Zizek: Only Foreigners Should Vote!

[TheBigEase]

as opposed to the US projecting their desires on how the rest of us should be....very clever by Zizek.

[BRATEKPOLSKI]

OMG, now amerikans hate him

[sniperquasi]

shame the soviet union had collapsed and left the world unbalanced as it is.

[MaxwellsAttourney]

@sniperquasi The Soviet Union was one of the biggest catastrophes in World history.

[sniperquasi]

@MaxwellsAttourney More a tragedy than a catastrophe.

Certainly american of you to think so.

[MaxwellsAttourney]

@sniperquasi That doesn't make any sense considering the entire globe acknowledges the Soviet Union as a horrendous era of history, both capitalists and anti-capitalists alike (Though The Soviet Union was really nothing more than state-run capitalism). So, regardless of how you feel about the Soviet Union specifically, to say its disdain is simply harnessed by Americans could not be more inaccurate or absurd.

[Madcr0ws]

foreigners did build this disasterous mess called the "united states". It's only fair...lol

that land should have been left in peace to the native amerikans

[MrJuancarlosferrero]

@Madcr0ws i pushed the thumb up button, but nothing happened :/

[Adeikov]

@Madcr0ws

American Indians were not peaceful between themselves; they warred in their own continent.

Then a more advanced civilisation came and the Indians were weaker and gave way to Europeans and Africans and all the rest. It was the natural order of things.

The Indians were no less guilty than the settlers; the ONLY difference was power and advantage.

[Madcr0ws]

@Adeikov Indians are in south asia...they're a whole different sub-specie of human and culture than the majority that once inhabited north amerika before europeans colonized it and opened this continent up to other races. Indigenous peoples of the new world we refer to as 'native amerikans'.

I'm just saying it's too bad the native amerikans lost their dominance of north amerika to europeans and other cultures.

[arhusum]

It's spelled America 

[InvisibleDiary]

The satire and sarcasm in his brief comments are hilarious and profound.

[mprinosil]

makes me wonder if he ever worked in his life

[JusufJan]

zizek is always funny, if not intellectually helpful

[Mustamaggara]

I remember seeing a short interview of him a couple of years ago, it was some Europe related program where tens of Europeans talked about Europe's future or something, and I thought Zizek was some village idiot they had just seen in a street.

[RunaeMusic]

Zizek for President!

[funkystuf31]

I think if Zizek was president there would be a lot more tulips.

[ivillek]

HAHAH 

[jjholloway23]

Consequences of WWI did not lead directly into WWII. That is poorly worded. WWII was caused in a large part because of Germany's resentment of the Versailles treaty and the crippled state it left Germany in. Don't forget Japan's miltaristic search for raw materials leading to their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Of all the reasons we could've been in a war with Vietnam, Buddhists are hardly part of the equation. Marxism is okay is you have a naive understanding of history.

[nickshel]

@jjholloway23 You said "consequences of WWI did not lead directly into WWII." You later said "WWII was caused in a large part because of Germany's resentment of the Versailles treaty." Is the Versailles treaty not a consequence of WWI? The fact that you dismiss summaries of causes as "a naive understanding of history" and then summarise it yourself into two causes is ironic. Secondly, Marxism has nothing to do with history, only present. Marxism itself is just an analysis of capitalism.

[korona3103]

@nickshel there's a difference between direct causes and indirect causes. You don't get WW1 therefore WW2, many contingent factors led to it. Just one example would be if the French had fulfilled their Versailles obligations and intervened during the re-militarization of the Rhineland - that alone would have stopped Nazi expansionism cold.

[nickshel]

@korona3103 Obviously, but if you're putting history into words at any point you are summarising. Infact it is impossible to quantify what caused WW2 because of the chaos theory. But in reality WW2 was caused by WW1, it may be that factors like the lack of French intervention helped but I hardly think you can take a negative as a cause can you? That's like saying WW2 was caused because Wolfgang Gruber, a baker from Munich didn't decide to go into politics.

