This two represent Veeky Forums and /pol/...

stop posting

they both support trump, whats to discuss? Milo is just IRL shitposter anyway
youtube.com/watch?v=b4vHSiotAFA

literally who?

He really doesn't support Drumpf. Zizek believes Sanders will baby sit that moron for four years.

Why does he keep rubbing his nose?

What is wrong with this retard?

He is too woke.

*sniff*

Zizek is a burnt-out meme and /pol/ hates Milo

Zizek will literally say anything to get attention. In every topic, his opinion is whatever will give him more fame.
But i didn't expect more from an obscurantist continental.

So why aren't you voting Trump? Genuinely curious.

I'm not american for starters

That aside, do you actually believe that Trump is some sort of freedom fighter?

Irrelevant to the comments. And I'm not american.

>...In the Yugoslavian national army, we a saying, it went "the harder they fuck you in the ass the harder you feel it." Therefore it is my conclusion that capitalism must perish.

>Moderator: Milo, how would you like you respond to that?

>Suffice to say in the bars I hang out in getting fucked in the ass isn't something that most people would want to put an end to. But I must add a caveat. The cocks must be BLACK

*Crowd goes wild*

No, but do you believe that Clinton is going to make America better?

I'm not american either, but I don't think any progress will be achieved if any of this two run the country.

So what you suggest is for Americans to waste their vote to thirds parties?

>So why aren't you voting Trump?
Trump is a memelord surrounded by Republicans, Clinton is a SJW Republican, if you are a left-winger then you're not neither of them has any use for you. Instead one can vote third party, draw dicks on the ballot or stay at home.

She won't do anything, Hillary's role is to be what the last 4 president were, a figurehead. Leave it to /pol/ to redflag MUH GLOBULISM and MUH 10 GORILLION IMPORTED MUSLIMS

>Clinton is a SJW

Clinton is a corporate money warrior.

That type of thinking is exactly why you're in a cancerous two-party system where both parties just fuck you in the ass and you think you're making a decision by voting for one over the other. Voting isn't about following some astute political strategy, it's about expressing your opinions and desires. The only reason it's "wasting your vote" is because people think it is. If people actually voted like they wanted to and wasn't told this shit by cynical fucktards then maybe the country would be closer to some kind of democracy.

So are Republicans.

I can get what he's saying. Essentially, Trump won't be able to actually get anything done, he'll be super incompetent/unpopular, and there'll be a insurgence in real left-wing politics (rather than the corporate center-right bullshit of the current Democratic party). Whereas Hillary will just lead us down the same path we've been walking for a good half-century now, with little in the way of true resistance, and continue America's slow death.

>voting for third party candidates
>not taking advantage of the primary system to shoehorn in random people that the two parties want nothing to do with

How do you think Trump is running?

At least be fair and put Molymeme (or Evola) on the right

>Trump won't be able to actually get anything done, he'll be super incompetent/unpopular
>
The more a president is some sort of retarded cowboy the more americans love him. And trump is well over roosevelt, reagan and bush on the retarded cowboy scale.

not an arguement

I would argue that he's rather unpopular even as we speak, he only has a chance because Hillary is almost as unpopular.

If you combine his existing reputation with his promise to default on government debt and potentially crash the world economy, then he'll be the most hated man on the planet.

Molyneux already got his sissy asshole ravaged by Big Gnome Cock

not an arguement

>spend all day making videos whining about leftists
>interview chomsky
>smile and nod while he bashes american "libertarianism"
To be fair, i think it's impossible to win an argument against chomsky, might as well not try.

>Noam Chomsky
>professor of linguistics, MIT
>Stefanie Manure
>youtuber

Trump got in because the RNC wasn't anti-democractic enough like the DNC and Trump had the media on his side. Now the RNC is going to be sure something like that doesn't happen again. This election has ruined the Democratic Party's legitimacy while Trump has ruined the Republican's and they're both just going to continually lose more and more influence.

>i think it's impossible to win an argument against an actual academic when you're a retard like Molyneux
ftfy

Milo isnt even close to the same level of Zizek. Milo is a pure sensationalist republican fuckboy. Zizek is an intellectual. Fuck you for even making this comparison.

It seems like I might get some static for posting this but I find Zizek kind of interesting. I've only really looked at his philosophy in respect to religion, but nevertheless it was interesting.

>russian

>Mongolian tapestry internet bulletin

Anyone remember Foucult vs Chompsky?

>You exist within a regime of truth, and so do i.
Foucault: " . . . the proletariat doesn't wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just. A group makes war with the ruling class because, for the first time in history, it wants to take power. And because it will overthrow the power of the ruling class it considers such a war to be just."
Chomsky: "Yeah, I don't agree.thats not just"
Foucault: "One makes war to win, not because it is just."

Holy shit.

That was gayer than his sado-masochistic orgies.

Neither are wrong. One does wage war to win, but Chomsky is saying one should only do it for just reasons.

Foucault is wrong though.
> CHOMSKY: I don’t, personally, agree with that. For example, if I could convince myself that attainment of power by the proletariat would lead to a terrorist police state, in which freedom and dignity and decent human relations would be destroyed, then I wouldn’t want the proletariat to take power. In fact the only reason for wanting any such thing, I believe, is because one thinks, rightly or wrongly, that some fundamental human values will be achieved by that transfer of power.
> FOUCAULT: When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possible that the proletariat will exert towards the classes over which it has just triumphed, a violent, dictatorial and even bloody power. I can’t see what objection one could make to this. But if you ask me what would be the case if the proletariat exerted bloody, tyrannical and unjust power towards itself, then I would say that this could only occur if the proletariat hadn’t really taken power, but that a class outside the proletariat, a group of people inside the proletariat, a bureaucracy or petit bourgeois elements had taken power.”
This
>if the proletariat exerted bloody, tyrannical and unjust power towards itself, then I would say that this could only occur if the proletariat hadn’t really taken power, but that a class outside the proletariat exerted bloody, tyrannical and unjust power
is an irrational position.

