Zizek Veeky Forums AMA when?

Fuck off, commie.

Go back to /pol/

>whines about Castro
>go back to /pol/

I'm on to you, comrade.

Slow down there tiger, he hasn't even been on Infowars yet

>ywn look like zizek
i hate everything

All of those comments praising Castro as a hero are infuriating.

Apparently when someone criticizes the actions of a Cuban dictator, they're automatically celebrating every horrible interventionist thing America has ever done.
These people aren't using their fucking brains.
>b-but he increased healthcare and infrastructure
So did Hitler, so did Mao. Doesn't nullify their genocides
How dumb do you have to be to willingly excuse or deny what Castro did? Forcing gays into work camps, killing dissidents and slaughtering thousands of wealthy (and poor) including many who helped him rise to power, spreading out poverty among the remaining Cubans, giving aide to other violent communist factions. Even if you applaud his opposition to American imperialism and like his support of Mandela, or think of him as a "liberator", you must accept the fact that he did many horrible things.
Every global political power has blood on their hands, nobody is clean, nobody is a saint.
You can't just default on
>b-but America also did a bunch of messed up stuff so that makes Castro a hero!

Did you write crap like this about Mandela and the ANC the other year bro? Or did you take exception to Castro?

I don't really care, the way Cuba was before the revolution was incredibly shit and it was pretty good. A lot of the people who got the heel were shits too. Mao is considered bad not because he killed the wealthy but because he thought it best to let the poor starve and see who happened to survive. Hitler because of expansionism and the attempt at genocide.

P much every single western war since the 90s has been with coutnries the US gave aid to, and often a lot of military equipment and training. I mean, ISIS m8. I don't really see the issue with the NAM.

>and it was pretty good.
after*

To me it just seems hardly any different than die hard republicans praising Reagan.

You can't just cherry pick the things you like and ignore everything that was bad. Political leaders are not people to be glorified or praised, a positive action they take doesn't absolve them of criticism

A lot of die-hard old-school Marxists are convinced that Zizek is actually a Reactionary/Fascist who hides behind Hegelian/Lacanian verbiage - particularly in light of that interview where he said he'd vote for Trump/etc.

In reality, he's one of the few Leftists/Marxists I can respect for his grasp of Realpolitik. 19th century Marxism will only get you so far in today's world. Rather than tailoring modernity to Marxism, as many people do, Zizek actually tailors Marxism to modernity - hence why people get mad at him for admitting that some sort of violent worker's revolution just isn't possible in today's world.

They also REALLY don't get his conception of 'violence' and accelerationism in general.

Pic related is also good.

Because introducing the concept of personal identity to Veeky Forums would subvert the liberating alienation in which the prime attraction consists.

>They also REALLY don't get his conception of 'violence' and accelerationism in general.
Old school will very likely get this, it's been a big question since the start of communist stuff whether certain socialist practices are preventing the revolution and so on.

If they do get it, then they're choosing the wrong side.

A lot of them are Burkeans without even realizing it: reform > revolution, gradual change/revolution, etc.

>capitalism with a human face

What's the problem? Sounds perfect desu.

Have you seen the front page of Veeky Forums? Turn off your ad-blocker and go there. One has to be thoroughly abnormal to frequent this place, let alone consider those who do as worth notice.

My friend, he has responded to posts on /r/gamerghazi.
What genocides did Castro spearhead?

This Cuba thing is the perfect example of why "I (nowadays, "my parents") grew up under socialism I think I know better than you" is such a stupid argument. People point to Cubans in America saying how evil Castro is -- but they were the rich motherfuckers who decided to leave.

>violent communists
Oh no, not violence. This is a strange and unusual thing in world history.

You must accept that Mandela, and MLK and Gandhi, all did pretty horrible things. Mandela himself had ties to violent groups. His wife is famous for supporting vigilante lynching.

t. not a commie

>You can't just default on
Yes you can, because the default assumption of those who condemn Castro as a dictator is that their wonderfully liberal western nation is enlightened and far superior.

