Zizek Warns We're Slipping Into A New, Controlled Society - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15027573
It's wonderful to see people I normally don't agree with taking very important stances for the good of all:

Modern censorship is more dangerous than open totalitarianism, it being concealed and incorporated in our daily routine, says Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, commenting on the insider leak detailing Google’s news blacklist.

The intellectual told RT he’s not advocating for online anarchy, comparing it to snuff movies in hardcore pornography – some regulation should be in place to block harmful content on the internet, he says. But hiding political motives for suppressing voices online is what worries Zizek the most.

“We all know we have to censor things at some level, but the main rule for me is that the process should be transparent. Not in the way – I’m talking about the developed West – it is done now, when all of a sudden somebody is prohibited and you are not even allowed to debate it,” Zizek explains. The “false choice” between politically correct censorship and radical liberalism is a trap, he believes.


Zizek does even think about this pragmatically for a moment:

This week, conservative transparency group Project Veritas published documents it received from an ex-Google employee. The documents appeared to confirm that Google can boost or de-rank news sources based on a seemingly biased set of internal rules. Calling the practices “dark and nefarious” the whistleblower, Zachary Vorhies, also leaked a doc detailing Google’s “blacklist” that lists nearly 500 websites, including both conservative and leftist media outlets.

Zizek believes the Big Tech's practice of blacklists and shadow bans could prove an opportunity for right-wing activists to show themselves as a group fighting establishment politics and targeted for their opposition. The philosopher thinks this tactic will actually backfire against liberals by giving “the new populist right a position where they can say: you see, we’re the true alternative, we’re the true oppressed.”


I also agree with Zizek on this:

Google is likely not the only tech megacorporation with a tight grip on their users’ digital menu, Zizek argues – but “the process isn’t some kind of a dark plot,” rather an inconspicuous slide “into a new, controlled society.”


And the wonderful parting thought:

One doesn’t know anymore “if there is secret police following you or somebody reading your letters,” and this in Zizek’s mind is what differentiates it from the totalitarianism of the past. Modern control is hidden and undeclared, Zizek says.


RT

I do not think that it is a concentrated effort necessarily by everyone involved to bring about 1984, but rather, it is people who think they are actually doing good and honoring free speech by censoring. It's rather not unlike the church moms who wanted to ban Cannibal Corpse in the 1980s: they see something objectionable and offensive and do not believe that it constitutes free speech because they think it is not edifying to society.

They may be entirely right, but the proper way to handle it is to criticize it publicly and wait for the trend to pass -- not to begin the long march into censorship and commence stripping regular folks of their rights.
#15027804
I am not a Fascist, but I guess I would be a "statist" insofar as I believe that there should be a state. I also believe that the state should guarantee free speech because it is an inalienable right of all people, who are created in imago dei, to state their beliefs freely and without repercussion.

I think you have been jumping to conclusions.
#15027807
Verv wrote:I am not a Fascist, but I guess I would be a "statist" insofar as I believe that there should be a state. I also believe that the state should guarantee free speech because it is an inalienable right of all people, who are created in imago dei, to state their beliefs freely and without repercussion.

I think you have been jumping to conclusions.


You aren't a fascist despite appreciating and liking fascism.

If you've read fascist literature I'm sure you know what fascists think of free speech for anyone but themselves.
#15027810
Palmyrene wrote:You aren't a fascist despite appreciating and liking fascism.


I have read books by Fascists and think it is an interesting ideology, and I intend to keep reading on the topic.

I corrected you on your misunderstandings of Fascism.

I am a traditionalist, not a fascist, and I have massive issues with anyone who would abuse state power and commit mass murder.

The fact that I have appreciated the writings and observations of some of these guys does not mean that I am one of them, just like how someone who appreciates some aspect of Marx is not necessarily a Marxist.
#15027821
Verv wrote:I have read books by Fascists and think it is an interesting ideology, and I intend to keep reading on the topic.


The reason you like fascism is because it strokes your ego and biases.

I corrected you on your misunderstandings of Fascism.


I didn't misunderstand anything. I live in a fascist state.

I am a traditionalist, not a fascist, and I have massive issues with anyone who would abuse state power and commit mass murder.


Which is why you like fascists because they've never done that before :roll:

The fact that I have appreciated the writings and observations of some of these guys does not mean that I am one of them, just like how someone who appreciates some aspect of Marx is not necessarily a Marxist.


You definitely take alot from fascists.
#15027832
Oh, OK. So, you understand something intimate about me that I do not understand: I "like" Fascism because it strokes my ego. OK.

Should I speculate about why you like anarchism, now? Would that be fair?

I didn't misunderstand anything. I live in a fascist state.


:O

Sure.

Which is why you like fascists because they've never done that before :roll:


There's some sort of misunderstanding. You didn't read what I wrote correctly.

You definitely take alot from fascists.


... How so? :?: :roll:
#15027835
Verv wrote:Oh, OK. So, you understand something intimate about me that I do not understand: I "like" Fascism because it strokes my ego. OK.


That's the reason why any populism appeals to people.

Should I speculate about why you like anarchism, now? Would that be fair?


Sure.

