edit: Note how these statements read in conjunction with the known political commitments of both thinkers.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
If, on the other hand, you actually want to dialogue with Muslims, of this, that, or the other sub-persuasion, go ahead and do so. There are occasions in real life and online for that, if you are willing to seek them out. But that is not what Zizek or any other intellectuals of that sort are trying to do when they make such pronouncements for Spiegel, the Guardian, or the NYT. They are not actually trying to speak to Muslims, they are speaking, through the established ideological apparatuses, to Westerners who subscribe to either brand Xtianity or brand Enlightenment, or some combination thereof. Its a rallying call that confirms the audience in its own prejudices and self-complacency instead of a 'holding' of anyone to a set of standards.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
i bet slavoj zizek likes to fuck
Crow posted:what do you think about this point of zizek's: http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/11/wielding-clubs-guns-and-chainsaws.html?m=1
it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocent to be helped from a distance. to really respect them one should also get close enough to them to feel the spirit and smell the funk as Dr West would say.
a proper dialectical view of the situation is not one of simply an active aggressor and a passive victim. as psychoanalysis demonstrates, through transference, there can be some interplay between the parties without it being fully registered in the symbolic
it doesn't make the mob less racist or racism more acceptable , it doesn't change the fact that they should be condemned for their actions and inappropriate rhetoric, but it's not like the mob walked up to a group and attacked them without any provocation.
The_Boourns_Identity posted:Crow posted:what do you think about this point of zizek's: http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/11/wielding-clubs-guns-and-chainsaws.html?m=1
it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocent to be helped from a distance. to really respect them one should also get close enough to them to feel the spirit and smell the funk as Dr West would say.
a proper dialectical view of the situation is not one of simply an active aggressor and a passive victim. as psychoanalysis demonstrates, through transference, there can be some interplay between the parties without it being fully registered in the symbolic
it doesn't make the mob less racist or racism more acceptable , it doesn't change the fact that they should be condemned for their actions and inappropriate rhetoric, but it's not like the mob walked up to a group and attacked them without any provocation.
Hhahahahahahah Fuck you
tpaine posted:seinfeld, no no no no no cat, and a let's play satire? maybe the best thread ever?
I saw the seinfeld video in the op and was going to post "whats next, a shrek joke" and i saw a shrek joke embedded a few posts later.
The_Boourns_Identity posted:it doesn't make the mob less racist or racism more acceptable , it doesn't change the fact that they should be condemned for their actions and inappropriate rhetoric, but it's not like the mob walked up to a group and attacked them without any provocation.
it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocents.
But this is exactly what Zizek is doing: constructing an idealizing and condescending portrait of the Other to his audience, that of the poor, 'modest', misunderstood Slovenians racists (and note that only these can actually be real Slovenes within the scenario he is a painting). If you are to believe Zizek's account, the pograms and calls for ethnic cleansing made by these salt of the earth types are motivated primarily by only the most reasonable and sympathetic of motives (their kids have been hit by Roma children, stuff is stolen from the fields, etc), and that they lack the capacity to know what they are doing is wrong. The outsiders who fail to understand this are too privileged to understand, don't blame individuals blame the system man, etc. In other words, in order to defend some anti-Romani bigots from his homeland, he constructs an argument which mirrors to a T the straw-man liberal line that he rails against.
He is not abolishing a myth of innocence, he positing another in order to engage in special pleading for his favored constituency.
RedMaistre posted:it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocents.
But this is exactly what Zizek is doing: constructing an idealizing and condescending portrait of the Other to his audience, that of the poor, 'modest', misunderstood Slovenians racists (and note that only these can actually be real Slovenes within the scenario he is a painting). If you are to believe Zizek's account, the pograms and calls for ethnic cleansing made by these salt of the earth types are motivated primarily by only the most reasonable and sympathetic of motives (their kids have been hit by Roma children, stuff is stolen from the fields, etc), and that they lack the capacity to know what they are doing is wrong. The outsiders who fail to understand this are too privileged to understand, don't blame individuals blame the system man, etc. In other words, in order to defend some anti-Romani bigots from his homeland, he constructs an argument which mirrors to a T the straw-man liberal line that he rails against.
He is not abolishing a myth of innocence, he positing another in order to engage in special pleading for his favored constituency.
pretty sure that nothing short of actually including people from group a or group b in a discourse about them is going to be anything other than academic masturbation between bourgeois intellectuals, but that's never stopped us, so we will just continue to trade cumshots until the end of time. everything sucks, rip
drwhat posted:RedMaistre posted:it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocents.
