What does Veeky Forums think of Slavoj Žižek?

what does Veeky Forums think of Slavoj Žižek?

Literally who?

He's officially /are guy/ but butthurt leftists from reddit will try to disagree

Crazy fuck that calls himself a philosopher, pretty much Veeky Forums incarnate (socialism is dumb though)

Crazy fuck that is supposed to be a psychoanalyst, but has uncured hysterical neuroses.

Based philosopher. Making marxism, Hegel and Lacan popular again. Sumblime Object of Ideology is brilliant and 80% of the faggots here can't understand it but they be stuck at memeing about his public appearances. Also Less Than Nothing is a great philosophic work combining western culture, french theory and quantum physics all in his charm.

lacan is stupid

jung is legit

He can provide some entertaining social and cultural critique. I unironically like how he doesn't even watch most of the shitty Hollywood movies he talks about. He's a bit of a charlatan like that, but good for him for scamming some pretentious hipster fucks.

Politically he's kinda boring, all that has to offer is politically correct (not by SJW standards, but by the average Western guy's standards) common sense. He's probably scared to say anything positive about the (alt)right, because he knows he'd get booed off stage.

This. Who is he?

Someone said that he was a crypto-right winger in a thread a few days ago. Is there any truth to this or is it just a meme?

First I thought he was underrated because people didn't take him seriously on account of his appearance and behavior. But after I studied him I realized that he's practically as bad as his reputation but for reasons that are never brought up in public discourse surrounding him

No, these far left people think anyone with a divergent opinion on a social issue is a Nazi. They called him a Nazi because he said the mass migration into Europe isn't a good thing because it doesn't solve them problem of those countries being shitty due to imperialism.

The ''far left'' people you allude to are lib-left pseuds who are so far from the values of the true left that they barely deserve the title of leftists.

>no true scotsman fallacy
Sorry, people arguing for no borders, letting white people die and for complete socialist governments are far left, despite that you don't want them to be.

Just a memer /pol/tard. He political leanings are pretty much leftist but talks against the idea of safe space and political correctness in speech so /pol/babbies think he's right winger

>mass migration into Europe isn't a good thing because it doesn't solve them problem of those countries
But he said he agrees with the decision of migration. What are you on about?

He's like a Peterson to the left.
That is to say, dictionary-fucking pseud.

>I don't understand any concepts that take any work to understand, but let me tell you what what children's stories "really mean"!

There's some truth to it, in the sense that he--like just about any intelligent person--appreciates social order.
And social order is a somewhat right-wing value.

Anyway, the left-right dichotomy is somewhat outdated and spooky.

The radical individualistic ideology of the liberal left is incompatible with orthodox Marxism, and they've moved far beyond class struggle to priorize other issues whose importance is greatly inflated due to, in part, the vulgarization of identity politics. Anyone who calls Zizek, a radical Marxist, a nazi is simply a political illiterate.

Yeah, he seems like a classical Marxist to me (eg idpol is false consciousness) Nowadays this sorts of 'class reduction-ism' can get you labelled a Brocialist or a Manarchist. O tempora, O mores.

Some people have accused him of this because he tells some jokes about race/women/whatever that humourless people get worked up over he has stances that go against the "never question anything an O P P R E S S E D person says" identity politics of much of the modern left.

He's accused of being racist for not wanting mass migration to Europe but all he said was he thinks it won't solve the migrants problems of being poor or discriminated against and will just cause more conflict than it solves.

He's also accused of being transphobic because he said he supports trans people that want to turn MtF or FtM but says he doesn't understand this new endless inventing of new genders because he has some Lacanian notion that if you feel in conflict with your identity and the identity given to you by society you can't solve it by endlessly inventing new categories because it's still a search for external validation to solve an internal conflict.

Nothing too unreasonable but questioning anything a poor migrant or trans person says is unthinkable for some people on the left and it's unthinkable to them we might need healthy critique on both sides to ever solve some of societies issues.

