Quoted from the very end of the video https://www.youtube.co

no thoughts?

Interesting quote. So does zizek mean that say, the liberal or sjw crowd, when they talk about how is: Africa's contemporary and ongoing failure is the legacy of colonialism, it really means that the sjw is "internalizing" or harbouring closet feelings of desiring being the top race on earth?

I guess that would make sense given that white liberals love feeling like a white savour and white feminists love speaking on behalf of every woman's experience rather than separate ones unique to different ethnicities and classes.

Or something. Maybe I went off topic..

Idk. I tend to feel zizek is full of shit often but that's compelling

>>35302287
Zizek hates multiculturalism, so yeah, he probably does.

>>35302287
>the sjw is "internalizing" or harbouring closet feelings of desiring being the top race on earth?
More like he's saying they are uncomfortable with the world not revolving around white people, period. This is why he's also skeptical of the African charity programs. He thinks liberals don't Africa to succeed OR fail without white involvement. Everything in the world must fly or die due to white people. They have themselves to praise as the white savior, and they have other white people to blame for the rest of the world's problems, but all the other races have to remain helpless dolls who can't ever do anything good or bad for themselves.

>>35303486
Wow fuck. I actually saw discussion earlier of people arguing that muslim american people leaving america to fight with Isis are doing so because of imprinted american exceptionalism. It was american values which made them feel like they could influence that part of the world

File: ziz.gif (202KB, 852x480px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 852x480px

>>35304041
Zizek is a leftist, but he can be insightful about liberal psychology.

Cool just watched the vid. Bump

>>35303486
>More like he's saying they are uncomfortable with the world not revolving around white people, period.
>>35304041
>I actually saw discussion earlier of people arguing that muslim american people leaving america to fight with Isis are doing so because of imprinted american exceptionalism. It was american values which made them feel like they could influence that part of the world

fascinating discussion and two fascinating posts.

>>35304922
Full speech, if you're interested and ever have time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwYLaX5_ZQA

This is a very good, and much shorter, video, about his general views on capitalism as distinct from most people on the left
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

>>35305583
It is, and I think another good point he made in a speech about racist jokes (not in that specific video), is racist humor as opposed to the standard liberal approach. To Zizek, comfort with racist humor is a sign of actual integration--for instance, Irish descendents in America today are not going to flip out if you make a joke about them being Irish (even though historically the Irish suffered a great deal of racist violence), and that is a sign of integration. Zizek asserts that multiculturalists making a constant issue about racial humor promotes a perpetual cultural tension, which prevents integration (he has also contended that multiculturalists don't want integration at all, because then they cease to feel like they are part of a dominating culture; they need other cultures within their country to stand up for so they can be "the good dominator").

>>35305797
interesting
>>35305585
I watched the second video his way of thinking is very thought provoking. I enjoy his commentary. Post more interesting videos

>>35305873
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-0VMnFmnL0

This relates a lot to what Zizek means when he says "ideology" (which he says a lot). To Zizek, almost every ideological concept is linked to a conscious or subconscious image or fantasy or nightmare, and that we fundamentally operate ideologically on that level.

>>35306335
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4WAXQJyxCo

>>35305873
Say something more interesting than "interesting."
For example:
>>35305797
We have seen and commented on this in many a thread before, that feminists are now invented imaginary oppression because what happens when they actually get what they want?
They cease to have a purpose and cease to receive pay for fighting for it.
This is blatantly true for parasites like Sharpton.

>>35306504
>We have seen and commented on this in many a thread before, that feminists are now invented imaginary oppression because what happens when they actually get what they want?
If take feminism as ideology (and I mean that in Zizek's term), they can't get what they want because feminism becomes an integral part of their femininity. If were no struggle against patriarchy, they'd ceases to be women as they conceive of women. Their very idea of woman is "subordinate to man", id est, "oppressed by man". It is really to obverse side of the coin of extremely submissive women, they still need to be ruled by men in order to feel like women, but their incarnation of women is going to be the rebel.

>>35301792
nope

>>35306504
samefag here you want me to write more than "interesting" well lol I hope you're ready.


