"Black on White Violence - AARON JACOB PARSONS"

[RedZero]

Below is a video I came across today. It's sad that this happens at all. It's wrong. What's more, if you look at the comments, people are only using this to continue with their own racism and hatred. "Well, look at what black people do! So it's okay that I hate them."

Annoyed. People are only furthering the divide. The top rated comment on this video, as of right now, has 16 thumbs up and reads "WHITE PRIDE WORLD WIDE"
And is it just me, or has there been a lot of race-related crime in the news as of late? Maybe I'm just now paying a lot of attention to it (yeah, sad), but I'm wondering if this is going to lead somewhere. It's really unsettling.

DiHlRDOnF1M

[Hiero]

It is a pretty violent crime that appears unprovoked and that is why it is unsettling. It should be approached as a criminal act, he was outnumbered and rolled. They didn't just roll him, they appeared to enjoy the act of humiliation.

This happens alot in society, there are alot of sick crimes. Youtube is full of videos documenting such acts. There are quiet a few videos of black on black violence, people filming violence in what appears to me as lower socio-economic neighbourhoods.

This video however will work in the American racial imaginary that black neighbourhoods are dangerous and groups of non-whites are dangerous.

[Kitty_Paine]

So if I do something then all white people must do it? I hate that kind of thinking. The importance and attention that race and sexuality recieve in this country (well, and a lot of other places) is ridiculous. Those are two things that should never be used to judge people; they are very much overly used to create hate and discrimination.

Violence and murder are most often intraracial, contrary to what many would believe and convince others to believe in pursuit of some illusion of "racial superiority".

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Racism in America? You've got to be pulling my leg! Not in the land of God and freedom!

[Ele'ill]

He got chinned and rolled this happens all the time to a lot of people and youtube comments are always going to be really lame and extreme. Chances are that 'white pride' comment wasn't left by or thanked by anyone who actually knows a lot about it.

[Lee Van Cleef]

He got chinned and rolled this happens all the time to a lot of people and youtube comments are always going to be really lame and extreme. Chances are that 'white pride' comment wasn't left by or thanked by anyone who actually knows a lot about it.
I wasn't going to comment on this thread, because there's sadly nothing surprising or newsworthy about a violent sexual assault.

And then I saw a forum mod brush off a violent sexual assault because the victim was a white man.

Was this incident racially motivated? It's hard to say. What we do know is that a man was beaten down by a group of people, and stripped naked in the middle of the street. Not to mention his car keys and wallet are gone.

To have you brush this off because of the victim's race or gender is fucking stupid.

[#FF0000]

To have you brush this off because of the victim's race or gender is fucking stupid.

nobody did this you fucking idiot

(ps someone beating up someone who is a different race isn't automatically a racist act or a hate crime no matter how fucked up it is regardless you tremendous dipshits)

[Lee Van Cleef]

nobody did this you fucking idiot
"this happens all the time to a lot of people" sounds an awful lot like what we hear from bigot apologists making light of most sexual crimes short of rape. Which is exactly the type of thing that happened in the video.

EDIT: I am not saying this was race-related. I think the much bigger issues here are the level of violence involved, and the fact that he could very easily have been raped. Being left beaten and naked in the street counts as sexual assault in my book.

[Ele'ill]

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, because there's sadly nothing surprising or newsworthy about a violent sexual assault.

And then I saw a forum mod brush off a violent sexual assault because the victim was a white man.

Was this incident racially motivated? It's hard to say. What we do know is that a man was beaten down by a group of people, and stripped naked in the middle of the street. Not to mention his car keys and wallet are gone.

To have you brush this off because of the victim's race or gender is fucking stupid.

This is a pointless post by you can you not do this at all ever again thanks.

[#FF0000]

"this happens all the time to a lot of people" sounds an awful lot like what we hear from bigot apologists making light of most sexual crimes short of rape. Which is exactly the type of thing that happened in the video.

But it does happen all the time to a lot of people. The point of that statement wasn't to brush it off. Just to point out that it happens. It happens to people regardless of race or gender.

jesus christ could you leap any harder to conclusions?

[Ele'ill]

"this happens all the time to a lot of people" sounds an awful lot like what we hear from bigot apologists making light of most sexual crimes short of rape. Which is exactly the type of thing that happened in the video.


Nobody is saying anything about this event being ok. This happens all the time, they mugged him. They took all his shit including his shirt and tried to take his pants/money stuffed in his belt area, pants etc My objection was to taking youtube comments literally and ultra seriously.

