[The Sabbaticus]

Basically Zizek argues that the left liberal movements in the USA are decadent and ignore the core points of concern of the left, namely class society and wealth disparities. He pays lip service to 'identity politics' (not willing to completely alienate his left-leaning following), but he considers it the root cause of the left liberal centrist failure. He also thinks that referring to Trump voters as 'racist, simpleton whites' is the reason why Hillary failed.

In addition, he suggests that the Left is not honouring the unwritten constitutional framework of the USA and that they're leaning towards fascism. That Hillary represents the Cold War establishment. And that legislative political correctness (narcissism) is a complete failure and that it invites a 'vulgarian Trumpist countermovement' (also fascist).

He 'despises' Trump, referring to him as scum, but he would have voted for him nonetheless. He also thought it was funny that Trump single-handedly destroyed the Republican party from within.

[ThirdTerm]

I have come to a conclusion that Trump won mainly because he's a celebrity who appeared on the Celebrity Apprentice. Obama was known for his celebrity status before getting elected and America is going to have another celebrity president. Hillary invited celebrities to her final rallies to tap into the power of celebrities. Hillary was up gainst celebrities in the two previous elections and American voters prefer celebrity politicians over establishment figures.

Considerable political and media attention has focused on the phenomenon of the ‘celebrity politician’. As this article illustrates, there are two main variants of the phenomenon. The first is the elected politician or candidate who uses elements of ‘celebrityhood’ to establish their claim to represent a group or cause. The second is the celebrity—the star of popular culture—who uses their popularity to speak for popular opinion. Both examples have been seen by critics to debase liberal democratic political representation. This article challenges this critique and argues that the celebrity politician is consistent with a coherent account of political representation. This does not mean that all examples of the celebrity politician are to be seen as legitimate, but that the representative claim has to be analysed more carefully and discriminatingly than the critics typically suppose.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... esentation

[Tewodros III]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyRMLwJ4KjU

Basically Zizek argues that the left liberal movements in the USA are decadent and ignore the core points of concern of the left, namely class society and wealth disparities. He pays lip service to 'identity politics' (not willing to completely alienate his left-leaning following), but he considers it the root cause of the left liberal centrist failure. He also thinks that referring to Trump voters as 'racist, simpleton whites' is the reason why Hillary failed.

In addition, he suggests that the Left is not honouring the unwritten constitutional framework of the USA and that they're leaning towards fascism. That Hillary represents the Cold War establishment. And that legislative political correctness (narcissism) is a complete failure and that it invites a 'vulgarian Trumpist countermovement' (also fascist).

He 'despises' Trump, referring to him as scum, but he would have voted for him nonetheless. He also thought it was funny that Trump single-handedly destroyed the Republican party from within.

Apparently PC wasn't a problem until Obama was elected and SJW went wild. Before than being nice to one another wasn't PC it was just common sense, not something that involves "white guilt" in fact I assume many Minorities other than the loud small identity politics groups didn't focus on "White Guilt" manly cared about keeping their communities safe and not letting them get killed by cops.

[Donna]

It was around 2009-10 that the SJW thing began to spread. It was more or less confined to college campuses until it started disrupting the larger culture with the Gamergate controversies, which is also where the Alt-Right was born.

[Tewodros III]

It was around 2009-10 that the SJW thing began to spread. It was more or less confined to college campuses until it started disrupting the larger culture with the Gamergate controversies, which is also where the Alt-Right was born.

I still don't understand what that about.

[Donna]

@Tewodros III it was some stupid feminist thing about video games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyRMLwJ4KjU

Basically Zizek argues that the left liberal movements in the USA are decadent and ignore the core points of concern of the left, namely class society and wealth disparities. He pays lip service to 'identity politics' (not willing to completely alienate his left-leaning following), but he considers it the root cause of the left liberal centrist failure. He also thinks that referring to Trump voters as 'racist, simpleton whites' is the reason why Hillary failed.

In addition, he suggests that the Left is not honouring the unwritten constitutional framework of the USA and that they're leaning towards fascism. That Hillary represents the Cold War establishment. And that legislative political correctness (narcissism) is a complete failure and that it invites a 'vulgarian Trumpist countermovement' (also fascist). :lol:

He 'despises' Trump, referring to him as scum, but he would have voted for him nonetheless. He also thought it was funny that Trump single-handedly destroyed the Republican party from within.

Zizek is funny. He obviously likes Trump but he's not allowed to because of the left's boring moral constraints, so he has to be all eclectic about it.

[The Immortal Goon]

What Zizek says is just common sense.

In my opinion, putting this up does little but show how disconnected reactionaries are from reality in that they think this will be novel to anybody on the left. The straw man that reactionaries built would not agree, but who really would argue with this on the left?

[Rich]

This is the dawning of the age of Pornography!

The fifth dimension got it wrong:

[youtube]kjxSCAalsBE[/youtube]

I feel I have made some pretty good predictions both personal and political but there's two things I got really wrong. I thought that Al Qaeda in Iraq had blown it. I thought going into market places and mosques and blowing up Shia women and children was a mistake. How wrong I was. I totally failed to recognise the genius of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was creating an Islam for the Age of Pornography. he was creating an Islam that was modern, relevant and above all totally cool. I'm a big fan of Game of thrones and Westworld, but lets not kid ourselves these are high brow porno. Even "The Wire" was pornography even if it didn't have much actual sex in. in this pornographic age how can HBO hope to compete with the Islamic State when it comes to creating brand loyalty?

