i am sorry you feel that way. i spent the time to listen and re-listen to the video, and i simply didn’t think it was very good. i tried to point out why. you’re of course more than welcome to ignore my feedback. it sucks to have my good faith effort actively derided. but, so be it.
8 Likes
‘Good faith’ is stretching it a bit. Especially when you start what you have now told me was your intention have a good faith conversation with:
It seems more like the thing someone who doesn’t want to consider any nuance of thought on the matter so presented would say. Off to a great start. Zero buy in. Total wash out. Not even speaking the same language. Maybe we can build on that though. Right?
You know, you did mention you had a criticism of the insidious nature of power dynamics he described but I honestly can’t find any. Perhaps we can continue in better faith, or at least some faith.
Where’s the criticism?
It was ‘as if’ you were summarising his position into a simplistic binary which you then criticised him for creating. Is that ironic?
It’s (always) better when (all) things are (always) overtly oppressive vs. when (all) things are (always) implicitly oppressive.
My god, what kind of monster would believe such things? Strawman set aflame.
Is he really saying that? Do you really believe that’s what he’s saying? “The only way”?
I’m taking a punt here and assume you mean that you feel it is not logical to be insulting to someone in order to insinuate friendship.
And, I’m going to use your proscription here, he is saying it is not just logical but the only way to establish relationships of any kind in perpetuity throughout the universe.
Boom! Headshot. Strawman flailing around trying to put his straw brains back into the empty sack of his head. On fire.
You set 'em up.
And you knock 'em down.
What would you have me respond to other than your proscriptive mischaracterisations and denial of validity of the entire nuance for any kind of conversation?
Really asking.
But what do you mean “not allowed?” Nobody’s getting arrested for trying out material that falls flat or causes mild offense. Comics who explore provocative subjects aren’t risking their lives or safety or freedom, at worst they might be risking getting a few boos from an uncharitable audience.
17 Likes
So you’re worried that comedians not being able to comfortably make women, minorities, or gay people the butts of jokes will keep comedians from being able to speak truth to power about the misogynist, racist, bigot? You really are worried about freedom of speech when that guy was openly racist, openly misogynistic, openly mocking people with disabilities, and spouting hateful shit for years with impunity?
I get that you might not like the status quo for comedians, but seriously, it’s an inconvenience for comedians, not a threat to the Republic.
15 Likes
It’s almost as if the “PC POLICE ARE EVERYWHERE YOU CAN’T EVEN MAKE JOKES!” crowd is masking concern for being judged for their own words and actions.
Almost.
Trump haaaaaates misogyny and racism, you see…
9 Likes
I’m reminded of the sort of whinging that was going on 20-30 years or so back when comics like Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson found out that people didn’t find nigger jokes funny anymore.
People booing your jokes? Tell better ones. Or stick to audiences that go for that sort of humour. Hell, I’m sure even alt-righties such as Klan or the EDL have comedy nights.
But if your response is along the lines of:
Then maybe you’re just a shit comedian and should try something else. Selling shoes or something. I dunno.
15 Likes
Zizek shifts definitions of PC so many times that he winds up suggesting smoking bans are an example of Political Correctness. He shifts the definition of “authoritarianism” in equally problematic ways. One might be able to make the argument that PC is some kind of authoritarianism, but Zizek’s attempt is confused incoherent rhetoric not an argument. I’m not a partisan of the Anglo-American philosophical tradition, but regarding their critique of Continentals, Zizek is exactly the kind of ridiculous parody of rational thought that they hold up to reject the lot.
5 Likes
‘Schools have low opinions of one another’ is your punchline? It’s a sophisticated ad hominem, I’ll give you that. Almost poetic.
Agreed. But only without the proscription. It can be.
Zizek really feels like he’s doing more good by ‘telling a story’ about the idea he’s trying to impart, and it’s not to everyone’s taste. Fair enough. I’d like to know how the hell else you are supposed to talk about the subjects he does, in the public forum he has chosen, without this absurd element.
I would like to hear about the ways in which you find his shifting focus to be problematic specifically.
Might want to reread that one again.
