For those active in 1968, even sex with animals was allowed, but gay sex was totally prohibited in mainstream. Hippies and the rest presented themselves as rebels against the system, when in fact they were the vector of least resistance against the forces of heteronormalization, the compulsive heterosexuality of biopolitics. Perhaps, while dealing with hippies, Foucault got the idea that power does not oppress but positively gives, builds and rewards.
I remember that in the 90ies in the West, being gay was a much bigger threat and crime than pedophilia. Pogroms were being prepared for both, but then liberal capitalism remembered at the turn of the millennium that it was liberal and stopped calling for the final solution of gay question.
But a silent deal appeared: capitalism will not interfere in the pleasures of the LGBT+ movement, and in return the LGBT+ movement must not interfere with capitalism, its’ past crimes against gays, crimes of society, the police, medicine, psychiatry... which was still going on two decades ago. This may also be the origin of the obsession with new ways of formulating victimizations - all just to avoid the thematization of the prosecution of gays and anti-gay hysteria in the 90ies.
"introduction of the notion of consent into human-robot sexual relationships is vital in a way similar to sexual relations between humans and it will help prevent the creation of a ‘class of legally incorporated sex-slaves.’”"
what is ironic is this concern ignores the reality of real human slavery in the production and development of AI systems, potentially including sexbots. I'm not sure how to frame this in Lacanian terms, but it seems like a luxury belief that has the effect of making the policy maker or moralist "PC" individual feel that they have done a moral duty while real harms to human beings ("other" in the chain of labor) are ignored and misdirected.
Perhaps "exploitation" would be a better choice for words, but there is a pattern of this in the development of large LLMs, exploitation of low-paid workers in non-Western nations, to exploiting information, creativity, and other's labor in the collection and generation of model training data. Not to mention the pattern of forced or poor labor conditions in manufacturing centres of technology hardware.
"But why talk about politeness and public manners today when we are facing what appears to be much more pressing “real” problems? In doing it, do we not regress to the level of de Quincey’s famous quip about the simple art of murder – “How many people began with unleashing terror and economic catastrophes, and ended up with behaving badly at a party?” But manners DO matter – in tense situations, they are a matter of life and death, a thin line that separates barbarism from civilization. There is one surprising fact about the latest outbursts of public vulgarities that deserves to be noted. Back in the 1960s, occasional vulgarities were associated with political Left: student revolutionaries often used common language to emphasize their contrast to official politics with its polished jargon. Today, vulgar language is an almost exclusive prerogative of the radical Right, so that the Left finds itself in a surprising position of the defender of decency and public manners. Politeness (manners, gallantry) is more than just obeying external legality and less than pure moral activity – it is the ambiguously imprecise domain of what one is not strictly obliged to do (if one doesn’t do it, one doesn’t break any laws), but what one is nonetheless expected to do. We are dealing here with implicit unspoken regulations, with questions of tact, with something towards which subject has as a rule a non-reflected relationship: something that is part of our spontaneous sensitivity, a thick texture of customs and expectations which is part of our inherited substance of mores (Sitten). Therein resides the self-destructive deadlock of Political Correctness: it tries to explicitly formulate, legalize even, the stuff of manners."
Yes, and to address some of the points it makes: on the one hand, political correctness tries to formulate and legalize the stuff of manners; on the other, it tries to abolish manners. After all, aren't these the same people who are telling us that anything traditional is "right wing"? Isn't the formula "ladies and gentleman"--the essence of politeness--something that is now considered "transphobic"?
Capitalism depends on the free flow of capital and labour - including sexual labour. The so callled "Western Left" have become enthusiastic accomplices in these Capitalist imperatives. Here in Ireland, the Left actually held a protest against the Irish working class - for daring to agree with Marx and Engels that mass emigration undermines the wages and conditions of the native working class. You'll notice that US corporations that refuse to allow their workers to join trade unions are happy to pay for abortions for those same workers.
I love the Ziz! I want you to make money off of Substack. I am even tempted to subscribe but here's the deal: this last post was filled with a large number of typos and grammatical errors -- at least enough to suggest that you have not hired a copy-editor. I always pay someone to copy edit my Substack posts, even though I am a small fry. Why bother? you may ask, since language is changing/decaying at a rapid rate online. The answer is not unrelated to your argument here: far from being a slavish adherence to the Law of grammar, properly copy-edited prose is instead a gesture of tact and manners.
