What's up with this music?!

I am a philosopher, I like to provoke,
we live in perverted times,
so let me tell you a perverted joke!

A famous, dirty, horrible joke,
taking place in 15th century Russia.
A farmer and his wife walk along a dusty country road.
A Mongol warrior on a horse stops and says
"I'm gonna rape your wife and you should hold my testicles,
while I rape your wife, so that they will not get dusty."
When he raped his wife, the Mongol warrior went away,
the farmer started to laugh and jump with joy, his wife said
"Hey, how can you be happy?! I was just brutally raped!
And he says: "But I got him. His balls are full of dust."

Well, in reality we only dirty with dust the balls of those in power.
And now comes the dirty conclusion - the point is to cut them off!

Now let me warn you - this isn't Macarena, not Chicken dance,
not Aserejé, not Gangnam style and so on and so on.

We stand no chance, there's no time for romance,
it's time to dance The Perverted Dance™!

Cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
the balls of those in power!
We need to cut the balls
and our faces won't be sour!
Just cut the balls,
make them become Niagara falls.

Cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
the balls of those in power!
We need to cut the balls,
we can train with cauliflower!
Just cut the balls,
make them become Niagara falls.

Oh, my god, why am i doing this?! Singing, dancing?!
I feel like that disgusting guy from Canada, Justin Bieber...

So, the problem with capitalism is that it's in the crisis from its very beginning.
From somewhere, I would say, late 18th century, there are prophets who claim capitalism is nearing its end.
It's like that stupid bird Fenix, the more you, you know, it returns.
I got hungry, let's grab something to eat!
What?! No meat?! Only for vegetarians ?!
Degenerates, degenerates, they'll all soon turn into monkeys.

I dont say let's do nothing,
I say sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.
So cut the balls, just cut the balls!
And racism is also a problem,
so be like Kung Fu Panda - be white, black, asian
and cut the balls, just cut the balls!
They call me The Borat of Philosophy,
The Marx Brother and The Elvis of cultural theory.
Cut the crap and cut the balls, just cut the balls!

Hey, I am Slavoj Žižek!
No, I am Slavoj Žižek!
No, I am Slavoj Žižek,
Fuck that, whatever, let's all be Slavoj Žižek!

Grab and pull the imaginary balls from the sky,
cut through the air and say bye, bye, bye.
Let's join together, let's fall in trance,
let's dance The Perverted Dance™!

Cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
the balls of those in power!
We need to cut the balls.
and then take the bloody shower!
Just cut the balls,
make them become Niagara falls!

Cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
the balls of those in power!
We need to cut the balls,
let them face the final hour!
just cut the balls,
make them become Niagara falls!

Cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls,
the balls of those in power!
We need to cut the balls,
we need to cut the balls!
Just cut the balls,
make them become Niagara falls!

This stupid repetative mechanic music!
Stop it!

Thank you, thank you very much!

The problem is maybe not the big act "Cut the balls",
but you make small changes and all of a sudden, balls are no longer there.
Those in power look down and say "Oh, where are my balls?"
and suddenly their voices get higher and so on and so on and so on.
I stand by my joke. The structure of the joke is that this so called progressive intellectual,
in order to score his small narcissistic point, oh, I dusted the balls,
totally ignores the suffering there and that's the whole point of the joke.
So cut the balls, we need to cut the balls!

Your video, Slavoj Zizek: PC is a more dangerous form of totalitarianism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Slavoj has more experience with oppressive regimes. Effective oppressive regimes let "ordinary people" do most of the oppressing. Much more zealous than any government agency can be. For any "good citizen" it is enough to know what the party line is and that one must not deviate.

Perhaps vaping sections on aeroplanes (I hate people vaping in my vicinity) or semi-secret performances of smoking operas (for people who like those) would make the world less oppressive for some people without sacrificing too much selfrighteous ego. Perhaps the selfrighteous ego is just too strong.

A ban on smoking in pubs has just been passed over here. Again, I am fine with that in the pubs I go to, however there are pubs in small villages out in the country where only smokers ever go and all they do is drink and smoke. Will they have to meet elsewhere, rename the pub to a "smoking club" or just become underground smokers against the establishment?

My favourite Yugoslav joke is BTW Q: What is the national record for the 100 meter sprint in Montenegro?

A: 80 metres.

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.

I enjoyed listening to Slavoj Zizek's views on The Wire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsf4rAGlR5s

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'slavoj, zizek, klemen, slakonja, impression, impersonation, the, perverted, dance' to 'slavoj zizek, klemen slakonja, impression, impersonation, the perverted dance' - edited by eric3579

I visited. I upvoted some. Couldn't upvote others.

Thanks for the promote. He is an interesting thinker.

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
using this for my selfish selfpromotion, of course, but I've posted a lot of Zizek related material, if anyone's interested. still rotting in my personal queue (for now;)

using this for my selfish selfpromotion, of course, but I've posted a lot of Zizek related material, if anyone's interested. still rotting in my personal queue (for now;)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'philosophy, toilets' to 'ideology, toilets, architecture, excrement, slavoj zizek' - edited by kulpims

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

>> ^shagen454:

Amazing. Multiculturalism is maybe a form of racism. So many good points, hilarious as usual. Recently, watched Perverts Guide to Cinema while on acid and laughed so much. Zizek tickles me so.
Our form of capitalism is changing our lives like the products in which it relies. The point, coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, smokeless cigarettes... our society is continuing on a path of becoming hallow, without substance. If I am getting it correct.


hollow. not hallow. big difference.
indeed -- soon the society will reflect the hollowness of our soul, or should I say, absence of.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Wasn't sure I could get past his chronic lisp, but he's fantastically engaging :

*promote

Slavoj is why you don't do cocaine, kiddies.

I assume it's so that everyone can hear what he's saying, as there is no microphone.

It's particularly horrible when the crowd doesn't understand his accent. Someone should have given him a megaphone or something.>> ^packo:

>> ^Skeeve:
Zizek: "You are all individuals"
Crowd: "We are all individuals"
This is horrible...

just wondering if you know why they are repeating what the speaker is saying,
but yes that is ironic