5 ms·

It’s already peaked and has started to decline. There’s a definite sense that questioning the radical left is less transgressive than it used to be. We’re curre

by jf- 8y ago

It’s already peaked and has started to decline. There’s a definite sense that questioning the radical left is less transgressive than it used to be. We’re currently coming out of a period which will be looked back upon as being very left, and how the culture shifted so far in such short a time will be a topic of much debate. However, when the pendulum swings it rarely stops in the center. I fear an over-reaction to the right. Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination. I notice two things worth commenting on here; firstly it seems as though you've assumed a position of being unideological, that is to say, you don't have an ideology, but those crazy people to my left and right do. Almost everyone believes certain ideologies, and most people aren't aware of which ones they believe in. Zizek says somewhere that the most successful ideologies are those which do not appear ideological, which are accepted because they do not appear ideological. Liberal democracy, the conception of rights, the separation of church and state, the precedence of the individual who owns property is built on ideology. In fact, I would say this: your ideology is believing that you live in a post-ideological world. The second point I'd like to make is that denying "crazy ideological zealots" also denies qualitative change. It means you're excluding their ideas because they are extreme and "ideological". Because they seem irrational. But what is rational and irrational changes in time and place. This is roughly the golden middle fallacy at best, and a strong endorsement of the status quo (whatever it is) at worst.
- jf- 8y ago
  Zizek is a purveyor of nonsense. I think it’s obvious to most readers that I have a belief system, and that I am advocating for that belief system, and that belief system is roughly described as centrist. You’ve written rather a lot of words to state the obvious. And to name drop Zizek. Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    You say that Zizek purveys nonsense, then say that what I've said is obvious. So either you're referring to some writings of Zizek which are irrelevant to this discussion (and implying my point is worth less consideration because Zizek is wrong in some areas which are irrelevant to this discussion), or you're saying that Zizek is wrong here (but without explaining how or rebutting his point). Your advocation of your belief system lies entirely in characterising any other position as "crazy ideological zealotry". I omitted the "crazy zealotry" part because they don't have very much substance (other than appealing to what you consider to be rational and reasonable), so I focused on the "ideology" part.
    - jf- 8y ago
      I’ve said what I’ve said, and I’m no fan of Zizek, to whatever extent I’ve been exposed to him. Take what you want from it, I’m not arguing further.
      - claudiawerner 8y ago
        Your edit says: >Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up. This is extremely uncharitable. Zizek is a serious philosopher, and people take him seriously. Just because you don't understand the points he's making (or don't agree with them), it doesn't mean he's purveying nonsense. Very few (if any) of his critics and fellow philosophers accuse him of being nonsensical. He frequently talks about topics I can't even attempt to understand, but I'm sure high-level physics can sound like nonsense to people too. He has 164,015[0] citations counted by Google Scholar, and along with Althusser considered important in the philosophy of ideology and socialism. He's by no means a hack. [0] https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=qzuup1UAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=qzuup1UAAAAJ&hl=...
        zmapuser 8y ago
        Noam Chomsky has accused him of exactly that.[0] [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0
shrimp_emoji 8y ago
>It’s already peaked and has started to decline. There’s a definite sense that questioning the radical left is less transgressive than it used to be. It's interesting how asynchronous this kind of thing can be. To me, and I think many other people that have been overexposed to relentless criticism of the radical left for years now, it seems to be becoming unfashionable again. For me, that's because you can only deconstruct something so much before continued deconstruction becomes boring (and a convenient harbor for crypto-rightists) and before you start pining for some construction instead. The pendulum swings (in a limited sense, that is; I feel more charity toward the radical left rather than some awakened sympathy for the right).

by jf- 8y ago

claudiawerner 8y ago

>Really what we need is for people to stop being crazy ideological zealots, regardless of inclination. I notice two things worth commenting on here; firstly it seems as though you've assumed a position of being unideological, that is to say, you don't have an ideology, but those crazy people to my left and right do. Almost everyone believes certain ideologies, and most people aren't aware of which ones they believe in. Zizek says somewhere that the most successful ideologies are those which do not appear ideological, which are accepted because they do not appear ideological. Liberal democracy, the conception of rights, the separation of church and state, the precedence of the individual who owns property is built on ideology. In fact, I would say this: your ideology is believing that you live in a post-ideological world. The second point I'd like to make is that denying "crazy ideological zealots" also denies qualitative change. It means you're excluding their ideas because they are extreme and "ideological". Because they seem irrational. But what is rational and irrational changes in time and place. This is roughly the golden middle fallacy at best, and a strong endorsement of the status quo (whatever it is) at worst.

jf- 8y ago
Zizek is a purveyor of nonsense. I think it’s obvious to most readers that I have a belief system, and that I am advocating for that belief system, and that belief system is roughly described as centrist. You’ve written rather a lot of words to state the obvious. And to name drop Zizek. Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  You say that Zizek purveys nonsense, then say that what I've said is obvious. So either you're referring to some writings of Zizek which are irrelevant to this discussion (and implying my point is worth less consideration because Zizek is wrong in some areas which are irrelevant to this discussion), or you're saying that Zizek is wrong here (but without explaining how or rebutting his point). Your advocation of your belief system lies entirely in characterising any other position as "crazy ideological zealotry". I omitted the "crazy zealotry" part because they don't have very much substance (other than appealing to what you consider to be rational and reasonable), so I focused on the "ideology" part.
  - jf- 8y ago
    I’ve said what I’ve said, and I’m no fan of Zizek, to whatever extent I’ve been exposed to him. Take what you want from it, I’m not arguing further.
    - claudiawerner 8y ago
      Your edit says: >Edit: If you disagree with the Zizek statement and have never listened to him speak, you may wish to look him up. This is extremely uncharitable. Zizek is a serious philosopher, and people take him seriously. Just because you don't understand the points he's making (or don't agree with them), it doesn't mean he's purveying nonsense. Very few (if any) of his critics and fellow philosophers accuse him of being nonsensical. He frequently talks about topics I can't even attempt to understand, but I'm sure high-level physics can sound like nonsense to people too. He has 164,015[0] citations counted by Google Scholar, and along with Althusser considered important in the philosophy of ideology and socialism. He's by no means a hack. [0] https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=qzuup1UAAAAJ&hl=en https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=qzuup1UAAAAJ&hl=...
      - zmapuser 8y ago
        Noam Chomsky has accused him of exactly that.[0] [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0

shrimp_emoji 8y ago

>It’s already peaked and has started to decline. There’s a definite sense that questioning the radical left is less transgressive than it used to be. It's interesting how asynchronous this kind of thing can be. To me, and I think many other people that have been overexposed to relentless criticism of the radical left for years now, it seems to be becoming unfashionable again. For me, that's because you can only deconstruct something so much before continued deconstruction becomes boring (and a convenient harbor for crypto-rightists) and before you start pining for some construction instead. The pendulum swings (in a limited sense, that is; I feel more charity toward the radical left rather than some awakened sympathy for the right).