What is Sniffy talking about when he's talking about ideology? I tried googling it but all i get are shitty memes

>think the life sciences result in some sort of a quasi religion. I don't think that's a bad thing, actually I think that is great.

the irony of a brainlet like you calling anyone a charlatan

Nothing I said would let you know what I was talking about. So why are replying like you do?
It's almost as if you just want to toot your own horn enough that you will jump to whatever conclusion necessary to write a snarky reply. Fuck off.

in the Marxist sense

A set of beliefs that you've been forced into adhering to that work against your own self interests. For example, a poor person in America might tell you it's 'wrong' to tax the rich because they 'earned' their money, even though it would be in his material interest to have tax-funded education and infrastructure and social safety nets. Ideology can loosely mean internalized propaganda.

So things like "diversity is a strength" is ideology?

He's means ideology in Althusser's sense.
Look that up.

Perhaps in the dictionary sense, but in the Zizeknian sense not really. Zizek wouldn't agree that diversity is against anyone's self interest (except maybe the powerful). The idea that diversity is good stems from empathy.

Yes, and that shouldn't be surprising. SJW culture has since long abandoned all trace of left political phillosophy

>The idea that diversity is good stems from empathy.
I don't really see how that follows. Why does having empathy for people mean they need to come live in your country? iF you care about them cant you just send them money or something

true though

except me, i am a true thinker. :^)

> Zizek wouldn't agree that diversity is against anyone's self interest
But he has. He said it was bourgeoise nonsense

this but unironically

>The idea that diversity is good stems from empathy.
Or as a practicality from informed from the study of complex systems. That is were "diversity is good" really comes from. The problem is that most people who say "diversity is good" and likewise those who are discordant with that statement do not really understand the reasoning behind it.

The idea that "diversity is a strength" is pure ideology and is actually only proposed by the powerful to suppress the masses.

I think you misunderstand what diversity means in the sociological sense. Diversity doesn't simply mean forced mass immigration like a lot of right wing propaganda tells you. It means people that are different living together and tolerating each other. These differences could be ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical ability, religious beliefs and so on. Now, I do agree that the fetishization of diversity by liberals as an inherently good thing is bourgeoisie nonsense, but diversity isn't inherently bad, at the worst it's a distraction. But again, diversity isn't really against anyone's self interest besides people who have deluded themselves into thinking diversity is a bad thing. And as for the inevitable responses of diversity being against the interest of white people because it's genocide, I'm not going to entertain that fever dream.

i only meant it ironically ironically, that is to say, unironically

What about those studies showing that diversity decreases trust, and has all sorts of negative impacts.

there's also the elephant in the room where 'diversity' is considered, but let's just not go there today

How sincere of you

>The idea that diversity is good stems from empathy.
except it's faux empathy. diversity isn't necessarily 'good,' it's just that when you're already diverse, you can't really avoid it anymore, and it's in everyone's best interests to accept it. but that doesn't mean that it should be taken to its logical extreme - ie open borders, skin worship, representation at gunpoint, etc. arguing that it comes from empathy is the same neoliberal trap that gave us wonderful memes such as
>LGBT is about empathy
which led to
>giving your children hormone therapy is about empathy
and suddenly you have billion dollar pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries cashing out on what used to be a movement, and is now a marketable commodity. and at the end of the day, transsexuals are still killing themselves at at a 40% rate. and honestly i think that number will just increase

I'm sympathetic to the margins. However, diversity is a strength, whether of tactics or of representation, or whatever, is a shibboleth. I have read exactly 0 rigorous philosophical justifications of it. I am interested in one. Ecology is a possible source, however, the transposition of those ideas in socio-political ones always seem unconvincing to me.

>
(You)
I think you misunderstand what diversity means in the sociological sense. Diversity doesn't simply mean forced mass immigration like a lot of right wing propaganda tells you. It means people that are different living together and tolerating each other. These differences could be ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical ability, religious beliefs and so on. Now, I do agree that the fetishization of diversity by liberals as an inherently good thing is bourgeoisie nonsense, but diversity isn't inherently bad, at the worst it's a distraction.

Sure, but people are pretending like having different ethnicities together is an innately good thing, when it isn't. There is nothing to gain from forcing people to live together, and we see that ethnicities always auto-segregate, and that conflicts are less likely to arise whenever ethnicities are properly separated through borders.

