Zizek and irony

Is that as an American, Brit, German, Frenchman, or Native American? Which part of your mysterious makeup is talking to me now?

The Jewish/Danish/German part.

Nationality is a spook m8, hating it is just as ridiculous as loving it. It's not because people are "anglo" but because of the material conditions people live in.

Okay.

Strawman.

It just seems like Zizek comes to a lot of liberal positions, but phrases them as radical left critiques of the radical left. I guess his theory can be sound, but his political views wrong.

Material conditions are an excuse to convince yourself people are actually inherently good in a vacuum devoid of circumstance. It's a redundant argument because they aren't.

Yeah. Clearly the fault is with the readers and not the philosopher that constantly engages in the metaphysics of toilets and fist fucking, when he's not being edgy and contrarian.

It means people are malleable, including how they form their moral principles. It's not saying people are naturally good or bad – just that they're also a product of their environment (or I guess only a product of their environment if you want to take a hardline).

Not really, no. Actually, if you want a very good example of how analytic vs. continental tradition plays out in radical politics, just compare Noam Chomsky's "anarchsim" with that of Peter Lamborn Wilson/Hakim Bey. Chomsky believes there are "rules" which must be followed in order to achieve anarchism; human nature and all that. For him, anarchism is all about teaching society a lesson. For Wilson/Bey, coming out of Nietzschean tradition, anarchism is all about exploration and excess. Rather than praise Islam for its alleged egalitarian qualities, he props up heretical Islamic sects like the Sufis, Assassins, etc. for how fucked up they were/are, as well as pirates, indigenous societies, societal deviants, witches, etc. Of course, he doesn't see these people and groups as moral saints but as examples of how far human behavior can push itself.

I've noticed that too and its disappointing. His little endorsement of S█████ bugged me.

Again, that too is part of his whole routine: he's not trying to teach a moral lesson, but explore things.

m8

>endorsement of [email protected]/* */
There.

Well it serves no other purpose. What's the point of rationalising that people are a result of their environment when the environment is everywhere? The only use of it I can see is to reassure yourself "People aren't bad, the environment is bad" when everything is telling you the opposite.

Don't say that bad is subjective, because otherwise you'd see no purpose to advocate for change.

...

Your post is 99% proof distilled cancer

Sent from my iPhone

Do you believe that "the environment" is constant and homogenous for all people at all times? Because that's the only way this response works.

...

Analytic philosophy serves no purpose as far as political action goes. Breaking things down and defining, defining, defining has very little real-world application. "Analytic Marxists" are likewise hardcore mechanical determinists who promote economism.

No it isn't, the environment is largely similar across western neoliberal countries and they are the ones who act as a power base for the global elites. The rest of the world is unimportant in this respect.

Thanks captain obvious for saving the day once more, but your powers might be more needed on reddit

He has said several times he wants more border control you fucking idiot.

He has also said he considers the European far-right to be a far more dangerous threat to European values than Muslim immigrants.

It's not "people aren't bad, the environment is bad"

it's "people are bad because the environment is bad, therefore you have to fix the environment to fix the people". It;s about recognizing the source of the antagonisms and fighting it there, rather than just being a reactionary.

And bad is subjective, the purpose for changes stems from my own desire to change it, not some spook about how things "should" be.

You're painting with a pretty large brush here. But even if this is true, you're holding on to an idealist image of a broad equality in western countries which doesn't actually exist. I'm not even sure if neoliberalism is an accurate word to use when describing the "important" countries you might be thinking of; or even what the important countries are…

But even if this is true. If you take the statement that "People aren't bad, the environment is bad" then doesn't it work equally the other way: "people aren't good, the environment is good"? Which brings us back to people being malleable. But it's not even like thinking that people are naturally inclined to be good is a controversial idea anyway.

Yeah, and what is wrong with that?

It's anti-human and anti-socialist.

If only it were that simple. This is a gross oversimplification of the human condition.

lol

This post was a mess. I hope you can make sense of it.

Well obviously, its a simplification designed specifically to parallel the initial statement for the express purpose of pointing out its flaws. Not a profound analysis of the condition of humanity.

He wants to use military resources to bring more people in safely, not to restrict them.

Correct. I also don't see why he's necessarily wrong when he complains about refugees refusing to register. In any country where social democratic welfare programs exist, you're only eligible if the government knows who you are. I've lived in southern California and knew undocumented immigrants who lived NOT off welfare (as they weren't eligible for it given their status) but off of shitty-ass jobs. They were terrified about being hurt in an accident because they weren't on Medicare and wouldn't be able to afford any healthcare. Being undocumented is a scary thing.

He sounds like Holla Forums.

...

...

Yes.

Fuck Zizek. Chomsky would never resort to the oppressive word salad Zizek dishes out.

