The more time I spend arguing with fascists the truer these words seem. So many of their arguments aren't really about their arguments, they're about getting you to agree with their frame.
I'm a fascist. What zizek is saying is just so wrong. He literally says it doesn't matter whether or not it is true what the nazis said about jews but that they needed it to be true because of their creed. Yes duh we're reactionaries foremost not ideologically bound to the same degree as Marxists etc.
Facists protected Jewish people from germ's Death Camps. They were allies but Nazist were really angry, but Facists don't let them. Germs started genocyde Italian's Jewish after Commies throw out Mussolini, do you know that fact? Do you know also Jozeph Stalin(150 milions of murdered victims) advised to all Marxists to call political enemies "Facists" he also said "People will buy it because they are dumb, most of them don't remember the history. It is easier way than discussing" That it is 100% true.
Searching for the fact that's in short term, truth and observing a narrative frame that's in long term, truth, both can align together if you're not a leftist. Simple as that
I am not convinced by Zizek‘s very first statement. He claims,if someone knows something, it does not have to be true. His argument is simply this: (P1) a pathologically jealous husband can make true claims about his wife cheating on him (P2) such a pathological jealousy adds something untrue to a true claim (C) if someone knows something, it does not have to be true I claim that (P1) is true and that (P2) is too unclear. What is it that is untrue and added to a true claim? It cannnot be the pathological jealousy itself. Being jealous just means being afraid that one could lose someone (to whom one has a strong emotional tie) to another person. Being afraid consists of the believe that this could happen and the whish that it won’t happen. If the fear is so strong that a jealous person tries to use almost everything as a piece of evidence supporting the believe without a relatively calm reflection on the possibility of counter-arguments, the person in question is clearly pathologically jealous. The only part of the fear which can be true or false is the believe-part. I take it that the claims of the jealous husband in question express the believes which are part of the husband’s jealousy. According to Zizek, the claims can be true. I think thererfore the same goes for the believes being expressed. They are, at least in Zizek's example, true, even though they lack rationality. I claim (C) is false, because it has at least one counter-intuitive consequence. If truth were not necessary for knowledge, there could be something false being knowlegde. Maybe one could falsely believe that one can fly by just moving one’s arms imitating a bird. That belief would then be knowledge. Ok, I interpreted “knowledge” as a belief of such and such a kind. Zizek means something else. I take it that when Zizek uses the word „knowledge“ or „adequate knowledge“ or „true knowledge“, he simply means ,true claim‘. I do so for two reasons: (i) Zizek is talking about true claims when describing his example of a jealous husband without mentioning a justification; (ii) one usually thinks that a pathologically jealous person does not have rational grounds or at least lacks rational grounds to a large extend. (C) must therefore be formulated as follows: “if someone makes a true claim, it does not have to be true”, which is nonsense.
You're getting hung up on Zizek's use of the words 'knowledge' and 'truth.' That's partly Zizek's fault for expressing himself unclearly at the beginning, but you're still completely off the mark in your recapitulation of his argument. Zizek probably could have expressed himself better if instead of saying 'truth' he said 'facts,' and instead of 'knowledge,' he said 'ideology.' His argument is that sometimes we hold beliefs for purely ideological reasons, because of the way they function to coordinate the various fantasies and politics that serve to structure a particular social structure in which we're invested. Even if these beliefs happen to coincide with real objective facts (IE, assuming that the Jews really were trying to sabotage Germany from within as per the beliefs of the Nazis), that doesn't change the fact that that belief is held because it performs a certain political function (again to the Nazis, turning the Jews into a sabotaging other allowed them to coordinate Germany long racial, nationalistic lines) and not because it reflects facts. The proper way to critique and defeat these kinds of beliefs is not to try to defeat them on the level of facticity and empiricism, but to demonstrate the hidden political agenda of the belief and to try to dissolve it on the level of the psyche. THAT is Zizek's argument.
Thank you for your summary of the point which Zizek wanted to make in general. I agree with you on that. But I did not intend to reconstruct Zizeks general line of thought. I only refered to Zizeks very first claim that knowledge is not necessarily true, which is based on psychoanalysis. I tried to reconstruct Zizeks argument for that claim. There one cannot substitute the word „knowledge“ with the word „ideology“, because Zizek talked about pathological jealousy and pathological jealousy is not an ideology. If one substituted the word ”truth” with the word ”fact”, it would not help create a sound argument. (P1) a pathologically jealous husband can make factual claims about his wife cheating on him (P2) such a pathological jealousy adds something unfactual to a factual claim (C) if someone knows something, it does not have to be factual It would still remain unclear what it is that is unfactual and added to a factual claim. It would still have the counter-intuitive conclusion that knowledge is unfactual.