But this is exactly what Zizek is doing: constructing an idealizing and condescending portrait of the Other to his audience, that of the poor, 'modest', misunderstood Slovenians racists (and note that only these can actually be real Slovenes within the scenario he is a painting). If you are to believe Zizek's account, the pograms and calls for ethnic cleansing made by these salt of the earth types are motivated primarily by only the most reasonable and sympathetic of motives (their kids have been hit by Roma children, stuff is stolen from the fields, etc), and that they lack the capacity to know what they are doing is wrong. The outsiders who fail to understand this are too privileged to understand, don't blame individuals blame the system man, etc. In other words, in order to defend some anti-Romani bigots from his homeland, he constructs an argument which mirrors to a T the straw-man liberal line that he rails against.
He is not abolishing a myth of innocence, he positing another in order to engage in special pleading for his favored constituency.pretty sure that nothing short of actually including people from group a or group b in a discourse about them is going to be anything other than academic masturbation between bourgeois intellectuals, but that's never stopped us, so we will just continue to trade cumshots until the end of time. everything sucks, rip
You were free and above it all until you chose to speak. But now look where you are.
Welcome to the Party
RedMaistre posted:it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocents.
But this is exactly what Zizek is doing: constructing an idealizing and condescending portrait of the Other to his audience, that of the poor, 'modest', misunderstood Slovenians racists (and note that only these can actually be real Slovenes within the scenario he is a painting). If you are to believe Zizek's account, the pograms and calls for ethnic cleansing made by these salt of the earth types are motivated primarily by only the most reasonable and sympathetic of motives (their kids have been hit by Roma children, stuff is stolen from the fields, etc), and that they lack the capacity to know what they are doing is wrong. The outsiders who fail to understand this are too privileged to understand, don't blame individuals blame the system man, etc. In other words, in order to defend some anti-Romani bigots from his homeland, he constructs an argument which mirrors to a T the straw-man liberal line that he rails against.
He is not abolishing a myth of innocence, he positing another in order to engage in special pleading for his favored constituency.
don't we encounter something similar when talking about anti-semitic rhetoric coming from arab critics of Israel?
in fact I made the same argument you are making now when talking about how the left and all supporters of Palestinian liberation from zionist aggression needs to take an unequivocal stance against anti-semitism and not brush off as "well of course they are anti-semitic because of their experience with an occupying terrorist force identifying as "Jewish" and their lack of education and inability to articulate a proper narrative free of anti-semitism"
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/12295/
RedMaistre posted:Also: Who looks at a pogram and thinks: its the rioters armed with clubs and chainsaws that need to be defended here?
in a similar light, who can look at Israel's continuous assault on the Palestinians, their apartheid state and ethnic cleansing policies and think that they need to be defended?
Well, I think nothing makes the wanton slaughter against Palestinians justified, but if we actually want to work towards a better solution we MUST recognize how anti-semitism plays directly into the zionist ideological justification for the occupation and we must be honest enough to admit that "kill all the jews" rhetoric coming from the more extreme elements in the resistance CANNOT be tolerated because, well, let's be honest, that sort of language requires a TRIGGER WARNING when talking about direct descendants of holocaust victims.
We must fully embrace the impact that the holocaust has had on the Jewish community in Israel and agree to be sensitive about it before going onto to unequivocally condemning the occupation.
It's not unlike the way the American south still needs to have our collective noses held down to the enormous poop on the carpet that is the legacy of slavery and jim crow. White people can never understand the depth of race relations in the south until they stop trying to "get over it" without properly acknowledging it.
The least helpful thing to do is just pick a side and go balls to the wall while shunning anyone trying to reach an open hand to the opposition to start a process of exchange and dialogue.
Same thing in psychoanalytic therapy, there must first be transference with the analyst before there's any hope of overcoming unconscious trauma.
Edited by The_Boourns_Identity ()
The_Boourns_Identity posted:RedMaistre posted:it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocents.
But this is exactly what Zizek is doing: constructing an idealizing and condescending portrait of the Other to his audience, that of the poor, 'modest', misunderstood Slovenians racists (and note that only these can actually be real Slovenes within the scenario he is a painting). If you are to believe Zizek's account, the pograms and calls for ethnic cleansing made by these salt of the earth types are motivated primarily by only the most reasonable and sympathetic of motives (their kids have been hit by Roma children, stuff is stolen from the fields, etc), and that they lack the capacity to know what they are doing is wrong. The outsiders who fail to understand this are too privileged to understand, don't blame individuals blame the system man, etc. In other words, in order to defend some anti-Romani bigots from his homeland, he constructs an argument which mirrors to a T the straw-man liberal line that he rails against.
