drwhat posted:that picture of him reading it is photoshopped, i'm almost entirely sure
imo though, getfiscal is correct, context is important, and this is simplified bullshit to divide the left against a popular speaker who is able to engage people. i am sure i will get a bunch of shit about this, but that is really what it feels and looks like
drwhat posted:that picture of him reading it is photoshopped, i'm almost entirely sure
Its all real. He refers to it in the Q&A
Did anybody hear the content of their exchange, and perhaps remember enough to post about it?
I am so happy to see this haha
u3nMKN3akt8
marimite posted:https://twitter.com/fivek/status/734581780523716608Did anybody hear the content of their exchange, and perhaps remember enough to post about it?
Statement on #Zizek speaking at #LeftForum2016
In April, I had correspondence with the program coordinator of Left Forum regarding my concerns about Zizek being headlined. Marcus Graetsch said he would pass along the racist, antisemitic, misogynist, xenophobic, and of course, sourced Zizek quotes I provided to the board. After following up for comment several times with no reply, I printed out some flyers with just a few of the Zizek quotes I sent organizers to pass out to the audience before they heard him speak. Not everyone knew who he was going in, so I thought it best to inform them about who he was rather than them describing him as a “rockstar” and “Elvis” from the podium. I joined others - mainly women and people of color - who had come to protest his presence by handing out flyers and heckling him from the audience. I like to think that Left Forum is a space where women, people of color, refugees, Reds - and, of course, debate - are welcome.
Amy Goodman spoke last night about the Klan and how it's on the rise again in the US. The Left must ask ourselves how this happens. I wish Ms. Goodman had stuck around for the Zizek talk to witness what happened next. When we heard Zizek on stage last night vigorously defend white people using the N-word against descendants of people brought to this country in chains, still plagued by Bull Connor racism, as "antiracist” — it was not only an incredibly low moment for Left Forum, but also indicative as to how the Klan in the US and the far right in general has made such progress.
When I stood up at Q&A, the LeftForum live stream was cut. My question, directed at the organizers of Left Forum, was how much they paid a man who publicly said and wrote such racist, misogynist, and xenophobic things. I also read Zizek’s own words back to the audience, many of whom were disgusted. I hope video comes out of what happens next, as I listened to Zizek’s white fans insist they could, as Zizek and the moderator reassured them from the podium, call black people hateful slurs. Generations of people died so that charlatans like Zizek and his fans would no longer be able to use that word, but now Left Forum has given him a platform to encourage hatred against people of color, women and refugees. To add to the censorship of this debate, posts regarding Zizek’s shameful performance have been wiped from Left Forum’s Facebook page this morning.
We would all like to know the real story - why Left Forum used community money to bring a man to New York to say such things. If they think right-wing demagogues sell tickets, then we should all look forward to seeing other speakers such as Alex Jones, David Duke, and Tom Metzger closing Left Forum in the future. All they need to do is call themselves Marxists first.
drwhat posted:zizek was however walked out on and booed etc, so whether or not that exact flyer was circulated, that seems to be the popular idea now.
imo though, getfiscal is correct, context is important, and this is simplified bullshit to divide the left against a popular speaker who is able to engage people. i am sure i will get a bunch of shit about this, but that is really what it feels and looks like
Yes, that was the other flyer that was circulated. And yes, you're going to get shit because the people he engages are white fanboys who come away thinking that they are able to call black folk n----r.
MarianneSadd posted:In what context do you feel those quotes would be acceptable?
Very carefully!
MarianneSadd posted:In what context do you feel those quotes would be acceptable?
none, but this presupposes he wd become Actually Good if he just stopped with the potty mouth. i doubt paul mason or molly crabapple ever called anyone a friend of the family
Monday, May 23, 2016 — Adam Kotsko
Slavoj Zizek needs to stop writing political columns. He is not good at it. Some readers are still making heroic efforts to construe his political columns positively, but if you need a supporter to write a 2000+ word defense of your pithy political intervention — indeed, if most readers construe it as meaning the opposite of what is intended — then you are doing it wrong.
Those heroic defenses — a genre to which I have contributed in the recent past — generally ask that the reader situate Zizek’s political column or interview or whatever within his vast theoretical apparatus, which has been growing at a rate of at least 500 pages per year for the last couple decades. Demanding hundreds of hours of labor from your reader before you can extract a worthwhile point out of an opinion column is not how political interventions are supposed to work. If your point requires a certain theoretical context in order to make sense, then you should not publish your point without that context.
