This guy says the ziz is misrepresenting him in his new book...

On Vegetarians:

"Degenerates, they will turn into monkeys"

youtube.com/watch?v=J0kxDXnSUV8

That was retweeted by Richard Spencer and a bunch of Nazis. Slavoj Zizek is a fat fuck retard that is loved by reactionaries. He's a meme on the level of Jordan Peterson or The Amazing Atheist.

My Gott, literally unable to handle a fucking joke.

It's a joke you fuckin dork

Ok, that wasn't me and I don't follow the facebook drama.
No, just wanted to call Zizek a court jester for the bourgeoise, which he is.

Look at his body. He's a meatcuck, and he's serious.

Keep it to one thread you nerd.

I've never seen anything of Zizek's that indicated that he was more than an epic meme philosopher on the internet.

Goddamit, I love you but at least take showers once in a while. What do you think Zizek smells like?

Maybe consider reading or watch his lectures on Lacan

Like greasy McDonalds french fries and old milk.

Only the continental philosopher's :)

But most of Lacan is quite literally nonsense

is this richard dawkins posting

I have, they're more comedic than informative.

another day, another slew of ridiculous accusations against zizek.

to think that one man could be called a liberal, fascist, controlled op, charlatan, "bourgeois puppet," liar, thief, meme, socdem, nazi, or reactionary all at once is really something.

let it be known: 90% of zizek's critics, on here especially, haven't read a lick of his work, or if they have, they put it down after ten pages because they couldn't understand it. the evidence is excruciatingly obvious: they never argue with him on his own terms. they never once address a serious aspect of his theory. instead, it's just meaningless buzzwords thrown at him to discredit his character, or even worse, they take one questionable sentence completely out of context as "proof" of some stupid label they want to attach to him.

either read a goddamn book or shut the fuck up with these baseless accusations against an author who you, clearly, know nothing about.

he isn't racist and he never said that. his point has always been that transgenderism is the product of the sexual difference as such, or in other words the deadlock presented by the sexual difference is the same deadlock which is addressed by trans people. if anything, we could say trans people are more "honest" than a typical male or female, but it's fucking retarded for you to think he's saying they're "objectively superior"

I feel the anti-Zizek crew has really upped their posting in the last few months.

it's really annoying, especially because they always spout some anglo garbage about philosophy/psychoanalysis being "nonsense" or something, like this idiot

vulgar empiricists, i.e. illiterates, have no place on a leftist forum

agreed and this is why i didn't want to read the guy's articles. i mean i remember zizek's piece and it was just him saying to shut up about bathrooms already. this twat comes in and starts talking endlessly about transphobia, and now he's bitching that the book misquotes him or whatever.

t. anglo

And which serious aspects are those? Name one important theory of his that isn't a hot take on trannies or immigrants. Matter of fact is he's full of shit, most of his writings are incomprehensible word salads that impress the same kind of people who think Paul Joseph Watson's intelligent simply because he has a British dialect.

You just don't get it. He's too smart for you.

Ah you're right, my tiny brain simply cannot fathom the genious of his writings. I take back everything previously said

are you 16? i'm not going to "name one important theory" in a fucking forum post for you, do you even have an idea of what theory is? it's not a scientific law which i can quickly regurgitate for children who want people to read things for them.

just read him, shit, read ANYTHING, or shut the fuck up and accept that you don't know shit.

lol. I rest my case

watch/listen to his lectures
youtu.be/EQPDlSH3tjs

Kys Anglo.

Heh, plagiarism is bullshit. They are just ideas and anyone that is spastic enough to get buttmad about someone using your ideas without writing up a form is a fool.

god, you're so satisfied with how much of a fucking idiot you are. it's disgusting.

somehow this is a surprise to you: theory, that thing people write large books about and study for decades, isn't something which can be meaningfully summarized for anti-intellectuals on an imageboard

look at this smarmy fuck! look at him!

i'm annoyed by this person for a particular reason: i've noticed a massive influx of these types onto Holla Forums, these people who want to try on communism/revolutionary politics as if it was just an arbitrary outfit. they want to call themselves marxists or leftists without doing any work. most of them, to be sure, haven't even read marx. we need to either actively reject these posters, and silence their idiocy with serious discussion, or accept that we are simply a different flavor of Holla Forums and let what could potentially be a worthwhile leftist forum die.

Man you're really ripping user a new arse hole there.

Actually, it can. I can summarize all my favorite thinker's most important theories, and often do so here as I think they're worth spreading. If you cannot easily summarize someone's theory in a sentence or two, that means either A: You don't understand the theory well enough
or B: The theory itself isn't very well substantiated or explained in the first place.

