Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@SAM
Yes Slavoj is an amazing cultural philosopher from the Lacan school. He's very controversial as you can imagine but he's not someone I would dismiss. I began reading 'Welcome to the Desert of the Real' and many of his essays and from time to time when something occurs in society I google him to see if he had anything to say on the subject. Needless to say he always has something to say about everything. You pronounce the name 'slavo jeejeck'.
Sam: I find his description of the culture of "the right not to be harassed" something that is epiphanic with me.
How so? I understand what he has to say about the Left but I also think they don't have a choice. I believe that though an anti-immigration or anti-tolerant stance is considered very unliberal to say the least but they were losing a growing sector of society who were concerned about society in terms of immigration. If they didn't respond then someone like Geert Wilder's wins, the obvious contradiction is of course that to take up the mantle of the right means losing what there was of the left.
But again I would say that this is because the Left has carved in stone ideas such as being good and good all the time for everyone in every way. Multiculturalism, tolerance etc can only be 'good', if you are against it you can only be bad. This is the same nonsense that leads nations such as the US to venture into other countries under the guise that 'democracy' is good and if you are against democracy you are bad and therefore democracy must be forced. Its not to be considered, the terms are a de facto 'known good'. Its in this same simplistic manner that multiculturalism is being shoved down the throats of populations who have issue with it.
I do agree with Zizek on some points he articulated in those articles but because he is really showing a new angle on the subject I need to ponder it a little. Zizek does believe immigration should be controlled but I also think he believes society should change its criteria for identification, this is a problem of course as the European union identification hasn't replaced the old nation-state and more and more people are reverting to traditional forms of identification. What I am not convinced of is that this is necessarily a bad thing, which is why I take umbrage with Dr. Baker's assertion of turning against one's self-interest and becoming a 'heroic race traitor'. But again all of these ideas are to be explored, considered and worked out. Positions sometimes change.
Sam: We've seen an example of his Roma analogy in the London riots with Cameron threatening eviction of the households of adolescents involved in the fracas [and the resulting Gustav episode on sciforums]
What was the gustav episode? Yes I do think that there is a growing intolerance for rioters and roma's alike. The eviction is part of what I called the isolate, reject then eject process a society goes through when they cannot absorb another group.
Sam: But I say, is that what is behind the Swiss minaret controversy or the rise in popularity of Geert Wilders? One cannot "tolerate" something that one is in agreement with, the simple basis of tolerance [you go your way while I go my way and we agree to disagree] is difference of opinion. Where is the difference of opinion in the European approach to Islam or Muslims? Are they ALL not camping at the doorsteps of Muslim countries literally dying to bring democrazy to the masses? So "tolerance" is not the word I would use here
I don't think you can use the tolerance analysis across the board, he is not speaking of the intolerance of Wilders but the tolerance of a Merkel who appeases a portion of voters by coming out and saying 'multiculturalism is a failure'. I would say that Switzerland, which makes laws on referendum vote is simply carrying out the will of a majority of their people. As a small nation they will not tolerate foreign elements changing their landscape, the Swiss are very protective of themselves not through military means but through social cultural controls. As for camping out they are all not engaged in that, there are countries such as Norway and Switzerland who do not engage in this group activity.
Sam: Again I disagree. Like we discussed earlier, 60 years ago there was no question of assimilation of Muslims in western society - actually historically if you go to see, there has never been any issue of assimilation of Muslims in any society - and if "they" were more like "us" in the climate today, most people wouldn't really care [see the complete lack of dialogue on the same issue in the United States where the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are wealthy and/or educated and ask yourself why there is no real issue of Muslim assimilation there]. The issue is actually one of class and resembles more the treatment of the Irish labour in the US rather than the treatment of Jews in pre-WW Europe - we did not see this ghettoisation of Muslims in Europe until the immigrant class dropped to the refugee/poverty/laboour class.
60 years ago there were not as many muslims. You see this is not about whether you have some diversity, I would go as far as to say that in small numbers these groups are prized and protected, a kind of exotic fascination. Its when those numbers grow and become noisy and demand things you don't think in alignment with the culture that this becomes an issue. Muslims in Europe are not assimilating. A wealthy educated muslim is more integrated than a poor one who clings to a non-secular identity yet still I don't agree you can chock it all up to class. Consider the Poles for example or any number of Eastern Europeans, they are poor and take jobs away and from this angle are more of an economic threat than the muslim populations who are unwilling to take labor intensive jobs like picking potatoes in the UK for example. They are not considered a problem because they don't bring any cultural challenges to the table. Same thing for non-muslm africans and chinese, vietnamese etc. You don't really see anyone save the ultra-right parties who would include them as a 'problem population'.