What is next? Are we're gonna marry animals?

Correlation of diverse societies being low on trust isn't necessarily causation. I wouldn't be surprised if America, an extremely diverse country, was low on trust, but I believe that's because it's a hyper-individualist culture that stifles the growth of community and not because of diversity.

whoa, i don't know how that fuck up of text happened, but whatever.

>isn't necessarily causation.
you admit that it's a possibility though? I mean it is kind of common sense

Many have already answered you, but I think that guy clearly meant "diversity is our strength" in the sense that SJW movements use it, i.e, undermine the strong rather than emphatically put the weak to shape

>diversity harms the powerful
Imagine thinking this in 2018. You people are the reason rightcucks are going to win in the end.

>There is nothing to gain from forcing people to live together, and we see that ethnicities always auto-segregate, and that conflicts are less likely to arise whenever ethnicities are properly separated through borders.
I disagree that diversity has nothing to offer. I love being surrounded by people that are different. I stayed in Vermont for a while, the whitest state in American and honestly found it a little boring. Maybe this is a personal preference. Also I don't see why forced serration via borders is better than voluntary serration. There's no reason to force things if they'll happen voluntarily, and the non-forced segregation lets those who don't like it break from it.

They found the same in the UK:
academia.edu/3479330/Does_Ethnic_Diversity_Have_a_Negative_Effect_on_Attitudes_towards_the_Community_A_Longitudinal_Analysis_of_the_Causal_Claims_within_the_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Cohesion_Debate

The study suggests that this relation is most likely causal.

>Maybe this is a personal preference.
Nah, it's just pure ideology.

This is the most profound thing I of ever read on Veeky Forums
damn.....

>weakness is strength

I'm studying psychology in university right now and I promise you that correlation vs. causation scenarios always seem like common sense, super obvious, but often aren't. Of course it's a possibility but I don't think it is. I think that similar factors (that stem from capitalism) cause both distrust and diversity. It's like if stepped on someone's lawn and killed a small bug I couldn't see, and at the same time the owner of the lawn yelled at me to get off his lawn. I both killed the bug and angered the man, but the man isn't angry because I killed the bug.

What studies precisely say that?

But history is the story of constant ethnic warfare, how can you not think that putting ethnically diverse people together causes friction? All the most peaceful high trust societies are very ethnically homogeneous

That's like extreme mental gymnastics tbqh

Look at this, OP. This is pure ideology. Look at how he says (that stem from capitalism) to confirm his own ideology.
My God, i'm sniffing from just reading this post.

The forcing has already happened. The people said no, but tbe powers said yes and here we are.

Putnam

Didn't he actually hide the study for like five years because the result wasn't what he wanted?

Ideology are ideas which seek to affirm the current system and which derive from its normative acceptance.

Anything that portrays the current state of affairs as natural, inevitable, unchangable, this is ideology.

For example, when the Left makes a demand and ‘educated liberals’ say “be reasonable! That isn’t possible, it won’t pass, you need to compromise” and so on, but why? When it is said that politics is the art of the possible, what is truly meant isn’t that it’s the art of passing what small gain we can and bein content, it means that it is the art of creating what is it that is possible. The entire notion of the possible is a political position. Trying to exclude ranges of politics because of their lack of reasonableness is one example of ideology.

The images we are presented in advertising, which create in us an imagined but false ideal world, this is another form of ideology.

One of the most important things he has to say is that the function of ideology is to control or create desire. In the case of advertising it’s obviously to create desire for a the consumption of a commodity. In the regard Zizek points to Coke as being the ideological commodity par excellence, because it is a drink that ends up making you more thirsty, but because of their advertising, to the point of becoming part of the cultural order, it is still consumed.

In movies, books, tv, adverts, and embedded in our speech Zizek finds ‘symptoms’ of capitalist ideology, ideas and concepts that frame and structure how we see the world, but which are unknown to our conscious mind.