Leaving aside the question of whether Zizek’s opinions about the refugee crisis or whatever else are “correct,” we must also pay attention to the form of his interventions. How do they function politically, concretely speaking? Let’s look at their real-world effect rather than fantasizing about what it would be like if the powers that be somehow implemented his program or he were dictator. I don’t know how we can conclude that they are anything but an utter failure. They do not prompt discussion of the actual issues at hand, but instead turn all attention to how we are to assess Slavoj Zizek the individual — is he a Eurocentric Islamophobic racist? And even if we grant that he’s not, the very fact that the question is coming up constantly indicates that there is a failure of presentation.
Yet it appears that he takes every such accusation as an occasion to dig in his heels further on his stupid South Park-style contrarian “provocations.” So we’re dealing with political interventions that utterly fail to get their point across and instead prompt an increasingly negative referendum on Zizek — apparently causing a feedback loop where he insists all the more on his ineffective presentation (again, construing his intentions as charitably as possible).
The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to stop. He needs to stop writing these opinion columns, and his friends need to stop writing apologetics and start writing him e-mails begging him to just stop, before he completely destroys his reputation and legacy.
MarianneSadd posted:Would not the most radical political intervention for Zizek be precisely to STOP?!
Monday, May 23, 2016 — Adam Kotsko
Slavoj Zizek needs to stop writing political columns. He is not good at it. Some readers are still making heroic efforts to construe his political columns positively, but if you need a supporter to write a 2000+ word defense of your pithy political intervention — indeed, if most readers construe it as meaning the opposite of what is intended — then you are doing it wrong.
Those heroic defenses — a genre to which I have contributed in the recent past — generally ask that the reader situate Zizek’s political column or interview or whatever within his vast theoretical apparatus, which has been growing at a rate of at least 500 pages per year for the last couple decades. Demanding hundreds of hours of labor from your reader before you can extract a worthwhile point out of an opinion column is not how political interventions are supposed to work. If your point requires a certain theoretical context in order to make sense, then you should not publish your point without that context.
Leaving aside the question of whether Zizek’s opinions about the refugee crisis or whatever else are “correct,” we must also pay attention to the form of his interventions. How do they function politically, concretely speaking? Let’s look at their real-world effect rather than fantasizing about what it would be like if the powers that be somehow implemented his program or he were dictator. I don’t know how we can conclude that they are anything but an utter failure. They do not prompt discussion of the actual issues at hand, but instead turn all attention to how we are to assess Slavoj Zizek the individual — is he a Eurocentric Islamophobic racist? And even if we grant that he’s not, the very fact that the question is coming up constantly indicates that there is a failure of presentation.
Yet it appears that he takes every such accusation as an occasion to dig in his heels further on his stupid South Park-style contrarian “provocations.” So we’re dealing with political interventions that utterly fail to get their point across and instead prompt an increasingly negative referendum on Zizek — apparently causing a feedback loop where he insists all the more on his ineffective presentation (again, construing his intentions as charitably as possible).
The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to stop. He needs to stop writing these opinion columns, and his friends need to stop writing apologetics and start writing him e-mails begging him to just stop, before he completely destroys his reputation and legacy.
Wow that guy sounds like a whiner. Imagine that guy fighting in the jungle... What a dimwit.
littlegreenpills posted:you dont have to grab quotes out of context and point to naughty words to explain that zizek is a turd imo
littlegreenpills posted:MarianneSadd posted:In what context do you feel those quotes would be acceptable?
none, but this presupposes he wd become Actually Good if he just stopped with the potty mouth. i doubt paul mason or molly crabapple ever called anyone a friend of the family
i understand what you're getting at but as someone who is working (honestly!!) on his own critique of Slob-boy Jizzsack and has therefore been doing an unhealthy amount of reading, listening to and transcribing of his words, i have to say those quotes are really not out of context. the real problem with Hairy Borat the Philosopher Stoned is that he consistently frames these kinds of outrages as very important considerations liberals/leftists need to make because reasons, and then instead of explaining the reasons proceeds to yet another anecdote or pop-culture analogy which turns out to be completely unrelated. all we're left with is the impression that saying nigger and complaining about rapefugees is cool and edgy left wing behaviour rather than the protonazism it clearly is
there is a systemic problem of the same kind in his writing more generally - of recasting right-wing anticommunist talking points as criticisms from within the left - but it is most visible when he talks about race/immigration and frankly most problematic because the issue is immediate and urgent. besides, his thousand tiny slanders against Actually Existing Socialism will not greatly concern the average left-forum-attending trot, let alone a guardian reader
Edited by Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia ()
MarianneSadd posted:Would not the most radical political intervention for Zizek be precisely to STOP?!