100 YEARS OF WAR COMMUNISM NOW.

PERMANENT CULTURAL REVOLUTION UNTIL TOTAL PROLETARIAN VICTORY.

KILL EVERYONE.

SEND Holla Forums TO THE KILLING FIELDS.

Irony is not possible in a world were Henry Kissinger gets the peace nobel for bombing kids with napalm in vietnam

This honestly

And that's bad?

the what now?

Wait, there's people that took what Zizek said about Starbucks as actual praise??

It will protect our unions, thus it is pro-socialist you class enemy.

If you have the chance to read Marx, you'll notice a great use of Irony and Sarcasm in his writtings. I mean, "The Poverty of Philosophy" (lmao get rekt Proudhon), "The Holy Family" and even "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon" are filled with ironic and sarcastic points, which are usually found in the end of his argumentation.

People get "triggered" with Zizek using a "bad" word, a "bad" analogy, making a "bad" statement because they do not want to engage with his arguments. Just like they did with Marx.

The trashcan is real, and we are all eating from it.

Enaa Doug is that you? I like your YT channel.

Learn some socioeconomics, hippie!

Europaboos get out

Does this explain his pedophillia?

I dunno how word salad can be oppressive but I do agree it's word salad.

Of course, because Wilson isn't a moralist.

Americans tend to be pretty anti-intellecutal as it is.

Hot. The only interest we have in the family is the possibility of incest.

...

Are you implying there's anything wrong with pedophilia?

die

Mohammad please go

Well they also go apeshit over Chomsky, so…

Yep

Its kind of funny actually that out of his millions of videos that's the only time he is actually drinking Starbucks. But I saw the good folks at /marx/ think he was being serious.

degenerates…
degenerates all of you
Did you see actual children? They're not your typical asian cartoon lolis
WAKE THE FUCK UP, user!

I think that's what he's saying. He has lived in America, has British and American family members and friends, and has studied philosophy in English.

His only escape from the madness of the Anglo psyche is the sweet, sweet tune of a man with a stuffed nose making fun of feminists ironically.

Sniff

Well…yeah

I mean if they miss the point, they miss the point. Its like arguing South Park holds this or that political position without looking at a joke or a statement in context

Great arguments.

I'm not sure what this post is trying to imply.

Not really. Chomsky is a socialist whom your mother can love because he's essentially a one-trick pony whose main thing is reading off a laundry list of US crimes. Nothing all that subversive TBH.

GOOD point. I find it's always the died hard Chomsky fans who want everything written in boring English. And they are usually the ones who object to and misunderstand Zizek the most

I find Marx is so readable because of the way he writes and his use of supernmatural imagery and vampires and so on

To be fair, Chomsky's popularity with the Left seems to be dying, especially now that 1. we're seeing a rebirth of theory among Marxists and leftists coming out of continental tradition and 2. his (reluctant) support for Hillary has angered a lot of his "Bérnie or Büst" fans.

It's important to note that Chomsky's fundamentalist analytic philosophy really has zero real-world application. Occupy Wall Street, for example, was much more influenced by the ideas of Deleuze and Guattari (two PoMos) than it was Chomsky's moralism.

Chumpsky is some boring old jew who is like 1000 years old and will die any day now.
Zizek is the new hotness, the guy young people and pseud intellectuals can name drop to sound smart.
Zizek himself is a character, who knows how much of a put on that whole sniff and nose wiping shit it is, he certainly knows enough to exploit the media for fame instead of just being some unknown Slovenian philosophy professor.

Another thing is that chumpsky is american and america is devoid of philosophy to the point the absence of philosophy has become a philosophy.

And zizeks fame doesnt come with blind acceptance, a lot of people fucking hate him.

Like chumpsky

Americans have no intellectual culture. Chomsky himself sees all intellectuals as the spawn of the devil who are only there to deliberately confuse you and make you follow the status quo by default (I don't get it either TBH).

The thing about Americans is that they tend to be obsessed with short-term gains over long-term goals. Chomsky, for instance, desires a gradualist revolution where radicals make alliances with social democrats in order to reform the system out of existence. He's basically a modern Kautsky.

Philosophers need to be controversial, they need to be like professional wrestlers in a sense.
Wrestlers have something called a gimmick.
A wrestler will come to the ring dressed like a magician, his gimmick being he's the wrestling magician…
What are zizeks gimmicks, "and so on" "sniff" *nose wipe, looking like a slobbing mess who just got out of bed.
Challenging modern leftism and idpol to make mad all.

Its like cornel west, who is some crazy black guy who calls everyone brother.

Chomsky is just some boring guy normal people couldn't name.

I feel like its important for a philosopher to be part of the public consciousness and even pop culture, they start conversations, get people talking.

America should be seen as the new world, a place unexplored by philosophy, that should be exciting.

