/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10703002]

What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.10703038]

>>10703002
Zizek is a formulaic cunt who doesn't really say anything.

[Anonymous No.10703071]

>Jacques Lacan wrote that, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological
Zizek defending cuckoldry, doesn't surprise me.

[Anonymous No.10703080]

>Along the same lines, one could say that, even if most of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true (they exploit Germans, they seduce German girls, and so on) – which they are not, of course – their anti-Semitism would still be (and was) a pathological phenomenon
-Slavoj Zizek

[Anonymous No.10703087]

>>10703038
That's pretty mighty coming from Land though

[Anonymous No.10703105]

>>10703087
Land is just a dad having fun on Twitter though, not a paid public intellectual.

[Anonymous No.10703106]

>>10703038

"i have never read zizek": the post

[Anonymous No.10703107]

>>10703105
Well we can't all have rich Singaporean wives

[Anonymous No.10703111]

>>10703106
So?
Zizek critiques movies he's never seen, I return the favor

[Anonymous No.10703169]

[Anonymous No.10703301]

>>10703002
kekekeke

[Anonymous No.10703326]

Ouch

[Anonymous No.10703342]

>>10703326
Just when I thought I had no more respect for Land to lose. I really thought he was above this

[Anonymous No.10703348]

>>10703038
So is Peterson.

>So Jung said... and we can see this in Genesis... No! Wrong!

[Anonymous No.10703356]

There's nothing wrong with being formulaic once your formula is good

[Anonymous No.10703411]

>>10703002
>>10703038
>>10703356
Zizek is stellar when he puts in the effort. Unfortunately, he churns out a lot of very lazy content with the bare minimum of effort, like the Peterson piece

[Anonymous No.10703435]

>>10703002
The Independent piece surprised me because of how explicit Zizek was in his submission to his progressive managers. In his recent punditry he usually just acknowledges progressive doctrine with a passing boilerplate line ("racism is not good") and often has a little fun with his hyper-egalitarian readership e.g. "I would vote for Donald Trump... because I'm so progressive that I think even better progressivism could emerge from rocking the anti-progressive system," "Sanders supporters should unite with the alt-right... to defeat capitalism," "refugees are bad... because they're victims of economic turmoil caused by capitalism."

But here he's absolutely toeing the party line and making sure that everybody knows how true his fealty is to egalitarianism

What do you think, /lit/? Is it just my imagination? Or did all the Jacobin, Chapo and revleft sneers get to him at last

[Anonymous No.10703437]

>>10703342
>Wow, Land. I can't believe you just btfo my communist hero... I thought you were above making me looking stupid
you thought wrong bitch hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.10703478]

Zizek and Peterson are really the same kind of bullshitters.

>let me tell you how things really are based on the dated arbitrary nonsense of this 20th century psychoanalysist

[Anonymous No.10703514]

>>10703002
Why does Peterson always pretend SJWism is from postmoderism only? Fucking never read some Rorty and Rawls.

[Anonymous No.10703520]

>>10703435
Zizek has been comodified, my god

[Anonymous No.10703534]

>>10703435
He reads like a progressive liberal in this piece if you don't know who he is.

[Anonymous No.10703555]

>>10703002

I don't believe Zizek really (or even virtually, as he would probably put it) cares about any of this. He will keep tweeting drivel about abstractions of symbolic imaginary shit while people get meaninglessly "hurt" by his analysis.

Land probably has more ability than Peterson in spotting the predictable (and to be published in The Independent, predictability is an absolute must) ways in which he exposes his argumentation, so I have no idea why he's resorting to shitposting it up on the internet. Wait no, I actually know why, it's simply because Land has accelerated his brain into goo and is now a shitposter on the internet.

Zizek has interesting thoughts that become easy to follow through and even to anticipate once you have read enough about it, just like Land used to. Both of them have qt3.14 wives that are also writers so they have realistically no reason to fret over trivial matters like public debate (specially if said debate must be made within 3 or so lines of text), and just to wrap this up, I would actually say that, coming from Nick Land, it's actually a compliment when he says Capital is ready to fulfill its role of expelling you from the production wheel and assuming your place as an agent in itself.

[Anonymous No.10703576]

I simply don't understand the reaction. I thought Zizek article was fine and on point and far from formulaic, if only he repeats what others who already read Zizek know already.

[Anonymous No.10703596]

>>10703111
Which movies?

[Anonymous No.10703610]

Pretty disappointing article - reads as if Zizek is afraid to make even more opponents on the left.

Even worse than Zizeks short article is Stefan Molyneux reponding to it, not knowing Zizek and reacting to it like it was a Sun piece by a SJW.

https://youtu.be/UDGlSkJb_FM

[Anonymous No.10703636]

>>10703610
>not knowing Zizek
Embarrassing. Molymeme is even worse than I thought.

[Anonymous No.10703686]

>>10703071
t.brainlet
he says some men need jeaolusy to keep his identity(ego) dumbass

[Anonymous No.10703714]

>>10703686
>having an identity is pathological
your brain on leftism

[Anonymous No.10703799]

>>10703714
>having your identity defined by jeaolusy is pathological
there fixed