> >Give it up, you have no idea what Zizek (or, I suspect, Hegel) is talking
> >about, and I suspect you aren't very interested in actually figuring it out.
> >Bad faith and insincerity are hardly good substitutes for trying to
> >understand
> >something (I did mention burning bridges didn't I?). Your 'critique' is
> >meaningless and pays no specific attention to any of Zizek's writings.
>
> Assertion after assertion -- no evidence. Getting into a snit because
> someone doesn't agree with your interpretation? There is no
> authoritarianism like liberalism that wants to claim the mantle of "radical
> thought."
ah, yes, evidence: who were those pomos who don't believe science is real? and if longing for a writing degree zero is a sign of commodity fetishism, what does the compulsion to append interminable quotations signify? verily, there's no authoritarianism like that of someone for whom demands for evidence are a one-way street. it makes me think of those kewl new smart guns that cops are supposed to be getting: only the owner can fire them. not very dialectical, imo.
> Did Zizek write a letter of protest to _The Independent_, demanding the
> retraction of the headline that says "Slavoj Zizek...Backs the War..." and
> of his quated statement ("I definitely support the bombing")? It's much
> more honest to take the position that Max, Nathan, Chris Burford, etc. took
> here.
your critique implies that it's his duty to police commentaries on him, and his failure to fulfill that duty signifies acquies- cence to what's said. see above.
cheers, t