[korona3103]

@nickshel The point I really wanted to make was that it's no contradiction to cite something as a contributing factor but not as a direct cause.

Relating that to WW2, it is most directly linked to the expansionist dreams of Hitler/Nazism but Nazism was in decline before the great depression. The economic crisis in the late 20s and early 30s was a much stronger factor in Hitler coming to power than resentment over Versailles.

[BigMikeMcBastard]

@korona3103 It's hard to say which was the bigger deal. On the one hand, people were afraid of Communism in Russia spilling over into Germany. On the other, people were INCREDIBLY resentful of the Weimar Republic that was forced on them and the other various Versailles obligations they had. The economic crisis was also a big part. All three factors really were necessary together, I think. They relied on dissatisfaction with the government, economic depression, and fear of communism to gain power

[nickshel]

@korona3103 True but if you take the simple allegory of a fire, you have logs, kindle, tinder and spark. All the "logs" like WWI and the treaty of versailles were major causes. Then you have the kindle like Nazism which took the flag of German nationalism after the decline of Imperialism. The tinder could perhaps be given the name of Hitler. Finally you have the spark which is the depression and a fire which almost 'fashist'ised Europe. So really we're saying the same thing. Can we end this now?

[korona3103]

@nickshel @BigMikeMcBastard

I was highlighting a linguistic point, not trying to lecture on WW2 history!

JGuildersleeve said WW1 led /directly/ to WW2.

jjholloway23 said "no it wasn't a direct chain".

nickshel said jjholloway23 was wrong but misunderstood his point

I agreed with jjholloway23 and tried to give a clearer example than he did of what constitutes a direct and an indirect cause.

E.g. A window is broken

Direct: The bomb broke the window.

Indirect: The country went to war.

See?

[nickshel]

@korona3103 I see what you mean but I only misunderstood the first part of his point.

[korona3103]

@nickshel yeah I think you're right about the melange of causes that led to WW2 itself

[jjholloway23]

I did not claim those were the sole causes. I will eat my words. what i meant was that just because Germany was butt hurt about their timeout enforced by the treaty, doesn't mean they had to start another world war. So WWI did not directly force a WWII. In very basic speak. The summary was just a couple reasons that countered the other dude's comments

[Madcr0ws]

@jjholloway23 He who controls the present controls the past. Never trust a history book literally.

[jjholloway23]

@Madcr0ws That adage is not 100 percent true anymore, especially not in the US. In this postmodern age, no one is more critical of the US' version of the past than our very own college professors. Even the natural history smithsonian in our capital introduces Thomas Jefferson simply as a "slaveholder".

[jjholloway23]

is this a joke or a terrible anology in attempt to make a point?

[doggiesteigger]

Hahahahhaha fucking fantastic this guy!

[therebelwaltz]

Americans getting indignant about the principle of national sovereignty is so hypocritical that it's simply hilarious. You've gotta love Zizek - he has a knack for provoking anger in the kind of clueless idiots who don't even know what their own government does around the world.

[zarkoasenov]

slavoj zizek reality check - it is the parliaments of england, holland, germany that vote for the americans

[marlboroman1985]

Yeah, Bush sucks, we get it. We elected a black guy to make up for it, so shut up and go back to your crappy run down country and stop bitching.

[pastaplanet10]

@marlboroman1985 You made my day! ROFL!

[spaceghost1313]

as a european - i say bring back bill clinton.

[YesdogLive]

Not a bad idea.  It's not like the rest of the world could do any worse.

[sofiasmartis]

imagine you could join a state that is reigned by everyone exept those who live in it, who you want to be in with?

and more importantly: do you think you can agree with these people to join this state?

[Karmara7]

comment if you disagree, but I think that he is trying to say that if we (USA) can "bully" other countries into creating laws and policies that benefit US economic interest, then the only way to justify that would be for other countries to take part in creating our policies. I don't think is trying to make a practical suggestion, he is being sarcastic. Am I right?

