oh i don't think it's the masses that are of-course racist
― goole, Monday, 4 October 2010 18:17 (thirteen years ago) link
then who???
― haven't you people ever heard of theodor a-goddamn-dorno (bernard snowy), Monday, 4 October 2010 18:21 (thirteen years ago) link
we should ask 'how did racism help create a petit-bourgeoisie?'
this doesn't sound very marxist to me
― laughing out loud lol (history mayne), Monday, 4 October 2010 18:25 (thirteen years ago) link
it's not a tendency that people fall into out of weakness, it's an idea that has, i dunno, a certain appeal to a lot of people, since it makes sense of the world on an emotional level. this is not a class-bound thing. it ends up being a tautological thing: who are The Racists?? i dunno, the people who believe racist shit, whoever they are...
ziz's two points seem to be a) politics isn't politics anymore since communism died and it's just mechanical tinkering and interest group jockeying and complaining, and b) liberals are to blame for racism partly because they talk about every culture being of value, presumably in its own way/space, allowing racists to say "stay in that space then, wog" or whatever.
i don't really buy either point. there's something there about the language of anti-immigration, in polite circles anyway
― goole, Monday, 4 October 2010 18:26 (thirteen years ago) link
he doesn't really talk about any of the concrete realities of immigration in europe. it'd be kind of novel to have no restrictions at all, and to sustain a welfare state, yes? so where do you start?
― laughing out loud lol (history mayne), Monday, 4 October 2010 18:31 (thirteen years ago) link
other than 'communist revolution' i guess
ftr i am for the free movement of people at will, and the welfare state, and no i don't know how to get that to work out ok.
― goole, Monday, 4 October 2010 18:35 (thirteen years ago) link
impossible. do you believe in unicorns as well?
equality is not possible with democracy. in democracy the incorrect will always get a voice, and corruption inevitable.
the only way to improve society is to transform it totally and completely.
― banaka, Monday, 4 October 2010 18:40 (thirteen years ago) link
fuck off troll
― goole, Monday, 4 October 2010 18:41 (thirteen years ago) link
corruption inevitable
defrag
― former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 4 October 2010 18:41 (thirteen years ago) link
this might be the most tendentious bit:
From France to Germany, from Austria to Holland, in the new spirit of pride in one's cultural and historical identity, the main parties now find it acceptable to stress that immigrants are guests who have to accommodate themselves to the cultural values that define the host society – "it is our country, love it or leave it" is the message.
what was the old spirit? how was immigration treated hitherto? i guess austria has had more immigration than ever before, but the piece i linked to on holland is worth reading. 'cultural values' is doing quite a lot of work in that sentence. most people would say that immigrants would have to accommodate themselves to the law of the host nation, but is that really in the spirit of christian love? he would never lower himself to debate a specific issue, but he may on draw random anecdotes in order to tell his usual story.
― laughing out loud lol (history mayne), Monday, 4 October 2010 18:42 (thirteen years ago) link
― former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, October 4, 2010 6:41 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark
"lol"
― banaka, Monday, 4 October 2010 18:56 (thirteen years ago) link
banaka l jagger sock no
― conrad, Monday, 4 October 2010 19:21 (thirteen years ago) link
really?
― banaka, Monday, 4 October 2010 23:10 (thirteen years ago) link
wethinks you are intoxicated.
― banaka, Monday, 4 October 2010 23:24 (thirteen years ago) link
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbhhjdb8qR1qdcvb4o1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1289237755&Signature=%2BUE33PGej4z76lXL1lyp%2B7iGy6k%3D
― max, Sunday, 7 November 2010 17:36 (thirteen years ago) link
lol gross
― Mannsplain Steamroller (goole), Sunday, 7 November 2010 17:44 (thirteen years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEtmZZvGZA
Was this posted yet? It's awesome. I love it.
― Princess TamTam, Sunday, 7 November 2010 17:44 (thirteen years ago) link
"Confuses Major Philosophers" -- does this mean that Slavoj Zizek gets major philosophers mixed up, or that major philosophers who are in attendance at the lecture feel confused?
― quique da snique (bernard snowy), Sunday, 7 November 2010 20:33 (thirteen years ago) link
"when Zizek critiques liberalism, which he does a lot, he almost always uses ‘liberal’ to mean, narrowly, economic neoliberalism. Forces of economic globalization. The Washington Consensus. Liberalism is: Sarkozy trying to make France more Anglo-ish. It’s never: John Rawls. I think it’s fair to say that Zizek is hereby basically strawman-ing liberal democracy, and liberalism qua political philosophy, by identifying both with the Washington Consensus. This is not only philosophically unsatisfactory but rhetorically odd, because Zizek ends up sounding weirdly like a Fox News commentator, talking trickle-down as if it were an Iron Law of Prosperity, under any conceivable, market-based system.