My claim was that Zizek doesn't have important or serious theories. I gave him the opportunity to prove me wrong and give me one example, an opportunity which he clearly failed

Looks like I'm not the only one that noticed. It reminds me of the smug idiots on Holla Forums who cry "muh books" whenever someone posts a well-thought reply, or posts something other than clickbait rageporn.
They're so smug about their ignorance. And so self-satisfied that they're sticking it to all those intellectuals.

Safe to say. It's immediately obvious they're Amerilards.

Holy hell m8, learn to logic and you then can be allowed to post in around 5 months time.

His account, based on Lacanian psychoanalysis, of the way in which we enjoy being subjected and subjecting others, is important. As is his theory of ideology as something that structures our social reality, constituting it in its very nature rather than being something you can isolate. And then there's his thesis of the ontological incompleteness of reality, which re-launches the possibility of dialectical materialism. This new dialectical materialism allows him to take a hard French-style revolutionary stance, and it complements his theory of justified revolutionary violence. Plus, his rehabilitation of the Cartesian subject (and its political importance), in light of many of the important critiques which have been levelled against it in the past 300 years. Also, his development of Karatani's parallax view method, which enables us to understand the relationship between two points of view through the irreducible gap between them (for instance, the idea that the unconscious isn't revealed in the latent content of the dream [or, what the dream secretly represents], but in the process by which the latent content is converted into the manifest content).
This isn't even getting into his readings of Hegel, Lacan, and Marx, by themselves and through each-other. Or his founding of an entire school of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Or his popularisation of Lacan (not really a philosophical achievement, but still an achievement no less). Or his theological work, in which he gives an account of a revolutionary/communist Christian atheism.
As you can see, Zizek has had many different important contributions to philosophy. It's not all just "hot takes about trannies and immigrants" or whatever. You actually have to read his serious books before you make such an idiotic judgment about one of the most important philosophers working today. And if you read him, you'll see that it's not like you said at all.

And for the record, he's actually a very clear and lucid writer. I used to think it was a lot of posturing and word salad too, but then I read more of the pre-requisite work. The more well-read you are in continental philosophy, and in general history of philosophy, the more you'll see that Zizek is actually a pretty clear writer (though, I'll admit, he doesn't always structure his works perfectly, and he doesn't always deliver on the promises he makes in the outset of the books).

Also Zizek is in a weird way a wonderful tool to understand earlier (and other modern) thinkers. He builds off of points in Phenomenology and Lacan in such a way that I understood the originals better. Also he provides a gateway into the thought of people like Badiou and Milner. All around he is a pretty great dude.
"break away from university discourse"/10 would do again.

Agreed. But to see these things, it takes… well… actually reading the books.

This

There has always been a debate on Holla Forums about Zizeks theories which is great when they address his actual arguments because he deserves to be criticized and held to a high standard like every theorist. But recently theres been so many baseless "muh charlatan" posts that try to use outraged dismissal as a moral high ground so they dont need to provide a real argument.

I've yet to actually see his theories actually discussed. Sure this user says they exist, but not much more

No he explicitly said that trans people are socially superior to gays, and gays are socially superior to heteros from his lacanian perspective. I can't be fucked to find the link but it was in one of his many hour long spiels.

I love this post

"All of them."

anglo brainlets BTFO

...

The fact that you're both this impressed by a post that failed to explain even the basics of Zizeks arguments is a testament to the easily fooled crowd he pulls. A counter-example would be if I said that "Graeber's theories on debt are important, and his theories on play in the animal kingdom bring us great insight in the theory of human nature and freedom". Sure they are, but unless I explain what these theories are and why they are important, I might as well not have said a thing. But hey enjoy listening starry-eyed to nonsensical lectures while not grasping a single thing, I sure wish I could experience such naive joys.

So is this sam guy full of shit or not

What exactly are you asking for? The poster gave a list of zizeks contributions and a bit about their significance because someone said there were none and there was no significance. What are you asking about? Which specifically would you like to know about?

Okay. Can you actually address Zizek's theories and arguments though?
All I'm reading is "Haha, there's no positive proof therefore it's garbage, checkmate continentals! :^)"

You've not pointed out any inconsistencies, contradictions or other flaws. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's word salad. If I were to try and read Sanskrit scriptures I won't be able to make any sense of it. But that doesn't mean it's all meaningless nonsense.

