Slavoj Zizek on why Julian Assange is a Terrorist.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I could call the below vid the best discussion I've ever seen - well worth the 2 hours.

I'm especially fond of how he uses terrorism to describe the Actions of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange -
please see 41:23 for this section in particular.

 

[Krynn72]

I almost would have preferred him to just take off his shirt. Jesus.

 

[Eejit]

... for a rather unusual and extremely broad definition of terrorism, sure.

 

[Stigmata]

Considering "terrorism" is a purely subjective label borne of self-interest, it's one of the more accurate definitions I've heard.

 

[Eejit]

It is often used in that way, particularly by governments, but the word actually has genuine definitions. Zizek's usage is pretty far from them.

semanticstime.net

 

[Laivasse]

To be fair to Zizek he seems to be saying that, under the unusual and broad criteria applied by Assange's political enemies, he is a 'terrorist', but that those enemies then qualify far better to be called terrorists themselves, by way of their foreign policy doctrine or attempts at information control or whatever. Seems a pretty interesting, charismatic guy, this Zizek, although this semantic 'are you a terrorist?' bit was the probably least interesting talking point from the discussion. It was also padded out quite a bit with mutual ideological backslapping which just washed over me.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

It's interesting Laivasse - I think this was Zizek's first meeting with Assange, and he genuinley wasn't expecting the kind of responses that Assange was giving. I think Zizek's positivity towards Assange and his ideas came more as result of his surprise at what he had to say then an attempt to encourage him.

 

[Laivasse]

I don't find that particular point about the word terrorism interesting, precisely because it has been overused by certain partisans. Taking a person who is clearly not a terrorist in the conventional definition, but who has been labeled as a 'terrorist' in a smear campaign, and then asking ourselves 'but is he really a terrorist, maybe, perhaps?', just gives mileage to the rhetoric of those who perpetrated the smear IMO. The intellectual left will tie itself in knots with this kind of pointless self-rumination, while in the meantime the primal impact of the word terrorist is still spreading and doing its work on the impressionable. To my mind it's more healthy not to engage with such hysterical talking points. As Zizek says, there is something to be learnt from 'honest' conservatism, but those original accusations of Assange being a terrorist were anything but sincere.

As for the overall chummy and non-combative atmosphere of the discussion, that's fine, it just wasn't able to command my attention. Unsurprising since I was playing Footie Manager at the time That's not to say I didn't find a great deal to agree with (thanks for posting).