:O

Sure.


Believe what you want to believe. I've found that people's belief in me being Syrian is tied to whether they agree with me or disagree with me politically.


There's some sort of misunderstanding. You didn't read what I wrote correctly.


You like fascists right?

... How so? :?: :roll:


You don't spend most of your time writing about fascism and then not take alot from it.
#15027864
Palmyrene wrote:That's the reason why any populism appeals to people.


But you're wrong on this one...

Why does it have to be the case that the appeal has to be inherently from a character flaw? I never read Fromm's book on the 'totalitarian personality' (or whatever), nor did I read Arrendt on it, but this idea that the reason someone thinks something different from me is some fundamental character flaw is poisonous.

Are there people who are Fascists or Communists who have personality flaws? Yes. Do some of their personality flaws exaggerate or even lead certain people to the ideology? Sure.

But why not accept that people come to different conclusions because they have different value judgments and different perspectives on things.

Not everything has to be some fudnamental character flaw.

This is the sort of thinking that, IMO, results in us viewing our political opponents as disposable.

Believe what you want to believe. I've found that people's belief in me being Syrian is tied to whether they agree with me or disagree with me politically.


Sure, I will just go with the flow. I am disinterested.

You like fascists right?


The question is deceptively short, and any one word answer would be wrong.

If I say "No," I am not telling the full truth. If I say "yes, but," no one will listen to anything after "but."

It also tells us nothing.

I like my friend Jan who is a Communist. Does that make me a Communist? No. And, technically, this would mean "I like Communists."

In this sense, it's a worthless question.

Rephrase, please.

You don't spend most of your time writing about fascism and then not take alot from it.


I actually spend most of my time working, listening to music, and reading books -- very few of which are Fascist.

I spend more time brushing my teeth in a year than I do writing about Fascism.

You got the wrong man.
#15027875
Verv wrote:But you're wrong on this one...

Why does it have to be the case that the appeal has to be inherently from a character flaw? I never read Fromm's book on the 'totalitarian personality' (or whatever), nor did I read Arrendt on it, but this idea that the reason someone thinks something different from me is some fundamental character flaw is poisonous.

Are there people who are Fascists or Communists who have personality flaws? Yes. Do some of their personality flaws exaggerate or even lead certain people to the ideology? Sure.

But why not accept that people come to different conclusions because they have different value judgments and different perspectives on things.

Not everything has to be some fudnamental character flaw.

This is the sort of thinking that, IMO, results in us viewing our political opponents as disposable.


People are driven to certain ideologies based on their class position, background, race, culture, childhood, etc.

The point isn't that they are flaws persay but rather that certain elements of specific ideologies appeal to different parts of people's personalities.

Fascism is entirely romanticism and ego stroking. It's basically "validation, the ideology" and that's about it. If you are attracted to any populism this validation is a core component of it.

The question is deceptively short, and any one word answer would be wrong.

If I say "No," I am not telling the full truth. If I say "yes, but," no one will listen to anything after "but."

It also tells us nothing.

I like my friend Jan who is a Communist. Does that make me a Communist? No. And, technically, this would mean "I like Communists."

In this sense, it's a worthless question.

Rephrase, please.


The reason why people are holding you to such scrutiny is because you literally have no good faith whatsoever. No one can give you the benefit of the doubt because you always take advantage of that.

And you seem to be genuinely offended by me being so skeptical of you which leads me to believe you have absolutely no self awareness whatsoever. You have no idea exactly what it is you're doing.

I actually spend most of my time working, listening to music, and reading books -- very few of which are Fascist.

I spend more time brushing my teeth in a year than I do writing about Fascism.

You got the wrong man.


I'm soooo skeptical that you aren't a crypto-fascist. There is absolutely no way.

Every time you open your mouth there are thousands of red flags that appear at once.
#15027878
Palmyrene wrote:People are driven to certain ideologies based on their class position, background, race, culture, childhood, etc.

The point isn't that they are flaws persay but rather that certain elements of specific ideologies appeal to different parts of people's personalities.

Fascism is entirely romanticism and ego stroking. It's basically "validation, the ideology" and that's about it. If you are attracted to any populism this validation is a core component of it.


More armchair psychology.

The reason why people are holding you to such scrutiny is because you literally have no good faith whatsoever. No one can give you the benefit of the doubt because you always take advantage of that.

And you seem to be genuinely offended by me being so skeptical of you which leads me to believe you have absolutely no self awareness whatsoever. You have no idea exactly what it is you're doing.

...

I'm soooo skeptical that you aren't a crypto-fascist. There is absolutely no way.


This is forum drama. I am uninterested in discussing how you & others have deemed I do not merit "good faith" because you are all so intimate with who I am as a person, :lol: .



Every time you open your mouth there are thousands of red flags that appear at once.


Technically, if red flags appeared at once every time I open my mouth here... Wouldn't that mean I'm a crypto-Communist?

Image
#15027883
This thread is a good example of the distraction techniques used to stifle debate. Instead of discussing Zizek's views on Google's censorship you're debating who and what fascism is.

