 1 year ago
@Dharmaserf ... it is also those same tendrils that created the poverty at the exact same time. It's a very convenient view of history that allows people to pat themselves on the back from their immensely privileged perspectives of Western, middle-class complacency and forget all the problems with capitalism.
Dharmaserf 1 year ago
Unfortunately Zizek doesn't make a point without changing the subject or derailing himself or getting derailed, but I don't think the interviewer is to be blamed. Zizek is just too excited to answer everything in a few seconds. This is not him at his best.
spartan2600 1 year ago
Sackur is such a cunt, I can't wath this, because he is such a toffy shit head, GOD he takes himself way too seriously
Krazyeyeskilla 1 year ago 3
4:31 rubbish. Singapore, Hong Kong and China have become more politically free since they liberated their markets.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
haha, rubbish, China has become more authoritarian since liberating, that is the whole point of contemporary debate around China, and why China competely smashes any notion of End Of History, or the automatic compatibility of Capitalism and Democracy...(and let's not forget Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Guatemala, Brazil under their military juntas propt up by the US and free market ideals, they were all hugely authoritarian
Krazyeyeskilla 1 year ago
zizek loves the spotlight..uttering the same 20th century 'philoso-centric' nonsense...a intelligent man he is, but self- contradictory, confused and stupid at times. SLAVOJ!? ARE YOU A COMMUNIST OR A LIBERAL CAPITALIST? YOUR BOOKS SEEM TO HAVE UNDERTONES OF AGGRANDISMENT TOWARDS BOTH IDEOLOGIES. YOU ARE CONFUSED MY FRIEND.
The interviewer is realistic and logical.
69spinespindle 1 year ago
"What I believe is a different thing...a much more precise thing"... Genius!
taintedvirtues 1 year ago
Wow. Sackur is an ass. Using quotes incorrectly, taking things out of context, interrupting rudely, condescending, and incapable of listening or understanding a damn thing he's being told.
TheArcaneMaster 1 year ago
omfg, can the guy just F*king shut up and allow Zizek to talk? This is worse than Naom Chomsky, jeez; but at least Naom Chomsky kind of told him to shut up and let him talk. Seriously, HARDtalk is more like HARDass
philonous09 1 year ago
whoa
this hardtalk interviewer is not an asshole
like the ones who interviewed david harvey and noam chomsky
greenhell666 1 year ago
At 7:15 Zizek is probably thinking, "My God, he doesn't seem to have understood anything I've written or said!"
The face says it all.
beat4battle 1 year ago 99
@beat4battle That is because it is incomprehensible gibberish with a marxist face. This man has no grounding in reality and his ideas are inconsistent and idiotic.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@beat4battle
I agree. His thought is so subtle but what he said about Afghanistan is pretty shrewd.
supertricheco 1 year ago
@beat4battle Oh my GOD! :D I just watched it and he looks like hes about to cry out in pain or something. Stephen Sackur seems to be more or less guided by some wierd moralism....
ohyran1 1 year ago
@beat4battle Hahaha, I had it paused at 7:14 to say that it's as though the interviewer is completely ignoring everything he's saying, and then I saw your comment...
avidyachild 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beat4battle
LOL I see it.
jumpnjza2 1 year ago
Comment removed
gwricr 7 months ago
ugh...this interviewer is an idiot. He continually equates capitalism + democracy.
And that's just the most minor of his faults here.
pengiswoof 1 year ago
I love it when he says "people should read more" ouch! jaja
lebannen21 1 year ago
That's a good comparison between Talib-era Afghanistan and the Kansas bible belt. What he's saying - which the interviewer chooses to ignore - is that when capitalism alienates or disenfranchises people, they lose faith in the notion of liberal capitalist 'progress' and revert to religious fundamentalism. Seems straightforward and sensible enough to me.
Mattyd242 1 year ago 3
Stephen Sackur should apply equal measures to all of his guests. Go check out his HARDtalk interview with Noam Chomsky, where Stephen asked much easier questions, and did so in a very respectful and tame manner. But against Zizek ? Hostile questions, simplifications of Zizek's theories, misreadings, misinterpretations, constantly interrupting Zizek, and so on. If you are HARDtalk, why not be equally hard on everybody ?
pixelator30 1 year ago 121
@pixelator30 Yeah. Anyone with atleast some activity in brain can see the political aligment in BBC or the interviewer. Solution? Smash the fucking TV!
AnttiL 1 year ago
@pixelator30
personally, i don't much care for sackur's style of argumentative, dismissive questioning, but i find he takes the same approach with most of his guests. as for this interview, i found all the questions fair, and zizek, for once, actually seemed at a loss for words
nubbs 1 year ago
@pixelator30 If you think this is hard then it is obvious his ideas cannot even withstand the weakest of challenges. Look at Dylan Ratigan treats his guests if you want HARDtalk. Ratigan would never have let this economic illiterate get away without answering the questions.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@pixelator30 really? I thought he was a bit hard on Chomsky as well, either way I don't really like Sackur at all..
Spoonman518 1 year ago
Comment removed
esteban2284 1 year ago
Comment removed
esteban2284 1 year ago
@pixelator30 don't sweat it. sackur is a moron
blueingreentrain 1 year ago
@pixelator30 no he never hes tried makin chomsky look like a idiot by sayn ur family ran away from nazi murder howe can u say bad fings about america and the reason why he didnt look as hostile is because chomsky killed his questions made him look stupid and he went red
timetochilli 1 year ago
@pixelator30 Dude was rude as fuck to Chomsky---didn't listen to answers at all. Only reasons it seemed the questions were easy is 'cause there is no hard question for Chomsky. Noam'll mop it up.
semaifirtes 1 year ago
@pixelator30 its hard to ask chomsky a diffuclut question, hes the biggest genius on the planet, or at least the most knowledgable
FukCommando 8 months ago
@pixelator30 First off, for what it is worth I think Zizek is brilliant and insightful. Part of what is so refreshing about him is his intellectual honesty and willingness to face uncomfortable truths. However, the uncomfortable truth is that despite his brilliance, Zizek did a poor job at presenting his views in a clear coherent manner here. In addition, he dominated the conversation seldom answering a question directly. Sackur was polite, challenging but polite.
mj1975penn 6 months ago
@pixelator30 The answer seems fairly clear to me. Chomsky was polite and answered the questions asked without trying to dominate the conversation. Zizek didn't. Also, Zizek did not have a coherent answer to the question of why he called him self a communist. Just because one critiques capitalism it doesn't follow that one is a communist (as opposed to an anarchist). If you disagree then please explain what Zizek said that shows us that he is a communist (as opposed to say an anarchist).
mj1975penn 6 months ago
@pixelator30
By challenging Zizek more he, in fact, reveals Zizek strength. If his intention was to make Zizek look weak, oh dear, he failed. If you want to get stronger don't turn to people who flatter your ego with easy questions - rather look for the ones that tackle your deepest beliefs!
MrGoofyfooter 6 months ago
meow!
jak1428 2 years ago