[PkSage89]

A HA HA HA *thumbs up*

[MajorCroom]

interesting intellectual exercise to think about it but still nothing that could seriously work on any real terms

being a philosopher is probably an odd job

[davyjames]

The first thing that would happen would be that the politician who promised the most foreign aid would get elected.

Better solution: Stop legitimising government and voting in the first place. Advocate a society with no organisation with a monopoly on violence.

[pulsatingremedy]

@davyjames

Horrible, horrible comment.

[davyjames]

@pulsatingremedy Very good counter argument. Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to and hear more of your thoughts?

[pulsatingremedy]

@davyjames

Zizek is explaining an idea that makes people think. And you reduce it to some standard anarchist argument.

Zizek is teaching us how to be creative. And you respond with dogma.

[davyjames]

@pulsatingremedy His idea doesn't teach us to think though. It's just stupid. I know he's revered as a great philosopher, and he might well be, but this doesn't show it.

[Karmara7]

@pulsatingremedy reply if you disagree, but I think that he is trying to say that if we (USA) can "bully" other countries into creating laws and policies that benefit US economic interest, then the only way to justify that would be for other countries to take part in creating our policies. I don't think he is trying to make a practical suggestion, he is just being sarcastic. Am I right?

[SPKaa]

ME too, Slavo, me too.

[kskshghg]

This is wonderful and it's not just a bit of camp. He's noting how projections from WITHIN the U.S. have been used to try and get various people around the world to act in certain ways, how they're "expected" to act, so that their voluntaristic behavior can then be used to justify further repression by the U.S. Zizek is at his best when he's accomplishing one of these "negations of the negation."

[toeknee1965]

good idea

[Julviano]

@royalyon lol! right! however, if it could be possible through an electronic vote your duo, dems & reps, would have sunked down to 1%, both of them! :)

[Vijay7090]

nut



[riflepoet]

Project our desires, rofl!!!

[johnsammyanfal]

Force the meek to inherit the earth? Or even just the USA? Heavens no! They would be forced to give up their sentimental pieties.

[madhattery341]

what I like about this guy is that, despite obviously being very smart, he doesn't seem to take anything he says all that seriously. It just seems like he's having fun when he speaks, and I appreciate that.

[MrTarmak5]

@madhattery341 haha i enjoy that to

[lloplop]

@madhattery341 part of being very smart; certainty is stupidity.

[Brahmanfire]

@lloplop :D Ha! Such a fundamental Truth eh.... gotta be willing to let ones perceptions and interpretations go so that constantly new and evolved perspectives might grow, and then let those go too.... The more we learn the less we know! ;D

[pietrosammarco]

@madhattery341 that makes him a great philosopher

[BoStevoD]

@madhattery341 Congratulations, you are playing into an ideology which seeks to decaffeinate anything this man says that you find too dangerous.

[DeathHoldGrip]

@madhattery341 I think he's joking, but understands that there is some truth to his statements. In other words, he know's that this is never gonna happen, but regardless gives us a bit of insight on how the power in charge in the US is doing such a shitty job in being responsible in the global community.

[tomcornhole]

it's funny how few of these poster/troLLs have any of the fantastic sense of HUMOR that ziZeK does

[joaquinveyron]

"If you have no interest in improving things then leave it to those with some vision."7

Hahahah .... yeah, sure. Leftist only can babble about change, but they never get their butts out of bed when it really counts.

Where were/are the leftists when it comes to develop revolutionary technologies that solve many problems of the world?? Where are/were they when revolutionary economic changes have been made to the betterment of mankind? WHat was their part in it?? --- NONE.

[tomcornhole]

@joaquinveyron you assume that no innovative engineers or inventors are leftist. also, could you please demonstrate a few instances of some "revolutionary economic change" ANYWHERE in the World? show me that. Leftists have developed and engineered MolotoV cocktails, which are an important contribution to socirty

[nuclearnight]

lulz.