>preading out poverty among the remaining Cubans
As opposed to the generally wealthy population if latin america? Agree with most of your points tho.

He also made them wealthier, not poorer.

>muh uncreative communists
>everything must move forward all the time
PURE

Can't be bothered to find the video, but some autist off leftypol explained memes and imageboards to him

I don't believe you. How many buckos came?

>we're heading towards complete and irreversible ecological disaster
>let's accelerate!

>implying Z doesn't use an adblocker

Please find it

>socialism
>"Democracy is a lesser evil, but we cannot abide any evil at all!"
>"But of course we mustn't do anything too drastic. We must choose the lesser evil."

>they were the rich motherfuckers who decided to leave
yes because Castro would have executed them

I think you're totally missing my point. You're basically saying what I already said. I'm not trying to suggest that either political faction is more "right" than the other, I'm specifically frustrated at people glorifying a dictator, or any political figure for that matter.
It's this idea of cherry picking the positives of whatever regime and ignoring all the naughty things pretending they didn't happen and your guy is a saint because he's on YOUR side. You can take sides and say that certain governments were more generally misguided than others, but you should absolutely criticize your own leaders, and not put them on a pedestal where they're absolved of any sins.

My anger definitely applies to these types of people too:
>wonderfully liberal western nation is enlightened and far superior.

>let's pretend that climate change doesn't change anything, even though we're supposed to be materialist, let's just run everything into the ground

>Mandela himself had ties to violent groups.
He had more than ties, Winnie also advocated necklacing (tire filled with petrol), but you have to see it in context. I'm not going to want to execute anyone if I'm going for tea with my local vicar or some shit and that polite society stuff is the bounds of my world, unless I am some kind of nutty edgemaster (on that note David Cameron wanted Mandela executed in the late 80s). But considering the levels of violence and oppression that were being committed in S Africa back then both inside and outside, that level of violence was appropriate. Another example, a lot of people criticize Guevara for executing people in the jungle and what have you, but what choice did he have as a guerrilla against a highly organized and violent aggressor? A lot of people don't look at the practicalities of these things and fail to realize these people are fighting not only for their own lives but something that goes far beyond that, and often they don't have the options we may have in polite society.

The guy doesn't like sports either, and they're legitimately amazing at a lot of that stuff. Best boxers in the world easily. I would imagine they're still innovating there in that area. Large large areas are also closed off from either Cubans or tourists so nobody really gets a full view.

It might be a bit disappointing since in Yugoslavia you had a lot of the same cultural innovation as elsewhere. So while in the USSR there was the whole getting a mixtape of American rock, there were home grown Yugoslav rock bands and such. If anything that got a lot worse after communism.

They'd probably agree on everything. So long as they don't talk about race.

>If they do get it, then they're choosing the wrong side.
I think it's a case of being impelled to respond to things that are at hand. Nobody wants to see or be responsible for human suffering.

Really as well Zizek is looking for a third way, that's what his dusty balls joke is all about.

Sure, those people are idiots, but that applies to maybe a quarter of the people defending Castro. The majority are reacting against the faggots who automatically assume Communist = Third World Genocidal Shithole, in stark contrast to their nice, safe, comfortable wherever-they-live.

Most people are saying stuff like "I don't defend all of his actions [because they are liberal] BUT he was way better than the guy before him", and they're right.

Those people are also idiots, but for more tangential reasons. Mostly related by this user: . People have no idea what life is actually like. People -- liberals -- viciously fight against people protesting by inconveniencing them, because they have sanitised MLK and Gandhi to the point that they do not understand that peaceful protest was meant to be "militant" (MLK's own words). Imagine what they do to those who kill people. No mention of execution or detention in their own nation, because that sort of thing just doesn't happen around here.

Though obviously the whole process is still unvirtuous.
user, do you know what the purpose of accelerationism is? To change things.

Enough regular people don't that it be inappropriate for Zizek to knowledge and respond to a website that hosts furry porn and the like for its ad base on the front page. He would be taken even less seriously, and he can scarcely afford being more of a clown than he is.