Just take the L today dude

I don't need Zizek-sensei explained to me user-kun, because I already read him.

this shit is why doesn't work, although it is a pretty great post.

you can't play the insipid game this fuck has conjured up, attempting to reasonably explain theory to him, because he'll never be persuaded. this neo-chomskyite will refuse to accept anything which cannot be converted into bullet points, as such, attempting to explain zizek's methodology to him is fruitless.

listen, you philistinian garbage: IT IS RIDICULOUS TO ATTEMPT TO DEBATE THE MERITS OF AN AUTHOR YOU HAVEN'T READ. how is that not blatantly fucking obvious to you? look at this shitheel! look at the basic fucking logic he needs explained for him!

you have absolutely no place on this image board or on the left at all. what is needed now more than ever are honest intellectuals, and what is to be ruthlessly rejected are, simply, people like you. learn an ounce of theoretical discipline and try again in a year.

It's impossible to point out contradictions in his theories since none have not been laid out ITT. Tell you what, create a new thread about one of his theories along with an essay of his explaining it. I'll treat him as a serious theorist by reading the essay, presenting a critique and discussing it in the thread. But since I have yet to see a single of his theories explained or linked to I'll assume that I was correct the entire time, that he's full of shit and no one here understands his nonsense.

Irony is truly dead

You are making a point. Have you even looked at Zizek's bibliography or his Stanford philosophy page?
iep.utm.edu/zizek/
Where do we even begin? You argue he's sprouting nonsense, but you cannot actually point out where he's wrong.
Read his fucking books and then post your own critiques. You sound like those people that discard Marx, but can't even be bothered to read Wage, Labour & Profit.

Just realized that isn't the Stanford philosophy site. Doesn't matter though.

No

...

This guy is a walking meme of everything bad in anglo philosophy.
It's absolutely not true that all theories can be summarised in a couple of sentences, what kind of idiot are you? For example, you sure won't find an adequate summary of Kapital in an anonymous post. I guess Marx is meaningless too.

The top part of the franken-quote seems to be from here:
pmc.iath.virginia.edu/text-only/issue.102/12.2.r_jones.txt

That's what i wanted to know, thanks.

Then the question then becomes, "Does it matter?". Given that Žižek does not address the errant preamble, but rather only the actual content of Miell' fragment, we're left with the recognition that the quote was misattributed - that much is beyond debate, obviously - however, given the nature of the argument to follow, the accusation of misrepresentation doesn't stand firm, pace Miell, as it played no particular effect upon the nature of the response to follow.

Seems like an honest editing mistake on Zizek's part. What a horrible man he is!

it would appear so to me too. i don't understand the benefit of fabricating such a quote.

Bump

Again

ahahaha jesus christ

bump :)

This is a direct paraphrasing of the SJW argument : "It's not my job to educate you". Perhaps not but neither is it everyone elses to pay you any attention.

I definitely agree that people, like that poster, shouldn't try to debate the merits of books they have never read. I also agree that if you have the time and the mental capacity for it, reading theory should be highly encouraged. I spend some time reading theory personally. But, fact is, any revolution will be pitifully small if reading all three works of Kapital and then some becomes the minimum participation requirement. People engaging in good praxis without theory will get much more done than armchairs who know the finer nuances of Hegel like the back of their hand, but can't be bothered to get off their asses once. (Obviously, the ideal is a good combination of both theory and praxis, using theory to guide praxis and so on)

t. anal water

Don't forget calling everyone they don't like a "charlatan"

There was an image floating around here that provided a roadmap to reading Zizek. I'm watching the Pervert's Guide to Ideology (which it recommended) and it's piqued my interest. Does anyone have that image or their own suggestion of what to read next?

It really is kind of pathetic that people who don't know anything about Zizek's works also vehemently defend it because of the cult of personality he's built around himself.

A lot of people here don't really understand Zizek, but feel the need to defend him. So when you ask a pretty basic question, you'd expect at least some people to be able to explain what they find of value in his work and why.

But that's more of a Holla Forums problem, than Zizek's problem. He's definitely said some stuff, it's just that no one here seems to really get it. But they sure will defend him against any criticism whatsoever.

SJW posturing =/= someone making ridiculous statements about an author they've never read, and then expecting other people to "prove them wrong." nothing wrong with asking a simple question, but acting like that idiot ITT is a completely different story.

that wasn't my point though. there's nothing wrong with not knowing theory; there's nothing wrong with not knowing ANYTHING. it's a different situation when you position yourself like the guy ITT, as someone who pretends to be "above it" or something. also, this should be made perfectly clear: it's pretty dumb to worry about good "revolutionary praxis" on an obscure leftist imageboard. no revolutionary activity is coming out of leftypol any time soon, making it the perfect place to seriously discuss theoretical issues. i'm not sure what other productive activity would happen here honestly. maybe you think finding more potential "leftist youtube celebrities" is a better use of our time?