There should be public oversight and transparency in the way tech giants moderate their platforms.
#15027890
Verv wrote:It's wonderful to see people I normally don't agree with taking very important stances for the good of all:

Indeed. PragerU released a video today detailing their suit against YouTube.



It lays out the case very nicely, and it makes me wonder if this is going to go to SCOTUS. If so, I'm betting that YouTube gets smacked down hard.

Palmyrene wrote:The reason you like fascism is because it strokes your ego and biases.

Is that why you like anarchy?

Palmyrene wrote:That's the reason why any populism appeals to people.

You mean it is impossible for a politician to speak to the best interest of the masses?

Palmyrene wrote:I've found that people's belief in me being Syrian is tied to whether they agree with me or disagree with me politically.

I find it hard to believe you are living in Syria and 15 years old. I don't find it hard to believe you are Syrian. That's nothing peculiar.

Palmyrene wrote:Fascism is entirely romanticism and ego stroking. It's basically "validation, the ideology" and that's about it.

That ignores urbanism, industrialism, mass production and mass communication--all of which took place from the mid-19th to the early 20th Century. That's kind of a lot to ignore.

Palmyrene wrote:The reason why people are holding you to such scrutiny is because you literally have no good faith whatsoever.

By people, you mean you, right? Verv's opinion may differ from yours, but the point of the thread is that YouTube should allow him and others like him to express their opinion and not censor. Indeed, YouTube would censor your opinion too.

Verv wrote:Technically, if red flags appeared at once every time I open my mouth here... Wouldn't that mean I'm a crypto-Communist?

Touche. Well done!

AFIAK wrote:There should be public oversight and transparency in the way tech giants moderate their platforms.

I think the Prager lawsuit may be the harbinger. We shall see.

However, I don't think censorship is working out the way YouTube or the mainstream media is hoping. For example, YouTube can hide the yellow vest protests along with the mainstream media, but they happen every weekend anyway. It's amazing that they suppress everyone and leave RT to be the custodian of eyewitness evidence.



Yes, RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government. So why are they the only ones reporting on this? Is there something "unfree" about the free press in the West that they have a news blackout on this? Even FoxNews doesn't report on it.

We're beginning to see similar strains with Hong Kong. Globalism is collapsing.
#15027962
AFAIK wrote:There should be public oversight and transparency in the way tech giants moderate their platforms.


:up:

Verv wrote:I am not a Fascist, but I guess I would be a "statist" insofar as I believe that there should be a state. I also believe that the state should guarantee free speech because it is an inalienable right of all people, who are created in imago dei, to state their beliefs freely and without repercussion.


That's nice, but the state doesn't.
#15027969
I think the fundamental problem here is that, political correct censorship is not as practical as some believe, as it is often hard to draw the line beyond which the speech is considered as (unnecessary) abuse.

It is probably better to believe that bad things bound to happen, and sometimes there are bad stuff which is, unfortunately, impractical to prevent. We need to be more adaptive to adversaries, just like how exercise helps us to defend better against diseases.

On the other hand, why do some people think control is necessarily a bad thing is beyond my level of knowledge (which means I am not a very knowledgeable person, right...)
#15027993
Verv wrote:More armchair psychology.


It's not. This is based on actual psychological work on people who like populism.

This is forum drama. I am uninterested in discussing how you & others have deemed I do not merit "good faith" because you are all so intimate with who I am as a person, :lol: .


Good faith is necessary to have a good discussion. You take advantage of good faith.

Technically, if red flags appeared at once every time I open my mouth here... Wouldn't that mean I'm a crypto-Communist?

Image


Yes. Marxist-Leninists aren't so different from Fascists. I'm sure you'll love them.
#15027999
blackjack21 wrote:Indeed. PragerU released a video today detailing their suit against YouTube.



Holy shit you actually watch PragerU.

Image

Is that why you like anarchy?


If I wanted an ideology that stroked my ego I would've become a fascist.

I actually was a corporatist for quite a while.

You mean it is impossible for a politician to speak to the best interest of the masses?


It's impossible for a politician to keep his promises.

I find it hard to believe you are living in Syria and 15 years old. I don't find it hard to believe you are Syrian. That's nothing peculiar.


Yeah sometimes I think I'm hard to believe too ;)

That ignores urbanism, industrialism, mass production and mass communication--all of which took place from the mid-19th to the early 20th Century. That's kind of a lot to ignore.


How is that relevant? Fascism isn't about those things. It may use it as a part of it's aesthetic but it's devoid of depth in it's actual content. Read the Futurist Manifesto outloud, it sounds like something a child wrote and it says literally nothing.

By people, you mean you, right? Verv's opinion may differ from yours, but the point of the thread is that YouTube should allow him and others like him to express their opinion and not censor. Indeed, YouTube would censor your opinion too.


That's irrelevant to me and this forum.

Also YouTube is a private company. It doesn't have to do anything you tell it to.

Touche. Well done!


You guys suck at comebacks. Honestly, the best comeback I've ever recieved on this forum came from a liberal soooo.
Ukrainegate

Here we go again kids. It may be time to invade I[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EE7Lg1tXk[…]

So you think GM closing factories in US is someho[…]

Your statement makes no sense since antifa never […]