[Karudu]

ok dude...Im gonna tell you as a friend.....youre dumb....and what you think is simply dumb....you really need to get more into thinking....youre way of thinking is exactly what turned my country into SHIT ...virtually....about 70 years ago....dont do that mistake ....you dont wanna see the consequences and face yourself...you simply dont want. Let this be an advise for you my friend...I really mean it in good cause! think about it

[krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx]

Lolbutthurt.

[antusz84]

@krkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkrkx And do you think it's fair that the US takes over the whole world? Is it fair that the US would like to rule over every nation in the world? Because, according to the current system, US citizens' votes influence every actions in the world. This is not fair at all, considering that the majority of US citizens do not even know where Europe is.

[olivemike81]

So much for Mr. Zizek's talk about human rights.

[dazza5266]

3 words . would never work

[Neeebious]

I think that a country as powerful as the US should keep as far away from the rest of the world as possible. Isolationism is way underrated.

[SebastianGeffen]

I would say that if this was to happen .. it would be a big step forward...

even better .. the whole world should vote on other countries governments.

[itaman13]

this guy is so backwards.... and basically a fucking retard

[bmikesci]

BTW, I can understand why some seem to be incensed by Zizek's rhetorical, didactic trickery. You would perhaps prefer a simpler teacher who caters to the like minded, but, for me at least, part of the fun of Zizek is knowing that a large portion of his listeners are ex sanctum. Mea culpa.

[xleax]

Hitting the reply button would inform someone that you actually responded to what they said. Just so you know.

[tristanXIV]

I think he's saying that because foreigners are affected by whoever is in the White House as much as the US nationals are or even more in some cases. Generally, the US government is very kind to its citizens but the same doesn't apply to the people outside the US; they really receive a different type of treatment.

[bmikesci]

Of course Zizek realizes that foreigners are greatly effected by american policies. I think he meant more than this however. BTW, don't tell Katrina victims, or the homeless, or the uninsured that the US treats its citizens very well. We have an enormous per capita gross national product, but it doesn't tinkle down to the people.

[bmikesci]

I think that Zizek poses the question:

If we always act out of our own self interest, are we necessarily getting the best results for ourselves?

It seems to me, at the least, getting what we want as a nation seems to be doing some damage too. I don't know if it's more bad than good or vice versa. It's an important question, however.

In any case, I might be wrong in my interpretation, but I think that I am getting Zizek's joke.

[xleax]

"but I think that I am getting Zizek's joke."

That sounds like an Osho disciple man.

Osho used to say some outrageous things too. Just to sound "profound".. and to profit, of course.

[bmikesci]

It seems to me that, in a humorous way, he asks us to ask questions. For as Plato taught: The unexamined life is not worth living.

[xleax]

The problem with Žižek is that he doesn't get anywhere and contradits himselfs all the time.

Don't compare Plato to Žižek. Plato would never be a Marxist. Nor would Socrates, Aristotle or any other rational philosopher.

Marxism killed 100 million people in the previous century.

As a Slovenian I think this guy being the most famous Slovenian "thinker" is a national tragedy. A real embarrassment.

Oh well..

[bmikesci]

Zizek is like Plato in that he asks us to examine our beliefs. He does this in a sarcastic way. Don't take him literally. His outrageous argument gets attention & asks us to examine a belief that is taken for granted. Here, perhaps, insight can be gained.

BTW, and FYI, Plato in the Republic depicts a society where men & women of the guardian class share with each other their material possessions as well as their spouses & children. I think he would have made a very good Marxist.

[xleax]

Don't take him literally? So he's a fantasy writer. A babbler is what I call him. Saying outrageus points so he can sell books.

Timocracy is government ruled by people who love honor and are selected according to the degree of honor they hold. That's not socialism nor communism because Stalin, Lenin or Chaves have no little honor. Hence they wouldn't run a state like that. ;)

[bmikesci]

Please don't confuse an economic system with a political system. Communism is an economic system. There are democratic communist systems and totalitarian communist systems. The economic spectrum goes from sharing material goods to hoarding them. The political spectrum goes from sharing political power to dictatorship. I've often heard this easy to understand distinction confused, perhaps purposefully.