It annoys me that even fucking Chapo pretends Zizek is bad due to all the Brainlets incapable of seriously understanding what he's saying.

what a giant faggot

Bump

Yeah who cares if Žižek "quoted" Chomsky saying racist shit and Chomsky denied writing that and then when Ž couldn't find the quote he remembered reading, he said Chomsky said that on the phone (Chomsky again: nope). Who cares. Only an ANAL(lol)ytical autist and possibly soft imperialist would care about that. Ž is the greatest contemporary Marxist thinker, all the petit bourg Marxist students that haven't read Capital yet and are critically supporting Nato (but like, ironically, so it's okay) are saying that after all. If Chomsky really cared about winning over this most pivotal group for starting a revolution, he should make more penis jokes.

Here is a good article about it: untergrund-blättle.ch/gesellschaft/zur_kontroverse_zwischen_noam_chomsky_und_slavoj_zizek.html (Yeah it's in German, what's the matter? Are you too stupid to read German? Oh, I'm sooo sorry, you can't be part of the club for deep and profound thinkers then.)

Give me 3 months boyo, then its game time.

Underrated post

I can confirm that Zizek is a fraud who can't source properly.

Literally seething

P r o j e c t i o n

"I never accused Chomsky of making a racist comment"
versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarifications-a-response-to-noam-chomsky-by-slavoj-zizek

Indeed.

What an idiot. Just apologize

10/9

Why is Zizek such an autistic dweeb?

Did you two really miss the whole Chomsky-Zizek debate? It's ok to be a newfag and illiterate.

I somehow missed Zizek's response to Chomsky's response. It's pretty interesting

I think this is a clearer look at the situation:
Chomsky on Zizek
dangerousminds.net/comments/noam_chomsky_thinks_slavoj_zhizhek_is_full_of_shit
Zizek on Chomsky on Zizek
esjaybe.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/zizeks-response-to-chomsky/
Chomsky on Zizek on Chomsky on Zizek
chomsky.info/20130721/

Explain this debate to a 5 year old. If you can't it's only posturing.

Protip: you can't.

How is pointing out Zizek's faggotry suggesting that we didn't follow the debate?

>chomsky.info/20130721/ Chomsky sez:
>For example, in the Winter 2008 issue of the German cultural journal Lettre International, Žižek attributed to me a racist comment on Obama by Silvio Berlusconi. I ignored it. Anyone who strays from ideological orthodoxy is used to this kind of treatment. However, an editor of Harper’s magazine, Sam Stark, was interested and followed it up. In the January 2009 issue he reports the result of his investigation. Žižek said he was basing the attribution on something he had read in a Slovenian magazine. A marvelous source, if it even exists. And anyway, he continued, attributing to me a racist comment about Obama is not a criticism, because I should have made such remarks as “a fully admissible characterization in our political and ideological struggle.” I leave it others to decode. When asked about this by Slovene journalist/activist Igor Vidman, Žižek answered that he had discussed it with me over the phone and I had agreed with him: vest.si/2009/01/31/zizkov-kulturni-boj/. Of course, sheer fantasy.

Bump

again!

The anti-Zizek nerds are hilarious. Where did they suddenly come from?

Chomsky is an anarcho-liberal, Zizek is an ortho-Leninist, they both have rather different fundamental views but they came to heads over the US presidential election as Chomsky said to vote for Clinton because she won't fuck shit up, and Zizek said to vote for Trump TO fuck shit up.

#Team Zizek

memes aside, i think it's reddit. they love milquetoast empiricists like chomsky over there.

the dramatic increase of anti-intellectuals on leftypol over the past year is a shame, which of course is correlates to our getting exposure on places like 4chan and reddit.

i'd take a leftypol with half as many users as it has now over this excess of nobookz bores

Dunno but they need to read Lenin 2017.

We have had pretty much exactly this thread several times for several years, newfriend. It always goes like this:
A: Zizek is a bit loose with the quotations/misrepresents X school of thought/misrepresents this or that author, politician, etc.
B: No he doesn't.
A: Yes, he does. For example…
B: No, there is nothing wrong about it.
A: Dude, look it up.
B: Meh, can't be arsed to check that.
A: Here, I checked these things for you, and highlighted the differences.
B: *proceeds to have amnesia*
Jodi Dean threads are exactly the same shit. You know who else is a Zizek fan? Muke. Go do what Foucault did, get AIDS and try to talk your way out of having that construct.