Monday, May 23, 2016 — Adam Kotsko
Slavoj Zizek needs to stop writing political columns. He is not good at it. Some readers are still making heroic efforts to construe his political columns positively, but if you need a supporter to write a 2000+ word defense of your pithy political intervention — indeed, if most readers construe it as meaning the opposite of what is intended — then you are doing it wrong.
Those heroic defenses — a genre to which I have contributed in the recent past — generally ask that the reader situate Zizek’s political column or interview or whatever within his vast theoretical apparatus, which has been growing at a rate of at least 500 pages per year for the last couple decades. Demanding hundreds of hours of labor from your reader before you can extract a worthwhile point out of an opinion column is not how political interventions are supposed to work. If your point requires a certain theoretical context in order to make sense, then you should not publish your point without that context.
Leaving aside the question of whether Zizek’s opinions about the refugee crisis or whatever else are “correct,” we must also pay attention to the form of his interventions. How do they function politically, concretely speaking? Let’s look at their real-world effect rather than fantasizing about what it would be like if the powers that be somehow implemented his program or he were dictator. I don’t know how we can conclude that they are anything but an utter failure. They do not prompt discussion of the actual issues at hand, but instead turn all attention to how we are to assess Slavoj Zizek the individual — is he a Eurocentric Islamophobic racist? And even if we grant that he’s not, the very fact that the question is coming up constantly indicates that there is a failure of presentation.
Yet it appears that he takes every such accusation as an occasion to dig in his heels further on his stupid South Park-style contrarian “provocations.” So we’re dealing with political interventions that utterly fail to get their point across and instead prompt an increasingly negative referendum on Zizek — apparently causing a feedback loop where he insists all the more on his ineffective presentation (again, construing his intentions as charitably as possible).
The only way to stop this vicious cycle is to stop. He needs to stop writing these opinion columns, and his friends need to stop writing apologetics and start writing him e-mails begging him to just stop, before he completely destroys his reputation and legacy.
i saw this on The Twitter and thought it was pretty much right and i shut up about zizek, though i will still read his crap occasionally to see what's in there
A group (incl discipline) confronted zizek and are bringing the heat on left forum and a whole other bunch (incl baby Finland & dead Ken) insulting them nastily, that's what I can see
Also the former group are 'tankies' but there seems to be at least one other social circle of people with the same outlook who will almost never mix with each other except to insult, seems strange to me.
Might be better off not knowing more but am curious
Ufuk_Surekli posted:pick your side weekly
xipe posted:Could someone explain the various Twitter cliques?
A group (incl discipline) confronted zizek and are bringing the heat on left forum and a whole other bunch (incl baby Finland & dead Ken) insulting them nastily, that's what I can see
Also the former group are 'tankies' but there seems to be at least one other social circle of people with the same outlook who will almost never mix with each other except to insult, seems strange to me.
Might be better off not knowing more but am curious
Baby Finland mostly actively avoids discussing stuff about discipline because his weed-addled brain is too focused on making it rain and honouring God. Which seems like a good policy. We all pray that one day he'll stop smoking and praying and focus on the struggle for revolutionary socialist politics.
Personally I think discipline is just having fun and trolling, it seems unlikely anyone really believes that there is a real campaign within the left to rehabilitate racial slurs, although some of the people cheering her on seem to have serious mental disorders like maybe sluggishly-progressing schizophrenia. Discipline is way smarter and better than the people with news articles connected with string on their walls though so it'll all work out.
xipe posted:Could someone explain the various Twitter cliques?
A group (incl discipline) confronted zizek and are bringing the heat on left forum and a whole other bunch (incl baby Finland & dead Ken) insulting them nastily, that's what I can see
Also the former group are 'tankies' but there seems to be at least one other social circle of people with the same outlook who will almost never mix with each other except to insult, seems strange to me.
Might be better off not knowing more but am curious
i'm glad somebody asked
glomper_stomper posted:who cares
*raises paw*
swampman posted:There seem to be a lot of truly insane people on Twitter. It's not a healthy website to visit
Wonder could communists develop a 'line' for sites like Twitter, fb, dnd, reedit etc I'm order to get the most out of them without wasting energy or giving to much info to NSA or doxxers?
xipe posted:swampman posted:There seem to be a lot of truly insane people on Twitter. It's not a healthy website to visit
Wonder could communists develop a 'line' for sites like Twitter, fb, dnd, reedit etc I'm order to get the most out of them without wasting energy or giving to much info to NSA or doxxers?
It's a question that's been raised before, but nobody ever has concrete ideas. What specifically would you want to accomplish with smarter use of Twitter?