[#FF0000]

This video however will work in the American racial imaginary that black neighbourhoods are dangerous and groups of non-whites are dangerous.

Not even just that, but that they are dangerous to white people specifically -- as if west philly or newark is safe for black people or something.

[Lee Van Cleef]

Nobody is saying anything about this event being ok. This happens all the time, they mugged him. They took all his shit including his shirt and tried to take his pants/money stuffed in his belt area, pants etc My objection was to taking youtube comments literally and ultra seriously.
Maybe it wasn't your intention, but even now you're denying that there was a sexual element to the crime. I've lived in a major city for years and have only been victim to one break in, but I've heard dozens of first hand accounts of muggings. By and large, nobody gets thrown around like a ragdoll as their clothes are forcibly removed. It definitely seems like more than a mugging to me. If it happened to you, would you say, "Oh well, thankfully it was just a run of the mill mugging?"

[Ele'ill]

Maybe it wasn't your intention, but even now you're denying that there was a sexual element to the crime. I've lived in a major city for years and have only been victim to one break in, but I've heard dozens of first hand accounts of muggings. By and large, nobody gets thrown around like a ragdoll as their clothes are forcibly removed. It definitely seems like more than a mugging to me. If it happened to you, would you say, "Oh well, thankfully it was just a run of the mill mugging?"

My friend had their shoes and pants taken along with their wallet which would be a similar situation to this. I've lived in bad places. This was a mugging and that's not an apology for it and I wouldn't be surprised if the victim here was/is traumatized from it. My criticism was towards the reaction of the 'white pride' youtube video comments section comment.

[La Comédie Noire]

That poor guy, that's so embarrassing. But this does happen all the time. I know three people who live in Roxbury who have been robbed.

I should also add they don't particularly care what race you are. If you look like you have money, they will roll you.

[Hiero]

Lee Van Cleef reveals the hegemonic ideology promiment in America. That this is "normal' and "common". If this happen in a middle class community it would be abhorent, or if white people commited the crime their psychology would be called into question. What I mean is that these sort of acts become naturalised in the dominent ideology as normal and natural. White people should just aviod such neighbourhoods and people.

White neighbourhoods where this occurs are just considered ogans, hillybillys, racists and white trash. They are deviations of normal white America. A black youtuber commented on the video of the white man being beaten and stripped, some of the comments commented on his good nature, being one of the good blacks. His goodness is a deviation of black America in their eyes.

I feel like the dominent discourse is to normalise non-white violence and pathologise white violence. It would be interesting then to see the element of inequality in regards to victims of violent neighbourhoods. In 'In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio (http://books.google.com.au/books/about/In_Search_of_Respect.html?id=XTC1ny-utfgC) if memory serves me correctly, he talks about residents dealing with the violence brought about by the crack trade, and how it is normalised to the ghetto.

Then agian it is hard to tell the context of the video, what sort of neighbourhood it is, who the attackers are etc. I think what Lee Van Cleef was on about was the humilition the victim was put through. That this was not just a mugging, but a publicly staged humilition. That they just enjoyed humiliating him. It is sort of like "back in my day they just punch you and took your wallet, now they strip you naked!"


Not even just that, but that they are dangerous to white people specifically -- as if west philly or newark is safe for black people or something. Well black people would also interpret this video as well. That the street is not safe at night, drunk people are violent etc. Alot of people would watch this and be like "aviod this area for this x,y,z reasons". In all reality we probably all do it. There are areas and people I would avoid, my reasons may just differ.

[¿Que?]

...Then agian it is hard to tell the context of the video, ...
This is what I have a problem with. No word in the video description as to what this guy was doing there or if something he did may have provoked that response. Racists LOVE to present videos and photographs like this, without background information, because it leaves it to the viewer to fill in the blanks, which of course will conclude with some misguided notion about the brutality of blacks. It doesn't even say when or where the incident took place. Suppose this happened a few days after Trayvon Martin got shot. It wouldn't excuse it, but it would certainly explain it. Or what if the guy was passing out white supremacist literature. Unlikely, and still inexcusable, but would certainly add an explanation besides "blacks are violent" or whatever. What I'm trying to say is that we need to know more about what happened, before we can come to any definitive conclusion as to what provoked the violence, and why the man was attacked.