[xleax]

Communism is a socioeconomic system.

Btw, when China turned to a capitalistic economic system that's when they started to thrive.

[bmikesci]

Thieving can be very profitable. An economy based on sharing & fair treatment usually doesn't produce a lot of super rich. Exploiting the earth, the working class, conquered neighbors, and the legal system, can produce great concentrations of wealth. Slavery is especially profitable.

Optimizing systems always starts with the question: for what do you want to optimize? If the answer is for the benefit of a few, choose one optimization path - for the benefit of the many, choose another.

[xleax]

Oh ok, now it makes sense - you yourself are a Marxist. Like goes to like.

Let me ask you this: Who did Warren Buffet exploit? Who did Bill Gates exploit? Who did Oprah exploit?

No one. Yet all 3 of them have a tramendus positive influence on the world with charitable contributions and other things.

[tristanXIV]

especially Aristotle who believed slavery was natural.

those Greek philosophers are not deities. please.

[tristanXIV]

you talk as if the motherfucking capitalist and imperialists did not commit genocide of indigenous populations by the millions from the Americas to Australia. The whole world and for centuries.

[xleax]

You can select any thing in the distant history to be against capitalism.

But that's not the point. The majority of the world had a recent experiment with Marxism and that ended very badly.

[tristanXIV]

we don't have to go too far in history to see imperialism at work. Most African nations become independent of their colonizers 40, 50, 0r 60s years ago.

I would argue that there's a share responsibility on how the world is today, both sides have been part of the problem.

[xleax]

Imperialism was the culture at the time and has little to do with capitalism. Today capitalism can manifest a lot more favorable (to the world) condition. Just look at all the rich philantropists.

[tristanXIV]

Imperialism has always be the driving force of capitalism, its building block Maybe today we don't have slaves in our backyards, they've become invisible, they are now in the third world factories manufacturing our shoes and electronics which will eventually return to them as e-waste. If capitalism wasn't imperialistic some nations wouldn't be so quick to send troops to other nations or sponsor coup d'etats here & there. like they say democracy as long as you vote for our side. free choice?

[xleax]

Those who work in those shoe factories are normally paid a more or a lot more than the average is for that country.

[tristanXIV]

if that was so, wouldn't they have better lives than the rest of the country? but it's not the case.

how would this economic model work if there were no cheap labor available??

[xleax]

The factory doesn't employ the whole country, but only a tiny fraction. That's why the word avarege (pay attention) means a lot. With a solid job like this they get out of povert.

The benefit of these jobs in developing countries is twofold:

1.) Cheaper product for you.

2.) Helping them get out of poverty

Remember, most countries went through an industrial/sweatshop stage - including USA. They're no expeption. And we're giving them jobs. No victims here.

[tristanXIV]

I've personally have heard how these corporations work. They buy out existing national companies, and put in place new employment rules. In many instances the working conditions and terms are worse, for instance they fire the older workers and hire new ones but under temporary contracts. Now how is that an improvement for their lives?

the so-called rich nations industrialized themselves under heavy protectionism which is not the case for developing nations. The whole game is totally unfair.

[xleax]

Studies show that in regions where there are sweatshops the precentage of people living $1 a day has decressed radically.

Would you rather have we don't offer tham any jobs?

Your comment is misleading. Not only do they buy companies, but they bring their companies there by building huge factories that gives jobs to a lot of people.

See wikipedia article on Sweatshops.

[tristanXIV]

Those corporation not only benefit from the cheap labor but also use those countries as markets for their products, which often bankrupts the local industries.

It´s completely unfair how countries like the United States managed to industrialized under heavy protectionism but today these countries are forced to open their markets to the world. now why is that not unfair?

[xleax]

The USA is providing jobs for these countries. Without the USA offering jobs (and financial aid in most cases) these countries would be a lot worse.

[tristanXIV]

I don't know what aid you're talking about. The USA gives more aid to Israel than to the whole of Africa.