Instead americans dont care about philosophy and chumpsky will die the boring yawn fest he is

France and Germany put their philosophers on mainstream TV. You can find dozens of videos of Habermas being interviewed on German news or Badiou on French TV.

as i said, pro wrestling.
To get noticed in america you have to be a crazy fast talking clever fox

Zizke is good when it comes to trigger libtards tbh

forget flag

No he was critzeing the that consumption model and how it works ideologically

Chomsky also succeeded in preventing a strong rebirth of anarchism in the US. Compare with active anarchist movements in Spain, Greece, Italy, Chile who don't give a shit about Chomsky's writings. Chomsky turned anarchism from a radical anti-authoritarian movement aimed at social upheaval to a quasi-social democratic movement with little to no call to tear down societal institutions. In other words, Chomsky's anarchism is just the existing society without bosses, police, or bureaucrats.

No.

That's weird, this sounds suspiciously like something that isn't an argument

Who cares? Zizek is a shitty theorist.

All he does is critique the left in his talks. He virtually never critiques the right. He's actually always trying to redeem this or that aspect of the right.

At some point you have to wonder if he is even a leftist, let alone marxist.

I mean, i agree that he's anti-capitalist. But even aristocrats and neo fascists are anti capitalist.

Personally, i just treat him as a reactionary that is critiquing the left. I listen to his critique and try to improve the left based on them. Never, for a second, do i think of him as a comrade.

Neutrality and "irony" in the face of neo fascism is not a virtue. This is a time for clear statements.

Zizek is very popular with American leftists because irony is the driving force of counterculture here.

One of Chomsky's biggest reasons for opposing BDS (even though he claims he doesn't oppose it entirely) is that he still believes there are egalitarian elements present in Israeli society. He may claim Israel is "colonial" once in a while, but his general position is a blanket "Israel is no worse than America so why talk about dismantling Israel solely on the basis that it's colonial?" He doesn't realize Israeli society will NEVER be egalitarian as its very foundation is one of exclusion. For Chomsky to claim a one-state solution is off the table because it isn't "realistic" is just defeatism.

Such as?

Caitlyn Jenner is a hero of course ;^)

you hypercritical, opportunist, fake, phony, con-artist, sellout, lip serving, limousine liberal, white chicken-shit, mother-fucker
what's the matter? have i hurt your feelings already? can't you speak? can't you say anything? have you lost you voice all of a sudden? maybe you never had anything to say to begin with. has that occurred to you? well, let me tell you something, you are shallow and weak, you are constantly criticizing everything but the truth is you have never produced anything of any enduring significance and now your finding out just how inconsequential your opinions have been all along. you probably laughing right now but deep down inside you know it's not funny. are you even hearing me? or are you soo full of yourself that you imagine you can keep pandering to your multiple insecurities forever? you are so hypercritical, self absorbed and pathetic that i wonder sometimes just how much it takes to move you, god damn it. you love to complain about me in public but guess who you run to at the fist sign of trouble. God, you make me sick, as a matter of fact you've become soo cynical that it has become difficult for you to believe in anything without immediately finding it's potential for destabilization, why is anxiety making you do this? are you so worried about getting old, about seaming young, being yesterdays news, scrambling to keep up but always hopelessly out of touch? there is such a wide gulf between your self perception and actions that not even you can keep the contradictions from collapsing, let alone can you sell it to others. Do not tell me how this is typical of your generation and defiantly don't blame this on your parents. the high moment of irony is now officially over, so why don't you go get a drink or whatever it is that you do when you're trying to convince yourself that you're thinking

Stale pasta 0/10

If Zizek's biggest schtick is using irony and argument to critique capitalism and the left, that just makes him a neo-fascist, or at the very least, a person unqualified to speak for the left.

I will change my opinion if i hear a single clear criticism by Zizek of the neo-fascist right.

im so sorry this happed, sometimes i get carried away and speak without thinking. will you forgive me? i really don't know what happened, you just looked like you were in such a bad funk that i had to do something about it somehow. Even though I'm usually happy to shoulder the blame, both of us know that this time it's clearly not my fault. Obviously it's not the best approach to being helpful by criticizing and i know that you think i just love telling you what to do all the time but do try to see things from my perspective once in a while. You know it's not easy to make a genuine connection these days and it's not like i haven't been hurt in the past, i just feel that i have so much to give but sometimes you can be sooo full of resentment. Why is that? Perhaps i talk too much? maybe i come on a little too strong. Sometimes even i overreact. OK, ill be the first to admit this but the truth is that i can repeat myself over and over and over but for some reason you have seriously difficulties remembering anything that i say, if we're going to be in this relationship for some time we may as well begin working on this together now. It's not enough to turn me on once in a while, it's not enough for you to turn to me every time you need something. I also have needs, i need more from you, i need you attention, i need to know I'm been listened to, i need to know that I'm been understood but more importantly though i really need to know that im alive. I need to remember what it's like to hold breath under water, how smooth a stone from a river can feel in the palm of my hand. I need to revisit the route along which words used to speed to their meaning and then remember the first innocent thrill of pulling them and their precious cargo off track and finally i need you to stop pretending to care, to get off your ass and start acting like you do alright, this is not a lot to be asking for is it?