HOLD THE FUCK UP
Please, stop using diversity in the context of sociology. Sociology is a meme, there is nothing that makes a social system function differently than any other complex system with living agents. Biodiversity science and systems ecology offer lots of insights into diversity.
Let's consider the main way that diversity is considered good.
Diversity gives the agents of pattern formation more to work with.
This comes with a flip side, this mostly applies to patterns formed from diversity. Let's consider a new type of actor comes into a system, this can be seen as more diversity. This can have a positive results, as in the this new type of actor can relate to the system in a way that improves it's function towards it's orientation. What that orientation ought to be gets into ethics. This has a flip side, invasion, disturbance (which themselves aren't bad, this depends on orientation and ethics as well)
This is ignoring Abundance which is an often conflated and underappreciated relative of diversity. I won't get into that, I also don't want to get into networks and structure.
Just know that there are sciences dedicated to the investigation of such things

>he honestly thinks that people are suffering because they have to look at brown people on the subway and not because their wages are going down and their hours are going up
Now THAT'S what I call IDEOLOGY
Hey bro I said it was my opinion. It's no secret that I'm a socialist.

>that stem from capitalism
>trust me, don't assume without direct causal evidence, but it's probably le ebil capital

yeah he was very hesitant to publish and constantly looked for reasons why his study might be wrong

From an outside perspective the entire insitution of the humanities in the West seem like they're collectively insane

Yup. He wouldn't publish it until he found out something about how he could push diversity to be a good thing or how to "remedy" his findings. Why? Because of p u r e ideology.

The only thing it did was show how obvious the deleterious effects of diversity are.

>because they have to look at brown people
Wtf I love low iq hordes now!

capitalism can be alienating and oppressive, and people can be unhappy in diverse societies. no contradiction there

Socialism isn't supposed to be an ideology. It's supposed to be the real movement that abolishes the current state of things.

I don't know why a socialist would support diversity, though. You're just fucking over workers by importing new slave labor and abolishing any semblance of class consciousness. You're doing exactly what the neoliberals want.

Internationalism has been a staple of socialism since the beginning. It's meant to be for all people. Now I do realize that internationalism isn't really the same thing as 'diversity = strength' but socialism has no problem with diversity.

>I don't know why a socialist would support diversity
Adaptive capacity and reslience

Also, I don't see how I'm what neolibz want. I'm not saying that diversity is the answer to all our problems, but I don't believe that diversity is inherently bad, and I think socialists should stand up for minorities.

Oh sure, that's exactly the reason why they'd do so. Especially when there is no reason to do so unless your population is horribly inbred. In fact, it should be the middle East who gets some immigrants, because they are the ones that are fucking their cousins at a whopping rate of 50%.

Your answer smells like ideology.

I hate niggers but I can't stop masturbating to BLACKED porn. What do I do /r9k/?

Just keep fapping.

Except the distortion is the 'real' thing, it is 'more real than reality' as zizek would say

What do you mean by ecology then? And possibly a further question - how would anthropocentrism not be a feature of your ecological thought, if that is a claim you're gonna make, which i assume it is, since i assume zizek would be arguing against the possibility of that sort of thing
A lot of assumption, but maybe this is what you're talking abouf

Does internationalism imply the free migration of peoples?

Do you think that Sweden's social democracy is now doing better thanks to the hundreds of thousands of somalis it let move there?

>Smells like ideaology
>Talks about politics gene pool and immigrants
Let's me start off by saying you don't understand diversity at all.
That's actually all I want to say.
Here Is a decent review despite the crypto-anthropocentrism that plagues ecology.
annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.021103.105711

That's normal for /pol/acks don't worry.

>supporting them on immigration and borders while providing no meaningful opposition to anti-worker policies or the surveillance state
>totally not a useful tool for the neoliberals you guys

>I think socialists should stand up for minorities.
Is the only way to stand up for minorities to replace the majority?

>the corporations, gov't, universities, are all pro diversity
>"Diversity harms those in power"

Slavoj, The Sublime Object of Ideology:
>The crucial paradox of this relationship between the social effectivity of the commodity exchange and the 'consciousness' of it is that - to use again a concise formulation by Soth-Rethel - 'this non-knowledge of the reality is part of its very essence' : the social effectivity of the exchange process is a kind of reality which is possible only on condition that the individuals partaking in it are not aware of its proper logic ; that is, a kind of reality whose very ontological consistency implies a certain non-knowledge of its participants - if we come to 'know too much', to pierce the true functioning of social reality, this reality would dissolve itself.
This is probably the fundamental dimension of ideology: ideology is not simply a 'false consciousness', an illusory representation of reality, it is rather this reality itself which is already to be conceived as 'ideological' - ideological is a social reality whose very existence implies the non- knowledge of its participants as to its essence - that is, the social effectivity, the very reproduction of which implies that the individuals 'do not know what they are doing'.