"Consequently, one should also talk about feminine manipulation and emotional brutality (ultimately as a desperate reply to male domination) – women fight back any way they can. " For goodness sake, just come out and say it: women are often manipulative and capable of emotional brutality, and not necessarily because they need to "fight back." There are psychological studies according to which women are much more manipulative then men. Men fight by using force, women fight by using rumors, gossip, reputation destruction. In fact, according to the same psychologists (and I can tell you that some women, myself included, agree) one of the causes of wokeism is the excessive feminization (ie, many more women than men in key positions) of cultural institutions of the Anglo world. It's women who lead the "anti-racist" movement, it's women who drive cancel culture.
»This notion of the subject as an irresponsible victim involves the extreme Narcissistic perspective: every encounter with the Other appears as a potential threat to the subject's precarious balance. The paradox is that, in today's predominant form of individuality, the self-centred assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as a victim of circumstances.«
But then, precisely the concept of discrimination, as opposed to inclusion, means that discrimination as such cannot be excluded, since even in the process of inclusion, a part is always excluded in order to embed another part as included. Therefore, I agree with Žižek here that Christianity opens the only possible framework, insofar as it essentially forms itself out of exclusion within its framework. While in the dialectic of discrimination and non-discrimination or inclusion, the path of despair (today) is not noticed, because the space of their relationship does not 'aufhebt' (sublate) itself and the illusion of possibility still seems to be offered. On the contrary, it appears obvious how the gaze that suspects everyone of crime must continue to rage indiscriminately; rather, the impossibility of losing the framework as such arises because the pure difference in the relationship cannot close, i.e., we fail with our project of inclusion. Seen in this light, it could also be claimed that this antagonism, to which the debate on discrimination contributes, is actually the return of the form of class struggle in the form of cultural-industrial products.
As we see, it is not a simple class struggle, rather it takes the form of capital accumulation itself, in which identity is the difference as such, insofar as the guilt continues to grow, which, in the process, allows the fortune, which is gained from it, to be inscribed as growing in the system itself. It is therefore not surprising how even the individuals who fight against discrimination must themselves discriminate, because at the core of inclusion lies discrimination, and in a system that records this movement in the form of inscriptions in institutions (money, authority, clubs, organizations, etc.), a story can be told about how the identity of the right or enlightenment itself falls into mystification, because in the end it only has itself to sacrifice at its core – analogous to the Stalinist structure.
Discrimination can only be addressed if a horizon of meaning is opened in which the endpoint is recognized as the beginning with itself and remains indeterminate as a framework in a certain form of social action. A ritual or a community that finds another way to not seek to define the inconsistency of our society in a form-similar liquidation.
Another point: regarding the idea of legalizing sexual interaction through a contract. You (rightly) criticize it, but why are you afraid to say the obvious? Of the many insanities proposed by "progressives" these days, this is one that truly upholds the triumph of Capitalism because it wants to say the unsayable and to transform in "production" (words and contracts) even the most ambivalent and ambiguous of acts: sex. Through a contract, lovemaking becomes purely transactional. I propose we should go all the way and ask for money.
This essay is a little too long, so it's difficult to address its many points, but these are a few issues: you are only partially right when you claim that today pedophilia is considered one of the worst crimes. This was the case until gender ideology, which is rapidly changing almost everything that used to be sacrosanct in the Western world, especially among progressives. Apparently, you aren't familiar with "minor attracted people"--this is the new definition of pedophiles, according to certain gender ideologues, who are now trying to normalize the idea of sex between adults and children. Also, you don't appear to be familiar with the "gender identity" of "eunuch"--ie, a castrated boy (child) that triggers erotic fantasies in the same cohort of people mentioned above. At least one person who is famous for popularizing this idea was (still is?) a member of WPATH, the international organization that establishes the "standard of care" for Trans people, including children.
For those active in 1968, even sex with animals was allowed, but gay sex was totally prohibited in mainstream. Hippies and the rest presented themselves as rebels against the system, when in fact they were the vector of least resistance against the forces of heteronormalization, the compulsive heterosexuality of biopolitics. Perhaps, while dealing with hippies, Foucault got the idea that power does not oppress but positively gives, builds and rewards.