There is one major exception to Zizek’s liberalism = neoliberalism tendency: namely, he not infrequently uses ‘liberalism’ to refer to academic-style, ironist-relativistic multi-culti, feel-good pc leftism. Then he sounds sort of like P.J. O’Rourke yelling in your ear at a Laibach concert"
http://crookedtimber.org/2010/12/17/zizek-on-the-financial-collapse-and-liberalism/
― e.g. delete via naivete (ledge), Friday, 17 December 2010 15:32 (thirteen years ago) link
It's a silly complaint since liberalism as it is practiced in America IS economic neoliberalism. People who oppose neoliberalism are either the detoothed hippies who cannot engage the system in a meaningful way, or the radical terrorists who move the battlefield from an economic confrontation to one of violent force. But if you're gonna take about liberal democracy in the US you have to talk about economic neoliberalism.
― Mordy, Friday, 17 December 2010 15:40 (thirteen years ago) link
I think the whole "academic-style, ironist-relativistc, multi-culti, feel-good pc leftism" thing is better to challenge Zizek on, but is it surprising that a guy who mainly associates with the academy (and particularly with departments like NYU's German Dpt, or that silly Humanities in Europe program thingie) would harp on multi-culti, feel-good pc leftism? I remember a professor in grad school defending clitoridectomies on the basis of multiculturalism, so it's definitely possible to blow the sentiment out of proportion because of close exposure to one particular institution.
― Mordy, Friday, 17 December 2010 15:42 (thirteen years ago) link
liberalism = liberal democracy = US liberal democracy = economic neoliberalism seems like a hell of conflating imo.
― e.g. delete via naivete (ledge), Friday, 17 December 2010 15:54 (thirteen years ago) link
xp
liberalism occurs today (when it occurs and has power) as economic neoliberalism. is Badiou out there fighting against the entire system? yes. but arguably is not longer a 'liberal' in any meaningful sense anyway. i think Zizek's critique that liberalism occurs within economic neoliberalism is right on and is actually essential to understanding politics, particularly US politics. otherwise you're like the guys on the US Politics thread constantly being outraged that the "liberals" in office are perpetuating capitalist inequalities. or you can dismiss the romanticization and realize, "oh, hey, this is just another performance of economic neoliberalism"
― Mordy, Friday, 17 December 2010 16:00 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n02/slavoj-zizek/good-manners-in-the-age-of-wikileaks
p sure i could do zizeks job now
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 12 January 2011 21:05 (thirteen years ago) link
he should just make every political article a repeated copy and pasting of that time when he said he doesn't care about politics, only hegel. i'm down with that.
― Antoine Bugleboy (Merdeyeux), Wednesday, 12 January 2011 21:19 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.vbs.tv/en-gb/blog/slavoj-zizek-on-egypt
tariq ramadan trying to keep a straight face at this gurning performance had me lollin'
― I zing the dickhole electric (haitch), Sunday, 6 February 2011 14:40 (thirteen years ago) link
oh man this is gonna make my day
― proso_Opopoeia (bernard snowy), Sunday, 6 February 2011 14:59 (thirteen years ago) link
got a big lol out of the "reader email" asking zizek to explain his mao quote.
on my facebook favorite quotes at the moment:"everything that keeps me together is falling apart. the situation is excellent." - modest mao
― proso_Opopoeia (bernard snowy), Sunday, 6 February 2011 19:43 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/feb/10/egypt-miracle-tahrir-square
truly wretched performance, but at least he's being a bit more explicit these days
but doesn't zizek hate liberal democracy? i don't get how he now seems to be or for it
or maybe he really does thing the universal realm of indivisible oneness is at hand...
― The image post from the hilarious "markers" internet persona (history mayne), Friday, 11 February 2011 10:28 (thirteen years ago) link
I thought that was mainly terrible, too, but this is very well put:
When President Obama welcomed the uprising as a legitimate expression of opinion that needs to be acknowledged by the government, the confusion was total: the crowds in Cairo and Alexandria did not want their demands to be acknowledged by the government, they denied the very legitimacy of the government. They didn't want the Mubarak regime as a partner in a dialogue, they wanted Mubarak to go. They didn't simply want a new government that would listen to their opinion, they wanted to reshape the entire state.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 11 February 2011 11:04 (thirteen years ago) link
if you watch that tv bit up there you'll see that he's still leaning towards blaming the "tolerant liberals" for everything that stands in the way of change, rather than putting the blame on anyone, say, vaguely right-wing or a bit dictatory.
― Antoine Bugleboy (Merdeyeux), Friday, 11 February 2011 12:28 (thirteen years ago) link
y'all mad
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, 11 February 2011 13:10 (thirteen years ago) link
history mayne do u think the egyptian people are "for" or "against" "liberal democracy"
or should we wait until they take a nationwide referendum
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, 11 February 2011 13:13 (thirteen years ago) link
zizek emerges on the academic scene duing the early- to mid-90s, at a time when ppl are getting really into this habermasian/rawlsian/fukuyaman defense of the inherent rationality of the western liberal democratic tradition. i don't think zizek necessarily disagrees that that rationality exists, or that it has value; but he would certainly dispute the idea that it is fully controlled or contained within the self-understanding of the western democracies themselves — in the egyptian case, it's closer to a kind of hegelian cunning of reason, operating behind the backs and against the wishes of the hegemonic powers
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, 11 February 2011 13:37 (thirteen years ago) link
re: "putting the blame on anyone, say, vaguely right-wing or a bit dictatory" — I p.much agree with SZ when he says that those who do not wish to address the shortcomings of liberal democracy should remain silent about fundamentalist theocracy/fascism/totalitarianism/etc
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, 11 February 2011 13:44 (thirteen years ago) link
plus, y'know, you gotta take into account that the audiences he addresses tend to be closer to the "tolerant liberal" end of the spectrum...