Also, the fact that this video is being put on youtube by a bunch of racists makes me suspicious of the entire thing. I don't know. Did the guy deserve that? Probably not. But if that happened to me, the last thing I'd want is for the video to be used by racist to perpetuate their agenda.

[gorillafuck]

wait so people are saying that this is a normal mugging?

[Dr Doom]

Maybe it wasn't your intention, but even now you're denying that there was a sexual element to the crime.

i honestly dont see it brah

[Ele'ill]

wait so people are saying that this is a normal mugging?

I don't know what kind of muggings happen more frequently, this kind or some other kind, to officially claim that this is the most common scenario however this does happen a lot. People have their shoes, shirt, pants, wallet taken, searched for hidden money rolls etc...

[GoddessCleoLover]

Baltimore has been my home town for more than the past fifty years so I am well-placed to say that the white dude was definitely in the wrong place at the wrong time. I have no idea how he wandered outside of the tourist zone, the CourtHouse/Battle Monument areas may be ok during the daytime, but I wouldn't be caught dead there in the middle of the night. Glad that the white dude survived, and BTW the mostly Black city officials have gone batshit over this incident and vow to track down the perps.

[Hiero]

This is what I have a problem with. No word in the video description as to what this guy was doing there or if something he did may have provoked that response. Racists LOVE to present videos and photographs like this, without background information, because it leaves it to the viewer to fill in the blanks, which of course will conclude with some misguided notion about the brutality of blacks. It doesn't even say when or where the incident took place. Suppose this happened a few days after Trayvon Martin got shot. It wouldn't excuse it, but it would certainly explain it. Or what if the guy was passing out white supremacist literature. Unlikely, and still inexcusable, but would certainly add an explanation besides "blacks are violent" or whatever. What I'm trying to say is that we need to know more about what happened, before we can come to any definitive conclusion as to what provoked the violence, and why the man was attacked.


That is not what I was thinking. You're trying to find and even praying that there was some political reason behind the violence. And I hate that type of anti-racism, because it can't deal with violent or bad subaltern people. There always has to be some long winded sociological or political explanation. Some people are just petty crimes and are looked down up in their own community. Some communities are that far gone that elements support and uphold violent tendancies. The answers are going to be beyond "white guy was up to something and disturbed the blacks". That logic is actually more racist, because it implies that their violence is embedded and can be triggered at any time. It is being a good racist. Where as white nationalist racists will grab anything that confirms their views about black people in general and how America has let its guard down and needs to take control of subaltern people.

The context I was talking about was about the social setting/ social environment. Gramsci Guy provided some of the context, which is somethin to what I assumed. Wrong guy in the wrong place. There was a story back a few months that was about how two European tourists wandered into the wrong area and were killed in a mugging. This guy appears pretty drunk, possible he wandered away from the night clubs?

That is part of America's discrimination/inequality/racism, that there are "wrong areas" that people have to put up with. They are usually inhabited by subaltern people who are left there to suffer. De-industrialization exacerbated the process. The end result is normalising the violence through symbolic violence, that these are daily occurances and white people should aviod the areas and the black people must suffer them or move out.

[¿Que?]

That is not what I was thinking. You're trying to find and even praying that there was some political reason behind the violence. And I hate that type of anti-racism, because it can't deal with violent or bad subaltern people. There always has to be some long winded sociological or political explanation.
So you are arguing against explaining things?


Some people are just petty crimes and are looked down up in their own community. Some communities are that far gone that elements support and uphold violent tendancies.
So things are just that way. There's no need to explain anything? The guy was a violent person, but we don't have to try to understand why?


The answers are going to be beyond "white guy was up to something and disturbed the blacks".
Strawman.


That logic is actually more racist, because it implies that their violence is embedded and can be triggered at any time.
What logic is that? the one that suggests not a political but socio-psychological explanation? Or the one which says, that's just the way things are, Some people are just violent and that's all there is to it?


It is being a good racist. Where as white nationalist racists will grab anything that confirms their views about black people in general and how America has let its guard down and needs to take control of subaltern people.
of course.



The context I was talking about was about the social setting/ social environment. Gramsci Guy provided some of the context, which is somethin to what I assumed. Wrong guy in the wrong place. There was a story back a few months that was about how two European tourists wandered into the wrong area and were killed in a mugging. This guy appears pretty drunk, possible he wandered away from the night clubs?
To be honest with you, I think the guy was looking for drugs. But that's not the issue. The issue is why is it such a big deal to suggests these things, when the reality is that the attacker is probably going to end up arrested and charged and put away for a long time. Newsflash! There will NOT be a smear campaign against virginia man, aided and abetted by the lamestream media. At the very least, we can, to counter the obvious racism that's this is going to result in, at the very least we can try to humanize the young aggressor, and put things in some sort of socio-psychological perspective.