>Enough regular people don't that it be inappropriate for Zizek to knowledge and respond to a website that hosts furry porn and the like for its ad base on the front page.
I pretty much just get targeted ads bro when my blocker's off. That's like lab equipment atm.

Even if we sidestep the content of the ads, their presentation is itself enough. Veeky Forums looks like some kind of spyware ridden child porn repository thanks to Hiroshima. Far more so than it ever did before. The association is sufficient to preclude mainstream appeal.

Well climate change is change. So I guess it'd be successful.

That is the point, yes. The idea is you make things worse until people are unable to choose a lesser evil -- or rather, until the lesser evil is forming socialism.

>literally pro climate change
I wonder why not more people are into this.

The hell did Hiroshimoot change?

Turn off your adblocker and look.

Nothing changed.

Turn off all your extensions nigger.

Okay, there's not buzzfeed-tier "you might like"s at the bottom of the page, but that's about it.

Zizek versus Jordan Peterson. Who else wants to see it?

most definitely i do, but i see no reason why it would be a versus thing. why wouldn't they just have a cool conversation about depth psychology and the futility of idpol? jp is a jungian and z is a lacanian, but compared to assbags who dismiss both of those guys outright because muh chomsky/muh STEM or w/evs these two could just get along like old homies

Well it may turn into a vs. because Peterson has show disdain for Marxism

Because the face has been ripped from its original owner and clumsily grafted on.

>People point to Cubans in America saying how evil Castro is -- but they were the rich motherfuckers who decided to leave.

What, all 100k+ of them? Please, this is why you people don't get taken seriously.

>But considering the levels of violence and oppression that were being committed in S Africa back then both inside and outside, that level of violence was appropriate.

Debatable. There's a difference between resistance and flat-out torture, which is what necklacing/etc was. Same with Castro having the genitals of his enemies punctured.

>a lot of people criticize Guevara for executing people in the jungle and what have you, but what choice did he have as a guerrilla against a highly organized and violent aggressor?

There's a difference between this and Castro's show trials, where audiences would famously gorge themselves on fucking candy/peanuts/etc whilst watching someone inevitably be """"proven"""" guilty on some bullshit charges.

>you people

>necklacing is torture
Wanna know how I know you're a liberal? It's because you need to explain away any messy execution as torture.

>actually, dictators are good
This is why the left is losing

>Wanna know how I know you're a liberal? It's because you need to explain away any messy execution as torture.
>
>
>

Alright, I'll put it simply: Would you rather be shot in the head, or necklaced?

no it's not and you know it

yeah, i get that. but it's more cultural marxism/progressivism that P is taking issue with, and this is why i think he and Z would get along so well. Z doesn't go for idpol at all: for him it's always about capitalism and lacan. he thinks idpol is a smokescreen for globalization (which means progressivism, because capital is always going to be on the side of progress and wider market share).

if they disagreed, my guess is that it would be over jung vs freud, not the fruits of social justice or marxism. but i don't think they would, i think they would probably just talk about literature and stuff and have a good time. i'd love to see that.

just my hot take tho

>Le devil's avocado

>this commonly held belief is causing the left to lose because it is commonly held
That doesn't even make any sense.
I'll put it simpler: would you rather be shot in the head, or administered completely painless poisons in your sleep?

>he thinks idpol is a smokescreen for globalization

It's not so much idpol per se, as the reaction to idpol - which is to give oppressive ideologies/institutions/etc a "human face."

It's not that he doesn't care about idpol, but that he realizes the only way you're going to solve idpol issues is to see the bigger issue - which is that Capitalism/Liberal Democracy needs replaced.

>I'll put it simpler: would you rather be shot in the head, or administered completely painless poisons in your sleep?

The latter, but since a horde of gun-toting Africans are probably not going to have the poisons to hand that will ensure a painless death in my sleep, I'd rather they just shoot me in the head - particularly when they have other things to hand that might ensure a far more painful death, such as tyres/petrol.

>It's not so much idpol per se
This lol. A lot of lefypol people are literally too stupid to understand orthogonality.

