and for some bizarre reason you are separating the self from action.

i am my actions as 'i' am the sum of all my memories, experiences culture, genes etc.

therefore your entire position is incoherent, there is no demarcation between the self and ones actions.

I hear this

This gives an interesting slant to city planning, social services, and policing. If environment has that great an effect on outcome...

People just think he's smart because he spits every 10 seconds

I think it's pretty obvious that this just happened to be a subject that the author wasn't willing to read in the same mood and spirit they read other Žižek pieces. Or possibly that it's all fun and games reading Žižek playfully and in good faith when he agrees with you, but fuck that when doesn't.

I don't agree with the Žižek's article in question, but I also don't agree with much that Žižek writes, so it's amusing to read from a sycophant that \ Žižek lost the plot because in a single essay he disagrees with them.

Yet another reminder that everyone is willing to be intellectual and openminded until you disagree with them about something they've made integral to their self-worth, and in our era that's increasingly the political tribe you belong to. Žižek can be more progressive than 95% of the population, but if he disavows one of the progressive doctrines then he's still reprobate in that group's view.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I find it telling that the author just decides Žižek has 'lost the plot' on the grounds of a single essay he wrote because it doesn't agree with her politics.

I hardly agree with anything Žižek writes, but in that freeing situation I also wouldn't decide to cut him off or denigrate his intellect just because in one area of debate he goes the other direction than I do.

This just seems like so much virtue signaling and not actual philosophy. Sure, I think anybody in the Marxist camp has 'lost the plot' but it's pointless and lazy to spend time trying to cast them as defunct relics and much more interesting to read, engage, and debate their ideas without implying they belong in the dustbin for the audacity of not agreeing with me.

You're talking about having healthy Boundaries, which is the "B" in the BRAVING acronym in "The Anatomy of Trust" video.

I have a professional relationship with my therapist, which has professional boundaries that we are both agreeing to engage around. It's a real relationship, the boundaries of which are more strictly defined as a way to manage both of our expectations, so we can coordinate together with fewer "trust wobbles", as Francis Frei puts it. There's also an agreed upon decorum for healthy conflict between us. All of which fall under boundaries.

eta: the authoritarian follower personality is more likely to think of respect in a twisted way:

>Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority”

> and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person”

> and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

Those are the folks we need to separate ourselves from as they are often abusers, enablers, and bullies.

But hey, that's just a theory

That's funny.

I just find it amusing that the author of the piece claims to have read The Parallax View at 13, as if it was an intro into philosophy book.

The polemic aspect of Žižek cannot be taken for granted. Being offended by something he writes is irrelevant because it is the wrong reaction.
It's a thought experiment not an attack. The main point of the article, keep in mind an opinion piece for a magazine, seems to be perspective narrowing and it's social consequences. Defacto statements which are more focused on the emotional state of being rather than established findings. He creates his own fixed explanation of Woke , deals with the superego injunction, peoples responses and uses of it, and finds that the reactionary Woke that he describes is a blanket for right wing and non progressive left wing acceptance.

I only watched half of the de Medeiros video because he got caught up in his own ouroboros seems to have missed the fact his explanation and problems with the article are similar in form to the article itself without the polemic attributes.

What an amazing game, thank you.

This post is fantastic and I'll come back to it periodically for a refresher.

One thing I do notice though is nearly half of the original 7 objectifying behaviors are fundamental to how we operate as a society. If I hire a plumber I'm focused on the sociological role rather than them as a person and its likely that I'll to some extent treat them as an instrument (I hired you to do a specific job), as fungible (I can hire another if you aren't working out), and to some extent as if they have no autonomy or agency, and even not much concern for their feelings.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think of them as people and won't consciously treat them these ways. But the plumber or electrician is in another room while I'm working on something and I'm not interested in his personal life I'm interested in my needs which is why I hired him. I'll still treat him with respect but at the end of the day they are hired to do a job, not to tell their life story or decide halfway through the job they don't want to finish and instead want to wander around or something.

This is in line with the gemeinschaft vs gesellschaft evolution of society though so I think to some extent this role based treatment is necessary for society to function. So objectification seems to be context dependent I suppose.

The trick is to always remember they are human and not actually treat them like objects or servants, but rather as very skilled professionals who are providing us with valued services. And some people forget that unfortunately.

You don't think some of the policies of places like Tavistock are down to political pressure from activists?

Well I'm not an American for starters...

Why would I know what bills are going through in the USA?

Or, another way to view it in real life, forgive

There 378 anti trans bills being tracked across the country and please specify these ideologies that are infiltrating medical practice https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights

> My answer is: no human being is ever truly powerless.

That's nice in theory, but anecdotal examples aren't the same as practical reality for most people.

MLK, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela only had "power" because of massive international pressure, cold war balance of power issues and a large, potentially violent movement behind them. They weren't individuals and pretending their actions didn't benefit from real hard power is erasing history.

In a similar vein, Ukraine is surviving in large part to massive foreign military aid making it possible for them to resist an otherwise vastly more powerful military.

And most people, especially in western society, don't have the backing of foreign military powers or an armed resistance movement behind them.

Reading this reminded me of reading critiques of Spinoza and Voltaire by their contemporaries

I think the keyword in his sentence is "seem to have a.. "

Pretty good game. I only cooperated if I had an advantage and that resulted in every character coming out with more than they started

You may misunderstand. You default to cooperation and then respond if you are harmed but self correct to avoid it spiraling out of control.

See this simulation for details.

https://ncase.me/trust/

[deleted]

Take a look at the work of Philosophy professor Lee Bowie in Massachussetts. He's the gentle teacher of many.