I remember that in the 90ies in the West, being gay was a much bigger threat and crime than pedophilia. Pogroms were being prepared for both, but then liberal capitalism remembered at the turn of the millennium that it was liberal and stopped calling for the final solution of gay question.
But a silent deal appeared: capitalism will not interfere in the pleasures of the LGBT+ movement, and in return the LGBT+ movement must not interfere with capitalism, its’ past crimes against gays, crimes of society, the police, medicine, psychiatry... which was still going on two decades ago. This may also be the origin of the obsession with new ways of formulating victimizations - all just to avoid the thematization of the prosecution of gays and anti-gay hysteria in the 90ies.
"introduction of the notion of consent into human-robot sexual relationships is vital in a way similar to sexual relations between humans and it will help prevent the creation of a ‘class of legally incorporated sex-slaves.’”"
what is ironic is this concern ignores the reality of real human slavery in the production and development of AI systems, potentially including sexbots. I'm not sure how to frame this in Lacanian terms, but it seems like a luxury belief that has the effect of making the policy maker or moralist "PC" individual feel that they have done a moral duty while real harms to human beings ("other" in the chain of labor) are ignored and misdirected.
How is real human slavery involved in the production and development of AI systems?
That's an interesting claim to make, I hope you can back it up.
Perhaps "exploitation" would be a better choice for words, but there is a pattern of this in the development of large LLMs, exploitation of low-paid workers in non-Western nations, to exploiting information, creativity, and other's labor in the collection and generation of model training data. Not to mention the pattern of forced or poor labor conditions in manufacturing centres of technology hardware.
https://www.ft.com/content/ef42e78f-e578-450b-9e43-36fbd1e20d01
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/06/technology/tech-giants-harvest-data-artificial-intelligence.html
https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
"But why talk about politeness and public manners today when we are facing what appears to be much more pressing “real” problems? In doing it, do we not regress to the level of de Quincey’s famous quip about the simple art of murder – “How many people began with unleashing terror and economic catastrophes, and ended up with behaving badly at a party?” But manners DO matter – in tense situations, they are a matter of life and death, a thin line that separates barbarism from civilization. There is one surprising fact about the latest outbursts of public vulgarities that deserves to be noted. Back in the 1960s, occasional vulgarities were associated with political Left: student revolutionaries often used common language to emphasize their contrast to official politics with its polished jargon. Today, vulgar language is an almost exclusive prerogative of the radical Right, so that the Left finds itself in a surprising position of the defender of decency and public manners. Politeness (manners, gallantry) is more than just obeying external legality and less than pure moral activity – it is the ambiguously imprecise domain of what one is not strictly obliged to do (if one doesn’t do it, one doesn’t break any laws), but what one is nonetheless expected to do. We are dealing here with implicit unspoken regulations, with questions of tact, with something towards which subject has as a rule a non-reflected relationship: something that is part of our spontaneous sensitivity, a thick texture of customs and expectations which is part of our inherited substance of mores (Sitten). Therein resides the self-destructive deadlock of Political Correctness: it tries to explicitly formulate, legalize even, the stuff of manners."
This paragraph appears twice in the article.
That's how you know he's really writing these himself, he doesn't even have an editor to spot these stuff for him 😄😄
Yes, and to address some of the points it makes: on the one hand, political correctness tries to formulate and legalize the stuff of manners; on the other, it tries to abolish manners. After all, aren't these the same people who are telling us that anything traditional is "right wing"? Isn't the formula "ladies and gentleman"--the essence of politeness--something that is now considered "transphobic"?
Capitalism depends on the free flow of capital and labour - including sexual labour. The so callled "Western Left" have become enthusiastic accomplices in these Capitalist imperatives. Here in Ireland, the Left actually held a protest against the Irish working class - for daring to agree with Marx and Engels that mass emigration undermines the wages and conditions of the native working class. You'll notice that US corporations that refuse to allow their workers to join trade unions are happy to pay for abortions for those same workers.
