Ai Weiwei who recently posted selfies on his Instagram account taken with Ukrainian soldiers sporting neo-Nazi patches? And who previously posted selfies with warmonger Hilary Clinton?
Are those the actions of an 'authentic dissident'? Or a useful propaganda tool?
your comment is a shameless ad hominem utterance - you blatantly ignore his sociopolitical stances and divert to an irrelevant topic in this context. the Irony of your name 'political economist' when any materialist framework of political economy would never engage in these crude logical fallacies that detracts from the import of Weiwei's principled position.
> The tweet began: “The sense of guilt around the persecution of the Jewish people has been, at times, transferred to offset the Arab world.”
And the rest of the tweet read: "Financially, culturally, and in terms of media influence, the Jewish community has had a significant presence in the United States," which I think was the part people were criticizing as antisemitic. (Obviously this is kind of a bland truism out of context, but taken in concert with the sentence before, it seems sort of like Ai Weiwei is blaming a powerful cabal of Jews for using the media to manipulate Western narratives against Arabs with sneaky guilt tactics. Pretty bad!)
But it's true, the Jews control a lot of media, and that's ok, we should consider that whatever the Jews are doing, they're doing because that was the only thing they could do, like loaning money in Europe because they couldn't do nothing more to earn a living.
What is being said here is correct, not that being 'correct' carries much weight nowadays. In one way or another, censorship is a method of redirecting public thought toward a specific direction, which often serves no purpose other than enforcing dogmatism.
It’s striking how someone’s words can be condemned, even when they are nuanced and not direct, simply because they might suggest a ‘violet' (against someone one or some group, that ought to not be criticized, at any cost) tone or thought. [Speaking broadly here not directly to weiwei’s case, let's say] . Yet, when an innocent person is killed without due process, it fails to spark a genuine need for criticism. Even if some claim it is 'justified,' justification by its very nature demands to be challenged.
What a world we live in, or perhaps , what a world we humans have constructed.
big fan of wei wei but his gaza comment was not ethical; for it to be, mentioning 7/10 attrocities would be needed. however his spoken and artistic criticisms of the chinese regime, of which he has first hand knowledge, are unparalleled and demonstrate that it's essential to understand what you're criticising in order to be judged ethical.
His farther Ai Qing who is a loyalty CCP member. That meaning he was a second red generation. We so sadly that a fighter getting older and losing faith return home.
I think it's disingenuous first to equate the quality of censorship in authoritarian regimes with that in the West, and to then describe the Western form as "more corrosive". How come it's the "more corrosive" type of censorship that has managed to endure and outlast the, I presume, less corrosive type? Has Western societies really become significantly more rotten and corroded than the likes of China, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Brazil, Nigeria, etc? Shouldn't this fact (if it possesses any iota of truth) be reflected in the net direction of human migration?
I think there's a particular type of critic and critique that is often inclined towards the absurd in a bid to push critical rationality to its extreme end (where it becomes illogical), using ethical standards that have nowhere and no time in history being successfully applied or upheld by any society. Does the author expect Western societies to not censor at all? What about illiberal sentiments? What about those who are openly racist and inciting? Anti-West Critics of this strain would often point out a fault in Western society and then proceed to argue that ,"...for this reason, the West isn't any better."
But I happen to think that, ultimately and always, real events and real human choices are often better and fairer critics than most verbally compromised human critics.
Is the West without flaw? Absolutely NO. But let societies with better human right record be first in line to cast a critical stone. And those better societies do exist just not the ones your typical Anti-West critics love to platform.
Mr Zizek, which "russian dissidents" are praised in the west exactly? KGB agents of pseudo opposition don't count. But you won't reply or read it anyway, so I'll just leave it here
I believe there is a clear Marxian explication on Wikipedia of what Professor Žižek refers to as “the negation of the negation,” resulting in a superior, illuminating synthesis. Rightly or wrongly, I have long wondered whether Wittgenstein’s two principal philosophical works exemplify that phenomenon, albeit without a clearly articulated synthesis — namely, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the later Philosophical Investigations. More generally, it is often said that most political statements inherently contain within themselves an almost equally effective negation: for example, that politics both is and is not the language of moral absolutes. Similarly, one might consider Prime Minister Carney’s recent, widely celebrated speech at Davos, particularly in its dexterous and self-aware acknowledgment of the contradictions long inherent in Western hegemonic apologism. Yet one is left wondering whether the speech truly achieves a genuine synthetic breakthrough — a real light at the end of the tunnel that it politically and epistemically purports to enunciate.
To question the Western state of freedom by examining the mechanisms of censorship, in order to struggle (the negation) toward a higher level of progression (the negation of the negation). The new order, object, or state born from this process would emerge more conscious and enriched.
Ai Weiwei who recently posted selfies on his Instagram account taken with Ukrainian soldiers sporting neo-Nazi patches? And who previously posted selfies with warmonger Hilary Clinton?
