3 ms·
> These aren't very interesting observations, they don't match the contextual defenition of "ideology" we can infer from the author's usage, and they don't real
by pyrale 5y ago
> These aren't very interesting observations, they don't match the contextual defenition of "ideology" we can infer from the author's usage, and they don't really move the discussion forward.
If we need to start the discussion by agreeing to a flawed definition given by the author, the discussion isn't going to go very far, is it?
> 10-20 years ago, at least in the US, I recall reading that "independent" was the fastest growing political alignment. How did the polarizing elements of society break that trend, and how can a diversity of ideas be restored?
The wave of independents you talk about is just a mark of traditional parties failing to discuss issues that appeal to people. New political movements, which you call "polarizing" are a logical consequence of that.
> how can a diversity of ideas be restored?
Having polarizing debates doesn't mean there is no diversity. People can have polarizing views on plenty of topics. That's part of why so many people with radical ideas are at each other's throats on both side of the aisle.
- nitrogen 5y ago> > It's the "flexible stances, mixing traditions" part that is interesting here. Do you have any thoughts on this part?
- pyrale 5y agoI would suggest that the ability to consider ideological standpoints with a detached interest is usually the sign that you are not personally on the hook about it. Of course, it is probably nice for someone to never find themselves on the hook, but at the same time, this kind of luxury is not available for everyone. For instance, someone having trouble paying the rent may resent wintertime evictions more personally than a homeowner. Likewise, a blue-collar worker may have a more personal position about globalization about than a software engineer. I'm not sure we should view this luxury as a superior attitude.
- robocat 5y agoThis article talks more in depth about what Zizek means by ideology:https://iep.utm.edu/zizek/ https://iep.utm.edu/zizek/ I don't have the background to say if Zizek is misusing it, but on my extremely shallow reading I don't think he is. And your dismissal would be seen as meta-ideological.
- pyrale 5y agoAssuming you're discussing my first point, I believe you read too much in it. The point is simply that refusing definitions is also constructive criticism that can move a discussion forward.