That is part of America's discrimination/inequality/racism, that there are "wrong areas" that people have to put up with. They are usually inhabited by subaltern people who are left there to suffer. De-industrialization exacerbated the process. The end result is normalising the violence through symbolic violence, that these are daily occurances and white people should aviod the areas and the black people must suffer them or move out.
ok. Don't necessarily disagree.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It doesn't appear to be a racially motivated attack. I see a likely inebriated man with an iPhone and possibly some money on him being group mugged in a bad part of town. The most disturbing part for me is all the laughter.

[Hiero]

Originally Posted by Hiero http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2412655#post2412655)
That is not what I was thinking. You're trying to find and even praying that there was some political reason behind the violence. And I hate that type of anti-racism, because it can't deal with violent or bad subaltern people. There always has to be some long winded sociological or political explanation. So you are arguing against explaining things?


So things are just that way. There's no need to explain anything? The guy was a violent person, but we don't have to try to understand why?


Originally Posted by Hiero http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2412655#post2412655)
Some people are just petty crimes and are looked down up in their own community. Some communities are that far gone that elements support and uphold violent tendancies.

Strawman.


Originally Posted by Hiero http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2412655#post2412655)
That logic is actually more racist, because it implies that their violence is embedded and can be triggered at any time.

What logic is that? the one that suggests not a political but socio-psychological explanation? Or the one which says, that's just the way things are, Some people are just violent and that's all there is to it?



You unfairly chopped up my post. I was not arguing against understanding in general. I was arguing for a deeper socio-environmental understanding of urban violence. That comes later in my post. The first part was arguing against lefty-political mapping of the subaltern. That mapping seeks to search for some political reason for violence and places events and actors accordingly. I would advocate a more phenomenological understand of violence which ties in sociological and anthropological understanding of the urban environment.

Zizek in Violence (2008) for instance argued against the politicisation of the French riots. Left-wing political commentators explained the riots in terms of capitalist injustices, such as unemployment, racism, the community’s exclusion etc. Those typical left orientated political argument while they describe the background of society, they are much generalised. It fails to understand the nature and practice of violence and violent events, the more libidinal explosions of violence. For instance that broader political understanding of the French riots does not account for why Muslim/Arab youth burned their own Mosques.


That is why in this case I would use the broader understanding of American’s discrimination and inequality in the urban setting. This takes into account distribution inequalities of wealth, “culture”, education, services and access to jobs. But it seeks to understand how violence becomes embedded in certain actors in those communities and find the daily victims.
The other understanding creates a weird narrative of such places and people. That this guy was looking for drugs or maybe he was a racist and deserved it. What does that say about the perpetrators? It almost becomes comical as it tries to rationalise the events through an Othering process. That in the urban black cities lay in wait dangerous black people that wandering whites will fall victim to.

[¿Que?]

You unfairly chopped up my post. I was not arguing against understanding in general. I was arguing for a deeper socio-environmental understanding of urban violence. That comes later in my post. The first part was arguing against lefty-political mapping of the subaltern. That mapping seeks to search for some political reason for violence and places events and actors accordingly. I would advocate a more phenomenological understand of violence which ties in sociological and anthropological understanding of the urban environment.

Zizek in Violence (2008) for instance argued against the politicisation of the French riots. Left-wing political commentators explained the riots in terms of capitalist injustices, such as unemployment, racism, the community’s exclusion etc. Those typical left orientated political argument while they describe the background of society, they are much generalised. It fails to understand the nature and practice of violence and violent events, the more libidinal explosions of violence. For instance that broader political understanding of the French riots does not account for why Muslim/Arab youth burned their own Mosques.


