But Zizek is stupidly self-contradictory. He is _foreseeing_ these happenings as emerging from an electoral victory. That is less faith than personal arrogance, based on nothing but his verbal dexterity. It is neither cynicism nor lack of faith to mock it. It's simple refusal to be bothered by empty rhetorical fireworks.
..............
Of all the types of LBOTalk debate, my least favorite is the argument about a text in which the text itself is rarely referenced.
And while I understand (or take into account) the physical challenges which make on-screen reading a chore for you, I think it's remarkable you start with this:
"I can only react to what others say, not the whole of his text."
And close with this:
"But Zizek is stupidly self-contradictory. He is _foreseeing_ these happenings as emerging from an electoral victory. That is less faith than personal arrogance, based on nothing but his verbal dexterity. It is neither cynicism nor lack of faith to mock it. It's simple refusal to be bothered by empty rhetorical fireworks."
In the text, there are no "rhetorical fireworks", the argument is straightforward. Zizek is not foreseeing anything, he's talking about possibilities (using, ironically, considering what you wrote, the French Revolution as an example). I might say to you, 'after reviewing current research programs, I think there's a possibility we may see algae produced fuel in years to come.' If you respond that I'm being arrogant and assuming that I know the future, it would only show that you weren't paying attention to the words "possibility" and "may".
And so it is with your hasty critique of this little article (but not even the article but others' interpretations).
.d.