thephilosophicalsalon.com
>The stance that sustains these tweet rejoinders is a mixture of self-righteous Political Correctness and brutal sarcasm: the moment anything that sounds excellent is perceived, a reply is automatically triggered—usually a PC commonplace.
>triggered
NO ONE CAN STOP THIS MADMAN
21 century communism is on the rise
Has he responded to another literally Reddit post?
Zizek has lost his mind.
Based
He actually responded to another Lacanian's criticism.
...
BASED AS FUG
Best part wasn't even in the article, which was a tidal wave of autistic freudo-lacanian gobbledygook.
Article aside, I can't believe this is the picture they use for his profile.
What's this face trying to convey, Holla Forums?
face of a person who just binge-watched Hanneke's entire oeuvre
...
Absolute ideology
where was this?
this is hilarious. two paragraphs about the sjws followed by an essay on lacan, sexual differency, phallic signifier etc.
Why is he sweating under his boobs
One of us one of us one of us
He's old
And bitches say Žižek is transphobic…
His tone changed a lot from the initial article where he wrote: "transgenderism – I'm against it". And he did obviously conflate gender and sexuality also.
Thousand yard stare plus computer-weary bag under the eyes.
This is a man who has lost all hope and now exists only to punish himself with the overbearing burden of a reality that betrays his every wish.
No.
Great argument. 10/10.
I'm not arguing with you. You didn't even cite him.
I'm not him, sweetie, just a random user. Usually, when you disagree with someone, you say why you disagree with them: the quote is out of context, his position hasn't changed, he obviously didn't conflate gender and sexuality, etc.
tl;dr
women with dicks men with vaginas
I did cite him. I literally quoted him and told you where to find the quote (the initial article)…
And also when he wrote: “the multiplicity of gender positions (male, female, gay, lesbian, bigender, transgender, …)”. Yes. His critics were clearly right here. He conflares gender and sexual preferences. There could not be a clearer example of this.
And my reply stands, you didn't quote either Žižek nor the other. But as you say there is a 'why', the cause, I speak more to the 'wherefore', the ends. What strikes Americans as so frustrantingly provincial about the North Carolinian law (which, it's difficult to remember, began his whole discussion) was how precious little it said about society today. For Žižek there's always a point to reveal the false subjectivizations inhered in the supposedly tolerant inclusion of a liberal's ideological mysticism. But the problem is not that transgendered people feel segregated, rather the so-called "guardians" of transgenderism, patronizing liberals, miss that an anxiety is at the most rudimentary condition for the part of our symbolic, social identity.
Except for the fact that you just paraphrased, if you can call it that, and put it into quotes. If you think that was his message then you should reread the article.
Well it's basically all nonsense. But I do want to say that I did misquote him. The "transgenderism I'm against it" thing came from a talk he gave a few months ago. But I do think im still right about the tonal shift in the article itself; for example, he did back away from the slippery slope of gay marriage/bestiality argument. And he did conflate gender and sexuality and in this second response says he didn't conflate "gender and sex" which is not what critics alleged in the first place.
Not really.
source?
I had a lot of trouble pronouncing that in my head.
And the answer to this should always be, FUCK OFF!
Do whatever you want in your bed room and leave politics out of it.