That is why in this case I would use the broader understanding of American’s discrimination and inequality in the urban setting. This takes into account distribution inequalities of wealth, “culture”, education, services and access to jobs. But it seeks to understand how violence becomes embedded in certain actors in those communities and find the daily victims.
The other understanding creates a weird narrative of such places and people. That this guy was looking for drugs or maybe he was a racist and deserved it. What does that say about the perpetrators? It almost becomes comical as it tries to rationalise the events through an Othering process. That in the urban black cities lay in wait dangerous black people that wandering whites will fall victim to.
My mom used to tell me that in Argentina, when the military would abduct someone, bougies would immediately assume that the abducted person was somehow involved with the Montoneros or the ERP (the two main groups carrying out armed struggle). Similarly, when Trayvon Martin got shot, the Fox news immediately went on an offensive against Martin's character. Anytime a black man gets shot by the cops, people immediately assume that "the guy must have been up to no good." It's as if some sort of cognitive dissonance is occurring when they see what they usually associate with liberty and freedom (the cops, the establishment) behaving in a way they consider uncharacteristic. They cannot admit to themselves that in fact it is characteristic of these institutions to do atrocious things. These types of responses "Other" the victim of violence, as opposed to the perpetrators.

But what happens when the victims of institutional violence are also the perpetrators of another type of violence. Nothing. It simply confirms what people already think, viz. that black people are violent, or more violent than civilized and rational white people. To be honest, all you're saying is we need a "broader" understanding that seeks this or the other. It sounds right out of the postmodern generator machine, really. What exactly would this broader narrative be?

That is, if we wish to broaden the understanding of racism in the US, why stop at the political. Seems like such a tactic only serves to limit our understanding. Political explanation could account for city and State decisions to give tax breaks to business and development which in turn either gentrifies neighborhoods running the community out, or neglecting the communities altogether. This gives rise to as you say "normalized" violence in those communities by the police, and other actors.

[Hiero]

But what happens when the victims of institutional violence are also the perpetrators of another type of violence. Nothing. It simply confirms what people already think, viz. that black people are violent, or more violent than civilized and rational white people. To be honest, all you're saying is we need a "broader" understanding that seeks this or the other. It sounds right out of the postmodern generator machine, really. What exactly would this broader narrative be?


That is, if we wish to broaden the understanding of racism in the US, why stop at the political. Seems like such a tactic only serves to limit our understanding. Political explanation could account for city and State decisions to give tax breaks to business and development which in turn either gentrifies neighborhoods running the community out, or neglecting the communities altogether. This gives rise to as you say "normalized" violence in those communities by the police, and other actors.

What is often missed in the very PC anti-racism is that often things such as violence become embodied and are taken up by the oppressed. Bourdieu describes this, that the oppressed themselves naturalise the system of hierarchy. For instance workers may say "I didn't do too well at school, if I had of done better...'" They themselves misrecognise the whole system of discrimination that unequally distributes cultural capital necessary to achieve economic capital (economic capital being necessary for achieving cultural capital such as degrees and diplomas). In the case of violence in marginalised communities certain people are bound to believe they are naturally violent and outsides normalise the violence and segregate it to those communities (that it just happens in those communities and best to avoid them). That is that the people who are described as violent actually believe they are and engage in violence.

In the first page I mentioned Philippe Bourgois in Search of Respect, which is an ethnographic look at the crack cocaine trade in East Harlem. This details they actually embodiment of discrimination. Again you mentioned the all to well know left-wing political about "give tax breaks to business and development which in turn either gentrifies neighbourhoods running the community out, or neglecting the communities altogether." but how does that account why people engage in violence. You can't simple say "they are poor so they fight". That is Bourois’ point about modern American discrimination, violence and poverty is segregated to predominantly Black, Latino and Indigenous communities.

I would highly recommend reading the book mentioned above and other related texts. It provides an ethnographic work on East Harlem and phenomenological understanding of the effects of poverty on marginalised people. Staying just at the political is fine for a political argument, but the political is the background and there is a whole lot more going on at foreground which is often push to the back by left-commentaries.

[moulinrouge]

Lot's of cognitive dissonance in this thread.

[#FF0000]

Lot's of cognitive dissonance in this thread.

No, not really. Not every crime committed by someone of one race against one of another is racially motivated and you have to be a moron to think that.

[moulinrouge]

No, not really. Not every crime committed by someone of one race against one of another is racially motivated and you have to be a moron to think that.

The reactions in this thread would be different if a group of white people beat up a black person.

[#FF0000]

The reactions in this thread would be different if a group of white people beat up a black person.

A group of white people beating up a black person isn't necessarily racially motivated tho.

whatcha really trying to say here, booboo?

[moulinrouge]

A group of white people beating up a black person isn't necessarily racially motivated tho.

whatcha really trying to say here, booboo?