I love the Ziz! I want you to make money off of Substack. I am even tempted to subscribe but here's the deal: this last post was filled with a large number of typos and grammatical errors -- at least enough to suggest that you have not hired a copy-editor. I always pay someone to copy edit my Substack posts, even though I am a small fry. Why bother? you may ask, since language is changing/decaying at a rapid rate online. The answer is not unrelated to your argument here: far from being a slavish adherence to the Law of grammar, properly copy-edited prose is instead a gesture of tact and manners.
This one blew my circuits
"Consequently, one should also talk about feminine manipulation and emotional brutality (ultimately as a desperate reply to male domination) – women fight back any way they can. " For goodness sake, just come out and say it: women are often manipulative and capable of emotional brutality, and not necessarily because they need to "fight back." There are psychological studies according to which women are much more manipulative then men. Men fight by using force, women fight by using rumors, gossip, reputation destruction. In fact, according to the same psychologists (and I can tell you that some women, myself included, agree) one of the causes of wokeism is the excessive feminization (ie, many more women than men in key positions) of cultural institutions of the Anglo world. It's women who lead the "anti-racist" movement, it's women who drive cancel culture.
One interesting topic regarding consent has been the discussion around consent being retroactively taken away.
»This notion of the subject as an irresponsible victim involves the extreme Narcissistic perspective: every encounter with the Other appears as a potential threat to the subject's precarious balance. The paradox is that, in today's predominant form of individuality, the self-centred assertion of the psychological subject paradoxically overlaps with the perception of oneself as a victim of circumstances.«
But then, precisely the concept of discrimination, as opposed to inclusion, means that discrimination as such cannot be excluded, since even in the process of inclusion, a part is always excluded in order to embed another part as included. Therefore, I agree with Žižek here that Christianity opens the only possible framework, insofar as it essentially forms itself out of exclusion within its framework. While in the dialectic of discrimination and non-discrimination or inclusion, the path of despair (today) is not noticed, because the space of their relationship does not 'aufhebt' (sublate) itself and the illusion of possibility still seems to be offered. On the contrary, it appears obvious how the gaze that suspects everyone of crime must continue to rage indiscriminately; rather, the impossibility of losing the framework as such arises because the pure difference in the relationship cannot close, i.e., we fail with our project of inclusion. Seen in this light, it could also be claimed that this antagonism, to which the debate on discrimination contributes, is actually the return of the form of class struggle in the form of cultural-industrial products.
As we see, it is not a simple class struggle, rather it takes the form of capital accumulation itself, in which identity is the difference as such, insofar as the guilt continues to grow, which, in the process, allows the fortune, which is gained from it, to be inscribed as growing in the system itself. It is therefore not surprising how even the individuals who fight against discrimination must themselves discriminate, because at the core of inclusion lies discrimination, and in a system that records this movement in the form of inscriptions in institutions (money, authority, clubs, organizations, etc.), a story can be told about how the identity of the right or enlightenment itself falls into mystification, because in the end it only has itself to sacrifice at its core – analogous to the Stalinist structure.
Discrimination can only be addressed if a horizon of meaning is opened in which the endpoint is recognized as the beginning with itself and remains indeterminate as a framework in a certain form of social action. A ritual or a community that finds another way to not seek to define the inconsistency of our society in a form-similar liquidation.
Another point: regarding the idea of legalizing sexual interaction through a contract. You (rightly) criticize it, but why are you afraid to say the obvious? Of the many insanities proposed by "progressives" these days, this is one that truly upholds the triumph of Capitalism because it wants to say the unsayable and to transform in "production" (words and contracts) even the most ambivalent and ambiguous of acts: sex. Through a contract, lovemaking becomes purely transactional. I propose we should go all the way and ask for money.
This essay is a little too long, so it's difficult to address its many points, but these are a few issues: you are only partially right when you claim that today pedophilia is considered one of the worst crimes. This was the case until gender ideology, which is rapidly changing almost everything that used to be sacrosanct in the Western world, especially among progressives. Apparently, you aren't familiar with "minor attracted people"--this is the new definition of pedophiles, according to certain gender ideologues, who are now trying to normalize the idea of sex between adults and children. Also, you don't appear to be familiar with the "gender identity" of "eunuch"--ie, a castrated boy (child) that triggers erotic fantasies in the same cohort of people mentioned above. At least one person who is famous for popularizing this idea was (still is?) a member of WPATH, the international organization that establishes the "standard of care" for Trans people, including children.