Maximus1879 you have totally over analysed that. he's merely saying it matters not if she was cheating or not, the man uses the jealousy as a plank of his own being.....needs it.....is it.
how is this video about argumentation with racists and fascists? it´s not even about racism or fascism. it´about the justification of an act based on statements and that these statements dont have to be true or false
Quaranta to put it simply: it is pointless to debate facts put forth by racists and fascists, since these have no intrinsic value to them. Debate the actual ideology itself, as facts are mere means for both groups.
@@stijnlauwen6227 No. Like ahaha how can u not understand how flaud this is, u debate the facts not the ideology. Imagine going to a debate about whether pens or pencils are better and ur argument centred on why pens were bad as opposed to debating facts.
You have to arrange your mental faculties and biological being so that it's optimized for a life under the strictly materialistic outlook of left ideology rule. Ideology in harmony with the primordial would be to easy now wouldn't it?
His argument is that you can't argue objectively against a completely subjective pathological thought pattern. It would be like reacting to a paranoid schizophrenic telling you the lizard people are watching him with 'but where are the lizard people?' The moment you ask that, you have already entered his own world construction in which even the most implausible claim makes sense.
@Normal upright citizen #534721 Exactly, it's the same old case about not making claims about groups since were all Individuals.tm, guess what Zizek, the human brain is a pattern making machine and if I see a pattern of Jewish behavior then it's probably true, even if a few outliers exist. What's the alternative? Give each and everyone of them the benefit of the doubt and still suffer the consequences of their group behavior?
@Jack W Nobody is making evidence, there is an observed pattern, that is interpreted as truth for the sake of efficiency, because our brains are pattern recognizing machines that don't have the time and energy to judge every single person in existence. His criticism is that our interpretations are not absolutely true, which is accurate, but there are degrees of predictive power in certain observed phenomena. Absolute or not, action needs to be taken, one cannot remain in eternal skepticism and nonjudgement and expect to survive. Its only in the modern world where people stuck in their own solipsism can remain and never act on anything, and then they have the fucking gall to judge those who do act.
@@ProDCloud But if we all worked towards reducing inequalities in the system, then the outliers won't matter as much. Right wing ideology still works to reinforce the same hierarchies that they feel is oppressing them, because their solution (their final solution, if you will) is to become the new oppressors. That's just a revolution that wants to go backwards.
The point is that agreeing to a fascist framework, which since fascism is severely predicated on conspiracy narratives and lies is always false, and then try to argue within that to dismantle the fascist's points is useless. At that point you have already conceded way too much territory. As soon as someone is talking points it's because they think their framework is already applicable. For example, Ben Shapiro is notorious for refusing to call trans women she/her, trans men he/him and non-binary people they/them/ *** in conversations. *Ben* says his reasons are some waffle about chromosomes, which can be true though 99.9% if not 100% of the time he's ignoring intersex people in that line of thinking. However, he's arguing that as a point because his framework does not allow trans or nb people to exist when clearly they do. The chromosome thing is a post hoc rationalization of his lie. Or, basically, he only uses facts in such a way that they support his very precious feelings.
He's really just saying that one shouldn't fall for the red herring. It's not about the content of truth in the claim, it is that discussing the claim diverts from the actual discussion. The claim isn't relevant to the problem you actually want to address in the circumstance. Well, you might. He doesn't. He's really just saying it in a needlessly convoluted manner, as basically everything he says.
In the moment when you say "fascists may have a point" you are already giving the fascists the whole victory, you are giving legitimacy to an opinion which is un-legitimizable
@@teoteo3522 Man, that comment is old. I have since changed my worldview and no longer agree with what I wrote. In fact I'm probably gonna delete it altogether
I will disagree with Zizek's point as far as his equivalence of anti-Semitism to the Iraqi war. Accepting that the statements of the deleterious affect of the Jew on the Nationstate and the oppression and Tyranny under the Saddam regime, Zizek, as most Marxist seem to do, mistakes the Domestic and International element in both situations. If the Saddam regime is oppressing its own people, the perspective of a Western man in Europe or America may remain dormant. A citizen of Germany does not have an obligation to take an active stance on oppression in Iraq because it does not affect his society, government, or position. If there is something bad happening on the other side of the world, you are not forced to do a single thing. Now: If the Jew were targeting *your* nation, exploiting *your* people, in your state and onto your cultural and ethnic group, the threat is domestic and internal. In another words: Accepting one position logically requires opposition, while the other does not. To Jewish influence, a believer is not allowed to simply say "so what?" as one could to some oppressive regime thousands of miles away. You do not have an option to be neutral as with Iraq. A better equivalence would be if Iraq were invading your own ho.eland and country.