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, 11 February 2011 13:45 (thirteen years ago) link
I p.much agree with SZ when he says that those who do not wish to address the shortcomings of liberal democracy should remain silent about fundamentalist theocracy/fascism/totalitarianism/etc― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, February 11, 2011 1:44 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, February 11, 2011 1:44 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark
mmm, that rich straw aroma. yes indeed, those tolerant habermasian liberals never, ever address the shortcomings of their own societies, do they?
history mayne do u think the egyptian people are "for" or "against" "liberal democracy"or should we wait until they take a nationwide referendum― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, February 11, 2011 1:13 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, February 11, 2011 1:13 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark
yes i think they are for it, mutatis, mutandis, or whatever the phrase is. the democratic majority of them. but zizek is against it. he's in favour of totalitarianism iirc.
plus, y'know, you gotta take into account that the audiences he addresses tend to be closer to the "tolerant liberal" end of the spectrum...― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, February 11, 2011 1:45 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, February 11, 2011 1:45 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark
yes, quite. he's a wind-up merchant above all.
― The image post from the hilarious "markers" internet persona (history mayne), Friday, 11 February 2011 14:05 (thirteen years ago) link
nobody is for "totalitarianism", it's a purely ideological term, come on man
(which isn't to say that you can't play devil's advocate, or that zizek doesn't do so, but seriously, grow 1 brayne)
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, 11 February 2011 14:24 (thirteen years ago) link
"Hey Mr. Caliban..."
― Tom D (Tom D.), Friday, 11 February 2011 14:30 (thirteen years ago) link
iirc zizek says totalitarianism is a "purely ideological term" used to protect liberal democracy from universal justice. you're not going to realize the "eternal idea of freedom, justice and dignity" under democracy.
what is "the eternal idea of freedom"?
― The image post from the hilarious "markers" internet persona (history mayne), Friday, 11 February 2011 14:36 (thirteen years ago) link
i dunno i don't think it's written down anywhere
― there is a lout that never goes "aight" (bernard snowy), Friday, 11 February 2011 14:42 (thirteen years ago) link
http://i.imgur.com/pQxPx.gif
― Princess TamTam, Friday, 18 February 2011 08:54 (thirteen years ago) link
lol
― roy stride or die (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 February 2011 08:59 (thirteen years ago) link
lol amazing
― Mordy, Friday, 18 February 2011 17:12 (thirteen years ago) link
btw just to continue conversation from other thread:
And specifically in "Living in End Times" he writes (I don't have a page cite - PLEASE FORGIVE ME) that with Democracies there is the appearance of consent so resistance/protest in light of inequalities is v limited. By contrast a dictator knows he only rules with the consent of the people in a much more explicit manner and therefore needs to act more in their self interest. in my own words: that democracy can serve as a valve to let off steam and not let any real reforms come to the surface while dictators need to be more responsive more immediately or risk losing their heads.― Mordy, Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:03 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
― Mordy, Wednesday, February 23, 2011 4:03 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
― on some outer space shit (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 19:36 (thirteen years ago) link
Zizek dropping truthbombs in a footnote:
This limitation of democracy has nothing to do with the standard worry of the liberal exporters of democracy: what if the result is the victory of those who oppose democracy, and thus its self-cancellation? "This is a terrible truth that we have to face; the only thing that currently stands between us and the rolling ocean of Muslim unreason is a wall of tyranny and human rights abuses that we have helped to erect"(Sam Harris, The End of Faith, New York: Norton 2005, p.132). Here, then, isHarris's motto: "when your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples becomeanother weapon in his hand" (ibid., p. 202). And, from here, predictably, he proceedsto justify torture . . . While this line of reasoning may appear convincing, it is not pursued to the end; it remains stuck in the terms of the tiresome liberal debate: "Are the Muslim masses mature enough (culturally fit) for democracy, or should we support enlightened despotism amongst their rulers?" Both terms of the underlying choice (either we impose our democracy on them or we exploit their backwardness) are false. The true question is: what if the "wall of tyranny and human rights abuses that wehave helped to erect" is precisely what sustains and generates the "rolling ocean of Muslimunreason"?
― on some outer space shit (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:29 (thirteen years ago) link
dude should ring in to any answers?, someone basically says that every week
― Jefferson Mansplain (DG), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:32 (thirteen years ago) link
not always w/comedy speech impediment obv.
― Jefferson Mansplain (DG), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 20:34 (thirteen years ago) link