Feminists in my view use their ideology not so much as a way of spearheading an era where their grievances have been answered. But as an intellectual outlet for their angst and hatred for men. They merely use feminist theories and literature as a vessel to berate men. If feminists were to be successful and get what they ask for as you posed; they wouldn't have anything to hide behind anymore. They have deluded themselves into legitimizing and rationalizing their hatred for men via "patriarchy". Patriarchy as you said is merely a figment of their imagination. Paulo Freire and Frantz Fanon touched on the subject of attacking the closest person who resembles your "oppressor" in their books. I believe that feminists at the core of themselves have extrapolated bad experiences with a few men on the entire male gender. Instead of having the bravery of confronting whatever internal and irrational ways of thinking which is their true "oppressor" they attack the entire male gender through "patriarchy" instead.

I cited Fanon and Freire because they argue that during colonial times people under colonialism would often attack and murder the people among them who identified with their colonizer since reaching their true "enemy" was difficult.

Zizek is great, but pol is far too retarded to have any sort of worthwhile discussion.

>>35306885
You're late.

>>35300173
I like Zizek, but I think he's a crypto-Stalinist honestly. Even though he has good points, I can't help but feel suspect everytime I hear him deride the West.

>>35300173
I'd tell Zizek that a lot of this SJW stuff is just a long line of rich white people leveraging blacks over poor whites. If you actively hated blacks, that meant you were poor enough that they'd be a problem for you, or you were a butthurt Confederate. This shit is as old as "Uncle Tom's Cabin"

Its a uniquely upper-class American fixation that got exported to Europe via the New Left.

>>35306931
I don't quite agree that feminists hate men. Aside from the rare Solanis, women seldom hate pathologically. Love and hate for women is very social, they do it for peer confirmation. So where feminists do hate men, it's very superficial, and more baggage that comes with the subculture.

Now, if you mean a super bad experience with a man, like getting violently raped, yes, that could induce pathological hatred, but I don't think most feminists have had worse experience with men than the average woman has had.

Part of the female identity is subordination, that's cultural, there's really no way around that. And women chose that as much or more than men ask it of them. Feminists are conscious of this and reject to idea of servitude, but at the same time dearly value their feminine identity--they want to have their cake and eat it too, to use the cliche. So on one hand they embrace subordination, they revel in it, but on a superficial level they atone for this guilty pleasure.

>>35307022
No he isn't see the second video here
>>35305585

>>35307116
>No he isn't

The guy has a picture of Stalin in his apartment. Why would you ever have such a thing if you didn't like the guy?

>>35306335
i love this.

> it is naive to think people feel weak so they compensate by playing video games to feel strong

>people actually have an identity and due to social constraints can't be that way so they seek environments they can actualize their identity. like video games

>>35307170
Er, have you seen the Vice interview?

>>35307199
Yes I have. What's your point? He can try to evade it by saying it's an ironic joke that the picture is there, but if he had a picture of Hitler instead of Stalin, you yourself would be singing a different tune wouldn't you ?

I think you would.

>>35307171
There is a fundamental difference between the weak-strong dichotomy and the identity disorientation issue. One is about feeling empowered, the other is about feeling like "the real you" that you've been taught is you deep down for so long.

People keep saying, "My best years are ahead of me." What they mean is, "One day I will be the person I've been taught I really am." Of course, that day will never come, and they don't realize that until they're dying.

Fun Fact: Zizek plagiarized a book review of "The Culture of Critique" from American Renaissance.

>>35300173
I watched 15 seconds before I closed tab.

Euphoric word salad shit.

>>35307241
Not really, considering Zizek went to India and made a joke (to and Indian guy) about Gandhi being a pederast and carrying his staff as a dildo in case he couldn't find boys.

He is extremely, intentionally, politically incorrect.

>>35307282
Actually, no, not really. What he was doing is quoting a type of thinking he had a problem with, he wasn't presenting it as his point of view; he argued against it. They called it plagiarism, but that's quite silly.

