Yeah pretty much for the reasons others have mentioned. If Bernie wins in 2020 then Zizek has being sort of correct(Had Hilary won 2016 she would of course been the candidate for 2020).
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Again though.. I see no harm in JBP .Though no benefit either. He attracts certain 'types' with his free speech videos who are then able to co opt his other works (because it's without any substance and has a semantic blank spot into which anyone can inject whatever meaning they want) for their own interests. I don't think he is a racist or misogynist. Just a huckster who has hit the jackpot spouting mostly unverifiable nonsense
Death by boredom.
Sounds about right. There's plenty of money to be made out there and Peterson has found a model to do just that.
To be fair (and I didn't necessarily agree with approaching the election in that way) it might still be too early to tell. Who knows if we would have the phenomenon of AOC if Clinton had won a straightforward victory.
All that said though, the way the Supreme Court and the judiciary is set up, I don't think it's a worthwhile strategy for Zizek to have taken. Trump's defining legacy, though he wants it to be the economy, will be the judiciary. Yes, it was a 5-4 conservative split before Scalia died and it's a 5-4 split now, but there's 2 conservatives born in the 60s instead of the 30s.... That could put big roadblocks in the way of any left wing executive/legislative movements, unless you have a president as politically brave as FDR (maybe we could see another Roberts 'switch in time to save 9'
)Whoops, apologies. Thought I was talking to the guy I'd responded to...Read the names mate
I wonder how many booster seats he had to sit on to look like he was as tall as the lady interviewing him.
Didn’t it? Bernie was not exactly in the mainstream when he was talking about medicare for all and a significant raising of the minimum wage, for example. Those aren’t considered fringe views anymore in the democratic party.
For sure. Of course none of the above can be put down to Donald Trump winning the election. These issues were always going to become front and centre, thanks to the growing inequality in society. An inequality that was accelerated by Trump coming into power.
I disagree with you there Pogue. If Hillary had won the election I dont think the leftward pull on the Democratic party would have been anywhere near as strong. The midterms would have played out completely differently, highly questionable whether youd have AOC.
I know next to feck all about American politics (and this probably isn’t the thread to discuss it) but the whole Bernie thing got into full swing long before Trump became president. Sanders was a long way to the left of similar candidates from the past (I think?) so I see no reason that swing to the left would die on its arse just because Clinton ended up winning the election.
There’s been an obvious trend to populist extremes at the left and right all over the world which wasn’t going to grind to a hault if Trump didn’t win. Basically I can’t accept that the world is a better place now that Trump is POTUS. That was always going to be the shittest outcome.
It might not have died on its arse. But it might not have got the momentum it did. That’s the point we’re making. There’s room for a movement to be “less” without it having to be “nothing.”
And I don’t think even Zizek has said the world is a better place with Trump. His point as I understand it was that it would mobilize the left in the long run in a way a Clinton presidency wouldn’t.
I'm not a big fan of Zizek's take on Trump but he is right that the left has got a boost primarily because of just how awful Trump is.
Yeah he still seem to view the neoliberal side of politics as the main opponent which I don't think is the case anymore, the nationalistic growing far right is just as threading. In fact its becoming clear that see both sides are becoming quite comfortable with each other.
For Leninist Zizek should know better, the answer is simply -"Both are worse''
Still seems like a dangerous calculation to me, since a) the boost for the (far) right has probably been even bigger, with deadly consequences, and b) it is yet unknown what "the left" will or will not be able to do as a result. But that discussion has already been held a hundred times on here, in all variations.
It isnt a trend. It is just that politicians will do anything and everything to avoid addressing the actual problems with our system.
Another victory for the market place of ideas.
That was a dick move.
There’s a very good piece about Info Wars fuelled harrasment of Sandy Hook parents on a recent episode of This American Life, produced by Jon Ronson. You could see how something like this might happen.
Alex Jones has nothing to do with the marketplace of ideas. He has a stall in the marketplace of bellends.
Alex Jones is, was and always will be a scumbag.
Yeah I listened to that the other day and it was excellent. Lenny Pozner's determination to take on the trolls was absolutely remarkable but so infuriating that he even needed to. Found it interesting that some of the truthers he exposed turned out to be violent criminals themselves.
Why anybody goes on that utter scum's show is beyond me. If Rogan wants to associate himself with guys like that well that says a lot about him.
Such a shitty bunch of people. An older brother of a good friend of mine (who’s from Belfast, like you?) has got himself balls deep in that whole conspiracy world online. So much so that he’s fallen out with all his family. I’ve a feeling we’ll see it as a DSM diagnosis at some point in the next few years.
To be fair, Jon Ronson - who’s incredibly smart and not remotely right wing - has always had a soft spot for Alex Jones too (and vice versa). So he’s obviously fairly charming and thoughtful when the cameras aren’t rolling. Although I think that’s changed now he’s realised he was a violent bully in his younger years.
Ronson mentions it in that episode briefly too. I used to listen to Alex Jones the odd time myself many years ago after Ronson's Secret Rulers of the World series left me with a peculiar fascination with that whole conspiracy scene. It got boring after a while though and I was fairly surprised with the direction his rhetoric took when he popped up as a Trump supporter years later. Ronson is (or at least was) also fairly sympathetic to David Icke in that he thinks Icke genuinley believes there are shapeshifting lizards and he's not using it as an anti-semitic dog whistle.
Conspiracies are fascinating. The doc Zeitgeist fascinated me for a while.
I've never really watched his show so have never seen anything of his beyond those occasionally insane clips people post when he goes on a massive rant, but I know plenty of people who watch his stuff ironically and find him entertaining in the way you would an insane comic book villain or something. Because the guy, undoubtedly, is as entertaining as he is insane. But the problem is that his insanity isn't just something arbitrary for his own amusement; as we've seen with Sandy Hook it has a very direct impact on those it targets. Which is something I imagine a lot of people forget.
I find him entertaining but haven't forgotten about the sandy hook thing. It was a pretty massive feck up and really distasteful but it was kind of a once off (he says horrible stuff about politicians et al quite often but I dislike them enough not to care i guess). I don't really get why hes so notably unpopular at the moment.
I think the kids would say "got him"
It absolutely was not a once off. It may have been the first time he outright denied it but he still exploits any sort of shooting to push his show's insane narrative. For example claiming the Vegas shooting was an ISIS/Antifa collaboration.
He's an atrocious human being.
So... he’s arguing that modern day scientists are stupid and that we ought to listen to consensus from the 1800s, which doesn’t mention climate change? Or am I missing something?
Stefan’s a loon.
And I thought average intelligence has always been set at 100, and that bar has been raised as nutrition and education have seen IQs rise?