When you reach the point of suggesting that whatever Political Correctness means (which he never makes clear) that it’s a form of authoritarianism, then that’s really a very serious accusation to make. When “authoritarianism” really doesn’t mean centralizing political power in a small group who radially (and virtually always brutally) restrict human rights, but something more like “it’s pretty inconvenient to have to walk a few feet to have a smoke,” that’s absurd. The thing he’s calling PC isn’t. The thing he’s calling authoritarianism isn’t. The labeling of PC as authoritarianism is meaningless.
Most importantly, if one were to go making the very serious accusation of some group being dangerous authoritarians, it’d be helpful to actually name the specific group, the specific means by which they have agency, and the ways they exercise that agency. He skips all that. I assume it’s since if he tried to flesh any of it out, the ridiculousness of a non-centralized movement that has no leadership, organization, or teeth in exercising authority (other than social shame) would be abundantly clear. There’s no “there” there anywhere at any point through his rant.
4 Likes
No, I made it a verbal object. It’s a thing now. lolol
Gimme a minute, there’s a line in the video, I think… let me find it.
So, I’m just not remembering, and now that I’m watching it again, seeing or hearing any of this absolutist language you both have been attributing to him and so I guess I’ll just start by saying it seems clear he’s initially just offering examples of how PC culture or language or ideology can be subverted and used in a destructive manner. Why you feel it would not be important to shore up this defect, in much the same way you would not want someone to abuse authority in any fashion, using any formulation of language, is to me, at the moment, utterly opaque.
He goes on to talk about how it is possible to subvert intentionally harmful language by ‘taking over’ that language. I believe this is a tried and true method.
Just noticed. You’re straw-manning as well. Your attribution is strong. I’m sort of on the verge of thinking you’re just driving trollies me.
I seem to remember you having a bug up your butt about Zizek from before… would this be a fair characterisation of your opinion of him?
Smoking. Cromulent if pedantic example of subversion using an intrusive description of behaviour which uses an apparent need to institute a law which protects imagined victims from an imagined offence.
Like, I alluded to. Shifting focus. He’s telling his stories about different aspects of the idea. The fact that you find them tangential is fine. You have different opinions on how those boundaries should be drawn. I believe those do describe problematic facets of those concepts, and further believe that being aware of those issues allows us to modify and preface our position in such a way as to erase any criticism of it along those lines. And talking of lines, I’m still watching for that one in particular.
Am I supposed to be rolling my eyes at this or what!?He has described people who use PC language and engage in that culture as all being one group. He has further announced that all of them, every last one, are by definition dangerous authoritarians.
Oh but I should re-read my stuff. I hope you’re laughing over there. 
Yup yup. At 10:03 he says “It’s up to them to decide.” It’s up to groups to define how language is used in reference to them. He is clearly not taking the position you are attributing to him.
I think it’s the most important part of what he’s expressing, other than to offer a critique, describing how political correctness can be subverted.
Given our current circumstances of an authoritarian managing to seize tremendous power in the US without managing to be restrained by the powers of Political Correctness, I think we can safely put Zizek’s worries on the dustheap of history of very confused and poorly thought out worries that reality eventually showed as being pointless fears.
I have little respect for his approach to cultural criticism, and less for his ability to articulate ideas clearly. Still, I think I was mischaracterizing Zizek. It’s hard to fairly characterize an argument that isn’t an argument but rather a disconnected series of stories, fuzzy generalizations, an odd obsession with smoking (there was that Carmen story as well as the airplane one), really dumb seeming claims like “without such a tiny exchange of friendly obscenities you don’t have a real contact with another,” and deliberately dishonest seeing generalizations like claiming PC’s authoritarianism is like domineering parent saying, “I know better than you what you really want and I may appear to be forcing you to do it, but I’m really just making you do what without fully knowing what you want” when there is no “parent”, and no “making”/coercion that apply to the object of the analogy, so it’s probably not fair of me to characterize it in the terms I have as a kind of argument when it’s more a kind of performance art. His goal is really to evoke a feeling, by telling stories, trying to say something about the world myths-poetically, while he really doesn’t seem very good at it since the story’s not compelling to me (the secret villain’s never revealed, which makes for a crap plot to me), but I’m not a literary critic who can really address it.
There’s a transcript here, you can see what he’s doing:
5 Likes
We should admit we’re just talking past one another and draw a line under it.
1 Like
I’d agree. I honestly don’t think it’s possible to meaningfully discuss that kind of thing.