>>35307096
I see. A part of the hatred feminists have for men in my view is a deep rooted desire for them to want to be men. They want to be us. Lena Headey the actress who plays Cersei in GOT says she believes her character doesn't fuck her brother because she loves him. She fucks him because deep down she wants to be him. Maybe feminist antagonism towards men is a indirect manifestation of their desire to be us? I mean seriously think about it. These women spend years complaining about all the privileges men have. I don't think it's farfetched to assume they want those privileges. One that comes to mind is their hatred for 'slut-shaming' as they put it. How a man's sexual endeavors are never scrutinized like how a woman's are. I've heard so many women i've spoke to over the years tell me "you know anon, I really wish I could be a guy for a day. Having a dick seems so amazing."

Mind you im not saying all women are like this.

>>35307457
>A part of the hatred feminists have for men in my view is a deep rooted desire for them to want to be men. They want to be us.

Why would you ever believe what Freud said? Everything was dick envy, and Oedipus complexes with him.

Cocaine riddled idiots shouldn't be the authority on psychoanalysis.

>>35307276
People are fucking weird man

>>35307457
Some feminists want to be men (like Solanis), but those ones tend to emulate male culture (I had a girlfriend like that, but she was quite attractive despite it). I think that a feminist who strives to be a part feminine culture, wants to be a woman, but she feels guilty for wanting that (I've also had a feminist gf like this, and she was extraordinarily sub in bed and liked me to say abusive things--she told me she was like that in bed because she need a "break" from being so "strong" out of it all the time, but I don't really buy it).

There's not a unified psychology. Probably a mixture of both, and perhaps many others.

>>35304041
this is true though... most muslims from the west go for the same reason. Most guys were into hiphop and rap, highly individualistic music, before buying into ISIL.

>>35307514
>Why would you ever believe what Freud said?
I don't. Read the rest of what I said though. I think it supports my point of view.

>>35307608
Hip hop and rap don't teach you that you can go and make a difference in the Middle East.

Young guys join the ISIS because it has an extremely well funded propaganda machine that knows how to appeal to certain demographics.

>>35307622
>Characters created in a TV-show should be the authority on female psychology

That's even worse than Freud.

>>35307655
TV used to be shit for female psychology, but since women got more and more involved in the industry, it's now a lot more likely to involve female fantasies and psychology, even if the women a part of it are only thinking things subconsciously. If you wrote a lot for TV, or were involved in how characters acted a lot, or anything like that, it would probably be possible to get an idea of your fantasies by reviewing all of your work closely.

>>35307591
what exactly is a solani btw?
>There's not a unified psychology. Probably a mixture of both, and perhaps many others.
fair enough

>>35304041

I have seen the case made before that it is Westernized Muslims that are the most dangerous, though not for exactly the reasons it sounds like you're talking. This is more like how almost all suicide terrorists have Western educations in hard sciences.

"When someone lives all their life in a Muslim country, they're not likely to be hit with the urge to travel abroad and blow something up. But when someone from an Islamic nation goes to Europe for college, and comes back with Enlightenment ideas about reason and seeking logical closure over beliefs, and applies them to the Koran, then you have troubles. They have lost their cultural immunity."

http://lesswrong.com/lw/18b/reason_as_memetic_immune_disorder/

>>35307799
Solanis is the woman who wrote The SCUM Manifesto. She believed that gender roles were reversed from how they should be properly biologically, and that women are concrete thinkers who were assertive and strong, whereas men are weak and diffident naturally, but we were socialized backward.
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
Some of it almost sounds like she's trying to be funny, (men suffer from "pussy envy"), but when questioned she says it is "dead serious".

File: c518ac7bbec3b5061660cec0c38d785be26c0ff6de8b4d82835718bd9b199610.jpg (18KB, 240x260px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x260px

>>35307655

>>35306946
That's not actually true, but there are very limited windows.
When only the alcoholic philosophers/politicians are awake and not blackout stage.

The kids are asleep.
Time for /pol/ to be really naughty and discuss shit like adults.

>>35307869
silly argument. Muslims have reason lol. There isn't a monopoly for reason and critical thinking just for European and American societies lol. This shit is more political than it is anything else.

But there are also a lot of people on the right who blames all their problems on their imperialist manipulators just look at the truth movement.

>>35307276
Explain in greater detail.
If we weren't trying to explore ideas I'd just say the shit you said was stupid, but hey, let's go for it.