But how can that be seen as "more than real", when it is basically a fragile pseudo-reality that relies on our ignorance to even exist?

No. It constitutes our reality. You can't experience reality without it.

But zizek says that "if we know too much", then it dissolves. How is that possible if we cannot experience reality without ideology?

Also if it permeates our experience of reality, then why is ideology seen as a dirty word in Zizek's works?

>99.99% of people aren't built to think

NIGGAZ IFFY UH ZIZZY GOT THE SNIFFY UH

“False consciousness” aka why aren’t the stupid fucking proles receptive to my beliefs

what the fuck is that thing

He did a similar thing with Buddhism lol
I was hoping to see Buddhists get BTFO but ended up annoyed with Zizek’s sophistry

Why do you want to see Buddhist btfo?

You can free yourself for brief moments when you think about it, but it ultimately can't be escaped. is o Even if you got rid of the current ideology of capitalism, you'd end up in a new ideology with new rules. It's a dirty word because it's a trash can from which we are always eating.

But if it's inescapable, then what does Zizzy suggest we do?

He doesn't suggest anything, even though everyone expects him to suggest something. You're on your own. I guess his position is that we should not act without a lot of thinking first.

Cruel and pampered

Yes you are

Because I like seeing holy cows get slaughtered. I don’t have any sustained problem with Buddhism, nevertheless, a critique would be interesting.

>I don’t have any sustained problem with Buddhism
Its doctrines, honestly followed to their logical conclusions, are basically immoral and even cruel. Zizek addresses this in one of his talks.

Not that anyone with half a brain doesn't already know this. My point is Zizek is cleverer than he can let on without losing his voice.

How are they immoral and cruel?

that's pussy nigga aka tekashi aka 6ix9ine

I mean from a Western/Christian point of view.
They cannot escape these conclusions:
>the self is an illusion, therefore personhood, the basis of our morals, is false
>any other system of morals cannot be defended because morality itself is only an illusion arising form certain misremembered faulty human conclusions based on already deceptive phenomena
>love should be evaded

>I mean from a Western/Christian point of view.
Sure, but that simply means you're judging one system of ethics by the values of a wholly different system of ethics. Buddhists could just as easily say that westerners are deluded.

All with an eye to reducing the suffering of all living things, however. All religious traditions advocate fasting and chastity, not out of a cruel wish to deny people pleasure, but to spare people the unhappiness of unrestrained appetites. Buddhism’s precepts, by its own assumptions, aren’t cold and arbitrary, but compassionate.

More lucid criticism would be of, as with Christianity, it’s life-denial.

>Sure, but that simply means you're judging one system of ethics by the values of a wholly different system of ethics. Buddhists could just as easily say that westerners are deluded.
No shit you fucking idiot. Point is, I don't plan on altering my system of morality. Do you?
>All with an eye to reducing the suffering of all living things
Because that makes it more palatable, obviously. I said take its doctrine to their logical conclusions.
>More lucid criticism would be of, as with Christianity, it’s life-denial.
If by lucid you mean worn out and spammed by every idiot who's read Nietzsche.

>I don't plan on altering my system of morality. Do you?
yes

>the self is an illusion
No it isn't, it's illusory :^) Always changing and in motion, yet it "exists". Just like a river exists.
>because morality itself is only an illusion
Morals are figured out by reason, in a way that respects all sentient beings.
>love should be evaded
Feel free to read a couple buddhist prayers/chants.

Great. Abandon your family and go live the life of a mendicant. Maybe they finally won't have to be reminded of their faggot pseud failure of a child lol

You were supposed to make him kill himself you brainlet. Why do I even keep you around?

>No it isn't, it's illusory :^) Always changing and in motion, yet it "exists". Just like a river exists.
That which is always changing doesn't exist as such and such. The self doesn't exist. Unless you mean the irreducible existence as an "experiencing" thing, which amount to tautology.
>Morals are figured out by reason, in a way that respects all sentient beings.
Except they aren't, hence the whole "reincarnation" karma nonsense
>Feel free to read a couple buddhist prayers/chants.
Feel free to go abandon your family and all sense of decency and call it an act of love

>Why do I even keep you around?
becuz you're mom gay