That the apathy from the left when it comes to lumpen violence is driving the working class to conservatism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Zizek in Violence (2008) for instance argued against the politicisation of the French riots. Left-wing political commentators explained the riots in terms of capitalist injustices, such as unemployment, racism, the community’s exclusion etc. Those typical left orientated political argument while they describe the background of society, they are much generalised. It fails to understand the nature and practice of violence and violent events, the more libidinal explosions of violence. For instance that broader political understanding of the French riots does not account for why Muslim/Arab youth burned their own Mosques.

Zizek is totally wrong. The French riots can and have been explained in political terms very well (see: "Grassroots Political Militants" and others), and I'm not talking about liberal whinging. I don't see how an event that sparks months of sustained rioting throughout a country can't be politicized, honestly. I also don't see how the burning of mosques makes an event non-political when young arabs or north africans do it, if anything it just confirms some of the assumptions put out by the invisible committee regarding the most revolutionary force in society, a force that necessarily holds all of the institutions of modern capitalism in contempt.

But then again Zizek is the clown who wrote "Shoplifters of the World Unite", so...:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

That the apathy from the left when it comes to lumpen violence is driving the working class to conservatism.

I don't understand what that has to do with this thread, to be honest!

And frankly, I think you're wrong. I think this nonsense about crime and violence (lumpen as you say, 'black' as conservatives say) is thoroughly manufactured. Crime, especially violent crime, is a whole lot rarer in the US now than it has been in a long time, and yet people are still big on the 'tough on crime' bullshit despite there being no reason for it and the fact that our criminal justice system is thoroughly broken and does nothing to keep anyone safer in the first place.

[JustMovement]

But then again Zizek is the clown who wrote "Shoplifters of the World Unite", so...:rolleyes:

Im pretty sure that was morissey

[Hiero]

The reactions in this thread would be different if a group of white people beat up a black person.

What do you mean? What reactions do you have a problem with and how would you think they would differ?


Zizek is totally wrong. The French riots can and have been explained in political terms very well (see: "Grassroots Political Militants" and others), and I'm not talking about liberal whinging. I don't see how an event that sparks months of sustained rioting throughout a country can't be politicized, honestly. I also don't see how the burning of mosques makes an event non-political when young arabs or north africans do it, if anything it just confirms some of the assumptions put out by the invisible committee regarding the most revolutionary force in society, a force that necessarily holds all of the institutions of modern capitalism in contempt.

He is not totally wrong. First I am not arguing there is no political explanation here. I can not remember if Zizek in Violence (2008) says to do away with political explanation. In this thread I never argued that. What I distinguised was between background and foreground. That is the background being the large economic and political structures that determine life. The foreground is the emobodied, the actions, the libidinal it is the everyday. If we ignore the foreground then actors are mearly empty repositories for the background. Which has been the problem for Marxist for a long time.

[Minima]

Zizek is totally wrong. The French riots can and have been explained in political terms very well (see: "Grassroots Political Militants" and others), and I'm not talking about liberal whinging. I don't see how an event that sparks months of sustained rioting throughout a country can't be politicized, honestly. I also don't see how the burning of mosques makes an event non-political when young arabs or north africans do it, if anything it just confirms some of the assumptions put out by the invisible committee regarding the most revolutionary force in society, a force that necessarily holds all of the institutions of modern capitalism in contempt.

But then again Zizek is the clown who wrote "Shoplifters of the World Unite", so...:rolleyes:


neither of you guys can read. zizek is against the ham fisted interpretation of events by social democratic parties in france, he actually politicizes it himself in terms of anti-systemic dissent. he just thinks you can't reduce it to liberal concerns about welfare and that there is no other way for people to express that the whole system is rotten besides violence etc.

[Luís Henrique]

But then again Zizek is the clown who wrote "Shoplifters of the World Unite", so...:rolleyes:

What is so clownish about that article?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

No one seems to have commented on the first part of the video, when a woman seems to simulate some kind of sexual activity to him. I wonder what exactly such movements are trying to achieve, and why that part doesn't attract any commentary.

Luís Henrique

[JustMovement]

its too distract him while the other guy nicks his wallet

[Luís Henrique]

Ah, yes, I see.

Luís Henrique

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This happens alot in society, there are alot of sick crimes. Youtube is full of videos documenting such acts.

Actually, you would be more inclined to find such acts on MentalZero then you would Youtube. Regardless, I have noticed that racial tensions in the US has been (seemingly) increasing which I feel is due to the depression in combination with the mishandling of the Trayvon Martin case.