RedMaistre posted:A veritable perfect storm of self-plagiarism and Sorelian dog whistling.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity
i think we should take a cue from the URL here and refer to him as -i-ek in the future
Edited by RedMaistre ()
http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/89871/topless-activist-inspires-frances-new-marianne-stamp
Stamp doesn't even look like her....
Edited by RedMaistre ()
Panopticon posted:If they were really ‘equal-opportunity offenders’ relentlessly satirising anyone and anything without any thought for taste or morality, their next issue will be of this type, a ruthless mockery of the victims. We never liked them anyway, or something like that. It wont happen.
Yeah that should definitely be the next cover unless they can come up with a better joke. Maybe rip off this guy if "draw first" is an idiom in French.
i knew he'd come around
Barbarossa posted:I cast racism at the darkness
glomper_stomper posted:
scale this down and tile it as the background on tHE r H i z z o n E front page
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/index.html
Panopticon posted:someone spent more than 5 mins in mspaint
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/france-begins-jailing-people-ironic-comments
getfiscal posted:nocho in CNN... my gods....
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/19/opinion/charlie-hebdo-noam-chomsky/index.html
that link has no info on chomsky (wtf nsa?) but heres a link lol
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/paris-attacks-show-hypocrisy-of-wests-outrage/
and criticism of chomsky of course https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AtcVsZl5rE
jiroemon1897 posted:the twist is that by going "beyond" race to be "inclusive" (but still definitely rightist) they drop a little racism in the short term to expand fascism in the long term; reminds me of marine le pen courting tokens a few months ago. a limited amount of racial "integration" into the reaction has always been necessary to uphold empires, a la the ottomans, and colonies, like most of latin america, but in the west this hasn't been the case, domestically speaking. seeing a similar shift within the epicenters of empire is telling of demographics and the adaption both neoliberalism and fascism are willing to take to survive. they get the same thing done in a much more practical way by extending the idea of "french" or "good ol' american" just enough. places like colombia have been doing the whole "multiracial" fascism thing for a while, but it's now solidly the trend for america too.
and the most blatant example:
I agree caring about hebi meta politics is pointless, (NSBM is basically fascism's anime communism)
BUT Panopticon kicks ass AND isn't idiotic. I mean the band, not the poster.
Ma ma
Mia!
RedMaistre posted:le_nelson_mandela_face posted:RedMaistre posted:That was not surprising coming from Zizek, but it does summarize the general logic by which anti-capitalist thought is being mobilized for the war effort against the specter of Islamic wizardry. As SZ sums it up: "Liberalism needs the brotherly help of the radical Left."
This is the rhetorical form of popular frontism without any corresponding social content, since what is at stake is no longer social rights, democracy, or the self-determination of the colonized but standing up for "core values", the Enlightenment brand.they believe that they are standing up for those things, though. they believe islam is a threat to democracy, social rights, and foreign peoples. the point to be made is that this is largely right-wing talking point nonsense and pointing the finger away from our own, greater complicity
I am sure this "they" exists, but Zizek is not one of them. A constant theme of his thought is a fash argument against democracy as a latently "totalitarian" illusion of those lacking philosophy (and he means all forms democracy, from its liberal representative form to the people's democracy of actually existing socialism).
As for the possessions of social rights (right to health benefits, housing,etc).
Zizek take regarding all that is to replace the welfare state with the authentically "Communist" and "utopian" demand to be allowed to work for free:
"Pink identifies three elements underlying such intrinsic motivation: autonomy, the ability to choose what and how tasks are completed; mastery, the process of becoming adept at an activity; and purpose, the desire to improve the world. Here is the report on a study carried out by MIT:
"They took a whole group of students and they gave them a set of challenges. Things like memorizing strings of digits solving word puzzles, other kinds of spatial puzzles even physical tasks like throwing a ball through a hoop. To incentivize their performance they gave them 3 levels of rewards: if you did pretty well, you got a small monetary reward; if you did medium well, you got a medium monetary reward; if you did really well, if you were one of the top performers you got a large cash prize. Here's what they found out. As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected the higher the pay, the better their performance. But once the task calls for even rudimentary cognitive skill a larger reward led to poorer performance. How can that possibly be? This conclusion seems contrary to what a lot of us learned in economics which is that the higher the reward, the better the performance. And they're saying that once you get above rudimentary cognitive skill it's the other way around which seems like the idea that these rewards don't work that way seems vaguely Left-Wing and Socialist, doesn't it? It's this kind of weird Socialist conspiracy. For those of you who have these conspiracy theories I want to point out the notoriously left-wing socialist group that financed the research: The Federal Reserve Bank. Maybe that 50 dollars or 60 dollars prize isn't sufficiently motivating for an MIT student - so they went to Madurai in rural India, where 50 or 60 dollars is a significant sum of money. They replicated the experiment in India and what happened was that the people offered the medium reward did no better than the people offered the small reward but this time around, the people offered the top reward they did worst of all: higher incentives led to worse performance. This experiment has been replicated over and over and over again by psychologists, by sociologists and by economists: for simple, straight-forward tasks, those kinds of incentives work, but when the task requires some conceptual, creative thinking those kind of motivators demonstrably don't work. The best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table. Pay people enough, so they are not thinking about money and they're thinking about the work. You get a bunch of people who are doing highly skilled work but they're willing to do it for free and volunteer their time 20, sometimes 30 hours a week; and what they create, they give it away, rather than sell it. Why are these people, many of whom are technically sophisticated highly skilled people who have jobs, doing equally, if not more, technically sophisticated work not for their employer, but for someone else for free! That's a strange economic behavior."
