[removed]

I don’t know if this is a different study or a different explanation. But I was taught this in reverse.

1. Tit for tat.
2. Occasionally cooperate.

I'm not sure of this guys integrity when he starts by bemoaning the use of the term 'trans lobby'. If he read the full article with an open mind I don't see how he can complain about the term.

I'm not sur what his complaint is. Does he think it evokes images of congress as some elaborate drag show? The article is clearly referencing the invested interests of the corporations offering the treatments to vulnerable people. And lobbyng to make their expensive treatments as mandatory and commonplace as breakfast.

And I'm sorry but being proud of being 'woke' is, to me, like being proud you thought you were a chicken, and behaved appropriately, because a hypnotist told you , when you woke you would believe you were a chicken. Hypnotism is the only place in which the term woke means anything practical.

So wake up. Don't wait to be woke.

The page is blocked for Phishing. So I can't read it. But I have read Zizek's article and fail to see how anybody can say he's lost the plot.

I suspect the truth is more that, the plot Zizek is reading, is not the plot that is currently on offer.

You'd be surprised.

Sure, I can't be too blunt about it, but if my manager makes my life difficult, then I'm not going to do the thousand little things I usually do to ease their path.

One example not too long ago was that a task wasn't communicated to me by my manager so my manager skipped about 3 levels of authority to tell a high-level manager that I wasn't doing my job and that was why her projects were doing poorly.

So I just...stopped smoothing over her breaches in policy and picking up her slack. I didn't do anything, I just stopped doing things she'd never asked me to do, and never knew I did. It ended with her losing major points with the people she'd talked to about me, having another resource allocated to her projects (because I was already 100% booked), and her having to take on all the blame for the stuff she screwed up on.

Tit for tat isn't always as straightforward as it sounds.

Zizek inspired you??

I think maybe where the author gets stuck is probably here,

>More troubling is his use of essentializing language and further histrionics to try to inflame the reader (the phrase “penis-having rapist in prison with captive women” comes to mind). His insistence on misgendering Bryson, first simply as ‘he’ and then more troublingly as ‘it,’ suggests that Žižek sees respecting trans identity as something discretionary and contingent on good behavior. Žižek is, in this article and to put it lightly, transphobic.

The portion where Zizek has made such statements, it didn't allow them to look past that 'dishonesty' as they call it and so preferred to highlight those misgivings rather than attempt to build their own narrative, to clarify how this relates to policy, and how it'd be better than what Zizek is suggesting. The latter was a tougher task so it's always easier to shoot down the argument anyway.

I partly agree with the charge that this was a lazy attempt and maybe even a disarray of random thoughts that were all trying to fit in. The article could have been more condensed because I actually think it's the reverse; Zizek glossed over multiple examples in a half-hearted manner with the assumption that the reader will have known them, but actually just a couple of those references would have sufficed to make his point, and he has done it quite well, especially the ending. It's strikingly resemblant to a few Upanishadic teachings on dreams.

What the author sees as troubling is actually from what I could understand is Zizek's way of highlighting the dubious ways of Isla during the case. What should have been purely about the atrocity committed by a human, the focus shifted towards identity and respect and the author prefers to cater to this. So Zizek's harshness is more about bringing to light this aspect and given that the shameful act was indeed committed, for a moment one could look past the gender play here and recognize the need for a proper judgement aside of personal preferences that evolved during the case.

This is not a case of Zizek being unclear at least, the article is simply the realization on the part of the author, that Zizek is much more crazier than I ever thought, and that disturbs my personal view of what I thought Zizek had been implying all this time. So the author's anger is justified really, but misdirected. Their anger is on themself actually.

The issue I understand though was Scotland's handling of it and the new policy that came up,

>The case sparked a change in policy in Scotland so that "any newly convicted or remanded transgender prisoner will initially be placed in an establishment commensurate with their birth gender.

But nevertheless, it is evidently clear as to what Zizek is focusing on and that does not necessarily point to disrespecting trans identity as such. Of course Isla couldn't have controlled the period of transition, but then it'd also be naive for someone to not consider the possibility that this did indeed help Isla's case to somehow bring in the 'woke' culture to her rescue to try and lessen the impact on her tarnished image. Perhaps they were hoping that'd it would influence the sentence as well. Like the author wishes to hop on without clarifying what her policy stance is.

Anyway, as an Indian I could relate highly with some of Zizek's points here given that there is a need to discuss caste based discrimination in Indian circles and whenever attempts are made to present objective data and re-look history without the colonial lens, tensions flare up and people resort to my way or highway and prioritize feelings over actually finding ways to focus on understanding commonalities and all of Zizek's examples were spot-on, especially activist Maryam's incident which is brushed off as insignificant. Almost something exactly similar happened in the Hijab case in the last 2 years - how religious organizations sprung to defend the choice of women apparently, when it is indoctrination at best with little to no choice for a girl child in Islam, so very applicable unlike what the author says, but in a different context.

>The black woke elite is fully aware it won’t achieve its declared goal of diminishing black oppression—and it doesn’t even want that. What they really want is what they are achieving: a position of moral authority from which they may terrorize all others, without effectively changing social relations of domination.

This is to the point. Some of the oppressed communities in India too rightly protest about this but many events off late have indeed confirmed that they are aligning with literally anybody eg., Khalistanis and other separatists to sort of literally avenge the past and also falsely glorify the atrocities committed to further trigger the masses rather than focus on resolving what can be done now with pragmatic understandings and dialogue over honest acceptance of what actually transpired. But historians who have been proven to be literally wrong through primary sources are still used as weapons to hurl, furthering casteist notions when actually it began to solve them.

