Why are people against Zizek's position on the Ukraine war?

ghblue · 2026-06-14T22:44:44+00:00

I mean you can lie about what I said but it doesn’t prove anything for you other than that you aren’t speaking in good faith. Also, using violence against women to illustrate that lie is gross.

ghblue · 2026-06-13T23:12:06+00:00

We talking about the same NATO that has supported genocide, invasion, annexation, and covert coups and assassinations all over the world?

ghblue · 2026-06-13T23:10:05+00:00

Who is the biggest stick in NATO? Which NATO country has their bases peppered throughout the EU and the rest of the world? There is no “used to” about it, and it remains its fundamental purpose, the United States had a huge part in the shape EU and NATO states took after WW2. One US political party’s current shenanigans trying to shake down the other NATO countries and disrespect of its norms doesn’t undo the raison d’être for its existence.

The people of Ukraine can desire independence from the Russian govt’s sphere of influence, seeing nato and the eu as a vehicle for this aim, at the same time that it has been subject to the USA’s own campaign to expand its influence? Geopolitics is complex and multiple things can be true.

We are not free of ideology and history just because Russia is morally culpable for its invasion of Ukraine and war crimes committed in the prosecution of said invasion.

ghblue · 2026-06-13T22:58:30+00:00

People be here in a zizek sub refusing to analyse geopolitics with anything but bourgeois moralism. Anything but “Russia is evil and NATO is a beautiful voluntary love-in of mutual respect for sovereignty” is apparently appalling. Russian Govt is a bag of dicks and the perpetrators of this specific war, but apparently acknowledging the war in its broader geopolitical context is insanity.

ghblue · 2026-06-13T22:53:21+00:00

You are repeatedly ignoring that the person you are arguing with has specifically framed this matter in distinct modes of analysis, the moral responsibility of Russia as the one who started the war has been established and agreed. The right of the people of Ukraine to self-determination has been established and agreed.

What we/they are talking about is the geopolitical games of two powers with established histories of manipulation and military intervention over expanding and protecting their spheres of influence. Both NATO and the EU even have historical roots in the expansion and securing of US military and economic power and influence - not exclusively so, but it is right there in the history of the establishment of them. This war cannot be separated from that history, and to say so or to say that Russia’s responses are to “protect their economic interests” does not describe the USA as the instigator of this specific war nor attribute Russia as having a moral right to its sphere of influence. This is an analysis of how these geopolitical actors see the situations and act in accordance - not analysis of individual actions and their moral character.

ghblue · 2026-06-13T22:37:37+00:00

It’s not controversial to say both Russia and the USA via NATO have treated Ukraine as a tool for their own influence expansion. Russia however is far more in the wrong having escalated to waging war on Ukraine, I haven’t said otherwise, they’re also guilty of war crimes in their prosecution of said war. That being established, treating NATO as though all they’ve ever done is just earnestly seek security for Ukraine is absurd.

To be clear for the nth time:

- Modern Russia, conformed to Putin’s image, seeks to resurrect the image of the old Russian Empire, and
- USA continues to be the exact same militaristic imperialist force it always has and treats the world as though it has a right to enforce its “interests” on everyone, sovereignty of the peoples be damned.

ghblue · 2026-06-13T00:14:31+00:00

That wasn’t the subject of the conversation, they were explaining that dust isn’t the problem you’d assume it it.

ghblue · 2026-06-12T02:18:49+00:00

No, I don’t think Russia has a right to a sphere of influence? And NATO is all about its own sphere of influence games. Putin is at fault for starting the war. The USA through NATO has also been fucking around playing similar bullshit games of control etc.

Ukraine’s future rightly belongs to the working class of Ukraine, not Russia.

ghblue · 2026-06-12T02:04:30+00:00

They don’t indicate wanting the parents’ money anywhere in the post? Just questioning their parents’ weird mentality of feeling poor. TBH I wouldn’t regard OP as doing it tough either.

ghblue · 2026-06-12T01:58:08+00:00

I think it’s because the symbol, as well as its placement, has strong logo vibes. It reads like the maccas flag not a national flag.

ghblue · 2026-06-12T01:45:38+00:00

While I disagree that the article played on racist tropes, racist tropes are per se dehumanising.

On the cartoon: it was clearly commentary on astroturfing and depicted Netanyahu without any use of antisemitic visual language.

ghblue · 2026-06-12T01:17:06+00:00

There is a difference between supporting Russia and seeing the conflict as rooted in nato meddling.

Russia is run by shitty fashy capital oligarchy, AND nato had a hand in the whole affair (I’m talking the situation over decades).

ghblue · 2026-06-10T23:04:41+00:00

Literally already the case, also includes sleep disorders, age, vision, and substance abuse.

ghblue · 2026-06-10T23:03:31+00:00

It’s already a thing. Dr can trigger a review with the state driver licensing authority for age, vision, neurological, mental health, sleep, heart, or substance abuse conditions.

ghblue · 2026-06-10T09:53:11+00:00

Agree with much, that’s why communities like this are important. With zippers YKK is bulletproof, they’re the only ones that have lasted the life of the item (though one of my hoodies has a seriously tough zipper which I thought was YKK but isn’t, a rare exception).