Are those the actions of an 'authentic dissident'? Or a useful propaganda tool?
your comment is a shameless ad hominem utterance - you blatantly ignore his sociopolitical stances and divert to an irrelevant topic in this context. the Irony of your name 'political economist' when any materialist framework of political economy would never engage in these crude logical fallacies that detracts from the import of Weiwei's principled position.
You’re right, he should move to the Russian Federation and swear to support their 1,000 years of peace
> The tweet began: “The sense of guilt around the persecution of the Jewish people has been, at times, transferred to offset the Arab world.”
And the rest of the tweet read: "Financially, culturally, and in terms of media influence, the Jewish community has had a significant presence in the United States," which I think was the part people were criticizing as antisemitic. (Obviously this is kind of a bland truism out of context, but taken in concert with the sentence before, it seems sort of like Ai Weiwei is blaming a powerful cabal of Jews for using the media to manipulate Western narratives against Arabs with sneaky guilt tactics. Pretty bad!)
But it's true, the Jews control a lot of media, and that's ok, we should consider that whatever the Jews are doing, they're doing because that was the only thing they could do, like loaning money in Europe because they couldn't do nothing more to earn a living.
Almost all if not all of those jews are zionist and i can't see your other comment
Your comment just proved him rihgt! double plus good!
And thats anti-semitic how
how many media corporations/conglomerates are run by European Jews compared to their population nationally or even globally
its unproportional
What is being said here is correct, not that being 'correct' carries much weight nowadays. In one way or another, censorship is a method of redirecting public thought toward a specific direction, which often serves no purpose other than enforcing dogmatism.
It’s striking how someone’s words can be condemned, even when they are nuanced and not direct, simply because they might suggest a ‘violet' (against someone one or some group, that ought to not be criticized, at any cost) tone or thought. [Speaking broadly here not directly to weiwei’s case, let's say] . Yet, when an innocent person is killed without due process, it fails to spark a genuine need for criticism. Even if some claim it is 'justified,' justification by its very nature demands to be challenged.
What a world we live in, or perhaps , what a world we humans have constructed.
*violent
big fan of wei wei but his gaza comment was not ethical; for it to be, mentioning 7/10 attrocities would be needed. however his spoken and artistic criticisms of the chinese regime, of which he has first hand knowledge, are unparalleled and demonstrate that it's essential to understand what you're criticising in order to be judged ethical.
Good stuff.
Yes!
His farther Ai Qing who is a loyalty CCP member. That meaning he was a second red generation. We so sadly that a fighter getting older and losing faith return home.
I think it's disingenuous first to equate the quality of censorship in authoritarian regimes with that in the West, and to then describe the Western form as "more corrosive". How come it's the "more corrosive" type of censorship that has managed to endure and outlast the, I presume, less corrosive type? Has Western societies really become significantly more rotten and corroded than the likes of China, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Brazil, Nigeria, etc? Shouldn't this fact (if it possesses any iota of truth) be reflected in the net direction of human migration?
I think there's a particular type of critic and critique that is often inclined towards the absurd in a bid to push critical rationality to its extreme end (where it becomes illogical), using ethical standards that have nowhere and no time in history being successfully applied or upheld by any society. Does the author expect Western societies to not censor at all? What about illiberal sentiments? What about those who are openly racist and inciting? Anti-West Critics of this strain would often point out a fault in Western society and then proceed to argue that ,"...for this reason, the West isn't any better."
But I happen to think that, ultimately and always, real events and real human choices are often better and fairer critics than most verbally compromised human critics.
Is the West without flaw? Absolutely NO. But let societies with better human right record be first in line to cast a critical stone. And those better societies do exist just not the ones your typical Anti-West critics love to platform.
Mental prisons fed by FOMO because, deep down, we know that in this society, we are truly on our own.
Mr Zizek, which "russian dissidents" are praised in the west exactly? KGB agents of pseudo opposition don't count. But you won't reply or read it anyway, so I'll just leave it here
As one who is unfamiliar with Hegel, could someone explain the last idea in the essay?
I believe there is a clear Marxian explication on Wikipedia of what Professor Žižek refers to as “the negation of the negation,” resulting in a superior, illuminating synthesis. Rightly or wrongly, I have long wondered whether Wittgenstein’s two principal philosophical works exemplify that phenomenon, albeit without a clearly articulated synthesis — namely, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and the later Philosophical Investigations. More generally, it is often said that most political statements inherently contain within themselves an almost equally effective negation: for example, that politics both is and is not the language of moral absolutes. Similarly, one might consider Prime Minister Carney’s recent, widely celebrated speech at Davos, particularly in its dexterous and self-aware acknowledgment of the contradictions long inherent in Western hegemonic apologism. Yet one is left wondering whether the speech truly achieves a genuine synthetic breakthrough — a real light at the end of the tunnel that it politically and epistemically purports to enunciate.
To question the Western state of freedom by examining the mechanisms of censorship, in order to struggle (the negation) toward a higher level of progression (the negation of the negation). The new order, object, or state born from this process would emerge more conscious and enriched.