 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 160 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613408 Today 0 Topics 127499 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We live in an extraordinary era in which there is no tradition on which we can base our identity, no frame of meaningful universe which might enable us to lead a life beyond hedonist reproduction. Today’s nihilism – the reign of cynical opportunism accompanied by permanent anxiety – legitimizes itself as the liberation from the old constraints: we are free to constantly re-invent our sexual identities, to change not only our job or our professional trajectory but even our innermost subjective features like our sexual orientation. However, the scope of these freedoms is strictly prescribed by the coordinates of the existing system, and also by the way consumerist freedom effectively functions: the possibility to choose and consume imperceptibly turns into a superego obligation to choose. The nihilist dimension of this space of freedoms can only function in a permanently accelerated way – the moment it slows down, we become aware of the meaninglessness of the entire movement. This New World Disorder, this gradually emerging world-less civilization, exemplarily affects the young, who oscillate between the intensity of fully burning out (sexual enjoyment, drugs, alcohol, even violence), and the endeavour to succeed (study, make a career, earn money . . . within the existing capitalist order). Permanent transgression thus becomes the norm – consider the deadlock of sexuality or art today: is there anything more dull, opportunistic or sterile than to succumb to the superego injunction to incessantly invent new artistic transgressions and provocations (the performance artist masturbating on stage or masochistically cutting himself, the sculptor displaying decaying animal corpses or human excrement), or to the parallel injunction to engage in more and more ‘daring’ forms of sexuality? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The only radical alternative to this madness appears to be the even worse madness of religious fundamentalism, a violent retreat into some artificially resuscitated tradition. The supreme irony is that a brutal return to an orthodox tradition (an invented one, of course) appears as the ultimate ‘prodding’ – are the young suicide bombers not the most radical form of corrupted youth? The great task of thinking today is to discern the precise contours of this deadlock and find the way out of it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's a tricky one, I'll grant you Žižek, not least how to faithfully type your surname. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
only the furry fandom can save our identity and sexuality |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Is the basic characteristic of today’s subjectivity not the weird combination of the free subject who experiences himself as being ultimately responsible for his fate, and the subject who grounds the authority of his speech on his status as a victim of circumstances beyond his control? Every contact with another human being is experienced as a potential threat – if the other smokes, or if he casts a covetous glance at me, he already hurts me. This logic of victimization is today universalized, reaching well beyond the standard cases of sexual or racist harassment – recall, for example, the growing financial industry of paying damages, from the tobacco companies’ deal in the USA and the financial claims of the Holocaust victims and forced labourers in Nazi Germany, to the idea that the USA should pay African-Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for all they were deprived of due to slavery. This notion of the subject as an unresponsible victim is driven by an extreme narcissistic perspective in which every encounter with the Other appears as a potential threat to the subject’s precarious imaginary balance; as such, it is not the opposite of, but rather the inherent supplement to, the liberal free subject. In today’s predominant form of individuality, the self-centered assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as a victim of circumstances. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was going to do the diacritics except it always looks fucked up in the zilty index view |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I know, sorry, that wasn't a dig. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Indeed! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
chapo's house philosopher indeed capitalism is truly the worst society to have, but the conclusions he draws from this predicament are just boomerist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
could you expand on that please biggie |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that we're leading these empty lives, in the first quote. that's just what Plato said about today's youth, too (Zizek's not just talking about youth, but boomers aren't just old people either) that he reduces id pol in the second quote to 'victimhood'. i'm sceptical about id pol, but not really actually: id pol is about bringing down unjust hierarchies like patriarchy and racism. only if it's done stupidly, it's devolves into 'cancelling' and other sectarian behaviours and victimhood |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
about the first quote and what i'm saying here: i agree with the social disease he's diagnosing. but i'm almost hearing this old fashioned judgment. he doesn't fully word it, but still he should do better, somehow |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fair enough mr biggles. I won't reply to your points or say what I think of him yet because I want to get a read on him from youse guys not derail the thread |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
^_^ this might be the first i've read of him, and i'm not without prejudice. it was a better read than i'd expect. (second quote made me angry though, per usual when it goes into id) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