I don't agree with you because the u.s tried convincing the citizens that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction so it would permit it to stop Iraq and Saddam, not mainly because Saddam was oppressive of his people. And he says that people should not care even if Saddam was oppressive and some people were supportive of his regime. The "truth" of Saddam being "bad" is just an ideology and a reason for the right-wingers to attack Iraq. If you are a leftist in this situation, hearing the "bad" things about Saddam will be used as a trap and give an "ok" to them to attack Iraq because of the "truths."
The more time I spend arguing with fascists the truer these words seem. So many of their arguments aren't really about their arguments, they're about getting you to agree with their frame.
Its about getting the people around you to see you as the insane communist you are
Define "fascist" you "fascist".
@@BearZap34 your parents would have been sterilized under Nazi rule.
I'm a fascist. What zizek is saying is just so wrong. He literally says it doesn't matter whether or not it is true what the nazis said about jews but that they needed it to be true because of their creed. Yes duh we're reactionaries foremost not ideologically bound to the same degree as Marxists etc.
Fascist are right
He is younger here and so on
???
He doesn't sniff here
.. and so on and so on *moves shirt a little* .. *sniff* .. *move shirt again*
"It is literally... it is precisely!" *sniff*
ae ?
Ahmad beik The older he gets the more he sniffs. Same as the rest as us😷
_"He doesn't sniff here "_
Must have been between pay cheques.
He is not Zizek... he looks so clean. :-0
Very Hegelian reflexion here! The error is more often in the question itself (binary, thesis vs antithesis) than in the answer.
Vaush moment. Truly, Zizek is a sage of modern politics.
Vaush, NonCompete, Vietnameshe Nationalishm and sho on
Don't mention them in the same sentence. Delete this comment. Vaush is a kiddy fiddler
this guy is a genius. he can see through the political correctness and all the paranoia.
I'm surprised they allow cameras into his cell.
It costs a lot to visit him too.
Facists protected Jewish people from germ's Death Camps. They were allies but Nazist were really angry, but Facists don't let them. Germs started genocyde Italian's Jewish after Commies throw out Mussolini, do you know that fact? Do you know also Jozeph Stalin(150 milions of murdered victims) advised to all Marxists to call political enemies "Facists" he also said "People will buy it because they are dumb, most of them don't remember the history. It is easier way than discussing" That it is 100% true.
Also stalin eated all the grain and paid the clouds not to rain.
Correct.
Woody Hutton LOL! It’s the irresistible charm of the fuggly.
I literally argued this today with a sibling of mine. my gott..
What did you literally argue about?
@@klaseberhartz1860 about dareteIayam's mustache
If you argued in favor of what this guy is saying then you lost that argument buddy 🤣
Here Zizek is revealing his power level, very advanced sophistical refutation.
can somebody cc this pls :( i cannot make out what he says, or at least summarize tyy
@L ty! does he go on to explain why these aren’t true questions?
Searching for the fact that's in short term, truth and observing a narrative frame that's in long term, truth, both can align together if you're not a leftist. Simple as that
I miss communist zizek :(
Is he not still a communist?
I am not convinced by Zizek‘s very first statement. He claims,if someone knows something, it does not have to be true.
His argument is simply this:
(P1) a pathologically jealous husband can make true claims about his wife cheating on him
(P2) such a pathological jealousy adds something untrue to a true claim
(C) if someone knows something, it does not have to be true
I claim that (P1) is true and that (P2) is too unclear. What is it that is untrue and added to a true claim? It cannnot be the pathological jealousy itself.
Being jealous just means being afraid that one could lose someone (to whom one has a strong emotional tie) to another person. Being afraid consists of the believe that this could happen and the whish that it won’t happen.
If the fear is so strong that a jealous person tries to use almost everything as a piece of evidence supporting the believe without a relatively calm reflection on the possibility of counter-arguments, the person in question is clearly pathologically jealous.
The only part of the fear which can be true or false is the believe-part. I take it that the claims of the jealous husband in question express the believes which are part of the husband’s jealousy. According to Zizek, the claims can be true. I think thererfore the same goes for the believes being expressed. They are, at least in Zizek's example, true, even though they lack rationality.