Class reductionism is dumb but so is race/gender reductionism.

Both sides of the left only want to look at half the picture.

I wish other people were as smart as me.

>not wanting mass migration to Europe
He didn't say that, just that it needs to be regulated. His position is literally interchangeable with that of any current political leader in the West.

Zizek isn't actually a Leftist, he's a Christian Reactionary who is just subverting the subversives

>He's accused of being racist for not wanting mass migration to Europe but all he said was he thinks it won't solve the migrants problems of being poor or discriminated against and will just cause more conflict than it solves.
But he clearly does support the idea of migration? Anyone realizes that ideal state for the crisis would be that this crisis never existed in the first place, that the middle east wasn't fucked and there was no need for migration. And everyone knows that migration is just trading one extreme conflict for another lesser extreme conflict. Migrants would forever be discriminated against and these things would create economical crisis but I don't think Zizek has any better option. He always reverts back to "oh philosophers are for asking the right questions and not providing the answers" stance whenever too difficult of a question arises in front of him and that to me summarizes the simplistic nature of his political beliefs on a lot of things. He's good when you want to listen someone ramble about capitalism but I don't value him much as a social and political critic.

>He's probably scared to say anything positive about the (alt)right, because he knows he'd get booed off stage.
He can't say because there is nothing positice about (alt)right, get a reality check.

Oh yes, I love when philosophers pretend to understand quantum physics.

even better when scientists pretend quantum physics is real

I think he needs to lay off the drugs.

Why?

>le only stemtards can understand the PHILOSOPHICAL bases and theories of STEM meme

He's a stalinist. Fiscally a socialist and socially very conservative.

The mathematician Paul Erdos took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained that during his abstinence, mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine use.

Literally not correct

>Anecdotal evidence
The guy who lives on the corner of my street eats a spoonfull of horse sperm every morning, he says he's twice as creative now.

it's only a no true scotsman if the person accused actually does fall under the category. if i am actually from scotland, but don't wear a kilt, it's "no true scotsman" to say i'm not one.

it's not at all fallacious to correct an inappropriate use of a category though. if i'm from china, and go around saying i'm scottish, it's not fallacious to say "no true scotsman is from china," because the category scottish only applies to people from scotland. similarly it is correct to say that only someone with so and so political beliefs belongs to such and such a political category.

And the one who jacked off the horse is you

He's the crazy uncle of philosophy and I love him for it. He'd give children Werther's at family gatherings, but they would be so subverted that they would taste like those weird strawberry candies.

I enjoy the sense of superiority I get when I see or hear about them.

>philosophical basis of science
I legitimately fucking hate you

>He's probably scared to say anything positive about the (alt)right, because he knows he'd get booed off stage.

I don't understand. What exactly about autistic pol politics do you think appeals to Zizek's thought?

Literally just read Husserl on the necessity of a philosophical science.

Please return to reddit.

>alt-right=pol
No wonder you don't understand.

>please respect my dignified and unique way to hate black people

No, philosophyfags just overwhelmingly tend not to.

Can you imagine if Zizek was your therapist

Do I really need to?

It's the same reason right wingers call richard spencer a left wing shill.

based as fuck

fucking right on!
I hate cats, stupid animals to have as pets

Literally not an argument

I'd just want him to talk to me for an hour and forget where I was. Which is more or less what I do now watching his youtube lectures.

Basically the opposite of Old Neon.

*sniff* dees ees, I claim, the paradocchhs of de modern vorld. *sniff* ve don't rreeelly vant wat eet eez dat ve theenk ve vant. *sniff*

> pol is one person
> pol is one ideology

his opinion that the rise of the far right and possible implementation of their policies will finally spur the far left to organizing the working class

basically all his opinions on refugees (leftists expecting refugees to "fill out" the anemic labor movement, idpol advocates capitulating to let refugees continue customs like child marriages now that they live in the west, etc)