>Here, let me just add a bunch of inane context to the question so I don't have to answer it honestly
(You)

>Let me greentext despite the fact that he gave a crystal clear answer to the question in the first 2 words

Who are the public intellectuals that Veeky Forums likes?

Zizzy, Peterson, ((Land)), Varoufakis, Mason?
Molenyeux is not an intellectual

Yeah

In that case you accept that killing people by shooting in the head is torture, right?

yep. true. idpol produces counter-idpol. it might be too early to see if alt-right stuff just replicates all of the silliness of the left in a new color under a new brand. that's stuff that neither Z nor JP will talk about yet tho, and it's too early to call anyways. and maybe it belongs on /pol/ too

>the only way you're going to solve idpol issues is to see the bigger issue - which is that Capitalism/Liberal Democracy needs replaced

maybe. but it seems to me that Z knows that capital cannot really be replaced, but he also likes democracy, too, which is always put at cross-purposes by the global market. to me at least it seems he likes democracy when it is hard and difficult and challenging, not when it is easy and taken for granted as de facto the best political system (b/c globalization, progressivism, etc). so he says he is a communist, but i think really in his heart he wants a democracy that just doesn't constantly sell itself to global capitalism. this is a tough position to take but it's why we love the sniffler. he's a critic of what he secretly wants. at least i do, even when i'm skeptical about democracy itself and tbqh moldbuggian absolutism makes more sense to me. but i'm a weird dude like that

so yeah. capital isn't getting replaced, but liberal democracy might be...except by trumpian neopolitics or w/evs and not by communist stuff. it's an interesting world out there no doubt

watched this yesterday, pretty interesting
youtube.com/watch?v=U7JgfB8PaAk

No.

I based my choice purely upon my preference for an open casket funeral.

They're both objectively good ways to die though, insofar as they're painless/not torture.

>watched this yesterday, pretty interesting

Are you also following that Zizek meme page on Facebook by any chance?

I saw it there yesterday.

dictators are good though, right my fellow nu-male?

i do everything in my power to avoid going on facebook. to me facebook is death. after Veeky Forums i cannot possibly imagine why anyone would want to talk politics while being overheard by family members and people you went to high school with. was just doing my usual morning regimen of googling trump, not going outside, thinking about drinking bleach, etc

You're missing out on good Zizek memes desu.

yeah, could be. Veeky Forums is plenty enough meme kungfu for me tho. i used to get triggered all the time by stuff on FB until i came here and now i've become an inestimably wiser and more ironic frog for it

FB is best reserved for cat selfies and clandestine faps to old high-school/uni crushes. i'm fine with this

I don't think outside of a small group of very niche intellectuals that Veeky Forums likes anyone, although there is a level of enjoyment of some of those.

I think part of the problem is Zizek is now famous in a way he most certainly wasn't 5 years ago.

Veeky Forums likes him too

>inb4 harrisfag
>tfw everyone is a ____fag
>i'm okay with this

>unironically liking someone who can't understand the fact/value distinction

I like Harris as well, despite his flaws. His "Waking Up" podcast/book is quite good.

>unironically assuming why user likes anything
>tfw you actually spend your whole goddamn day reading b/c you have no job and can think of nothing else better to do except dwell on shit
>tfw dreamy utilitarian cyberbot sam harris looks into your eyes

share your thoughts on the fallacies of fact/value distinction user, don't be shy. i am genuinely curious and not in the least triggered by this

I think if he turned up dead the resulting sticky would be people dancing on his grave. There was more love for Chris Hitchens, and there was not a whole lot of love for him.

Being shot in the head isn't painless, user. You knew that, right?