Anyway this deviated, but news is that Zizek is well and kicking, maybe a little more insensitive than usual, which is not uncommon, and yet still makes some great points.

I just read the synopsis and that's exactly in line with what I have been thinking. I love the validation I'm feeling here. Just ordered the book. Thanks!

To go a bit further it's like we're this perfect being that has the ability to believe and that belief is responsible for reality as we know it. That belief is shaped by the experiences we go through, the processes and interpretations in our brain. That ability to believe is our self. It's shaped by the sum total of everything we have ever experienced up to that moment in time. That moment we experience. The total experience is the being we present to the world. It's the beauty of humanity. It's the human condition shaped by the human experience. It's belief filtered through a brain and presented through a body and it's all intermeshed on a level that is truly incomprehensible.

It's ultimately all powered by our self and the power of the belief in our self. That's why I worship at the altar of self. The more secure I am in my self the stronger I can be for those that really need me. I need to find people that can help support me living my authentic self by helping them to do the same.

You truly strengthen the belief in self by living our authentic selves and showing understanding and acceptance for the experience that led us to that moment. Showing comfort and care. Kindness and respect. Showing love. You strengthen the belief in self by showing love to yourself. You strengthen the belief in others by showing love to them. By helping them to live their authentic selves. Showing them understanding and acceptance and kindness and care. The stronger the belief in self the stronger we will all be and the stronger will be our love. I would much rather live in a world full of love rather than the darkness I have known my entire life. That really strengthens my belief.

You could say it's my religion if I believed in that. It actually feels like at it's core we're all these perfect beings going through the belief/doubt sim. I think that's amazing and I can't wait to discover what's next. We will all benefit from the power of belief in self regardless if we believe in it or not. The stronger each one of us believes in ourselves the quicker it will happen. That's why its so beautiful.

[removed]

Just say thank you for the new information

This is awesome. I learned something early in the morning because of you dude, thanks for sharing.

Good Morning!

i dont think you have given me any evidence to back up your claim, is my point. you made a very specific statement and you have not provided any direct evidence to support that statement.

"Žižek Has Lost the Plot" and so on and so on...

Doesn't work on phones 😭😭

If I use on portrait I can't read. Landscape won't scroll so I can't see the buttons.

So generous tit for tat

>Rule 1 - Be nice (technically meaning always co-operate on the first round).
>
>Rule 2 - From then on just copy what the other player did in the previous round (meaning an eye for an eye and a hug for a hug).
>
>Rule 3 - After you retaliate, always try to co-operate again in the next round.

Or political parties. Or even politics in general. If everybody in office is out for themselves then only the strongest Lucifer will win.

Neat, thanks! I named an old car after Russell, and yet, hypocrite that I am, I've never actually had the pleasure of reading him... better late than never, I guess.

Decent I'll have a look. I tend to move in the realms of practical over theoretical after spending a lifetime of theoretical and getting mediocre results (till I switched).

Edit: yes I know about the 4 levels just via business and audiobooks.

Learning how to learn pays dividends over your lifetime.

Four Stages of Competence

> 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 didn't get that from her article. Specifically she found it to be "boring, unoriginal, dishonest, and lazy." The argument that Žižek is making seems lost in the piece, or at least not well laid out. This may be his style in general, and maybe there is some hidden insight somewhere. But it seems mostly akin to McWhorter's work that he sights. Unoriginal at best, harmful at worst.

Have absolutely no idea what any of this means and believe I am doing fine.

Is there a TLDR? What's the synopsis

>So, you agree this image of "self" is often just a reflection of societal norms and peer pressure? Thus agreeing with the assessment?

no.

i spent 6 months alone in a tent many kms from any other humans, the 'self' i consider myself to be is ever changing and has nothing to do with the rest of society (fitting in is one of the least important goals a person could have).

what does social media have to do with anything? personally i dont use any outside of reddit and i have no social life outside my partner. my life revolves around gardening and epicurean pleasures (as distinct from hedonism) from art to study.

what 'self' am i cultivating for people i spend no time with or care for? (self-employed too so i only deal with those i wish too)

to top it off despite living entirely for myself ive done more to help others and the environment than most have, likely including yourself (planted well-over 10,000 trees, i intentionally own less than 5k in total possessions, ive housed homeless people ive never met, i help do animal rescue with my partner etc).

this entire article is about the risks and dangers of focusing on the self and yet i stand testament to the fact that focusing on the self can be a good thing for all.

>Assumption that mental stability is understood. Who says what is mentally stable? Is it mentally stable to do the same thing everyday, destroying the mind body and soul, to be able to purchase consumer goods, which are only desired due to advanced manipulation by cooperate entities, whose only desire is to gain material wealth on a mass scale. Is that really mental stability?
>
>Is it mentally stable to pass the homeless man on the street without as much as considering that anyone of us could be that man within mere months upon losing your job? Is it mentally stable to ignore that, when you are able to understand how you would feel if another ignored you in that same situation?

yes, those things are all mentally stable, since mental stability is only measured by differing and changing mental states.

whether or not they are mentally healthy is another thing (i am mentally stable, to an extreme point, but i'm not mentally healthy)

except it isnt?

at the bottom is how you would act alone on an island, that is the 'true' self.

on that front im more true to myself then most people ive ever met.

>That's why the 20-years-ago you seem like a stranger - because you have different thoughts and goals.

they are no stranger, why would they be?

the 'self' is merely the sum of all ones experiences, memories, environment, genes, neurons etc.

my actions and who i think i am are one and the same.