One last try. You don’t think it’s possible to meaningfully discuss the idea of shoring up the collection of ideas that go into the concept of PC by addressing the ways in which it can be subverted and used in a manner for which it was not intended, and even (used in a manner for which it was) created to expunge?
Also… Read the transcript? lolol Oh, yeah, I read through it twice and still think I’m not sure what you are actually directing your criticism at. Ima go re-read it another five or six times to really see what he’s doing.
I’m tempted to proffer casual insult with a non-pejorative, endearing term in the hope that it would ensconce us in a situation with more bonhomie than a mere 
But I guess such subversions of the apparent intent of language would be deemed in rather bad taste. So I shall only wink
1 Like
I do think it’s very possible to discuss the various meanings of the term “political correctness” (which certainly isn’t only one concept), and once you’ve elucidate that, explain what kinds of agency are involved in pursuing those, and assuming you’re focusing on PC as managing language by inventing/using euphemisms, avoiding certain terms, and redefining others to avoid [offense, reification of oppression by using derogatory language, reification of prejudice by using language that reinforces prejudice], that you could describe/argue that this can have self-defeating and counterproductive results. I do think there are meaningful critiques of some forms of Political Correctness, and I’ve critiqued some here on the BBS in the past.
Some things that would matter most to me most if we’re taking about a cultural criticism of some kind of PC besides setting out definitions (ideally tied to examples) would be shedding light on what the agency is (not just what it is but how it works), who has that agency, how that agency has continued to be propagated, and fair consideration of what various outcomes have been.
I’d posted that since listening to it as a video, he feels almost persuasive, but when read it degenerates into nonsense really quickly. The fact that Zizek started with stories about how you can’t use e-cigarettes on planes and that the Perth Opera House avoided putting on Carmen because of the smoking scenes because of PC made it really clear that he didn’t have any normal definition (most people define PC in some kind of linguistic terms, for Ziz, when it’s convenient PS isn’t about language, but apparently is very much about smoking bans - I’m guessing he’s a smoker who’s bitter at Western society making things hard on him), but he was just riffing like a performance artist with whatever felt hep in the moment.
ETA: Reiterating something that’s worth repeating and adding a bit: Given the growth of right-wing authoritarianism, the degree to which their public expressions of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and bigotry continue to happen and weren’t prevented in any significant way, and given their stated goals of and efforts at real human rights abuses are really happening right now, this hand-wringing about the horrors of PC as a kind of authoritarianism putting human rights at risk is absurd IMO. If the PC movement had the imaginary power and influence ascribed to it by its opponents, we would not be in our current situation. It’s worse than that since the false critiques of PC which Zizek contributed to actually helped right-wing authoritarians in their pursuit of power. We actually had right wing trollies here citing Zizek to justify their racism and belligerent bigotry.
6 Likes
His Big Think stuff is especially performance-y but it’s clear he can use technical language when he wants to. In his public talks its always like this kind of island-hopping tour of strange archipelagos but I feel like his use of this form of presentation is engaging. And really does focus (in a way you find distasteful and impractically imprecise) on issues with can be addressed by those that would participate in the creation of the idea.
Ultimately, that’s why I feel his sentiment that “it’s up to them to decide” is so important. Offering a criticism of PC, however provocative and engaging, from any other position really would be meaningless and genuinely denigrating.
ETA:
And I think it is exactly because of the rise of the fucking alt-right that these issues need to be addressed by those participating in the construction of the concept in a way which erases criticism of them (the issues, although I’d like to be able to erase the ideology… is that fascistic of me?).
If the intention is to actually win in the fight to colonise the most minds with “Treat people with respect.”
Then I defer to your conceit of determining actual conversations worth having.
@gatto can determine whatever conversations they feel like having. Outside of that, they can talk as much about you as they want. Your ability to annoy does not rise to the ability to compel discourse on your terms.
1 Like
Exactly my sentiment.
I do not disagree.
OK. And does that ability to annoy (?), in your estimation, compel me to engage in discourse on someone else’s terms? Perhaps I misunderstand?
Just stop whining about the ineffectiveness of your arguments. Or not, at the peril of becoming a tilter-at-pyramids. Something that has no affect on you if you have no care for your place in the community.
2 Likes