Your dichotomy is false. Painful execution is still execution.

it's silly and depressing af to think about really, but that's just my opinion. i get that nu-atheism is obnoxious garbage but come the fuck on, harris is a smart guy and his waking up podcast is good

*WARNING* flaming faggotry incoming. abandon ship abandon ship abandon ---signal lost---

i couldn't think of a single thing in this that i disagreed with
youtube.com/watch?v=UcmmJqRbRbQ

here he is on ai
youtube.com/watch?v=8nt3edWLgIg

here he is with rogan vs burress in a super-uncomfortable conversation
youtube.com/watch?v=6j82R4ZMlIg

here he is trying to get a single thought through this odious little shitstain's head
youtube.com/watch?v=Zy3dIwtqZaA

>Trump was only taken seriously at the 11th hour
Nope. Even before he won the republican nom, people were saying he should be taken seriously.

true, but how many people were confidently predicting in 2015/2016 that he would win? not many. some cool user shared this with me not so long ago, reposting

cultural-discourse.com/donald-trump-a-few-more-words/

i've been staring into the alt-right/NRx blogosphere like it was ultraviolence for a few years, but even tzeentch-chan nick land was saying trump had no shot in the summer. of course, everybody knew something big was cooking, and there were definitely some visionaries out there, but it was definitely a long-shot pick

if you were one of them, then good on you, user. not even saying that unironically. i was following it pretty closely but even i was stunned. not like that means anything i'll grant you. i'm a recluse fuckface nobody. and to be honest i'm glad its over now

if you really want to go back in time, moldbug was laying all of this out on UR in 2007. i missed that train when it came through. MM does not equal trump, but w/evs. and whither now? who the fuck knows

>tfw given the sponge to wipe away the horizon

anyways sorry for shitting up this thread with text-walls anons, not my blog

Violence in the service of the people (i.e., to overthrow the state that serves the capitalist and/or aristocratic class and establish a people's state) may be regrettable (in the sense that violence qua violence is "wrong", for lack of a better word) but it is always excusable. Milton got this right centuries ago, I don't understand why we're still talking about it, especially when everyone ITT is the citizen of a revolutionary state necessarily bathed in blood.

All that said Žižek's basic point is right and Castro himself would agree, the revolution has to move on from Castro and continue people's power. Yes, continue.
>b-b-but muh dictator
Literally no one cares about burgerlard opinions.

*ironically

>in service of the people
Cuba fucking sucks, you impotent nu-male.

source: I've been there

There's not much to explain, unless I'm misunderstanding his project, which I take to be that we can arrive at our ethical frameworks through science (especially neuroscience).
>The brain is x y z
>Therefore we ought to act in ways a b c
is just as fallacious as
>It is raining
>Therefore I ought to stay indoors today
Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding his project, but I've heard him make claims exactly like the one above (I think the one I heard in some lecture was that he could use research on how our brain feels pain to make claims about how we ought to treat each other). I'm much more inclined to agree with Nietzsche and his arguments about the ways in which values are created through history/social conditions.

youtube.com/watch?v=0ViUMElnlZs

Just for you guys

>I'm much more inclined to agree with Nietzsche and his arguments about the ways in which values are created through history/social conditions

me too user, me too 112%. but after a long long while i'm starting to take - for my own weird and tortuous reasons - a different perspective on things, because i think everything is connected to everything else and i think people should lay aside dionysus for the Greater Good. as crazy as that sounds, and i'll admit it's a basically indefensible Last Man goal. i still feel it tho

i like harris now because i liked nietzsche then. and heidegger, baudrillard, lacan, deleuze...all that stuff. i read it up and down and crossways. now i'm feeling the cyberbot. for what it's worth

but you can't *make* people think anything else, even if you want to. and of course you should never ever do this, b/c all that leads back into moralizing and i am strictly against that shit because reasons.

reason was never a thing i was known for so i listen to harris. but people change. i can't explain it

Most of America fucking sucks to the same degree, in many cases worse, and for the same reason that Cuba fucking sucks. Source: I've been there. Hint: it has fuck all to do with Castro or communism.

>Ed Gein with a human face

What's the problem?

Well Nietzsche does have that stuff in Ecce Homo about how his real students will have to reject him, and that only after his work will it be possible to hope again. If you've actually read all of those thinkers you listed and you've come back to Harris...then jeez user. I haven't gotten that far so I can't say much. But how do you read someone Heidegger and Deleuze and just go full Nick Land madman?