People in other countries don't want to see the "McDisneyfication" of their nations and cultures, just like you wouldn't like to see the Chinese buying General Motors or some other of your beloved corporations.

[xleax]

If people didn't want McDonald's here they wouldn't go eat there. But guess what? A lot of people do, so it's there. It's called free choice, something the far-left seems to have a problem with.

Now, I guess you never heard of G. W. Bush's PEPFAR? Look it up.

[tristanXIV]

freedom of choice? these people's are brainwashed into buying these poor quality foods. Advertising doesn't informed people it sells them fetishized products like Starbucks coffee

there's no freedom when 10 mega corporation own basically all the media you get. You don't live in a democracy but a "media-cracy". You're flooded with ads and the same news all day until saturation People out there simply regurgitate what the TV tells them, their opinions aren't original. they only repeat slogans

[tristanXIV]

Don't talk me about charity when in fact Sweden has taken more Iraq war refugees than the US and Canada. It seems like we need a little more consistency and moral responsibility in this world.

[xleax]

haha the classic anti-capitalistic view.

Hey pinhead, move to Cuba if ads bother you this much. Or better yet sell your TV and don't visit the internet (the breeding ground for ads).

PEPFAR was a commitment of $15 billion to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa primarily. On top of that Americans individually are the biggest givers to charity in the world.

[tristanXIV]

I rarely watch TV, it's a bunch of crap. Some channels don't have commercials, which is a blessing.

Ads do have an effect on people, stop living in denial my friend, it makes you sounds stupid and superficial. Ads have great effects, they make people, especially women, feel inadequate.

I only use YouTube to watch insightful clips.

I don't know what pinhead means, and I don't care to know. You can't take one bit of criticism, that will be your downfall as your McDisney society.

[tristanXIV]

hahaha you know what's so fucking funny. you actually think ads educate and inform the public. Give me a break.

and also, the day I see you working in a sweatshop without health care benefits I will agree with all the crap you talk about. charity? what about making those multinational corporation into fair institutions. wouldn't that be better?

they can't exploit you in your country but they certainly do it to others outside.

[xleax]

I don't have a beef with ads. Some are better than others, but they're all there to inform the public of that company's product's and services. In turn, you get TV shows, channels and all of that because of ad revenue.

Yeah sure, watching Zizek is 'educational'.

If these corporations aren't breaking the law, they're good. Sometimes they give to charity.

There wouldn't be any sweat shops if people didn't want to work there. For higher pay then avg, they sooo want to. Wise up.

[tristanXIV]

Zizek is far more educational than anything you watch on Tv. by far

Its simple. multinational corporations + corrupt third world countries = exploitation and big profits for the first world. As simple as it gets. China is doing great but because they have an arsenal of exploited labor, including children. You should watch a documentary titled China Blue In Colombia Coca Cola has been accused of hiring paramilitary thugs to bust unions. These things aren't hard to believe, but for you they are

[xleax]

Zizek is so educated that's he's a marxist. Like a lot of loony college professors who are either marxist or anarchist like Bill Ayers.

It's only in that pseudo-intelectual elite environment that he can be popular.

Profits do not equal exploitation you marxist tool. If you ever checked out the wikipedia article on sweatshops you would know that in Asia the % of people living on 1$ a day has decreased significantly, specifically because of sweatshops and factories, that provided jobs.

[tristanXIV]

maybe you should see reality yourself instead of reading wikipedia. go to those places and work in a sweatshop and see if you survive and if you love your boss.

exploitation does equal more profits, which is why immigrant labor keeps capitalism going.

now what would happen if there was no cheap labor available? tell me if you know it all.

I'm not a Marxist, I know Capitalism and the State are here to stay.

[xleax]

America went through a sweatshop stage. So did Europe.

To deny those people jobs is leaving them jobless. They want to work and companies are giving them work.

Outsourcing has been a long standing practice now, and if you don't like it, buy everything that's made in America.

