/lit/ - Literature

>>9043612
>Zizek: Hegelian and Lacanian BS that sounds so le deep, overdefined bullshitty unfalsifiable politics / society related nonsense.

If anything, considering his influences, the clarity in Zizek's works is remarkable. Most of his theories are clearly explained through real, pragmatic examples.
How many people here can possibly be unsure of what "ideology" is?
You really can't accuse Zizek of obscurantism, and his critics refer to actual, explained phenomenons.

>Chomsky: "This country you think is good has done bad stuff. These countries you barely hear about have had bad stuff happen in them"

What a gross oversimplification, you're willingly leaving out what Chomsky holds more dear in his political critics: datas.
To say that Chomsky critics are either blind or insufficient is laughable at best.

>Why THE FUCK do people think that non-trivial insights can be gained outside of STEM?

What similar insights have we gathered from STEM fields? In what way Chomsky and Zizek works have anything to do with what chemists do? You're intellectually dishonest.