Yes Slavoj is an amazing cultural philosopher from the Lacan school. He's very controversial as you can imagine but he's not someone I would dismiss. I began reading 'Welcome to the Desert of the Real' and many of his essays and from time to time when something occurs in society I google him to see if he had anything to say on the subject. Needless to say he always has something to say about everything. You pronounce the name 'slavo jeejeck'.
Sam: I find his description of the culture of "the right not to be harassed" something that is epiphanic with me.
How so? I understand what he has to say about the Left but I also think they don't have a choice. I believe that though an anti-immigration or anti-tolerant stance is considered very unliberal to say the least but they were losing a growing sector of society who were concerned about society in terms of immigration. If they didn't respond then someone like Geert Wilder's wins, the obvious contradiction is of course that to take up the mantle of the right means losing what there was of the left.
But again I would say that this is because the Left has carved in stone ideas such as being good and good all the time for everyone in every way. Multiculturalism, tolerance etc can only be 'good', if you are against it you can only be bad. This is the same nonsense that leads nations such as the US to venture into other countries under the guise that 'democracy' is good and if you are against democracy you are bad and therefore democracy must be forced. Its not to be considered, the terms are a de facto 'known good'. Its in this same simplistic manner that multiculturalism is being shoved down the throats of populations who have issue with it.
I do agree with Zizek on some points he articulated in those articles but because he is really showing a new angle on the subject I need to ponder it a little. Zizek does believe immigration should be controlled but I also think he believes society should change its criteria for identification, this is a problem of course as the European union identification hasn't replaced the old nation-state and more and more people are reverting to traditional forms of identification. What I am not convinced of is that this is necessarily a bad thing, which is why I take umbrage with Dr. Baker's assertion of turning against one's self-interest and becoming a 'heroic race traitor'. But again all of these ideas are to be explored, considered and worked out. Positions sometimes change.
Sam: We've seen an example of his Roma analogy in the London riots with Cameron threatening eviction of the households of adolescents involved in the fracas [and the resulting Gustav episode on sciforums]
What was the gustav episode? Yes I do think that there is a growing intolerance for rioters and roma's alike. The eviction is part of what I called the isolate, reject then eject process a society goes through when they cannot absorb another group.
Sam: But I say, is that what is behind the Swiss minaret controversy or the rise in popularity of Geert Wilders? One cannot "tolerate" something that one is in agreement with, the simple basis of tolerance [you go your way while I go my way and we agree to disagree] is difference of opinion. Where is the difference of opinion in the European approach to Islam or Muslims? Are they ALL not camping at the doorsteps of Muslim countries literally dying to bring democrazy to the masses? So "tolerance" is not the word I would use here
I don't think you can use the tolerance analysis across the board, he is not speaking of the intolerance of Wilders but the tolerance of a Merkel who appeases a portion of voters by coming out and saying 'multiculturalism is a failure'. I would say that Switzerland, which makes laws on referendum vote is simply carrying out the will of a majority of their people. As a small nation they will not tolerate foreign elements changing their landscape, the Swiss are very protective of themselves not through military means but through social cultural controls. As for camping out they are all not engaged in that, there are countries such as Norway and Switzerland who do not engage in this group activity.
Sam: Again I disagree. Like we discussed earlier, 60 years ago there was no question of assimilation of Muslims in western society - actually historically if you go to see, there has never been any issue of assimilation of Muslims in any society - and if "they" were more like "us" in the climate today, most people wouldn't really care [see the complete lack of dialogue on the same issue in the United States where the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are wealthy and/or educated and ask yourself why there is no real issue of Muslim assimilation there]. The issue is actually one of class and resembles more the treatment of the Irish labour in the US rather than the treatment of Jews in pre-WW Europe - we did not see this ghettoisation of Muslims in Europe until the immigrant class dropped to the refugee/poverty/laboour class.
60 years ago there were not as many muslims. You see this is not about whether you have some diversity, I would go as far as to say that in small numbers these groups are prized and protected, a kind of exotic fascination. Its when those numbers grow and become noisy and demand things you don't think in alignment with the culture that this becomes an issue. Muslims in Europe are not assimilating. A wealthy educated muslim is more integrated than a poor one who clings to a non-secular identity yet still I don't agree you can chock it all up to class. Consider the Poles for example or any number of Eastern Europeans, they are poor and take jobs away and from this angle are more of an economic threat than the muslim populations who are unwilling to take labor intensive jobs like picking potatoes in the UK for example. They are not considered a problem because they don't bring any cultural challenges to the table. Same thing for non-muslm africans and chinese, vietnamese etc. You don't really see anyone save the ultra-right parties who would include them as a 'problem population'.