imagine being a combination of heidegger and lacan |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wait jesus is that really him, he sounds like fucking jordan peterson |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah that's what struck me. I have to laugh that this is the guy they got to debate Peterson on Marxism. For a Marxist he's weirdly ahistorical, and isn't interested in cause and effect or material conditions. Like Peterson he has the boomer quality of not seeing beyond tip of his nose, supposing that any talk of suffering he doesn't personally experience must be pointless fluff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i always fear people are secret centrists, but of course tony doesn't agree with zizek yeah, peterson won't debate someone that actually knows the stuff, like (the ) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wolff is great. I do think though that the dirtbag left has a point about how capitalism uses progressive values as a beard to distract from deeper structural issues. - however the act of criticizing this sets up a fight between progressive and reactionary camps, which is also a distraction. And I'm sure Goldman Sachs would rather have their critics, both right and left, yelling at their pronoun policy than criticizing the investment bankers' business of wealth skimming and the government policies that enable it, how that determinesh both domeshtic and foreign polishy and sho on *schniff* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we're seeing this maxim 'racism is used by the ruling class to divide the people' playing out now in real time (i once got some downvotes on reddit for calling out ableism on zizek imitations, but i'll let this one slide, also because it isn't mean) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
racism etc |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
such 'pronoun policies' imply an ultimately conservative conception of gender anyway 8) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Indeed! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
An interesting stupidpol about an article by Amber Frost. Shots fired, points made. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
come on feet, cruise for me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you mean zizou |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but how did you feel when we were young? :?* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Zizek always looks like he smells of cheese and onion crisps and not in a good way |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he looks like he found the cheese and onion crisps by rooting around in garbage |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He looks like smoking one of his million daily cigarettes will make him break out in a sweat. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol have u seen his missus? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I like that meme pic I had of J. Peterson and Zizek on skype chat i like em both but anyway that pic was funny. Heh, i'm thinking about it now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
have you read 12 Rules for Life, what did u think |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*sniff* and so on and so on |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
, on chapo, as a matter of fact |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what is a chapo even do people really still listen to podcasts |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
is he implying that leftists don't know about selfdestructive lost souls because ohh boy good on him for shitting on solzhenitsyn tho |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hm, I want to check out Varlam Shalamov now. Zizek |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
they're dirtbag left (maybe invented the term as well?) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
respect on Varlam Shalamov's name |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but apparently Zizek's been cancelled it *is* a lefty problem that they primarily cancel their own Zizek could well be a gateway to decent leftwing stuff. and maybe he's been with this debate with Peterson (that no lefty watched, i just read some reviews on how cringe it was) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah i mean, i understand who they are in theory. in practice i'm not sure why they would be people anyone would care about. also not sure why anyone would need to cancel zizek, guy's always been a bit of a reactionary huckster. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm a bit dirtbag as well as a bit sjw. i'm quite special |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no one on the left is ever pure enough for anyone on the left. shuck the cum from my freshly fucked pooshy, and sho on |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
probably right about the reactionary tendencies |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or being reactionary 'pure enough', i don't know. a lot of people just aren't really left. (and/but it's not that lefty people are better. more educated though, probably) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the huckster part is more damning imo also i'm not sure what purity has to do with anything. it's just, the podcasters and the zizeks are commodities, entertainment for hip progressives, i don't know what effectual politics can be wrangled out of them. but i guess it is cool that petit bourgeois centrist left have learned to talk like baader meinhofs or whatever. not that it matters, in typical lumpen/petitbourgeois fashion myself i have no hope for a better future and am just trying to find a comfortable enough social nook to hide in until i die. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Whoever despises himself nonetheless respects himself as one who despises." - Nietzsche |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, everyone likes Nietzsche |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, maybe he displays some problematic masculinity stuff. i'll have to look into that some time (i did just google and it gets hits) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