He has said several times that anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe is a bigger threat to European values than the immigrants themselves.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I don't think people even read his shit because he has literally always supported letting in refugees. He says it plainly multiple fucking times. What the fuck is wrong with these people

people be dumb ya feel.

Not reading books is how you discover who is a fascist and who is not.

You're talking to the wrong people buddy; everybody here either knows that or doesn't care.

not reading books is how you end up unable to communicate your thoughts.

Zizek never says this. Again, it's blatantly obvious (to me anyway) that his "critiques" of refugees are not critiques of the refugees themselves, but of the super-sappy behaviors and ideals of the current left.

Tell me more about Zizek being a neo fascist. I'm intrigued, really.

He doesn't actually say it "plainly". He wraps it in all sorts of reactionary and esoteric language including saying that openly that he doesn't like multiculturalism.

He says pretty plainly that he doesn't like "multiculturalism" because it's an artificial construction enforced from the top down that prevents people from organically creating normal social relations because of enforced racial or cultural gender roles.

I specifically remembered his argument was that there needed to be a degree of separation between the foreign Muslims and native population because of the difference in culture. "There are many things I don't understand about them [and vice versa]". I can't say if he argues in another place specifically what you're saying, but when I heard him verbatim say "I don't like multiculatrism. I do not think too much integration is a good thing" – that was his argument.

He's basically arguing for a mediator, similar to why Hobbes argued for a monarchy.

For fuck's sake, I think I'm past trying to take someone who said "The problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough" seriously as a thinker. I'm not sure if Zizek wants to be taken seriously or understood, otherwise he wouldn't write like he does.

Again, that's Zizek being deliberately contrarian/ironic.

Then you are a stupid leftist that doesn't understand nuance, and get's triggered when Zizek says ironic comments like "The problem with Hitler was that he wasn't violent enough", in the sense that he didn't challenge the capitalist system.

...

That's not nuance. It's the opposite of nuance – it's Zizek signalling how radical of a thinker he is that he can use a definition of violence that no one else does and say something completely retarded like "Ghandi was more violent than Hitler" and I'm supposed to think this is a profound statement. It's fucking stupid. I understood that "clearly Zizek doesn't think Hitler is actually good". I'm left wondering why he thought this was something worth saying in that particular way. But hey, I guess if the point of philosophy is to be controversial like the other user said earlier… then it makes perfect sense.

If we define violence as "worshipping a monotheistic God" then Pope Francis is more violent than Stalin. Brb I have to write a 800 page tome.

>>>/out/

Zizek's pitfalls are often used by Chomskycult to prop up their god-master even more.

You mean like what you just did?

No, I'm talking about people like these guys:
facebook.com/AuthoritySmashers/?fref=ts

Nigga I ain't touching that shit

They're an online radio show which hasn't been good since 2011.

But it used to be good?

Back in 2009-2010 they used to have cool guests on their show.

I think the problem is that Zizek has a balkan sense of humor that people misinterpret.

The point of philosophy is to, yes, be controversial. Or in other words, be a gadfly.

read Plato

If that's the point of philosophy then I can come up with an infinite number of statements no one else will agree with.

This is stupid.

But that's the trick of being good philosopher: it's not enough to simply controversial, you have to do it in a way that makes people reevaluate the world around them. Socrates, Descartes, Hume, Kant, and countless others are remembered today not because they were right, but because they were successful at getting people to think differently. And I think Zizek does a pretty decent job being this generation's gadfly.

So if I tricked people into believing falsehoods, it would still count because I got them to think differently?

...

...

this is literally how shitheads like you view philosophy

By exploring the conclusions of assertions?

Wew it looks like you've graduated to character attacks now

But you didn't point out any consequences to my statements, just took what I said and made a strawman out of it. You equivocated deliberately lying to people with philosophical enquiry, which has radically different aims and goals.

But let's tweak what you said a bit: if it turns out a philosopher was completely full of shit, and yet they still had a great influence on the theory of thought, are they still a great philosopher? And the answer is yes. Platonism is completely irrelevant to modern thinking; you're not going to find many people arguing for the theory of Forms. But then why do we still study him? Because his dialogues were, and still are, capable of causing people to reevaluate their beliefs, and because he was the first to impress on others the idea that an unexamined life is not worth living.

And these are?

Kek

Is it perhaps because he is less intellectual than his wordy speeches attempt to make him appear and is actually unclear on what he actually tries to say?

...