In a capitalist system outsourcing is the way you keep costumers happy with lower prices and you don't go out of business in a competitive market.

Wikipedia has facts, not marxist emotionality.

[tristanXIV]

Who, in fact, are fundamentalists? To put it simply, a fundamentalist does not believe in something, but rather knows it directly. In other words, both liberal-sceptical cynicism and fundamentalism share a basic underlying feature: the loss of the ability to believe in the proper sense of the term. For both of them, religious statements are quasi-empirical statements of direct knowledge: fundamentalists accept these statements as such, while sceptics mock them.." Zizek

isn't he educational?

[xleax]

No, because skepticism of Zizek's kind is a belief system in itself.

The skeptic has faith in his own skepticism, which is a very limited point of view.

[tristanXIV]

isn't doubt precisely the foundation of Western secular and scientific thought? During the Middle Ages there was no doubt because religion provided all the answers, there was no need to question anything.

[xleax]

With the likes of Zizek, he has no doubt. He's an atheist like all Marxists.

To know that Something, that you can't prove or disprove, doesn't exist takes a certain amount of narcissism, which, of course, all these radical professors display regularly.

[solarisocean]

I think you miss the point. Take popular atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris. The only ones who agrees with their definition of "real christians", is fundamentalists themselves. Both sides agree on belief being synonymous with scripture itself: either you are a biblical litteralist- or you don't really believe in God. Both sides consider moderate religious people unwilling to fully submit to God. This is for me a perfect example of what Zizek means by fundamentalists vs sceptics who mock.

[xleax]

I'm confused by your comment solarisocean.

A belief in God or in a Higher Power does not need any scripture.

What does it mean to fully submit to God?

You know some people believe in evolution and God. I think you mean fully submit by following the scripture, right?

[solarisocean]

oh, no... I was only critizising Dawkins-atheism with help from Zizek. I was talking about fundamentalists OWN perception of "real belief" and "to fully submit to God" (such as biblical literalism). This type of fundamentalist belief is what Dawkins and others use as a template in their "critique of religion", and they ignore all the non-fundamentalist belief (as all the religious people who accept science). Both sides (ironically) agree on what "real belief" is, one of them totally reject it

[xleax]

They reject faith in God, but they have faith in their own skepticism and science.

So it's not a question of faith; it's a question of faith in what.

[solarisocean]

I agree (partly). You seem unwilling to look at similarities between atheists and fundamentalist. Perhaps you want to keep to the traditional camps: God believers--atheists. Of course they reject faith in God, they're atheists. I would'nt put it, as you, "but" they have faith in their own scepticism/science. I would say for whatever reason (cultural, social) they have no subjective religious relationship to the concept God. For other reasons, they believe that science objectively disproves God

[xleax]

Sure there are similarities between atheists and fundamentalists. The 'opposite' of which would be an agnostic, who honestly says he doesn't know.

One doesn't have to have a religious upbringing to believe in some Higher Power.

God cannot be proven or disproven. That Something that created everything physical is beyond a physicality, therefore not subject to physical evidence - like subjectivity. It's of a different quality.

It would be like 'measuring' thoughts with a stick.

[muziquelle]

lol @ Wikipedia has facts.

America also keeps prices low with prison labour which is the new slave labour - a lot of prisons aren't even OWNED by the gov't and owned by corporations - which means they make it their business to keep/get people in prison.

In a capitalist system, you also want to create more jobs for people so that individuals have more spending power so outsourcing kind of works against that.

[muziquelle]

That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying the percentage of people in Asia are getting a less smelly pile of shit than they were before. Better than worse isn't the Best.

And profits DO equal exploitation - that's kind of the point.

[muziquelle]

It's really funny though because a lot of corporations DO break the law. In fact, I'm willing to bet that MOST of them do.

If I poisoned someone with Mercury and they die as a result, that would be a crime.

If a chemical plant pollutes the water supply of the surrounding areas and kills people that way - they are almost never held accountable. On top of that, the corporation, which would be considered as an individual under the law, is 'punished' - not the people running it.