I claim (C) is false, because it has at least one counter-intuitive consequence. If truth were
not necessary for knowledge, there could be something false being knowlegde. Maybe one could falsely believe that one can fly by just moving one’s arms imitating a bird. That belief would then be knowledge.
Ok, I interpreted “knowledge” as a belief of such and such a kind. Zizek means something else. I take it that when Zizek uses the word „knowledge“ or „adequate knowledge“ or „true knowledge“, he simply means ,true claim‘. I do so for two reasons: (i) Zizek is talking about true claims when describing his example of a jealous husband without mentioning a justification; (ii) one usually thinks that a pathologically jealous person does not have rational grounds or at least lacks rational grounds to a large extend.
(C) must therefore be formulated as follows: “if someone makes a true claim, it does not
have to be true”, which is nonsense.
You're getting hung up on Zizek's use of the words 'knowledge' and 'truth.' That's partly Zizek's fault for expressing himself unclearly at the beginning, but you're still completely off the mark in your recapitulation of his argument.
Zizek probably could have expressed himself better if instead of saying 'truth' he said 'facts,' and instead of 'knowledge,' he said 'ideology.' His argument is that sometimes we hold beliefs for purely ideological reasons, because of the way they function to coordinate the various fantasies and politics that serve to structure a particular social structure in which we're invested. Even if these beliefs happen to coincide with real objective facts (IE, assuming that the Jews really were trying to sabotage Germany from within as per the beliefs of the Nazis), that doesn't change the fact that that belief is held because it performs a certain political function (again to the Nazis, turning the Jews into a sabotaging other allowed them to coordinate Germany long racial, nationalistic lines) and not because it reflects facts.
The proper way to critique and defeat these kinds of beliefs is not to try to defeat them on the level of facticity and empiricism, but to demonstrate the hidden political agenda of the belief and to try to dissolve it on the level of the psyche. THAT is Zizek's argument.
Yeah, he expressed himself horribly, but you put it very clearly, thanks!
Thank you for your summary of the point which Zizek wanted to make in general. I agree with you on that.
But I did not intend to reconstruct Zizeks general line of thought. I only refered to Zizeks very first claim that knowledge is not necessarily true, which is based on psychoanalysis. I tried to reconstruct Zizeks argument for that claim.
There one cannot substitute the word „knowledge“ with the word „ideology“, because Zizek talked about pathological jealousy and pathological jealousy is not an ideology. If one substituted the word ”truth” with the word ”fact”, it would not help create a sound argument.
(P1) a pathologically jealous husband can make factual claims about his wife cheating on him
(P2) such a pathological jealousy adds something unfactual to a factual claim
(C) if someone knows something, it does not have to be factual
It would still remain unclear what it is that is unfactual and added to a factual claim. It would still have the counter-intuitive conclusion that knowledge is unfactual.
Maximus1879 you have totally over analysed that. he's merely saying it matters not if she was cheating or not, the man uses the jealousy as a plank of his own being.....needs it.....is it.
thank you, that was really helpful.
You when would be a good time to cut the video..?
how is this video about argumentation with racists and fascists? it´s not even about racism or fascism. it´about the justification of an act based on statements and that these statements dont have to be true or false
Quaranta to put it simply: it is pointless to debate facts put forth by racists and fascists, since these have no intrinsic value to them. Debate the actual ideology itself, as facts are mere means for both groups.
"sniff" pure ideology, and so on, and so on...
@@stijnlauwen6227 No. Like ahaha how can u not understand how flaud this is, u debate the facts not the ideology. Imagine going to a debate about whether pens or pencils are better and ur argument centred on why pens were bad as opposed to debating facts.
This point is more profound than it might at first appear and it cuts both ways.
Yeah considering all the anti-white superstitions in use today to justify the dispossession of White nations from White people
Lol lol lmao lol
the
Jealousy is not pathological if there is a reason behind that "paranoia". Also paranoia is no longer paranoia if its true.
You have to arrange your mental faculties and biological being so that it's optimized for a life under the strictly materialistic outlook of left ideology rule. Ideology in harmony with the primordial would be to easy now wouldn't it?
His argument is, essentially: Don't try to be objective!
His argument is that you can't argue objectively against a completely subjective pathological thought pattern. It would be like reacting to a paranoid schizophrenic telling you the lizard people are watching him with 'but where are the lizard people?' The moment you ask that, you have already entered his own world construction in which even the most implausible claim makes sense.
he's saying "be skeptical that the person who obsesses over setting the terms of the debate is as objective as they say they are"
@Normal upright citizen #534721
Exactly, it's the same old case about not making claims about groups since were all Individuals.tm, guess what Zizek, the human brain is a pattern making machine and if I see a pattern of Jewish behavior then it's probably true, even if a few outliers exist.