>a violent, dictatorial and even bloody power
>I can’t see what objection one could make to this

Was it autism?

It makes some sense. The ruling class would not want to oppress and tyrannize itself, but that's only true if the ruling class is rational, which can't be assumed.

I dislike foucault but i assume he meant that he couldn't object to the possibility of it happening, not to the acts themselves.

I find myself more in agreement with Foucault on the issue of justice and also on this part about the "proletariat's motives."

Chomsky's concept of 'justice' (or the concept of justice in general) seems very idealist and universalizing/absolute (i.e. that such a concept of "justice" exists independently of ourselves and that it's universal and "good"), which I find rather naive and silly.

I think people sometimes make Chomsky to be more than he really is. He's good with his historical analysis, books like informing consent, and of course in his work in linguistics but outside of that in other realms such as this and perhaps even in radical theory/politics in general Chomsky is rather 'weak.' He's more like the progressive's "radical" than actual radical.

Perfect

How does foucault believe actual knowledge should be distingushed from acts of social control? It seems like he believes anything institutions state as fact he thinks is a form of control.

Excuse my autism, Im just looking for clarification.

>that such a concept of "justice" exists independently of ourselves and that it's universal and "good"
Chomsky is a nominalist.

You need to understand the context and what Foucault is responding to in order to really appreciate him. In particular, people coming from the Western/analytic tradition will find that unless they are prepared to examine their assumptions closely, they run the risk of drawing incoherent or erroneous conclusions from a surface reading.
A simple example of this is Foucault's famous "Power=Knowledge". A naive reader sees this equation and thinks - sure, naturally. Knowledge is useful and if I have more knowledge it gives me the ability to do more things, hence I get more power. So, Knowledge is Power.
However this kind of slack-jawed conjecture is in fact pure horseshit that Foucault would probably have decked you for. Power=Knowledge as Foucault speaks it is not meant to be a liberating insight. It is meant to shine a light on the bars of a mental prison that operates so efficiently most of its inmates think they are free and actively promote the goals of their wardens. The most pernicious knowledge is often the kind that people never even examine because it seems so obvious (e.g. 'truth is eternal'). And yet this was a knowledge that you were born into, without choice. By limiting the thoughts you are allowed to think, the institutions of power extend their influence.
See also, epistemology, metaphysics.

>intellectual

>french continentals
Not even fucking once.

seems like a whole lotta navelgazing faggotry DESU

Just because you disagree with him doesnt mean hes not intellectual. Hes vastly more intelligent and educated than your average person and on a completely different plain from Milo

>Noam Chomsky
>Professor of Linguistics, MIT
>Stefan Molyneux
>Freedomain Radio

>and educated than your average person and on a completely different plain from Milo
I think Zizek is entertaining and sometimes right, but being educated in a pseudoscience (psycho-analysis) is a big problem.

Actually I think they more represent /leftypol/ vs /pol/

the slovene tbqh even though he's a commie, zizek is bombarded with criticism and is more refined while milo just contends with clickbait and dumb journalists

>zizek
>russian

OP is one of those people who thinks any Slav is Russian.

>a homosexual coal burning Jew represents /pol/
"no"
He's like babbies first redpill, all he's good at doing is triggering feminists.

>redpill
>/pol/

Pick one

*picks both*
Heh, better luck next time kiddo

>Faggot jew shill represents /pol/

Are you serious?

>ywn zizekpost on Veeky Forums and mock pure ideologies
Where my zizek bros at

Milo has granny arms

>notices you find out /pol/ is full of shit, yet you still post /pol/ memes in an attempt to fit in, perpetuating Poes law

Uh huh

...

You know, Mein Gott! I do like to write like Zizek - YES. There is something very satisfying about it and so on and so on. (Not that I do it well)

Sadly so. For a board that whines about cuckery, it must be humiliating for them to be represented by Milo

I'm not /pol/ m8 i just know they hate Milo quite a bit
Calm down

I have been on /pol/ since 2010 nobody likes Milo Faggotopoulos except a few recent transplants from reddit and the shill army his employs.

He is repugnant.

>He likes to brag that he’s a bottom for tall black men and that he used to hold a paint sample called Pharoahs Gold 5 to men at clubs to see if they were dark enough to have sex with. He wants to self-publish a Kindle e-book so he can go on television shows with the chyron “Author of Satisfying the Black Man Sexually,” though he’d need to alter the title slightly, because the book Satisfying the Black Man Sexually is already on his shelf. “That’s why I don’t like Planned Parenthood. They kill all those black babies. In 20 years, they could be my harem,” he says

bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/

>he used to hold a paint sample called Pharoahs Gold 5 to men to at clubs to see if they were dark enough
>Pharoahs Gold
>dark enough
WE

>wasting votes on third party
this mentality is why you lardasses deserve to stay cucked by a two party system

I don't think that most people who shit on him know anything about him besides a few memes and that he's a communist. If you're not on the spectrum you can easily find someone interesting even if you don't always agree with them.

Once Milo became an icon of the alt-right, /pol/ excommunicated him

he's a creepy pessimistic old man

>Slavoj
>Guy who genuinely believes what he says and is an excellent philosopher

>Milo
>Faggot just making money off idiots

Hmm...