He is not abolishing a myth of innocence, he positing another in order to engage in special pleading for his favored constituency.don't we encounter something similar when talking about anti-semitic rhetoric coming from arab critics of Israel?
in fact I made the same argument you are making now when talking about how the left and all supporters of Palestinian liberation from zionist aggression needs to take an unequivocal stance against anti-semitism and not brush off as "well of course they are anti-semitic because of their experience with an occupying terrorist force identifying as "Jewish" and their lack of education and inability to articulate a proper narrative free of anti-semitism"
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/12295/
Truly all have sinned
But the point is that these types of rationalizations and counter-rationalizations-'such-such group X hates group Y because of what Y has done against them'-'Well, but long suffering Y is just doing this because its afraid of X' -are distractions from the main issue in both in the case of the pogram directed against the Strojans and the Israel-Palestine conflict. The accusatory exculpations cancel each other out, and only revel that on each side of every conflict, excessive, pathological, and irrational passions will be found, without giving us a basis to judge anything in particular.
What is not canceled out is that it is the Israelis who are occupying Palestine not the Palestinians Israel; and that it was not the Strojans, not their neighbors, who were driven from their homes. What Zizek is doing here is derailing recognition of that fact by trying to keep the conversation on the level of proper understanding of the Other-which is ironically exactly what he is criticizing 'liberals' of doing.
There is a place and time for that type of cultivation of general sympathy-but it can't be raised in opposition to justice as a way of deflecting or invalidating unequivocal judgments-which is precisely what Zizek (and the far right commentators who have virtually the same line on 'multiculturalism') are doing when they ask us to pause for a moment to reflect on the feelings of bigots.
The_Boourns_Identity posted:RedMaistre posted:it's a good point, he's consistently critical of liberals who want to patronize or idealize the Other as some exotic naive innocents.
But this is exactly what Zizek is doing: constructing an idealizing and condescending portrait of the Other to his audience, that of the poor, 'modest', misunderstood Slovenians racists (and note that only these can actually be real Slovenes within the scenario he is a painting). If you are to believe Zizek's account, the pograms and calls for ethnic cleansing made by these salt of the earth types are motivated primarily by only the most reasonable and sympathetic of motives (their kids have been hit by Roma children, stuff is stolen from the fields, etc), and that they lack the capacity to know what they are doing is wrong. The outsiders who fail to understand this are too privileged to understand, don't blame individuals blame the system man, etc. In other words, in order to defend some anti-Romani bigots from his homeland, he constructs an argument which mirrors to a T the straw-man liberal line that he rails against.
He is not abolishing a myth of innocence, he positing another in order to engage in special pleading for his favored constituency.don't we encounter something similar when talking about anti-semitic rhetoric coming from arab critics of Israel?
in fact I made the same argument you are making now when talking about how the left and all supporters of Palestinian liberation from zionist aggression needs to take an unequivocal stance against anti-semitism and not brush off as "well of course they are anti-semitic because of their experience with an occupying terrorist force identifying as "Jewish" and their lack of education and inability to articulate a proper narrative free of anti-semitism"
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/12295/
Ah yes good point, Roma are very similar to zionist white supremacists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziLxZT0zId8
To love thy neighbor is to accept that awful other including their radical alterity, and consciousness that this disgusting aspect of the neighbor that makes them so repulsive to us is precisely the significant aspect within ourselves being reflecting from outside.
It's the same with the effect of transference in the psychoanalytic setting, which is why Zizek is correct in his claim that it is in Christianity that we find a secret radical core that is revolutionary and nature and offers a liberating potential.
Chesteron, G. K. - Orthodoxy posted:But if the divinity is true it is certainly terribly revolutionary. That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever.
Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point--and does not break.
In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt.
It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God.
And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay, (the matter grows too difficult for human speech,) but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist. These can be called the essentials of the old orthodoxy, of which the chief merit is that it is the natural fountain of revolution and reform; and of which the chief defect is that it is obviously only an abstract assertion. Its main advantage is that it is the most adventurous and manly of all theologies.
tldr: Christianity is the right path for revolutionary emancipatory politics for the same reason psychoanalysis is the right treatment for authentically overcoming internal contradictions rather than simply patching them up from one side or the other like cognitive behavioral therapy or psychopharmacology
Edited by The_Boourns_Identity ()
The_Boourns_Identity posted:that sort of language requires a TRIGGER WARNING
Catchphrase
getfiscal posted:chesterton seems to argue that religion is true because you need a little bit of fairy tales in your life which, to be fair, is an argument that convinces many billions of people.
and that argument is real in the way that zizek says that there is reality within fantasy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuG8ElyirC0
The_Boourns_Identity posted:and that argument is real in the way that zizek says that there is reality within fantasy
everyone knows that.
The_Boourns_Identity posted:if i'm gonna have any imaginary formations they damn well better be the correct ones
you numbskull!!!!
getfiscal posted:the imaginary is what structures our concept of truth but it isn't random. read a dang book!
are you so far down the rabbit hole that you can't read irony?