Wise Up.

[xleax]

If big companies wouldn't do outsourcing they would go out of business. There's this thing called competition and you're better off for it.

Nobody's forcing ppl in Asia to work in factories - getting out of poverty is their prerogative.

A country can't go from developing to developed in 3 years - takes time.

If you think companies are breaking the law you still got to prove it, sir. Hearsay is not evidence.

[chiefjusticebeans]

woah woah slow down captain literal, it's a thought experiment

[kwiat77]

I adore Zizek, but this is ridiculous...period. And I think he knows it (hence the grinning).

[eydos]

Wow. Again a great shortie from Zizek, this guy is amazing! However I can imagine how many people hates his guts haha.

[ragadoo239]

He was being sardonic, personified by the grin at the end.

[lachilangitaloca]

YES!!! I AGREE 100%

[MAldoseri]

My!! I was just telling my sister almost the same thing on how we should be allowed to vote as well (in Bahrain) because I've been getting a lot of these ads\propaganda that gives my the chance to cast a hypothetical vote and whats not, that in some sense solidifies the notion of the US being the world's government and we're all its subjects.

Blah blah blah..

I love Zizek, though <3

[snlDer]

Gringos=Owned

[Dianavblog]

Brilliant thought: Let the world vote since Americans know nothing about foreign policies, unless every America gets a broader education in history, geography and other culture customs or traditions, same should be implied for the UK.....

[bapyou]

"Very offensive; stay out of our elections."

That would be fine except that, since WW2, the U.S. has stuck it's nose into elections held by dozens of sovereign nations around the world. Get a clue.

[BobTheRecordGuy]

@bapyou - after saving those sovereign nations around the world in two world wars we have decided to look after our own self-interest by preventing some of those problems from reoccuring. in the process we helped many nations escape the yoke of communism. hooray for the U.S. and this guy is a moron.

[Traitorfish]

@BobTheRecordGuy Huh, I guess I missed Italy's communist period. You'd think that you'd notice something like that, wouldn't you?

[BobTheRecordGuy]

@Traitorfish - That's my point. While USA intervention has caused problems many times, our intervention in two World Wars saved a good portion of the world. And removed the facists from tyrannizing the Italina populace. Our vigilance in the Cold War, in the face of oppositon from appeasers, spies and naive one-worlders, kept a lot of the world, including Italy, from falling to the communists. If one thinks communism or Marxism is okay, or workable, or not plain laughable, they won't get this.

[Traitorfish]

@BobTheRecordGuy I was actually referring to the extended American interference in the Italian electoral system, an illegal attempt to subvert Italian democracy in favour of the Christian Democrats and against the (by that time, strictly non-revolutionary) Communist Party. Whatever your own views of the Soviet bogeyman, one cannot defend such activity and claim, with a straight face, to be defending any democracy worth the name.

[Traitorfish]

@BobTheRecordGuy Oh, and the fascists stayed in Italy. They just joined new, American-backed groups. Look up "Gianfranco Fini", one of Berlesconi's right-hand men and former leader of the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement.

[JGuildersleeve]

@BobTheRecordGuy You can't say the US "saved a good portion of the world" by entering WWI, since the consequences of WWI led directly to the more dangerous WWII. Second, the US did not enter WWII in order to kill fascists. If that was the case, they would have entered the war much sooner. They only got involved in WWII once Germany declared war on them. This is hardly comparable to other cases of intervention.

[JGuildersleeve]

@BobTheRecordGuy Third, the Cold War wasn't about preventing countries from "falling to the communists". The war against Vietnam for example was a war not only against Nationalists but also against Buddhists who had nothing to do with communism. The attack against Nicaragua had nothing to do with Soviets, etc. And yes, I do think the Marxism is okay but that's only because I understand history.

[aorin71]

Oh Zizek. It's a fair illustrative point, but what is the practical solution towards weighing international opinions? I'd like to hear a little less pomp and a little more real world circumstance, Mr. Z.