What's the alternative? Give each and everyone of them the benefit of the doubt and still suffer the consequences of their group behavior?
@Jack W
Nobody is making evidence, there is an observed pattern, that is interpreted as truth for the sake of efficiency, because our brains are pattern recognizing machines that don't have the time and energy to judge every single person in existence.
His criticism is that our interpretations are not absolutely true, which is accurate, but there are degrees of predictive power in certain observed phenomena.
Absolute or not, action needs to be taken, one cannot remain in eternal skepticism and nonjudgement and expect to survive. Its only in the modern world where people stuck in their own solipsism can remain and never act on anything, and then they have the fucking gall to judge those who do act.
@@ProDCloud But if we all worked towards reducing inequalities in the system, then the outliers won't matter as much. Right wing ideology still works to reinforce the same hierarchies that they feel is oppressing them, because their solution (their final solution, if you will) is to become the new oppressors. That's just a revolution that wants to go backwards.
Its true about the jews but what? Lol i couldnt understand his point...
The point is that agreeing to a fascist framework, which since fascism is severely predicated on conspiracy narratives and lies is always false, and then try to argue within that to dismantle the fascist's points is useless. At that point you have already conceded way too much territory.
As soon as someone is talking points it's because they think their framework is already applicable.
For example, Ben Shapiro is notorious for refusing to call trans women she/her, trans men he/him and non-binary people they/them/ *** in conversations. *Ben* says his reasons are some waffle about chromosomes, which can be true though 99.9% if not 100% of the time he's ignoring intersex people in that line of thinking. However, he's arguing that as a point because his framework does not allow trans or nb people to exist when clearly they do.
The chromosome thing is a post hoc rationalization of his lie. Or, basically, he only uses facts in such a way that they support his very precious feelings.
Haha, the example is male chauvinist? No Zizek, if anything it's a bit sexist, not "a bit chauvinist".
He was talking about national socialism not fascism
Only you care about that distinction because you are a fascist
you sell your soul if your pursuit the truth... once a big fan of zizek i now totally disagree with him
He's really just saying that one shouldn't fall for the red herring. It's not about the content of truth in the claim, it is that discussing the claim diverts from the actual discussion. The claim isn't relevant to the problem you actually want to address in the circumstance. Well, you might. He doesn't. He's really just saying it in a needlessly convoluted manner, as basically everything he says.
In the moment when you say "fascists may have a point" you are already giving the fascists the whole victory, you are giving legitimacy to an opinion which is un-legitimizable
He actually said the opposite
@@m.m.1301 do u realize how mentally imprisoned u are when u say such things? are you capable of discussing things honestly?
@@teoteo3522 Man, that comment is old. I have since changed my worldview and no longer agree with what I wrote. In fact I'm probably gonna delete it altogether
I will disagree with Zizek's point as far as his equivalence of anti-Semitism to the Iraqi war. Accepting that the statements of the deleterious affect of the Jew on the Nationstate and the oppression and Tyranny under the Saddam regime, Zizek, as most Marxist seem to do, mistakes the Domestic and International element in both situations. If the Saddam regime is oppressing its own people, the perspective of a Western man in Europe or America may remain dormant. A citizen of Germany does not have an obligation to take an active stance on oppression in Iraq because it does not affect his society, government, or position. If there is something bad happening on the other side of the world, you are not forced to do a single thing. Now: If the Jew were targeting *your* nation, exploiting *your* people, in your state and onto your cultural and ethnic group, the threat is domestic and internal. In another words: Accepting one position logically requires opposition, while the other does not. To Jewish influence, a believer is not allowed to simply say "so what?" as one could to some oppressive regime thousands of miles away. You do not have an option to be neutral as with Iraq. A better equivalence would be if Iraq were invading your own ho.eland and country.
I don't agree with you because the u.s tried convincing the citizens that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction so it would permit it to stop Iraq and Saddam, not mainly because Saddam was oppressive of his people. And he says that people should not care even if Saddam was oppressive and some people were supportive of his regime. The "truth" of Saddam being "bad" is just an ideology and a reason for the right-wingers to attack Iraq. If you are a leftist in this situation, hearing the "bad" things about Saddam will be used as a trap and give an "ok" to them to attack Iraq because of the "truths."