How much coke did that guy snort?

Oh please.

No, he's snorting coke for sure

If the notion that people should be respectful of others and that racism and sexism need to go away is so dangerous, then kindergarten must be the most terrifying place on earth. The only people who find "political correctness" threatening are people who just really want to engage in horrible behavior for the most part

That's just a falacy

i didn't watch the video yet, but can someone explain to me why we're discounting the argument because of the guy who made it? Isn't there a fallacy about that? Or did I miss a layer of silliness?

Žižek's central argument that over-dedication to political correctness by society is that it solidifies power disparities because it's harder to rebel against a politically correct oppressors.

teacon:
Žižek is well-known. I agree with a lot of his points, and my point was more that the OP headline wasn't something I'd expect ora to say, but it's believable that Žižek would say it.

huh?, "political correctness is a more dangerous form of totalitarianism"...more dangerous than what, other types of totalitarianism? Seems that Hitler is worse than political correctness. (Must I watch the video to "get" what OP is talking about? I'd rather just wing it.)

Which is an incredibly silly argument. It is worn out. Denouncing oppressive social structures is hardly oppression. "Politically correct oppressor" is an oxymoron, by definition. It's only called that by people who are engaged in oppression themselves and don't like the response they get as more and more people reject their attitudes and beliefs. "Rebelling" is no such thing. It's clinging to old power structures

So, the challenge for Zizek and similar people is to justify why anyone should indulge hateful and demeaning actions or speech. Why should anyone refrain from denouncing such things? What justification could there be for such conduct? It is a nigh impossible argument to make

@hauta yeah. That's what they're trying to push. It is silly.

I myself would feel that the term "political correctness" has far too many disparities of meaning for meaningful discussion between people who already disagree on the subject.

Žižek is a Marxist...

So? Using the term already tells you a lot about the speakers position

To many, including myself and Žižek, "political correctness" doesn't mean the denunciation of oppressors. Denunciation of oppressors is a separate action which cannot be effectively achieved by political correctness.

(Not to mention "denunciation" isn't the same as actively attempting to end that oppression.)

@"Žižek is well-known. I agree with a lot of his points, and my point was more that the OP headline wasn't something I'd expect ora to say, but it's believable that Žižek would say it."

and my continuing education, eh... continues.

@Hauta, if you want to watch the video, then you may be better armed when discussing the contents of the video.

Doesn't mean you 'have' to, but it may answer your questions.

Still TrPrado has it down fairly weel with "TrPrado Online (472 D)
New 12:36 AM
(+1)
Žižek's central argument that over-dedication to political correctness by society is that it solidifies power disparities because it's harder to rebel against a politically correct oppressors."

Well, what the hell else does it mean? The people who use the term are ones who say oppressive things without even understanding what they're saying or how it reinforces injustice. People who understand this don't call it political correctness, they call it "being polite and a decent human being". Frankly, if one doesn't say offensive or demeaning things, you'd never even know it is there

@Ogion: Politeness often serves to grease the wheels of the status quo. Challenging the status quo therefore often necessitates being impolite. If politeness is given too much tangible authority, then it can be more difficult to challenge the status quo, because the dissenters can be vilified for their impoliteness, regardless of the content of their objections.

(Replace 'politeness' with 'political correctness' as necessary.)

That said, it should be stressed that the optimal amount of politeness is not zero. Many conservative objections to political correctness frame it as inherently poisonous, but having no boundaries at all is a pretty miserable state of affairs.

I'm with Lethologica on yhis.

Politeness on the part of those who might be offering insensitive comments (which dictates NOT doing it any more). As I am sure comes as a surprise to precisely zero people here I am a full throated supporter on impoliteness when it comes to challenging racist or sexist speech. The point here is that pointing out and or denouncing such speech is deemed "political correctness" by those being called out in an attempt to discredit such criticisms and thereby defend the original offensive speech or acts

Most people, when told they've done something offensive apologize and don't do it again. Only those committed to offending dig in and defend it

You can't replace politeness with political correctness because you have it exactly backwards

My god that video is in believably stupid! His whole idea is to make friends by telling racist jokes? Wow. A white dude talking about how the only way to be close to people is by telling racist jokes? Jesus Christ, what planet is this guy on? What a fucking clueless tool. Trait me I have a lot of friends from all over the world and I didn't make a single one of them by saying stupid shit like that. What a totally clueless understanding of humanity. Unbelievable

Next he will come out with a video about how funny it is to joke about sexual assault. Or maybe a "Zizek's 100 funniest holocaust jokes!"

What a loser

He said he doesn't recommend people go around and simply being horrible to each other. Though he is a strange lad.

Critics of the idea of "political correctness" would draw easy difference to mere politeness and the concept of "don't be a dick." When originally used by critics, it took the form of critique in the manner in which some leftist progressives would seek to put down any marginally non-progressive idea, regardless of intent. Which also makes it hilariously ironic to see anti-progressives use the term to shut down any marginally progressive idea (think Ted Cruz calling Trump part of the politically correct agenda when Trump said he didn't care about where transgender people used bathrooms about a year ago). Žižek also pointed to the farsity of some of its users using it in a manner which I might describe as "branding," where a large business of corporation which may very likely be partaking in horrible actions or fall into the head end of an oppressive power structure panders and markets itself as "polite."

WOO WOO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo7CgWH8jX4