Similarly my failure to predict that Donald Trump would lose the election by such a small margin was because I failed to recognise that he was the POTUS candidate for the age of pornography.

[Rugoz]

I find Zizek so boring.

Also, what's with his nose?

[The Sabbaticus]

What Zizek says is just common sense.

In my opinion, putting this up does little but show how disconnected reactionaries are from reality in that they think this will be novel to anybody on the left. The straw man that reactionaries built would not agree, but who really would argue with this on the left?

Or so claims the guy that thought Oregon secession was something to take seriously. And didn't you post a meme about 'worthless whites' yourself? And really, how many people voted for Hillary again? How many newspapers derided Trump voters as 'simpleton racist whites'? And how many newspapers brought out the minority victim pity parade after the election? Or how about the 'America hates women' pandering from many newspapers featuring close-ups of running tears. (We all had a good laugh at that one.)

Perhaps with 'reactionary' you were referring to the regressive (racist) left?

[The Immortal Goon]

In my opinion, putting this up does little but show how disconnected reactionaries are from reality

Or so claims the guy that thought Oregon secession was something to take seriously.

This said, it's extremely unlikely that the US would ever just concede giving up all access to the Pacific Ocean.

I see such conservative popularity for such an outcome as a possibility, but obviously (as mentioned) strategically it would never be allowed to happen for fear of losing access to the Pacific.

But [the movement wouldn't] mean anything. There is no mechanism for secession in the United States.

This is just an interesting hypothetical that's moving lightning fast around here.

Oh, I'm under no illusions that this is something that would happen.

It's not much of a surprise this is in the air, even if it's not realistic.

As alluded, it puts way more into the Union than it gets back. Which is exactly why it would never happen. But it's both side's desire to live without the other that makes this even seem possible.

I've been pretty clear from the beginning that I regard this [particular movement] as an impossibility.

Nobody has made the claim that this current secession movement will work.

And really, how many people voted for Hillary again?

[Clinton is] a corporate shill pushing the idea that everyone should just feel like they love one another would have done anything to help the poor.

So to prove that you don't just imagine a convenient position for your ideological opponents...

...you're going to just imagine a convenient position for your ideological opponent?

[Donna]

What Zizek says is just common sense.

In my opinion, putting this up does little but show how disconnected reactionaries are from reality in that they think this will be novel to anybody on the left. The straw man that reactionaries built would not agree, but who really would argue with this on the left?

How are you defining "the left"? Some people in communist circles consider Zizek to be a reactionary because he wants Europe to militarize its borders.

[Tewodros III]

I find Zizek so boring.

Also, what's with his nose?

Jewish blood, and Coke.

[The Immortal Goon]

How are you defining "the left"? Some people in communist circles consider Zizek to be a reactionary because he wants Europe to militarize its borders.

What an irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with anything...

..I can only imagine why you'd want to derail this discussion.

[pikachu]

It was around 2009-10 that the SJW thing began to spread.

Do you feel that there is some connection to Obama's election in the same year? Is there a case to talk about causation there one way or the other, correlation, or it's simply a coincidence? I really have no opinion on the subject.

[Tewodros III]

What an irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with anything...

..I can only imagine why you'd want to derail this discussion.

You want to here a joke IG: NRx https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkEnlightenment/

[Donna]

Do you feel that there is some connection to Obama's election in the same year? Is there a case to talk about causation there one way or the other, correlation, or it's simply a coincidence? I really have no opinion on the subject.

Maybe, I think it's primarily caused by the state of continental philosophy, which has coincided with a spectacular decline in Western academic standards. At the same time there is a refinement of their theories alongside an increasing degree of hostility to those ideas that now has them on the defensive.

In my opinion the Alt-Right is the beginning of a New Sincerity or post-ironic politics. The Left cannot shoot them or barricade them because they do not have any alternatives themselves except rootless anti-fascism hysteria, so in many ways the trolling class have become masters of the incoming zeitgeist.

[Tewodros III]

I think it's because they're cowards who allow the real fascists(neo-nazis, kkk) to do their dirty work. Manly they're assign to propaganda, they're a form tiger, they wouldn't last against those "SJW, Cuck" liberals actually bashing fashs.

[Donna]

What an irrelevant statement that has nothing to do with anything...

..I can only imagine why you'd want to derail this discussion.

I was just trying to expand on the discussion of Zizek, since you usually don't mind writing about the nuances of left-wing thought. You're being un-necessarily defensive and hostile.

[Potemkin]

So to prove that you don't just imagine a convenient position for your ideological opponents...

...you're going to just imagine a convenient position for your ideological opponent?

I think you're being unnecessarily harsh on Sabb, TIG. As a Dutchman, he is simply congenitally incapable of grasping the idea that other people might not conform his bullshit stereotypes.

The Dutch, eh...?