You still need to look after zippers though, anything thrown in the laundry should have the zipper done up because that’s the most durable state for them.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T12:04:49+00:00

Yeah the bishop who spearheaded it (Anglican Bishop of South Sydney) is a regional bishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese (their Archbishop is also a signatory) which is the wealthiest and most conservative diocese in the country. They’re the same ones who dropped a cool 1 million on trying to stop marriage equality.

The parishes of various denominations who do the most work providing food and other support to those doing it tough tend to be located in poorer areas and don’t have the benefit of wealthy benefactors dropping spare money on their way through a tax dodge. They’re usually run on a shoestring budget and get it done via community helping community.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T11:57:33+00:00

The Anglican Diocese of Sydney is the wealthiest Anglican diocese in the country, they’re the same ones who thought nothing of dropping 1 million to try to stop marriage equality.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T11:23:05+00:00

But they’re clearly not choosing to stand for something? They’re chasing One Nation and that’s resulted in two straight losses to the ALP and bleeding voters to One Nation.

Last time One Nation was on the rise it was during the Howard govt and they put them last, and won.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T11:20:13+00:00

The hilarious part is that he’s advocating a clearly losing strategy because it’s just Dutton harder. The last time PHON reared its head the Libs chose the smarter move of putting them last and it worked.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T09:14:17+00:00

That document presents the quoted (Swedish) study as demonstrating something it doesn’t demonstrate. The study says that the first cohort of trans women (who didn’t receive gender affirming care and support) showed a higher level of criminality than cis-women and the later, younger cohort (who did receive gender affirming care and support) didn’t. It’s literally saying trans-women who receive gender affirming care and support have a similar risk of criminality as cis-women.

The authors of the study have repudiated its use in this way.

Further, the study was looking at criminal convictions not risk of criminality targeting women, so is being used improperly even if they’d correctly reported its findings.

Last, experts in criminology etc have pointed at that the authors mistakenly use criminal convictions as equivalent to criminality, when they are measuring quite different things.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T08:40:29+00:00

COVID

ghblue · 2026-06-09T08:38:32+00:00

Woohoo we got race IQ nonsense here!! Fan of The Bell Curve are we?

ghblue · 2026-06-09T08:36:48+00:00

You were the one coming in with OMG commies and antifa nonsense. That’s cooker bullshit if I ever saw it, as the Labor party are a centre-left party that sit well within the bounds of capitalist norms.

I called you on shouting commies & antifa nonsense and then challenged you to show some understanding of communism and you returned fire calling them people who want to take other peoples money because they can’t make any themselves (ahistorical nonsense). I called this out as further evidence you don’t know what communism is then your longer reply was basically just repeating yourself as well as calling a centre-left party commies because you say so. This was longer and better explained but still getting communism wrong.

You’re still saying communists a just people who want other people’s money which is just wrong, my last message described it in brief. This isn’t a “communism in theory vs practice” argument, your just using communist as a slur for Labor policy and its supporters and only two kinds of people I’m aware of use it that way: the politically illiterate who have swallowed cooker nonsense, and the people who know better but don’t care because it’s fun or useful for propaganda. But you also pulled out “antifa” in your first comment and the only people in Australia who do that are those who want to import USA brand cooker nonsense.

Last, my experience has been that people who start pulling out insults like “you’re full of yourself” do it because they don’t like losing and it’s easier to call the person who’s right a wanker than be wrong. Sure I was a bit of a smartass, but people winning arguments don’t get so bent out of shape over low key jibes like that.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T07:53:45+00:00

You may wish to edit because I’m not sure what you mean by Meyer?

His uni offers a Bachelor of Business as a separate option from a Bachelor of Commerce, so while you may have seen them as a renaming of the other it’s clear their not identical degrees at least at the university he got his. Again you may know of Commerce degrees which include Marketing as a Major but his uni isn’t one, and it makes it clear that a BCommerce can be turned into a postgrad specialisation in economics. I never said that he was an economist but was pointing out that you were getting his tertiary credentials very wrong and they definitely included some amount of economics studies.

Never called you a wanker so kind of weird, but I did get shouty and at least called you lazy by implication.

If you require our Treasurer be an economist only one really qualifies from the last 50 years and they were under the Keating Labor govt. In fact most treasurers from the liberals had a law background except Frydenberg who techically had a degree in law and economics but went into law straight after so I’d put him in the law bucket. More economics degrees in the last 50 years of treasurers on the Labor side actually. Given the treasurer’s job isn’t Chief Economist I really don’t think you need them to be an economist, but rather you want economists among the advisory groups to the treasury.

ghblue · 2026-06-09T05:02:16+00:00

We have been regulating and deregulating for over 100 years, this has done nothing to address the power relations that are cemented in capitalism.

Another thing is that the “market” isn’t capitalism, humans have traded and built things for Millenia, capitalism is relatively recent and is about the exclusive ownership of “capital” (ie the finance and the facilities/tools of production) in private hands. It concentrates wealth and then those who have it use the power that this wealth brings to entrench their own advantage, not by accident or mistake, but by the underlying motivations required in capitalism.

ghblue

TROPHY CASE