4 ms·

Pacifism is the wrong response to the war in Ukraine

3 points by keewee7 4y ago

goatsneez 4y ago
This is S. Zizek's two cents on the conflict. I pick one of the concluding remarks: "Ukraine fights for European values against the non-European authoritarians" How can a philosopher make statements at a level of elementary school children; false dichotomies, the personification (anthropocentrification ) of countries, groups or collectives (?) to list few transgressions against soundness by S. Z. In my view (as a piece) surprisingly feeble minded, unbalanced and inconsistent (in all three coordinates of an argument: logos, ethos, and pathos). [Despite some agreeable statements such as to treat all 'war-criminals' by the same standard, it still does not correct the crocked argument as a whole]. If he wants to stand purely on ethos because he views himself and "his" world a certain specialized way, it is his right. If you justify the enemy as totally evil and totally unappeasable then the logic necessitates conclusion of total elimination, total war. But it also leads to totally and hopelessly unrealistic goals, which itself will lead to frustration. In his message he also reveals himself as a typical elitist, for he does not intend to bear any responsibility and costs/sacrifice for what he is advocating. In short, I reject this S. Zizek's argument and the entire message as a concept in its totality (for the same idiotic argumentation can be used by the adversary on his side just flipping the sign; getting us exactly to the situation where we are). This world is not linear and binary, neither heroes nor villains are pure, and we are all caught in and the product of our histories and limitations. Opposing interests are the norm and we have to always bargain and negotiate. Accept that errors and incompetencies are the norm, refrain from paranoid narratives more coherent than the world itself is (and as a matter of fact can be).
- eveningcoffee 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    You broke the site guidelines badly with this comment. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, we'd appreciate it. Commenters here need to stick to the rules, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. As a bonus, it will make your own posts more persuasive.
    - Pakdef 4y ago
      When I try to post a URL, it just tells me "Sorry.": <span class="admin"><center>Sorry.</center></span> .... you banned me from posting?
      - dang 4y ago
        Yes, it looks like we banned you. It looks like that was because you posted trollish comments within a few days of creating the account, and possibly also because this account is linked to past ones we've banned. More recently, your posts look ok, so I've unbanned the account. It would be good if you'd post fewer unsubstantive comments, though. Also, please use hn@ycombinator.com to ask us questions like this—for two reasons: (1) the odds are high that we won't see a question if you post it here; and (2) it's offtopic in the threads.
        Pakdef 4y ago
        Well thanks but I went back looking at my comments and I don't see what you are talking about... was it an automatic ban? Unless you are talking about the Musk comment, which I made because that is what I hear from his employees. Also, it looks like I can post new URLS, but now I am shadow banned instead of being banned.
        dang 4y ago
        I was talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31823168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31823168, for example. We tend to shadowban new accounts that post like that, particularly when evidence suggests that they're linked to past abusive accounts. Your recent submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31879076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31879076 was killed, but not because your account was banned. Rather it was because youtube.com submissions from new accounts get killed, because so many of those are spam. I've restored your submission now.
lioeters 4y ago
"Peace is not the answer," declared a philosopher.

3 points by keewee7 4y ago

This is S. Zizek's two cents on the conflict. I pick one of the concluding remarks: "Ukraine fights for European values against the non-European authoritarians" How can a philosopher make statements at a level of elementary school children; false dichotomies, the personification (anthropocentrification ) of countries, groups or collectives (?) to list few transgressions against soundness by S. Z. In my view (as a piece) surprisingly feeble minded, unbalanced and inconsistent (in all three coordinates of an argument: logos, ethos, and pathos). [Despite some agreeable statements such as to treat all 'war-criminals' by the same standard, it still does not correct the crocked argument as a whole]. If he wants to stand purely on ethos because he views himself and "his" world a certain specialized way, it is his right. If you justify the enemy as totally evil and totally unappeasable then the logic necessitates conclusion of total elimination, total war. But it also leads to totally and hopelessly unrealistic goals, which itself will lead to frustration. In his message he also reveals himself as a typical elitist, for he does not intend to bear any responsibility and costs/sacrifice for what he is advocating. In short, I reject this S. Zizek's argument and the entire message as a concept in its totality (for the same idiotic argumentation can be used by the adversary on his side just flipping the sign; getting us exactly to the situation where we are). This world is not linear and binary, neither heroes nor villains are pure, and we are all caught in and the product of our histories and limitations. Opposing interests are the norm and we have to always bargain and negotiate. Accept that errors and incompetencies are the norm, refrain from paranoid narratives more coherent than the world itself is (and as a matter of fact can be).

eveningcoffee 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  You broke the site guidelines badly with this comment. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, we'd appreciate it. Commenters here need to stick to the rules, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. As a bonus, it will make your own posts more persuasive.
  - Pakdef 4y ago
    When I try to post a URL, it just tells me "Sorry.": <span class="admin"><center>Sorry.</center></span> .... you banned me from posting?
    - dang 4y ago
      Yes, it looks like we banned you. It looks like that was because you posted trollish comments within a few days of creating the account, and possibly also because this account is linked to past ones we've banned. More recently, your posts look ok, so I've unbanned the account. It would be good if you'd post fewer unsubstantive comments, though. Also, please use hn@ycombinator.com to ask us questions like this—for two reasons: (1) the odds are high that we won't see a question if you post it here; and (2) it's offtopic in the threads.
      - Pakdef 4y ago
        Well thanks but I went back looking at my comments and I don't see what you are talking about... was it an automatic ban? Unless you are talking about the Musk comment, which I made because that is what I hear from his employees. Also, it looks like I can post new URLS, but now I am shadow banned instead of being banned.
        dang 4y ago
        I was talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31823168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31823168, for example. We tend to shadowban new accounts that post like that, particularly when evidence suggests that they're linked to past abusive accounts. Your recent submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31879076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31879076 was killed, but not because your account was banned. Rather it was because youtube.com submissions from new accounts get killed, because so many of those are spam. I've restored your submission now.

lioeters 4y ago

"Peace is not the answer," declared a philosopher.