This "strange behaviour" is, in fact, that of a Communist who follows Marx's well-known motto: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - this is the only "ethics of gift" that has any authentic utopian dimension."
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/08/14/3567719.htm
TL; DR: Abreit Macht Frei
Zizek has often derided anti-colonial struggles by people of color under the general rubric of being redolent of slavish resentment (unless, as in the case of his praise of Haiti, he can construe it as emanation of cutting edge metropolitan whites ) and the Judaic deceitfulness of multiculturalism. At the same time he chides leftists for criticizing America.
That he viewed the Ukrainian color revolution as a blow for freedom should tell us with sufficient clarity what he thinks those much praised values of liberty and equality mean.
owned.
Crow posted:Gotta protect my white supremacist music by sussing out the various shades of its Nazi content.
Ma ma
Mia!
Most of these things apply to me. I thought I was depressed but I might be a jihadist.
libelous_slander posted:not one word
lol
le_nelson_mandela_face posted:why do people still teach their kids French? one day little Tommy may need this to negotiate an arms deal somewhere in Africa
at least i didnt catch the autism, must be from all the typing they do.
Crow posted:RedMaistre posted:le_nelson_mandela_face posted:RedMaistre posted:That was not surprising coming from Zizek, but it does summarize the general logic by which anti-capitalist thought is being mobilized for the war effort against the specter of Islamic wizardry. As SZ sums it up: "Liberalism needs the brotherly help of the radical Left."
This is the rhetorical form of popular frontism without any corresponding social content, since what is at stake is no longer social rights, democracy, or the self-determination of the colonized but standing up for "core values", the Enlightenment brand.they believe that they are standing up for those things, though. they believe islam is a threat to democracy, social rights, and foreign peoples. the point to be made is that this is largely right-wing talking point nonsense and pointing the finger away from our own, greater complicity
I am sure this "they" exists, but Zizek is not one of them. A constant theme of his thought is a fash argument against democracy as a latently "totalitarian" illusion of those lacking philosophy (and he means all forms democracy, from its liberal representative form to the people's democracy of actually existing socialism).
As for the possessions of social rights (right to health benefits, housing,etc).
Zizek take regarding all that is to replace the welfare state with the authentically "Communist" and "utopian" demand to be allowed to work for free:
"Pink identifies three elements underlying such intrinsic motivation: autonomy, the ability to choose what and how tasks are completed; mastery, the process of becoming adept at an activity; and purpose, the desire to improve the world. Here is the report on a study carried out by MIT:
"They took a whole group of students and they gave them a set of challenges. Things like memorizing strings of digits solving word puzzles, other kinds of spatial puzzles even physical tasks like throwing a ball through a hoop. To incentivize their performance they gave them 3 levels of rewards: if you did pretty well, you got a small monetary reward; if you did medium well, you got a medium monetary reward; if you did really well, if you were one of the top performers you got a large cash prize. Here's what they found out. As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected the higher the pay, the better their performance. But once the task calls for even rudimentary cognitive skill a larger reward led to poorer performance. How can that possibly be? This conclusion seems contrary to what a lot of us learned in economics which is that the higher the reward, the better the performance. And they're saying that once you get above rudimentary cognitive skill it's the other way around which seems like the idea that these rewards don't work that way seems vaguely Left-Wing and Socialist, doesn't it? It's this kind of weird Socialist conspiracy. For those of you who have these conspiracy theories I want to point out the notoriously left-wing socialist group that financed the research: The Federal Reserve Bank. Maybe that 50 dollars or 60 dollars prize isn't sufficiently motivating for an MIT student - so they went to Madurai in rural India, where 50 or 60 dollars is a significant sum of money. They replicated the experiment in India and what happened was that the people offered the medium reward did no better than the people offered the small reward but this time around, the people offered the top reward they did worst of all: higher incentives led to worse performance. This experiment has been replicated over and over and over again by psychologists, by sociologists and by economists: for simple, straight-forward tasks, those kinds of incentives work, but when the task requires some conceptual, creative thinking those kind of motivators demonstrably don't work. The best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table. Pay people enough, so they are not thinking about money and they're thinking about the work. You get a bunch of people who are doing highly skilled work but they're willing to do it for free and volunteer their time 20, sometimes 30 hours a week; and what they create, they give it away, rather than sell it. Why are these people, many of whom are technically sophisticated highly skilled people who have jobs, doing equally, if not more, technically sophisticated work not for their employer, but for someone else for free! That's a strange economic behavior."
This "strange behaviour" is, in fact, that of a Communist who follows Marx's well-known motto: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - this is the only "ethics of gift" that has any authentic utopian dimension."
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/08/14/3567719.htm
TL; DR: Abreit Macht Frei
Zizek has often derided anti-colonial struggles by people of color under the general rubric of being redolent of slavish resentment (unless, as in the case of his praise of Haiti, he can construe it as emanation of cutting edge metropolitan whites ) and the Judaic deceitfulness of multiculturalism. At the same time he chides leftists for criticizing America.
That he viewed the Ukrainian color revolution as a blow for freedom should tell us with sufficient clarity what he thinks those much praised values of liberty and equality mean.owned.
Further Ownage http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/11/wielding-clubs-guns-and-chainsaws.html?m=1